Jmacq1's page

Jmacq1 wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Because heterosexual men like nothing more than admiring the ripped well oiled biceps and smooth hairless lines of a strong jawed Adonis dressed only in leather and assuming power-butch poses?

Seems legit.

Way to miss the point entirely. It's not about the male readership finding the male characters attractive. It's about wanting to -be- the character. Physical attractiveness is a by-product of that, because most men, given a choice, would want to be physically attractive and in ludicrously good physical condition (at least outwardly).

The bottom line being: It ain't in there for the ladies in most cases.

I'd buy it if the guy wasn't always waxed/freshly shaven.

Right, because women always talk about how they want the guys that can braid their back hair, don't they?

The guys are always waxed/freshly shaven because A: It's easier to draw/paint/etc... and B: because once again...being physically attractive is part of the power fantasy, and women tend to prefer guys that aren't hirsuite.

Jmacq1 wrote:

Way to miss the point entirely. It's not about the male readership finding the male characters attractive. It's about wanting to -be- the character. Physical attractiveness is a by-product of that, because most men, given a choice, would want to be physically attractive and in ludicrously good physical condition (at least outwardly).

To what degree is this true for women as well? To be more clear, to what degree does showing illustrations of physically attractive and in "ludicrously" good physical condition (which I don't take to mean muscular, per se) appeal to female viewers who want to -be- that character?

I'm honestly asking, and not trying to play a game of tit-for-tat regarding idealization in imagery. The degree to which female viewers appreciate pictures of very attractive women as something they'd like to be (as opposed to giving them unrealistic and damaging standards for self-imagery) seems to me to receive very little discussion.

By most indications, women are more interested in portrayal of character than portrayal of appearance. They tend to have no problem with female characters being physically idealized, but are a wee bit turned off by the fact that butt-floss and chainmail bikinis tend to be standard issue, and that they are often depicted in anatomically impossible positions that somehow manage to show off both their bust and the derriere at the same time.

Because heterosexual men like nothing more than admiring the ripped well oiled biceps and smooth hairless lines of a strong jawed Adonis dressed only in leather and assuming power-butch poses?

Seems legit.

Way to miss the point entirely. It's not about the male readership finding the male characters attractive. It's about wanting to -be- the character. Physical attractiveness is a by-product of that, because most men, given a choice, would want to be physically attractive and in ludicrously good physical condition (at least outwardly).

The bottom line being: It ain't in there for the ladies in most cases.

I guess my problem with the comparison of loincloths vs. bikinis is that I suspect few women would want the loin-cloth Conan as eye candy. In my experience with Mrs Gersen and her sisters and girlfriends and so on, women do NOT find powerful-looking, masculine men in art to be appealing. What they want is a guy with no body hair, floppy head hair, long eyelashes, pouty lips, a weak chin, grossly-overdeveloped pecs (like boobs!) and abs, and no discernable musculature anywhere else (little dainty wrists and forearms, etc.). And he has to be striking that absurd pose that shows off his "line" between the hip and abdomen (which I think makes him look like a sissy, and my wife thinks makes him look "hot").

And it's the same way with the ridiculous outfits and poses the "women" in a lot of fantasy art are shown in. I'm not a hardcore feminist or anything, but even I find the overwhelming prevailence chainmail bikinis and Seoni-poses to be puerile and annoying -- so I can only imagine how obnoxious they must seem to actual females.

The comments trying to compare the shirtless male barbarian to the bikini-wearing female warrior are much the same as the people that try to argue that sexism isn't rampant in comic books because even though 99.9 percent of female superheroines have pornstar bodies and tend to either wear bathing suits or skin-tight latex to fight evil in, it's OK because most of the dudes are all square-jawed, insanely handsome, more physically perfect men than anyone in the real world could ever hope to be. Both arguments are missing the point: The skintight male superhero costumes and the shirtless barbarian aren't there in the material to appeal to females. They're usually in the material to appeal to male readership in the form of being power fantasies.

So basically, even the 3/4s naked Barbarian exists to appeal to men (in most cases). There are characters that do seem to be designed more to appeal to female demographics (and such characters are becoming more common), but by and large most RPGs (and comics) are still heavily, heavily geared towards white heterosexual males (again, it's not as bad as it used to be, but that's in the sense that it's 96% geared towards that demographic where it used to be 99.9% geared towards that demographic).

