Finn Kveldulfr's page

What the title says...

currently living & working in the Monterey area... looking for a gaming group to join. It is possible that I will be able to host in a month or two, but I've got a lot of apartment organizing to do before that day comes. Until then, if there's a game already happening in the area or someone willing to host, please let me know. I've checked at the local game store, but unfortunately the main item there is Magic the Addiction (oops, I mean, The Gathering), and I'm looking for an RPG group. I'm aware that there's PFS play going on in Silicon Valley, but since that all seems to be weeknights-- I'd like to find something closer 'cause it's a real pain-in-the-neck to go to San Jose after work and get back late and try to get some sleep before work the next morning.

Experienced RPG player, have played or GM'ed many systems (including Pathfinder)-- willing to run or play in most games, just want to find (or pull together) a good group for a regular campaign.

Omegamage--

I still find your calculations to be mind-bogglingly ridiculous. No medieval shield, tower or otherwise, was made to deal with modern high-velocity rifle rounds. As someone else already noted-- typical thickness for a steel shield (including tower shields) is probably 1/8" thick. Or, in the case of shields from the middle ages-- still wood with a thinner layer of metal over the top (usually). Also, try the calculations on just how freakin' heavy a "heavy" shield would actually BE if it were steel 1" thick!!!!!!!!

People made shields to resist sword and mace strikes, and maybe hits from arrows and crossbow bolts-- strong enough to do that? Strong enough to do the job.... figure THAT out, then figure a realistic thickness to accomplish that, and then let the rest of us know what you've found out-- maybe it'll make sense, maybe we'll find more holes in your conclusions.

Of course, there's even more room for confusion, considering the time of meeting in each adventure: maybe the Wounded Wisp was where the Pathfinder founders always went to drink and hang out in the evenings... the Pig's Paunch was where they went in the morning for that 'hair of the dog' fix for hangovers...

So it's still kind'a "both"?

It's an interesting conjecture but to quote the article:

"While knights on heavy horses had been one of the most dangerous forces on the medieval battlefield they were rendered significantly less effective by cannons and the widespread use of matchlock and wheel lock firearms."

And the problem with this is that it's dead wrong.

In the English Civil War pikes and cavalry were the main force, with muskets - at that period matchlocks - and canons providing supporting fire along with crossbows and longbows (which were more effective, but required greater training); wheel-locks and flintlocks had not yet arrived, and matchlocks had not even replaced crossbows and longbows. Yet the main sword was undeniably a form of rapier: a long, slender, sharp sword used to thrust rather than cut. Firearms had not yet really come "in" but the rapier was already here.

I think you may be mixing up historical periods here... For the English Civil Wars that were commonly labelled "The Wars of the Roses" (approx 1450-1471; plus Bosworth Field in 1485), your description seems quite accurate to me. For the set of conflicts commonly described as the English Civil Wars (1645-1649, also coinciding with the tail-end of the 30 Years' War in Continental Europe), which is the set of Civil Wars that I believe Mr Litherland refers to, no so much.

As far as I recall from the history books and lessons and such, by that point in time (1649) the flintlock already existed and the gun was having a major effect on directly reducing the desirability of heavy armor on the battlefield (as opposed to the just the question of how much it cost). Meanwhile, the rapier was not in vogue in a recognizable form in 1485. Also, I do recall reading about the longbow still being in use and still being effective on the battlefield in several actions during the Wars of the Roses, but I can't remember any battle of the later English Civil Wars (the 17th century ones) where the longbow or crossbow played any real part. And, the rapier (as we know and refer to it today), started to emerge in the mid-1500s, not in the 1450s. So-- I don't think Mr Litherland is "dead wrong" as you say; and if he is, he has lots of company on the shelves of the historical sections in your local libraries.

Andostre wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Blaming Hollywood is as easy as it is popular.

So is rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs.

which is in a way what you do when you ban guns,

Blaming Hollywood may be easy-- but it's also not necessarily wrong (Hollywood has in fact been largely responsible for popularly propagating many historical errors over the years).

Rhetorically asking about anachronisms in RPGs can lead to many interesting discussions. And, while fantasy can be whatever we want it to be (thus, maybe it's hard to really have an "anachronism" in a truly fantasy world); if you're running a historical RPG, then the discussion of anachronisms is entirely relevant-- though maybe more work than you want to put in on your hobby.

And, banning guns... isn't anachronistic at all if your campaign is based in Imperial Rome or Norse Societies and Viking Voyages circa 800 CE. Just might be a little anachronistic to ban all reference to gunpowder if you're running a Crusader campaign, c 1200 CE, but still no guns (in the 3 historical campaigns just mentioned there also would not be any rapiers to speak of)... Now, if you're trying to do a 1600s-ish swashbuckling campaign, but still ban guns?

For a House Rule game, I might allow it, but I think the other house-ruling option someone mentioned is better: If the character already has a natural weapon/bite attack, he/she still needs to take the Animal Fury rage power as part of the archetype requirements, but have the effect be that the character's existing bite attack die-type increases by 1 step while raging (for instance, 1d6 becomes 1d8), so that it's still beneficial instead of useless other than as a pre-req (rather than giving the character a weaker bite attack than he/she already has).

Oh and the math on it, having reviewed things a little bit-- if you go on the presumption of how many of them will grow up to be evil, you only get to kill 1 of them. Good luck figuring out which one.

The true figures out of six seem to be 1 will grow up to be evil (maybe-- 16 2/3% become evil might be a little high), 1 will grow up to be good (maybe-- same problem as with the "destined to be evil" baby), and 4 will be neutral when they grow up...

But only if "nature" outweighs "nurture". :P Then it's back to "You need to take them somewhere that will raise them up on the paths of the righteous!"

(oh yes, this whole thread is satire-- enough so, that I, who have triggering issues related to real-live experiences in war zones regarding infanticide among other crimes against humanity, am not overly bothered by the "discussion" here-- but don' start taking any of this thread too seriously, and take the advice given earlier: walk away if it starts getting to you...)

but that explanation is really encouraging an extremist view of alignments...you either have a powerful adherence and are a zealot, or you don't get anything at all.

Or you don't need anything at all from alignment. Yes, to be aligned you have to be out on the extremes, and do have to be a zealot of some sort or another, under the modifications I'm contemplating. Most mortals just aren't extreme enough, but under these changes, yes, I'm rather de-emphasizing much of the reliance on alignment-based powers.

You'll probably need intermediary steps of some sort.

Likewise, how are you going to handle aligned weapons and powers? they'll be virtually useless unless they indiscrimantely affect the unaligned, much like Ashiel's do. Certainly Holy won't be worth anything if it only affects a small tithe of creatures that are incarnations of Evil. It would be less worthwhile then a Bane, even.

Probably won't need intermediary steps (although I am considering your suggestion)-- but I will probably need to lower the price on aligned weapons and such to make them worthwhile. Either that, or give aligned weapons and powers that don't already have "half-effects" vs. neutral or unaligned creatures some sort of reduced effects. Something like Holy and Unholy weapons will still do +1D6 vs. the unaligned, but not the full +2D6 they get against the opposite alignment (or reduce the price a little and still give them some effect, albeit reduced, against the unaligned).

I confess to not seeing where you're not having alignment. You're effectively saying everyone is Neutral, except where they aren't neutral, and things don't have alignment, except when they do have alignment.

Low level creatures almost never radiate an alignment, because they aren't strongly devoted to it. In your games, this would simply shift to being Neutral instead. Neutrals can be plenty heroic in pursuit of their own interests.

What it sounds like you're trying to say is that people can be Lawful Good, without being Lawful Good, unless they take a mechanical step to align themselves with Law and Good to get the benefits and drawbacks thereof, instead of it happening automatically?

My thought is more that you have to be a stainless saint or unimpeachable paragon of Good, to actually be Aligned as Good; or utterly irredeemably Evil, to actually be Aligned Evil-- otherwise you're not strongly dedicated enough or sufficiently tied and soul-marked to the cosmic principles that each alignment represents to actually carry the alignment for game effect. In this interpretation btw-- Neutral as an alignment is defined as the principle of Balance, not simply undecided or falling in the middle-- you're not "Neutral" unless you are a true, fully-dedicated Paragon of Balance-- that's why most folks are "unaligned", not Neutral.

(to be Lawful likewise requires being a full-on embodiment of Order, to be Chaotic means being the personification of Anarchy....)

Going on 334 reasons to not have alignment in the game, and counting.

Y'all have given me the thought that next time I run a PF home campaign, I'm going to reintroduce the idea of "unaligned"-- and make all characters unaligned along with all non-outer-planes critters unaligned, except when there are compelling reasons of ties to deities, other planes, or overwhelming drive towards particular outliers of the alignment spectrum to actually bind them to a specific alignment-- and folks who do have those ties will STAND OUT.

It doesn't mean characters can't be heroic and generally do good, and it doesn't mean that they can't be nasty chummers who usually do wicked things-- it just means you really have to be "over the top" to fully register as an aligned character-- basically making having an alignment being a sign that you are tied to the fundamental powers (whether that be good, evil, law/order, chaos/anarchy...). I think that will work out much better. Paladins will, for better or worse, be stuck with an alignment they have to live up to. Clerics will inherit an alignment based on their divine ties, and will have to live up to their deity's expectations in order to keep their powers. Other cases where a character will be "aligned" rather than "unaligned" to be determined as needed...

And it means how a character will behave must be determined by that character's personality, rather than copping out to using alignment as short-cut replacement for good characterization (not that this is always, or even usually, the case for how alignments are used-- but it seems to coming up often enough that it's a problem).

Celestials and Fiends will still be aligned-- it's part of their planar nature, and they will behave as embodiments of True Good or True Evil, as the case may be-- this house-ruling does also mean that yes, if you have an aligned sub-type, you are bound by it, will act accordingly, and will not have free will to choose some other course (with very very rare plot-driven exceptions). Unaligned critters and characters will essentially be affected by aligned spells per the current effects for neutral characters.

(I may privately track a character's general tendency towards good or evil, law or chaos, and generally figure out what they face under Pharasma's judgement when they die-- as well as track and identify characters who have gone so far towards a particular direction that they do take on alignment-- but I think I'll probably form a take something like Eberron's, where no-one's quite sure what happens to mortals when they die)

This is spur-of-the-moment off-the-top-of-my-head, but I'll probably try to implement it at some point. Any comments?

Mage Armor might be very useful.

Kay hasn't written sci-fi. I meant between the more historical fiction and historical fantasy. I loved Fionavar, which isn't historical at all. Couldn't get through Tigana. Wasn't impressed by most of the others you mentioned. Did really like the China one. There's a sequel to it that I need to get.

I see the distinction between feeling betrayed and just not liking the mix.

The Fionavar tapestry series was extremely heavily based on the mythology of the British Isles (Irish, Welsh, and Saxon for sure, probably drawing on other pieces as well)... maybe not any hardcore history, but Mr Kay was showing his knowledge of history and mythology even in those works. I rather like the books of his that I've read so far-- especially Tigana and Song for Arbonne.

Referring to the original poster's question:

It's not necessarily "knee-jerk." Some prefer a clear delineation between magic and high technology because it allows for an easier acceptance of the "laws" that will govern a particular cosmology. In addition, if the convention is established from the get-go, it's far less objectionable (though not in the least something in which I'm interested). Springing one on the reader after beginning with the other is a classic bait-and-switch ... practically a betrayal.

** spoiler omitted **

I suppose I need to go back and reread Dragonflight now. I thought there was an introduction even in that book, as well as some other little hints here and there, that let you know there was some old tech/science-fiction (or science fantasy) stuff going on underneath the surface the whole time... so I really didn't feel like it was a betrayal when stuff came right out in the open in Dragonquest. I could be misremembering, of course.

Mind you, nowadays there are a lot of things that bother me about Ms McCaffrey and her writings... but "bait and switch" between fantasy and fantasy mixed with science isn't one of them.

Pathfinder does quite well for itself. And aren't they going to be launching an MMO in the future? I think this really comes down to general dislike for White Wolf's rules.

Eh. I used to play (and quite enjoyed) several of the lines from the old World of Darkness (Werewolf, Mage and Changeling, mainly). However-- management, as part of the problem?

See, the way White Wolf treated their fans, the way they handled wrapping up and shutting down the World of Darkness, the lines they tried to sell about how it was artistically necessary and of course they weren't just going to start up a new World of Darkness-- and then that's exactly what they did...

I will not spend anything on a White Wolf product again. I will not support what's left of the company, or its heirs. I'm done with their games. And it's not so much that I hate the rules, as it is that I have such contempt now for the people behind them.

I suspect that I am far from the only former fan of White Wolf's games who feels that way. Might explain why many of their endeavors have tanked.

Its just the basic concept as magic as tech as described in the free EN Publishing Santiago setting guide for sci-fi PF. I like hard sci-fi non-D&D games too, its just that while there might be some holes, its a lot easier to work with, without having to learn a entirely new system to describe technology versus magic - since I have some system mastery of PF (why work with a different system?) In such a setting all spells are renamed to sound more sci-fi and are called technical procedures, but mechanically works identical to the spells they represent (Dispell Magic is now EMP Burst). Since magic is tech, there is no magic per se, unless you add psionics to represent a non-tech way to replicate extraordinary activities.

Santiago doesn't have a close approximation of the wizard, they have an engineer which is based off alchemist, and other caster conversions, so I wanted to try a make something that works like a wizard, but looks like a computer programmer/hacker with some hi-tech toys.

I've never been a fan of psionics, but in a sci-fi setting it fits.

And yet, this is what I was getting at-- YMMV, but to me, you're not even trying to run science fiction, you're setting up to run a science-fantasy game. The rules just don't make sense if you're trying to apply any understanding about how technology actually works-- and the convoluted explanations don't help. Whatever Santiago is, to me, and I suspect many others, it doesn't even approach being a setting I'd label science fiction. As far as I can tell, it's about as scientific, well, actually it's less... than Star Wars.

Still might make a fun game, and of course it conveniently has the same rules-- just that the way the world works, it completely blows my ability to suspend disbelief and accept that it's "science" as I'd expect from decent science fiction-- on the other hand, it is "Science!" as I'd enjoy reading about in Phil & Kaja Foglio's "Girl Genius".

Actually, the simplest way to deal with DR X/- is by doing enough damage to get through it....

Yep, this. Just hit it hard enough that the paltry amount of damage pealed off the strike by the DR still leaves the monster curb-stomped into oblivion by the amount that did get through....

If we're talking about a personal computer, you've got room for multi-boards, etc., but if you're working on something the size of credit card or smaller thing like a tiny smartphone. The circuit board is a one unit motherboard, harddrive, RAM, power cell, as unremoveable parts, and the housing is barely bigger than that circuit board for display screen or keypad. There is no room for added tech, it is all tech in one tiny unit. Let's also imagine that the cost of these items are comparable to pistol in standard PF.

And as JoeJ...

Everything you've said so far makes it sound to me like what you want to run isn't a science-fiction game, it's a fantasy game using some of the language and imagery of tech rather than magic-- perhaps a science fantasy game? Either that, or the PCs are actually characters inside a total-immersion VR game and have to live, function, exist, etc, according to the rules programmed into the world (maybe sort of like "Sword Art Online" as an RPG-- except the technical language and trappings are more obviously part of the game rather than hidden behind a wall of sword-and-sorcery graphics)...