Then of course the argument becomes a matter of business: If white heterosexual males are the overwhelming majority of who is buying your stuff, isn't it just good business to cater to them? This is basically the excuse Comic publishers have consistently used when cancelling critically acclaimed books starring minority characters that don't sell to their expectations. Irrespective of "right" or "wrong" there may be some validity to that argument.

What exactly does True Name do?

Do Planetars already cast cleric spells as a cleric of their HD level? Because otherwise adding a level of Cleric means he'll just be a Planetar with 1st level Cleric abilities and 17 racial hit dice, from my understanding. My understanding is that you generally don't replace racial HD with class levels. The class levels just stack on top of already-existing racial HD.

So considering making He-Man an Ogrekin Orc for the mechanical benefits is A-OK, but considering making him a Synthesist Summoner is "too far away from the overall character."

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

If you already know what you wanted He-Man to be (A Barbarian) then you didn't need this thread in the first place. Stat out your Barbarian and move along, and next time don't get pissy when you ask for suggestions and people give you suggestions that don't march in lock-step with your preconceived notions.

I'd add my voice to that asking for an updated, hardcover "Gods and Magic" that combines the original book by that name, info from the "Faiths of...." players companions, and the various writeups and articles that have appeared across the adventure paths. I'd stick with "full" writeups for the major deities, and maybe some smaller summaries for the various racial deities.

I also wouldn't object to a non-Golarion specific Deities and Demigods book with things like the major deities of the Greek/Roman, Norse, Hindu, Japanese, Native American, Egyptian, and Lovecraftian pantheons/deities/entities. But this sounds more like something likely to come from a third party, honestly.

Yeah, short of just declaring the Sword of Power (and the rest of He-Man's attire) a pile of artifacts and just DM fiat/plot devising the powers to match, you're going to have a really hard time statting up He-Man, but I can start with some gear suggestions:

Belt: +6 to Strength and Constitution
Harness: +5 Natural Armor
Bracers: Bracers of Armor +5

Since he was rarely hit, he seems to have a high AC.

If you go with the "toy" version over the "Cartoon" version, he also has a battleaxe and shield at his disposal. As well as some different armor/harness/weapon options.

I do rather like the Synthesist Summoner idea as a baseline, but really in terms of basic abilities, as someone else mentioned above a Superhero-based game system would probably be better up to the task than Pathfinder.

Interesting factoid.

The only reason that Texas ever existed as an independent Republic, was because for years, the United States wouldn't take it.

I'm sure that had nothing at all to do with a significant political bloc in Texas that didn't want the United States to take it, either...(They also wanted to stretch The Republic of Texas all the way to the Pacific Coast, incidentally).

I don't think the plan works when New Texas would more than bankrupt itself in the futile battle to eliminate the corruption and violence in Mexico in order to make it stable enough to function in the manner he describes.

Particularly without the benefit of the United States military backing it (which even then wouldn't likely be enough to do the job).

Given the significant anti-government sentiment evidenced by some Texans, they're not going to play nicely if "New Texas" tries to draft them for purposes of pacifying Mexico, either.

That's not even getting into the internal fighting from those that didn't want to secede from the US, and the war with the US itself who isn't going to want Texas' resources to leave the union.

Ex - Caster must be guarded by defenders when he casts a Gate spell, with a required show of force he can present to a Gated creature thus a greater chance he has of compelling it to do what he wants - and not have it kill him/take his soul. High level rogue with knowledge of magic helps set up the hedge/ward/trap for the creature, etc while the Fighter is there to challenge and threaten it. This forces others in the team to actually help pull off the spell successful and makes Gate a suicidal effort if...

And if the Mage casts an illusion of a heavily armed and armored party of badasses prior to casting the gate and the summoned entity fails its' Will save/Perception Check/What Have you?

Jmacq1 wrote:

Soooo, we're basically saying every class needs to have spellcasting ability now or something?

I guess I'm just confused. I get the concept of "trying to balance things right" versus "blanket balance that makes everything boring" but I don't see a lot in the way of actual suggestions for how to implement this in Pathfinder.