Not sure if this is the game you're trying to run, but that's what I'd get from it if I were trying to play in such a campaign.

Eberron is a stupid setting that violates everything we know about societal development. It is not alone in this, but that doesn't make it not stupid. Most game designers aren't even amateurs when it comes to history and it shows.

Oh? Please explain...

Unless you've actually got solid reasons to back up your opinion that are either particular to Eberron and not to any other setting, or where Eberron is so egregious an offender above and beyond other setting's errors that it merits being called out as such, all you're saying by calling Eberron "stupid" is "Eberron is a setting I don't like, so I'll insult it and by extension the people who created it and the people who like playing in it".

So-- got explainable, verifiable reasons? Or-- maybe you should step back and think before arbitrarily throwing insults around.

Alignment-- do I use it in PF, and did I use it in AD&D/D&D games?
Yes, because it's there in the rules and the people I game with use it. Additional comment: Most of the folks I have gamed with over the years, have generally chosen alignments that matched how they intended to play their characters, and have generally done a good job of playing their chosen alignment (with changes along the way if character development pushed towards shifting to a different alignment). And with most of the folks I've gamed with-- lots of good characters, who were actually played in such a way as to earn and keep the "good" label.

So far, I have yet to try to run a PF game with the alignment system stripped away.

On the other hand, I have played many other RPGs over the years, which did not have alignment systems... and I preferred gaming without something like D&D's artificial alignment system. Most of the folks I have gamed with over the years have been quite capable of creating characters with interesting personalities and intricate motivations, and playing them consistently (often as quite heroic individuals, seldom falling into greedy "murder-hobo" caricatures) without needing the crutch of alignment to provide guidelines (or straight-jackets) to shape/enforce their character's behavior.

I don't really mind the occasional trove of alien or lost tech, like Barrier Peaks or even Numeria, but I do like my D&D fantasy more medieval or at least renaissance like in style than later period. I like having knights in armor and swords and archers along with my mages and priests. I find that the sword and horses and bows being commonly used in the same settings where science fiction tech is commonly used jars me. Even guns as effective as PFs are a bit of a jolt. I find the restrictions that keep them from replacing the earlier weapons seem too artificial. Having trains and steamships and the like do the same.

Nothing wrong with mixing magic with higher tech. Shadowrun is a great setting. Fantasy Westerns or Age of Piracy stuff can be fun too. It's mixing the other tropes of fantasy with common higher tech that bothers me.

This. I'm actually coming around to finding what Thejeff has brought up in his first paragraph to be my biggest obstacle to the way many games try to throw in advanced technology alongside fantasy... if you have commonly available guns, for instance-- even at say the 17th or 18th century, flintlocks-type... knights in armor should be mostly extinct. If you have trains and steamships (and guns), your world should look a lot more like the 19th century with magic, than like the middle ages with a few inexplicable anachronisms but somehow society still hasn't advanced at all (if it's one isolated, crashed starship-- but tech isn't at all common, this need not affect societies at large, though).

IMO, tech and magic in the same world/game can be great (I don't always want it mixed up-- there's still a place for fantasy without high tech, and high tech without magic), but I feel that whatever tech and whatever magic you've introduced into world should make sense and should have a meaningful impact on societies within the world. This is a problem with many D&D worlds... although I personally really like Eberron-- in that setting, the magic and "magic as tech" was integrated well.

I don't really care what happens in the combat or how fast it ends. Truthfully, both as a player and as a GM, I generally find combat in PF to range somewhere between boring, mechanically dull, and/or downright distasteful. I don't play for the extended, number-crunching endless rounds of die-rolling fights, and I admit that as a player I prefer arranging for "shock-and-awe" tactics-- do your planning, set up the enemies well, successfully ambush them and get it over with-- quickly (not because I like munchkining encounters-- but rather, because I as a player just want to get it over with with all of the PCs intact). If you do it right-- then every combat should be over within 1-2 rounds... the hard part should be in the planning, preparation, and set-up; not the actual, brief seconds of shooting. When it gets long and drawn out-- it's probably because the enemy got their ambush on you and you should be feeling very lucky if you escape with your life. Of course, there I go bringing a more modern perspective where combat is not this great, glorious wonderful thing to be admired and held high in countless knightly romantic ballads.... (also, did I remember to mention that I play PFS because that's the only major outlet for RP I currently have, and that I play Pathfinder in general because that's what most of the people I know and game with are playing-- it's actually not my favorite RPG, although I do like Paizo as a game company more than most. The whole hit-dice/hit-points and their contribution to making combat a long-drawn out slugging match that has been a major part of every D&D-descended iteration is one of the prime reasons I'd rather look to other systems).

For GM fulfillment-- why, I get fulfillment when everyone at the table has fun, when we've collectively told a good story that was enjoyed by all, and especially when there was lots of good social role-playing going on at the table throughout the scenario (that's also what I play for). IMO, that doesn't have much to do with rolling the combats-- though it can be aided by how I as GM and the players describe the course of the fight. If the players curb-stomp everything and have a good time, I'm happy. If it so happens that the players do get in some long, drawn out, nearly-lethal battles, but they still enjoyed the game and did enough RP'ing to keep me entertained, I'm happy. I quite enjoy well-written social scenarios with little to no combat involved. But I just don't care at all about the course of combat for its own sake when I GM, only (at least a little) for the sake of how it affects the players' enjoyment.

Ultimate Magic's Words of Power is the only 'official', albeit variant, rules in that vein. Its not a great system, and results in a lot more paperwork. But that's, really, the reasoning for the Vancian magic in the first place - its simple.

Um, no, the reason for Vancian magic in the first place is because E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson were fans of Jack Vance's novels and chose to base the magic system in D&D on the magic featured in Vance's fiction. It's been a legacy carried on in every edition ever since, all the way down to Pathfinder.

Except of course that it has morphed into "slot-based casting" but isn't truly "Vancian" for most casting-classes (only the Wizard, the Magus, and maybe one or two others I've missed are actually "Vancian" in Pathfinder-- Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, Bards, Inquisitors, etc, are not-- the critical defining feature of genuine "Vancian" magic is that you have to memorize each spell, and as soon as you cast it, it's gone... you can't cast it again until you hit the books and re-memorize it).

You may be right that slot-based casting has been kept because it's simple, though... :D

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not the grand jury proceeding was fair, whether or not the outcome of that proceeding was what it should have been, and whether or not Darren Wilson was in any way justified in what he did (morally or legally).

It doesn't matter what Darren Wilson did or did not get away with-- nothing justifies the riots in their own neighborhoods as response. It is an utter disgrace and makes a sham out of everything that so many so-called protesters are instead engaging in violence, theft, looting, intimidation, and domestic terrorism-- against a whole lot of innocent civilians caught underfoot-- make no mistake, the riots aren't hurting the police, they're just providing justification for a much harsher crack-down.

And any Federal "civil rights action" done as a response to the riots is likely to be just as much of a warped, biased, unfair circus as the worst possible interpretation makes the Grand Jury proceeding out to be-- at the very least, it can no longer be open, fair, and a genuine inquiry for justice now-- the aftermath of the "Rodney King" Riots and the subsequent Federal trial provides the example of what happens next if the Feds get involved in seeking "justice" after this.

All of this makes a total mockery of the idea that we humans, particularly in the United States, are so wonderfully civilized-- the breakdown of society and the sheer capacity of man to be thoroughly "inhumane" to his fellow man once again rears its head on our own soil. Fortunately, unlike the Los Angeles Riots of 1992, I'm retired from the military now and will not have to be one of the Soldiers sent out to put down this latest display of barbarism and ignorance. I'm still not going to sleep well tonight.

1) Assuming that everyone doesn't mind Earth Latin mixed in with their Thassilonian...

One minor thought: I considered (and have used) Earth Latin as a stand-in for Azlanti... other'n that-- I have no problem with borrowing words and phrases from Latin (and other earth languages) to indicate words and phrases from languages other than common...

Also, I think your suggestion of "aurelia" works even better if we consider it as drawn from Azlanti rather than Thassilonian.

At level 5 you Can take Divine Protection to get cha to all saves. How that works with sidestep secret i dont know. But i would take the Nature mystery so you Can get cha to CMD instrad. As it is now everybody Can grabble you Down.

'Divine Protection' was specifically called out as not allowed in PFS play. So, no, at level 5 he can't get that.

gnoams wrote:

If you say he looks exactly like a dwarf

This must be where ppl are getting hung up.

I never said this, and I feel people are reading other's responses and assuming they are quoting me directly.

The English language is rather finicky.

"Describing him as a dwarf", and saying "he looks exactly like a dwarf", are two different things.

During character introductions, those that are paying attention, and who are curious enough to ask, will realize the difference.

If you're not, and you adventure with him for a few sessions believing he's "just a dwarf", but then at some point figure out the truth, it's an "Aha!" moment. It's that type of realization that becomes memorable. A moment when the world you know changes.

In roleplaying games I've found that those moments are becoming fewer and fewer in between. Everyone now falls into "Class X" or "Race Y", with no deviation.

Isn't that what this thread was written to address?

I believe the point has been driven home, after this.

In home campaigns, with a consistent GM/Player group, and continuity from session... keeping a few secrets at the beginning and having them eventually come out somewhere down the line as the campaign moves forward is entirely appropriate and can be lots of fun.

In PFS play-- every game is essentially a "one-shot" pick-up game with a new cast of characters and GM each time-- now, there may be a lot of overlap-- play it long enough in the same area and you'll see a lot of the same players and GMs, and even see many of the same characters, but there still isn't that campaign continuity from session to session that you get in home games. In the PFS environment (and other one-shot-at-a-time organized play environments), someone keeping secrets from his/her fellow players can be a problem. If his/her secrets muck up parts of the game for the rest of us, it will definitely be a problem. In PFS, if we (the other players) aren't inconvenienced by his/her secret keeping, then congratulations, he/she can pat him-/her-self on the back for his/her cleverness- the rest of us probably didn't notice or care, so what was the point?

Now, it doesn't matter if it's a home game or PFS-- I can and do routinely separate player-knowledge from character-knowledge. If I, the player, know someone's actually playing a dwarf-blooded oread, but as far as my character knows, that character is just a dwarf-- I'm going to play it properly based on what my character knows. In PFS, I'd rather know as a player what else is at the table (as a GM I have to know-- that part is non-negotiable, but I don't think anyone disagrees on that point). In a home-game, I'm cool with some secrets being kept at the table.

However, there is one more thing-- yes, the English language is very finicky, AND is one where context, tone, etc, are very important. You may parse your words very carefully so that you are not technically lying-- but everyone else at the table is likely to still consider you a liar if you give the solid impression that your character is just a dwarf as a matter of player-to-player knowledge (not in-character description). Implied meaning matters, not just literal meaning. Also, have you ever heard of the concept of "lying by omission"? It applies here.

Here's the motivations for being in the PFS for my characters (so far):

Crispin Kitty-Boy (CG Flame Oracle 6, Rakshasa-spawn Tiefling, Silver Crusade): has found redemption in spite of his fiendish blood through faith in Sarenrae, is dedicated to spreading Sarenrae's light in the world but sees nothing wrong with having fun while doing it. Happened to encounter Ollysta Zadrian somewhere along the line of his pre-PFS life (she's a Paladin of Sarenrae after all), and he joined the PFS because Ollysta Z. asked him to. He remains in the PFS because he has great respect for Ollysta Zadrian and is genuinely dedicated to the Silver Crusade's goals... otherwise-- he really doesn't like the PFS all that much (he thinks the Decemvirate's goals are selfish and unworthy, and that the PFS keeps its hand in way too many questionable activities) and openly makes in-character jokes about it being the "murder-hobo" society whenever Venture Captains try to give him unsavory orders. Has come within millimeters of telling a Venture Captain where they can stick their mission more than once.

Kseniya (NG Spirit Guide Oracle - Life Mystery 4, Kyton-spawn Tiefling, Silver Crusade): Like Crispin, she's a dedicated Sarenite and came to the PFS through Ollysta Zadrian's influence. She's rather more serious than Crispin and has something of a dark side that she tries to keep under control. She has remained in the PFS because she sees its potential as a tool for the greater good and diligently works towards the Silver Crusade's goal of pushing the society in that direction.

Arik (N Slayer 5, Grand Lodge): Mercenary soldier. He's in the PFS because he gets paid. Period. The money's good, and because he's a fairly honorable mercenary, he's pretty dedicated to accomplishing the missions he's asked to undertake (he's loyal to the contract; plus, if he doesn't fully succeed, he doesn't get paid as much). Unlike many Grand Lodgers, he is only nominally loyal to the Decemvirate (they are the heads of the organization that pays him), but does NOT trust them-- at all.

Elaine de Maris (CG Slayer 2, Undine, Silver Crusade): Originally joined the PFS because she'd recently started interacting with the world beyond her coastal home waters, and it seemed like a good way to start seeing the world. Played her first game as Grand Lodge-- through influence of other characters on her first mission team, she shifted loyalties (1st level freebie) to the Silver Crusade. She stays in the PFS because she has bought into the Silver Crusade's stated goals and reason for existence-- to push the PFS into serving the greater good, and she is willing to do her part in furthering that mission. As a secondary goal, she's very strongly anti-slavery... she nonetheless chooses to serve her part in the Silver Crusade, because Colson Maldris is a corrupt and untrustworthy snake of a faction head, but she enjoys working with and assisting members of Liberty's Edge, so long as it isn't some bogus ploy for Major Maldris's personal gain.

Kuro-san (LN Monk of the Four Winds 1, Archon-blooded Aasimar, Dark Archive): Kuro-san refuses to "martyr himself for the greater good" and has refused to walk the path his family set out for him. He started following the monastic path in a quest for personal immortality, and has both joined the PFS and particularly joined the Dark Archive, because he believes this will help him achieve his eventual goal. He is patient, disciplined, and understands that the road he must walk is long with many steps along the way; he also understands the value of friends and loyal allies, and knows that he must reciprocate with loyalty and dependability to keep such friends and allies. The PFS is useful to him, he doesn't mind being useful to the PFS as well.

Brick (N Slayer 1, Grand Lodge): essentially has the same background as Arik-- he's a mercenary, and he's getting paid. So long as the PFS's money is good, Brick will be a good PFS agent (since I've pretty much committed Arik as my Emerald Spire character, I did want the chance to play the same concept in more regular PFS games).

Chance la Fleur (CN Bard-Archaeologist 1, Rakshasa-spawn Tiefling, Dark Archive): Curiosity hasn't killed the cat-boy (yet), but it's been close a few times... he's intensely curious, interested in exploring and learning new things, overly drawn to dark secrets and hidden knowledge, and not overly troubled by moral constraints-- what could be more natural than joining the PFS and getting aid, advice, and direction in his endeavors? He's already drawn to the Dark Archive by his natural interests and inclinations, but there's a special bonus there: Chance (IC) thinks Zarta Dralneen is particularly fascinating and wonderfully entertaining...

The motivational packages for Thorn, Arielle, Kira, and Devi still need more work-- haven't finished the details for those characters yet.