Nope. That is a non-sequitor. Spells are simply a method for interacting with the various aspects of the game. Take combat for example. Everyone can participate in combat and have meaningful input and have their time to shine to the variety of combat challenges. Now ask yourself why that isn't try for the social aspect of the game? Or for ALL aspect of the game. Spells are only a single method of input. And for as long as there exists a method for one player to participate in aspects of the game that others cannot, there will continue to be aspects of the game where players are not engaged.

By "social" aspect do you mean "characters socializing within the game" or the overarching "anything not combat?"

Once again, I understand the overall concept of what you're saying, but it's one thing to conceptualize, and another thing to put into practice. It's easy to say what the problem is, sometimes even easy to propose a solution, but the specifics are killer...particularly in a (relatively) rules-heavy game like Pathfinder.

What are some concrete, actual game (not analogous game) examples of what you would propose? And as others have noted: How do these suggestions still allow for every character to have their moments to outshine other classes? (Which by the tenor of most of the discussion here seems to be "never" for anyone except spellcasters during high-level play unless the fighters get some lucky dice rolls).

Soooo, we're basically saying every class needs to have spellcasting ability now or something?

I guess I'm just confused. I get the concept of "trying to balance things right" versus "blanket balance that makes everything boring" but I don't see a lot in the way of actual suggestions for how to implement this in Pathfinder.

I...wasn't seriously proposing banning sports.

More just noting that it's likely just as big a "cause" of violence as video and role-playing games (probably even bigger, I'll grant, but in all cases not nearly so much of a "cause" as people like to scapegoat things as).

Bottom line is that just about anything can incite violent behavior under the right circumstances. I'm just sick of idiots (and particularly idiot politicians) trying to turn hobbies that millions of perfectly normal, generally non-violent and mentally balanced people enjoy into scapegoats because they're too afraid to talk about what the REAL problems are (poverty, lack of adequate mental health services, etc...).

It's easier to restrict video games than to do something that would *gasp* require spending more money, in other words.

I find myself curious if anyone's ever done a credible study of any "casual link" between violent behavior and full-contact sports like Boxing and Football, etc...?

Because I can just imagine the kinds of responses a "Ban Football!" editorial would garner in Duluth....

I know he wouldn't get the level based benefits from the Hellknight PrC, but the ACP is one lower and it would be flavorful for a Signifer.

Absolutely nothing stopping them (or anyone really) from wearing Hellknight Plate. Anyone that's proficient in Heavy Armor can wear it like any other suit of Heavy Armor from my understanding.

For Arcane Casters it's not ideal as there's still a significant chance of spell failure even with the benefits, as I recall, but Signifier is a pretty nice PrC for Divine Casters/Clerics (who don't have to worry about that pesky spell failure).

Recently got my hands on issue 1 of the PF comic... and whereas I'm not sure she's homosexual, it would seem Merisel at least swings both ways. She seems pretty... interested... upon seeing Ameiko Kaijutsu (then again, can you blame her?).

I make a point of her possibly being bi, because later on in the same issue, a drunken Valeros makes a come-on and she turns him down.. but in a way to suggest "not right now" instead of flat-out "no". Either way, I'm eager to see how it develops, and I'm enjoying the fact that physical attraction is shown in the comics, just like it happens in real life.

Pretty sure it's been all but officially confirmed that Merisiel is quite content to find "Miss or Mister Right Now" whenever the mood strikes her, and irrespective of gender.

Personally I'd be more interested if the homosexual character is a male, simply because the "Hot lesbian" thing is...overdone. It'd be a nice subversion if say, Harsk ended up the character in question.

Jmacq1 wrote:

Then why aren't they all at full attack bonus?

Oh wait, that's right, because attacking 4+ times in 6 seconds is harder than attacking 1 time in 6 seconds.

You know what's even harder? Trying to do it with a weapon in each hand.

You know what happens when things are harder? You make more mistakes, even if you're trained for it.

What you're talking about is already modeled in the chance of FAILURE, not FUMBLE. TWF with feats and appropriate weapons is already a -2 to attacks. Not "you also fumble on 2's". Iterative attacks are at -5 for each consecutive one. Don't confuse harder difficulty with chance of fumbling. No matter how difficult an AC or conditions make an attack, the base fumble chance is the same.

If what you were arguing were true, than the fumble chance of each individual attack should be higher, but that's not true.