I have two characters who are by class "Slayers" in PFS--

thought I'd mention that in-game, neither character would call him- or her-self a Slayer (as job-title or skill-set description).

In the last session where I played her, Elaine de Maris (Undine Slayer 2), when asked, told another character "I'm a scout. Amphibious, good in the water, if you fall in and can't swim too well, I can keep you afloat and fish you out. And I'm pretty good with my crossbow-- but basically, I'm a passably decent scout."

Arik (Devil-spawn Tiefling Slayer 5) describes himself as a mercenary soldier, who learned some light-fingered tricks as a necessary part of staying alive. If someone else were to call him a slayer (in-game), he'd probably just grin and accept it, but it's not a title he attaches to himself in his thoughts and words.

gnoams wrote:

rules wise you still need a disguise check

And that's where verisimilitude breaks for me.

He's not actively disguising himself.

Why would he even think to? He's a Dwarf.

gnoams wrote:

...but that's not really the point. The point is it's fine for you to fool everyone's characters to think you are whatever. Not so much to lie to the people you are playing with.

No lies have ever been told, either in- or out-of-character. Some miscommunication must be afoot.

In character-- yeah, he's a dwarf. No lies told by the character, as the character understands the situation (although sooner or later, he will probably start realizing he's something a little bit different from most dwarves-- he's been touched by other-planar energies-- in character, a defense can still easily be made for the character insisting truthfully that he is still a dwarf, albeit not a "pure-blooded" dwarf...).

Out of character-- if you're telling your fellow players (as out-of-game knowledge) that he's a dwarf when your character's mechanical-game-effect race is Oread, you are lying to them. This is not at all ambiguous, there really isn't any double-speak defense for your position that would change that fact.

On this point-- so far, I guess I've been lucky in PFS... most of the tables I'm at, characters have personalities, quirks, habits, abilities, not-necessarily-standard-elements-of-build, etc., and are not simply race-and-class and that's it. I'd probably quit playing PFS if I continuously ran into tables full of people playing their characters as 1-dimensional, strings-of-numbers-and-abilities, lacking-personality, tactical-wargame-style combat units (and nothing more). Most of the folks I play with these days in PFS, and all of the folks I play with in home games are quite capable of (and usually do) separate character knowledge from player knowledge.

On the other hand, on the idea of concealing things from your fellow players-- in a home game, depends on the campaign and situation. Sometimes it's entirely appropriate (but not always) and sometimes it can be lots of fun (but not always-- when your deceit specifically works to the detriment of your fellow players' enjoyment of the game, then NO, it is not okay even in a home game).

In PFS-- I find it offensive and annoying to conceal things from your fellow players (and again, talking about players here, not characters-- IMO it's okay if there are things about your character that are not and may never be character-knowledge for the rest of the party). When it's pick-up games, frequently with different casts of players from night to night and time-limited scenarios, we (your fellow players) DO have a need to know what you're bringing to the table and what you can do for the party. I don't have time in a four-hour session to have to deal with someone who cannot be relied on, trusted, or really included in the game by the rest of us because we have no idea what he or she can and/or will do in the game.

I have rethought my opinion slightly from the past-- I personally don't have much of a problem if you emphasize role and capabilities rather than character-class when explaining your character to the rest of the group-- but you'd better be accurate about what role you're able (and are going) to fill in the upcoming session, and what you can do. But, if your insistence on keeping secrets keeps working to the detriment of the rest of the table, don't be surprised if you start becoming a 'persona non grata' and not welcome at a lot of tables.

Dead is, typically, dead. It's fascinating how clear that can be. Certainly, there are situations where someone can still be breathing just a tiny bit, or there is still a pulse somewhere, but mostly those situations look good in movies. It's a world of difference looking at a dead and an unconscious person. Sure, in combat it's more difficult, but a simple DC 15 Heal check solves all you need.

On the battlefield, when someone has been hit hard enough to be knocked unconscious, has lost a lot of blood, and is generally a mess underneath their body armor-- it's not as easy as you seem to think it is to be certain whether they are dead or alive. Now, it's not rocket science (unless they're really close to death)-- but in the noise and racket of the battlefield, with adrenaline in overdrive and enemies either actually or potentially still active in the area-- one has to be careful and thorough. It's easy for the untrained to mistake weak breathing for not breathing at all under those conditions, and it's also easy to mistake a weak pulse for no pulse at all... and badly wounded personnel whose bodies are going into shock usually aren't breathing too well and have weak pulses.

Maybe on the medieval battlefield, it's a little easier without all the explosions and gunfire that mark modern warfare... but on the other hand, it's a lot harder to get under plate armor to check for a pulse than it is to open up modern protective gear.

Even out of combat-- when dealing with very seriously injured personnel who are at "death's door" but could still be saved (including things like cardiac arrest from a severe heart attack or electrocution), it is NOT "a world of difference" to the naked eye. I wouldn't make it harder on adventurers than the DC 15 Heal check (as a move or standard action, usually)-- but I'd presume that's because the PCs are heroes and are supposed to be very good at what they do, not because it's easy.

Being a Paladin in the Murder-Hobo Pathfinder Society is kind of difficult anyway-- but it's possible.

For all I've said otherwise-- there are PFS missions where one should really play other characters-- and for my part, although I've played Paladins many times in many editions over the years, the only one I've tried creating and playing in PFS has already taken advantage of 1st level rebuild and been recast as a different class before reaching 2nd level.

(also, my Silver Crusade Fire Oracle already routinely makes wisecracks about "the Murder-Hobo Society" in character when Venture Captains deliver less-than-savory orders and/or his PFS compadres display excessive bloodlust and-or greed...)

Eh, I've always played up the Good part, and left the 'lawful' part to display itself in my character's being self-disciplined, responsible, and generally respectful. I have been "accused" of playing lawful GOOD, rather than Lawful Good, pretty much every time I've played a Paladin. ;)

As for this scenario, I'm gonna say something I've said before:

If, say, I were playing a Paladin of Sarenrae-- who (by character background and etc) is not beholden to any mortal lord but rather owes his allegiance to Sarenrae (period), I don't think he's going to feel bound to follow any mortal law that seeks to outlaw his Goddess or punish her worshipers for their devotion to her. And, I don't think that makes for any "breach of code" in refusing to obey such laws.

If I were playing a Paladin who is sworn to a mortal lord and/or is dedicated to some nation/group or another... if that lord/nation is not Taldor, he or she is not going to set Taldor's laws above his own lord's or nation's laws.

Nix ranger from that and add it to the list of in-game-world identifiables with wizard. Ranger is not only a class, but a related occupation, and was/is a real thing in real life, and definitely is an identifiable occupation/class (if you will) in Middle Earth and other fantasy sources.

And... Nope. "Ranger" the class carries no invisible label for people to point to and say "that's a ranger". "Ranger" the occupation is not strictly identifiable by class-- as characters of several different classes could easily fill the occupation (both fictional and real variants thereof-- especially since the use of "ranger" in non-fiction almost always refers to various sorts of law-enforcement personnel, warders, game-keepers, or elite military units)... As well as the fact that many ranger-class builds do NOT resemble the classic "ranger" occupation...

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's exactly the same as glamered. Even if someone slashes you with a longsword glamered to look like a bouquet of flowers, you don't get to disbelieve. But you still know you got slashed. Similarly the swarm on the suit knows its biting and drawing blood, but it still thinks you have a suit. Probably some suit-beast with skin like a suit. Yum!

*Looks down at slash wound*

"Daaaeeum! Them' flowers bearin' some wicked sharp thorns yo!"

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. That thought had occurred to me.

Now I have to get a glamered sword for one of my characters... just so she can make deadly attacks with a 'bouqet of flowers'.... that is just too good an image to let go of.

1) You are mixing Masterwork artisan's tools, with the Masterwork Tool.

Not the same same thing.

2) Yeah, I mussed my math. It's still 4 skills.

3) Same with the Sleeves. One just happens to be cheaper.

4) It was outright noted that those who thought it should have some kind of bonus, are lacking in imagination, and any one in a roleplay heavy game would find this a must.

1) You're right, not quite the same thing, but-- you would still have to explain what sort of tool you've managed to acquire that will actually grant some sort of bonus to your skill check. For many skills, the choice of tool is pretty obvious; for other skills, there either isn't an applicable tool, or the "tool" will only be of advantage for particular, limited uses of that skill. Also, can't use this item to replace existing tool kits, so your disable device set will still cost 100 GP. An example for where the masterwork tool falters, I think-- Just what tool are you going to buy to give yourself a +2 on Perform-Sing checks? For Sense Motive checks?

2) :D (sorry, had to pick on you on the math part)

3) Yes. (cheaper is relevant to the fact that most tools will be applicable to more limited circumstances...). Flavor depends on how the player-character uses it, in both cases.

4) Not by me. I'm against the idea that it's useless/worthless because it doesn't have a particular, specific bonus attached in the description-- it doesn't need one to still be cool and useful; whether it should have one attached to it or not is to me a separate question. There is a clear difference between arguing that it's useless, and acknowledging that it still has uses as is but that it should have a bonus-- and I can't really find fault with the argument that it should have a bonus, I just find fault with the argument some have made that it's useless without one.

On that separate question, with the sleeves you can always have the right sort of clothes for whatever social environment you find yourself in (avoiding a penalty because you have the correct tools is the rules-analogy here); the argument for a bonus is that in effect it's like a masterwork tool (when used appropriately) for always being dressed for the best effect. I could see that.

Also, is it a must-have? Depends on the character-- I have characters who don't care about fashion or style, disregard the problems of dealing with nobility if one is not properly dressed, and just want their clothes to be clean and serviceable (which they accomplish with 'Prestidigitation' and 'Mending' cantrips). They don't care about the sleeves. On the other end of the spectrum-- I have a character who doesn't bother with the sleeves-- because she's paid a lot more gold to purchase 'Living Garments' (which do provide a +5 to Diplomacy checks, among many other things they do for her).

You know what can grant me a bonus to just about any skill?

A Masterwork Tool. 50gp.+2.

Oh, and it can add flavor too.

I don't need to take time to convince my DM, or expect table variation in PFS.

I can have a number of them too. 8, in fact, for the price of this.

That's 8 skills, with a +2 bonus.

All full of flavor, and roleplaying opportunities.

Don't stick your nose in the air.

If you are a good enough roleplayer, you can take a mechanical bonus, and still make it flavorful.

These need not be separate.

Don't anyone dare say they are a better roleplayer, just because they got the expensive item with no mechanical advantage, over the reasonably priced item, with a mechanical advantage, that fill the same damn roll.

First: Not, "just about any skill". Try "Just about any craft skill". There's a lot of professions, a few performance skills, and a lot of other skills-- for which no tool apply. There are other things which may or may not provide bonuses-- but they're not tools, masterwork or otherwise. And, the masterwork tools necessary for a bonus for Disable Device will cost you 100 GP, not 50.

Second: Your math is off. 4x50=200. Not 8x50, which = 400.

Third: The Masterwork tools you cite can neither add nor take away flavor from the game. How the player has his/her character use them is what may add or take away flavor. But yes, they can be used to add flavor by a player who wants to roleplay.

Fourth: Naw, no one should "say they're a better roleplayer, just because they got the expensive item with no {specified, spelled-out-in-so-many-words} mechanical advantage..."-- it's how the player has his/her character use the items he/she has (whether there are clearly-attached mechanical advantages or not) that may exhibit excellent role-playing (or the lack thereof)-- but it's not the sort of thing one should be boasting about anyway.

The problem I think for most of us on the other side of the argument, is all the posts made on this thread about how the sleeves are utterly useless, in no way shape or form possibly worth their cost, cannot do anything worthwhile for you-- etc etc ad nauseam-- because there is no specific, stated clearly in black-and-white in the item description, mechanical bonus attached to this piece of gear. And when someone takes the argument that far, as some here have done, IMO that does display a certain lack of appreciation for the possibilities inherent in the use of the item. It also IMO displays a lack of appreciation for the point of view that some things (including some situational/circumstantial modifiers) have to be left up to the GM's judgment (otherwise we'd need much much longer sets of rulebooks and tables just to list out every last little possibility and variation that the collective imaginations of every GM and Player can come up with).

If that applies to you-- then yes, I personally don't follow the same approach to the game that you take, and I don't think I'd enjoy your games. Good thing there's room for all sorts of different players & GMs & games in the world, and one can find groups with whom one's approach is fully compatible and avoid those where one really wouldn't fit in so well. It's still not a personal attack... so please stop trying to make it out that way.

let's point it out again:This item doesn't not allow for a diguise check. It takes at least 1d3 × 10 minutes for this item to do ANYTHING and with no bonuses. it has less value than a disguise kit as at least THAT gives a +2 circumstance bonus. So for +150gp you get 2 less bonuses...

Now lets review the can't be disbelieved. Ok, how does that alter you? You didn't make a diguise check so anyone that makes a perception check has no problem seeing and identifying you. So anyone walking by you gets an auto perception check of 10 vs your roll of nothing...

Let's see, they don't have photographic memories, they didn't get a good look at you to start with or they're working from just a vague description-- and what they've got is, "we're looking for a guy dressed all in red"-- but thanks to your sleeves, by the time they get eyes on you, you're wearing black. Sounds like they can probably see you, and are going to conclude you're not the guy they're looking for-- no perception check necessary. Could do that over and over again-- if you're just trying to look like something generically other than what you were before you rounded the corner-- you don't need a disguise check. That won't help you if they already know exactly what you look like and are watching for your face (and your new clothes don't include a mask)-- that is when you might need to take the time and make a disguise check (among other reasons why you might need one). "Disguising" yourself as a generic guardsman need not actually involve the disguise skill itself-- it's a clothing change, and a bluff or acting check to pass yourself off as a new member of the unit (appropriate bonuses-- or more likely, avoiding major penalties-- for wearing the right outfit now apply). Partial bottom line: Not every means to avoid notice, change your appearance, maybe pass yourself as a generic someone-other-than-yourself enough to do the job needs to involve a "disguise check"-- sometimes it really just needs a simple clothing change and maybe a bluff check.

More concrete numbers: straight out of PFS-- Crispin doesn't take penalties for being inappropriately dressed, no matter who he's talking to or where he's at (such as happens when you're dealing with nobility and you're not wearing at least a courtier's outfit), thanks to his sleeves of many garments. And he doesn't suck up circumstance penalties for wearing dark colors in snow fields, bright colors when he's sliding through drab grey alleys, or wearing forest green when he's in a desert. Now for Crispin, the first part I mentioned above probably wouldn't work-- when the guards are told "you need to catch that guy with the kitty ears and tail", a change of clothes won't help. At that-- even though it's not reflected in any kind of specific skill boost, Crispin likes being fashionable, likes being seen in the latest finery, likes having a new outfit for every party... add it up, and he's saved a LOT of gold on new clothes over the time that must be passing between scenarios (along with the many scenarios he's been in that have involved social events since Crispin bought his sleeves)...

What it still really comes down to-- is not everything that is worthwhile in a role-playing game is necessarily quantifiable in bonus and penalty numbers. However, that seems like it's an alien concept in the games you play-- if so, I don't think I would enjoy your games much at all. Good thing there's plenty of room in the world for many different styles of play to suit players with different preferences.