If you use the BAB of each successive attack for confirming the fumble, then yes, the "actual" fumble chance of each later attack is in fact higher. You have an equal chance to roll a "fumble threat" on each attack but when you roll to "confirm" said threat, your first (full BAB) attack is far less likely to confirm the fumble than your last.

Ergo, you will fumble more often on later (lesser attack bonus) attacks than your early (higher attack bonus) attacks, unless you remove the fumble confirmation mechanic.

Really just depends on how willing your DM is to roll with it. Sounds like in this case they're definitely planning on using the feat significantly as opposed to ruling that "Oh, your followers (including your cohort) are back in town/the camp doing stuff" every time they'd potentially be useful/make the encounters less challenging.

If it's used to its' full extent it's probably one of the best feats in the game (basically giving you another character for your party), if it's sidelined it becomes little more than flavor text.

I've found that for my campaigns the best way to limit min/maxing to the extreme is to limit which books are usable for characters in the campaign. Some campaigns it might be "anything goes" and others it may just be "Core Book Only." Not that you can't make min/maxed characters with the Core book, but it tends to negate some of the more extreme builds.

Secondly, I've found the best cure for min/maxing (which I'm obviously assuming is what is meant by "optimizing" as opposed to just "making my character good at what he does") is simply time. I've gamed with the same general group for over 10 years now, and we've had some rampant min/maxers who basically just...grew out of it. Maybe they got bored with trouncing everything too easy. Maybe they got lazy and didn't want to do the math anymore, but for whatever reason, the last couple of years they've gone out of their way NOT to min/max, and found that you don't have to "gimp" your characters to avoid it, you just don't go looking/digging for every feat/class ability/race/spell combinations that "break" the game.

But that's my group. As far as general "how to avoid min/maxing" advice, I think most others have covered it pretty well.

You read his point wrong.

His point was that over a single tennis match, a critical fumble rule would be the equivalent of a professional tennis player have a greater number of unforced errors than an amateur tennis player over a same length match.

In a single round, a 11th level fighter with TWF has a greater chance of a fumble than a 1st level fighter using a single weapon.

Iterative attacks are supposed to represent a greater degree of power, not risk, as far as I knew.

Then why aren't they all at full attack bonus?

Oh wait, that's right, because attacking 4+ times in 6 seconds is harder than attacking 1 time in 6 seconds.

You know what's even harder? Trying to do it with a weapon in each hand.

You know what happens when things are harder? You make more mistakes, even if you're trained for it.

And more to the point, it's not about unforced errors if you use the Tennis match analogy. An unforced error would be best represented by rolling a "1". A FUMBLE for a tennis player would be dropping their racket.

I used to play tennis quite a lot back in my college days. I've seen a lot of people drop tennis racquets. I've seen tennis players drop racquets in Grand Slam matches.

But I can assure you, the better you get at tennis, the less often you drop your tennis racquet even if you play several more hours per day.

You presume that a fumble automatically means "drop your weapon." If you use the fumble deck, that's not the case by any stretch of the imagination. There's even things like pulled muscles, sprains, etc...

You know, exactly the kind of thing that happens to professional athletes fairly often, ofttimes even during high-level professional play. Despite all that training and experience at their sport. And they're not even fighting for their lives at the time.

Even an x4 critical hit is not as good as a fumble is bad once multiple attacks are happening. A fumble can effectively take a weapon user out of combat.

There are only three scenarios where a fumble "takes a weapon user out of combat"

1. Somehow or another the fumble insta-kills the PC. (which isn't the case if you're going with "fumble=dropped weapon", and rarely ever the case if you're using the fumble deck).

2. The character is apparently too incompetent to carry even a single back-up weapon, and so afraid of an attack of opportunity that they refuse to pick up their dropped weapon (assuming you're going with the "fumble=dropped weapon" rule). That's assuming they're not a Two-Weapon fighter, in which case they still likely have a weapon (possibly even their primary) in one hand.

3. The player throws up their hands and refuses to play any further once they've fumbled.

Otherwise, most fumbles inconvenience the player for a whole round of combat, and that's presuming they take the time and the potential risk of an AoO to retrieve their dropped weapon (again, if you're going with the "fumble = dropped weapon" rule). Or that their companions haven't dropped the enemy/enemies that threatened him, or that the enemy didn't spend their AoO for the round attacking someone else (and lacks Combat Reflexes), or any multitude of other possibilities.