N N 959 wrote:

Honestly, the item says illusion(glamour) on it. What did you expect for 200gp?

For 800, I can buy a item that actually makes an entire disguise and gives a +10 to the roll. The sleeves, at 1/4th the cost, don't come close to giving 1/4th the effect. Give them a +2 disguise and THEN they might be worth it. As is, they are expensive paper weights.

Damir: It doesnt do any of that. With no bonus, everyone must be able to see that it's a simple illusion (or it'd give a bonus).

Straight from the FAQ:

"The effects are illusion (glamer) like the glamered weapon and armor properties. This means they can’t be disbelieved like a figment could, but they do not actually physically change the clothes. The transformation changes only the appearance, including the feel, smell, and other sensory aspects." (italics added by me)

Okay, let's point it out again: they can't be disbelieved.

If any part of your disguise relies on your changing your clothes-- the sleeves of many garments enable you to accomplish that part instantly. I don't know of any reasonable GM who would deny that (and not take that into account in regard to a PC's efforts to, say, elude observation by unfriendly eyes). What they don't do-- and what much of the disguise skill (and time needed for putting together disguises) is cover all of those things normally involved in concealing/changing your face, your hair, your height and apparent weight, your walking gait, your mannerisms, etc. etc.

If, in the more general course of role-playing, your character needs to keep up with the latest fashion trends... needs to be seen wearing a different high-class outfit every night of the week... wants to try out new styles for nights on the town... needs to slide easily between different social groups and classes... perhaps shift dress on a moment's notice to blend in with different nationalities and groups... just has a thing for changing his/her clothes every few hours... these sleeves are just the thing for that-- and in the game world, they are easily worth their weight in gold (in fact, in the game world, they are worth 4 times their weight in gold). And NO ONE who doesn't already know you're wearing the Sleeves of Many Garments is going to know that you're not really wearing the flashy new outfits you appear to be wearing, unless they have 'true seeing' up while they're looking at you (this is a glamer effect-- it cannot simply be disbelieved).

I wonder how many of you who think the sleeves are just expensive paperweights also think 'Prestidigitation' is totally useless to your character, since it too doesn't have a specific, numerically-expressed, game effect. Yet this spell is the perfect thing for making sure your character stays clean and smelling good at all times; and it's also the perfect thing for making sure your food is hot, your drinks are cold (or hot, if they're that sort of drink), and well-spiced/flavored, whenever you sit down to eat.

I find it troubling that there are so many posters here who cannot see the utility and value of an item (or a spell, for that matter) because there are no specific numerical bonuses attached. Unless you're just playing tactical war games or calculating gambling odds, it's not just about the numbers.

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

Although I do see that Paizo has taken some elements from real-world history and used them as inspiration for parts of Golarion... I do not see any of the nations/peoples of Golarion as a direct analog for any real-world nation or ethnic group-- and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

While I like complex themes and social issues in my fantasy games, I still prefer to keep them fantasy, not something overly tangled up in reality. Draw on history-- yes. Mistake fictional places as stand-ins for real nations, no.

I'm actually quite tired of hearing this statement because unless we're doing something where every single thing is completely alien, there are real world analogues. I consider it a good thing. The only time people like to bring out this statement is when somebody else is complaining about a culture not being represented. The rest of the time, I think everybody knows the score.

Nope, you're not getting my thought at all. Yes, ideas and things and bits and pieces of real-world history and cultures have provided inspiration for the nations of Golarion, and I'm okay with that. BTW-- if there are ideas and events, things one wants to draw in from cultures that we haven't drawn on yet-- I'm all for it. That's not what I'm reacting against (contrary to your "everybody knows the score" assertion, although you have my apologies if I didn't express myself well on my previous post in this thread).

However, Andoran is NOT America-- it does draw some ideas and parallels from historical America, but it is not the same place. It's clear that Galt drew heavily on the history of Revolutionary France, in the era of the terror-- but it is still NOT France in 1793-1794, and shouldn't be taken as an exact analog with the serial numbers (names) scraped off. Likewise, leave any harmful baggage you've got regarding China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, etc, when you play in the Dragon Empires-- there are themes drawn from each of these places, some elements drawn from real-world history, but they are NOT their presumed real-world counterparts-- they are fictional nations in a game, where magic and extra-planar beings provide many changes to the world.

Basically, it's still a fantasy world, these places are not identical, and I do not want to watch folks taking out their real-world baggage with various countries and cultures at the gaming table. I find that counter-productive. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't draw some analogies and impressions from the 'real world', nor am I of the opinion that everything has to be totally alien; I just don't think that each piece should be taken lock, stock, and barrel as a stand-in for a real-world nation.

BTW-- to the NPC's remarks: yeah, we can see historical/cultural inspirations-- they're still not the actual countries/cultures they may be (loosely) based on. BTW-- Varisia, Vudra (with its djinn and high-magic), and the Lands of the Linnorm Kings-- I can see the mythological roots for some of these, but please explain which real-world, historical nations each of these countries is supposed to represent?

And, Serisan: I still maintain that although each of the Tien nations draws closely on the culture of a particular nation in Asia, there are (and should be) still enough differences that each of them is not simply "China/Japan/etc on Golarion" and should not be treated as such.

regarding the OP's game session:

I commend the players of the Paladins for finding alternate solutions and handling the situation well under trying circumstances. I cannot say anything at all favorable regarding the OP's stance and behavior, so for once in my postings here, I'll just say nothing more about it.

Snorter wrote:

So, a paladin may have sworn an oath, but unless that oath is to 'uphold the demands and wishes of whichever here today, gone tomorrow, inbred, spoilt brat psychopathic despot might be sitting on the throne of Taldor right this minute.'

Respecting the inbred spoilt psycopathic despot IS part of the paladins oath.

Quote:

then little king Joffrey McMurderpants will have to get to the back of the queue. Behind the more deserving recipients of his deity's mercy and protection.

He has to be in the queue somewhere. If all you care about is doing the right thing then you're neutral good. Lawful Good is trying to hold onto two seperate ideas at the same time, so they are going to conflict on occasion.

On to the general subject of both alignments and Paladins...

For non-paladins, "Lawful" = I am consistent in my behavior, I live by codes and rules, I am highly disciplined and organized, I am traditional and I keep to my traditions. Following the law of a particular nation, even if one happens to be residing within that nation at the time, is NOT necessarily part of being "lawful" (the alignment), though it is certainly not against the alignment. One must ascertain what codes, modes of discipline, law, etc, the character has internalized and is now living by, to see whether the character is living up to his/her alignment or not.

For instance, I would expect a Monk to rigidly hold firm to the rules, codes and discipline of his/her monastic order, and I'll ding the character for failing to do so... but if the Monk ignores civil laws of the country the adventure is occurring in from time to time, I'm not going to call foul if the monk can reasonably explain why he/she felt it was more necessary to break the law in question rather than follow it.

"Chaotic" (the alignment) = I am free, I live as I choose to, I do not follow and/or live by any laws, rules, codes, traditions, etc, for their own sake. Others may see me as undisciplined and disorganized because I do what is convenient, not necessarily what is consistent.

In practice-- a "chaotic" character may follow the laws of the country he/she finds him/her-self in, because it's easier than having to face the consequences for getting caught (or it's just too much work and/or no gain to find ways to get away with it). He/she may follow mission orders quite closely, because that's how he/she gets paid (the orderliness imposed is not a personal choice). He or she may well be a very good team player-- life is much easier when you have friends, and you'd better be there for them if you expect them to be there for you. IMO, "chaotic" is about the motivations of the character, rather than necessarily being reflected in his/her deeds.

For Paladins-- yes, they have to respect legitimate authority. There is more of a requirement to follow laws and respect just rulers than there is for a non-Paladin who happens to be of lawful alignment. However, on the Paladin's code-- as a GM and player, I will look first to the Deity-specific code for the patron that Paladin follows, and if it appears to conflict with the generic code in the Core rules, I believe the Deity-specific code takes precedence.

As a further point to the above-- while a Paladin must respect legitimate authority, respecting does not necessarily mean obeying in all things. Paladins are NOT Cavaliers. A Paladin must have oaths to his/her patron deity (or the equivalent commitment thereof). The Paladin does not necessarily have ANY oaths to the King. There is also the issue that the Paladin is GOOD, not just lawful-- an evil ruler is not necessarily legitimate in the eyes of the Paladin and his/her God(dess), regardless of what the mortal laws of the land may say about the issue.

Furthermore, let's say the Paladin does have oaths specifically towards a ruler-- obedience to that ruler, and his/her laws, will take precedence over obedience to the laws of other nations & rulers; which may well mean that the Paladin will blatantly, purposefully and even remorselessly break the laws of a country he happens to presently be in (without IMO breaking his code) because he is following the laws and orders of his own country (not the one he's presently in), liege-lord and/or Deity.

Obviously a paladin of sarenrae would put god above taldor. Of course it would beg the question of why would a lawful paladin of sarenrae travel to a country like taldor where he knows his beliefs are illegal? This isn't a situation of going behind the enemy lines to rescue people from the clutches of evil.

I personally would never play a paladin of sarenrae in Taldor because it's hard to justify breaking taldan laws for no good reason to me.

A Paladin of Sarenrae must follow Sarenrae's law. Not Taldor's. A Sarenite Paladin going to Taldor is easy to justify-- because I must support Sarenrae's worshipers in Taldor, because I must bring Sarenrae's light to a blighted land that is presently without it, because serving the greater good justifies ignoring Taldor's bigotry against my Goddess....

Not at all hard to do.

Although I do see that Paizo has taken some elements from real-world history and used them as inspiration for parts of Golarion... I do not see any of the nations/peoples of Golarion as a direct analog for any real-world nation or ethnic group-- and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

While I like complex themes and social issues in my fantasy games, I still prefer to keep them fantasy, not something overly tangled up in reality. Draw on history-- yes. Mistake fictional places as stand-ins for real nations, no.

Any Chelish wizard specializing in conjuring devils (which is pretty much all Chelish conjurers) would be at serious risk of passing on hellish taint to their children. Any cleric of significant power is likely to be imbued with the otherworldly energies of their deity. There should be lots of ways in which celestial, infernal, or abyssal heritage can be explained.

I have a devil-spawn tiefling character in PFS, an expatriate Chelaxian (who hates Cheliax because of how he was treated during childhood), whose usual quip to explain his existence is something like: "I'm living proof that someone was f***ing around with the hired help..." His understanding is that his mother had an extramarital affair with a tiefling, half-fiend, or out-and-out devil, and he's the resulting offspring (who the birth-father was, was never clearly explained-- this being Cheliax, and his mother having the higher family status before marriage, he was raised in his mother's and possibly-adoptive father's household).

You've given me a new idea... since I've generally presumed that his parents were minor nobility or gentry, one or both probably was involved in arcane or divine magic-- so, maybe he's not a bastard son after all, but was "gifted" with his heritage because of his parents' diabolic practices. Now as far as Arik is concerned, he's still a bastard son (after all, that's what he was always told and how he was treated when he was growing up)-- I'm not sure how I'll have him react if it turns out that his parents were lying to him and he actually should be the natural-born/legitimate heir but was twisted by magic (and he finds out about it-- probably not something that will ever have real impact, since he's being played in PFS). For that matter, maybe he's 'legitimate', but one or both of his parents were concealing unexpressed infernal ancestry in their own bloodlines.

Cyrad wrote:

Since planetouched is a property of your soul, not your body

That is an unsupported postulate. Why can't planetouched be a factor of the body? If it was purely a soul issue than a character's ancestors would not be an issue.

Character's ancestors aren't an issue except for size and some cosmetic features-- the only reason PFS appears to make an issue of it is not wanting to have size S plane-touched critters running around (there is NO other game/mechanical effect derived from being born to other than human parents-- you're still strictly plane-touched, not some kind of hybrid for game purposes). That point is in the sidebars in "Blood of Fiends" and "Blood of Angels", and seems fairly well implied in "Blood of Elements".

The "linked to soul" idea also better covers how a character may be born 'plane-touched' without having direct, by-blood planar ancestry.

I can’t read this in a way that isn’t equivalent to forcing female PCs to be rebels against an expectation that women shouldn’t be adventurers, or forcing male PCs using magic to explain why they’re such sissies, or, in general, any PC to explain why they’re not doing an honest job looking after the family farm or what have you.

I have played in campaigns set in a more closely "historical" or historically-based setting, where gender roles where largely in place in the in-game societies, and characters who broke out of those expected gender roles did face significant issues. It has been interesting and enlightening in many games, and unfortunately poorly handled in some others-- however, with a group that can handle dealing with such issues, they can still occur as part of a fun campaign. Other such issues also included characters of the "wrong social class" fighting to break out of restrictions and social disadvantages because they weren't born to the nobility. It happened in historical societies, and it is a part of some games.

Regarding the idea that a character may have to face familial and/or societal disapproval because he or she is not living up to his/her responsibilities and/or to the expectations others have (the family farm, business, etc. etc. ad nauseam)-- I've used that as character motivation many times myself.... and like the other potential pitfalls of society's attitudes, I've seen it as part of many campaigns and game worlds. Since adventuring in most worlds isn't exactly a responsible, respectable career (until you "make it big" anyway), it seems to me that the issue of shirking responsibilities and expectations to go off adventuring is a lot more common issue than some of the other problems brought up here.

Usually I've seen parties squeezing in level 7 Kyra over level 4 Kyra...

And there it is again-- there is a 4th level version of Kyra, and a 7th level version. I don't feel that it's restricting the player's legitimate choice of pregen at all to tell the player that he/she will be playing the 4th level version with a 4th level party. It's STILL Kyra, if that is the pregenerated character he or she wants to play. The same considerations apply to all of the pregens.

I do not agree with the premise that the player's choice of pregen includes whatever level version he or she can possibly shoe-horn into the scenario's overall limits-- as opposed to, take the PFS-legal version of his/her pregen of choice that most closely matches the party's level.

Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all the pregens come in 1st level, 4th level, and 7th level versions? Soooooooo....

Yes, he or she can play whichever pre-gen character he or she chooses to play-- but, it will be the level-appropriate version... to me at least, that means playing the pre-gen of choice at the level that is closest to the average level of the rest of the party (and within the level limits of the scenario, for some of those corner cases...). Meaning, you can play any of the pregen characters: Kyra, or Harsk (if you wish), or Lirandys, or any of the others out there (other than any specific restrictions stated in the PFS Guide to Organized Play).... no restriction there, but-- although the scenario overall may be 3-7, if the entire rest of the party is 3rd and 4th level characters, you get to play the 4th level version of your pre-gen of choice, NOT the 7th level version. It's still the same character-- just at a different power level.

So, if the GM has proposed a modern-day "spies and private eyes" campaign (yes, more or less "real" earth)... the players have agreed to do this campaign and have stated interest--

then one player pops up and insists on playing a magic-using elf...

This is okay, because we should just give this player what he/she wants?

Take a different example: running standard, Golarion, Pathfinder-- as a GM, I should give in and let a player run a psionic character-- even though it has been clearly stated many times over that the table rules are Paizo Pathfinder products only (no 3.5, no 3rd party)?

That seems to be what some folks are suggesting here.