If you're using the deck, it might make the rest of the fight more challenging for them, but it hardly takes them out of the fight completely.

If you're a fighter that's deathly afraid of losing your weapon due to a fumble, then spend a feat on Quick Draw and carry a back-up melee weapon or two. You're a fighter...you've probably got a feat and some carrying capacity to spare.

If you're using the fumble deck, there's even a slot for "Magic" which means casters can get hit with it too.

On an unrelated note, I'm very sorry for so many of you that apparently have only played with utterly crappy GMs, given how many "worst case scenarios" are being tossed around here.

Eragar, let's forget all the math for a moment.

Can you agree that a fighter who is in combat and using all his feats and iterative attacks is performing duties that he has been trained to perform and for which it is presumed he is a highly competent individual?

Can you also agree that a farmer who is in combat is attempting something they are not trained to do, and which they are presumed to be less than competent?

If so, then can you explain why over the course of a minute of fighting, the fighter is going to drop his sword five or six times more frequently than the farmer drops his pitchfork?

I'm not Eragar, but...

Sure, I can also agree that professional tennis players, who are the most skilled and experienced tennis players in the world, also get more unforced errors over the course of their lives than someone that only plays once a month. Same with professional baseball players, for that matter. It's not a function of "DC" either, given that the "base difficulty" to say, hit a tennis ball over a net is the same for both tennis players. Or to throw a ball from second to first base, etc...

The mathematical fact that seems to elude some of you is that the more often you perform a given action, the higher the probability that you'll flub it eventually, especially if you're trying to do the same action many times in a given stretch of time in the middle of the highest-stress scenarios imaginable (Fighting for your life).

Of course, what your proposed scenario absolutely fails to account for is that in that minute of fighting, your fighter will have done many times more damage, threatened and confirmed critical hits many times more often, and can stand up to many times more damage than the farmer can. He'll perform actions that the Farmer can't even dream of thanks to his feats and class abilities. These are all reflections of the fighter's superior training and experience. Contrary to what you seem to think, there's more to combat ability than just "how many attacks do I get?" Yeah, the fighter might have a chance to fumble more often, but he will confirm fumbles far less often even when he "threatens" one, once again a reflection of his superior training and skill.

Meanwhile, that Farmer is unlikely to even survive a minute of hard fighting, since likely one or two hits are going to put him into negative hit points, so really, his ability to successfully not drop his pitchfork for one minute is rather irrelevant at that point.

Jmacq1 wrote:

That seems...a ridiculous argument, because the chance of fumble collectively affects every single NPC the DM is running. Given that in most circumstances, the GM is going to be rolling far more times than the PCs (since in many cases the opponents outnumber the PCs), the chance of fumble actually affects the DM more so than the PCs, or at the very least is statistically (roughly) equal.

They affect each person at the table equally, but not each character. The GM controls hundreds of NPCs over the course of a normal RPG. The PCs portray one character each. If the GM rolls more fumbles, it doesn't matter--next guy up. Plus, GMs want their players to succeed and have fun, so enemies failing is ultimately good. However, if the PC rolls a fumble, their only mode of interacting with the world just got boned and that is not good.

Once again, your argument is statistically irrelevant. If the DM is making die rolls more often than the players, then fumbles are going to affect the players' opponents (on the whole) more often than the players. Ergo, the fumble rule still favors the players while introducing the element of unpredictability and giving you player characters that are actually capable of making mistakes beyond "Oh, I missed."

Additionally, I know of VERY few players that only carry one weapon, and few fumbles that end up immediately fatal. Fumbles add dramatic tension to combat, and most good stories carry an element of that. In the grand scheme of things, players also usually enjoy it when everything isn't a cake walk and just a continual rolling of die and "miss" "hit" "miss" "hit".

If you do not want your player characters to be capable of mistakes in combat beyond perhaps overall tactical planning (or more accurately lack thereof), then you don't have to use the fumble rules, and that's fine. But the statistical arguments are ignoring that Fumble rules, if equally applied, will affect DMNPCs more often than PCs. It's irrelevant if there are more "individual characters", as it's all about the total number of die rolls from either side.

Yeah!

Also, high level fighters aren't just making more attacks therefore will fumble more! The game system is representing that, in any six second chunk of combat, higher level fighters will attack effectively more often than less skilled fighters, not that they are throwing their weapons around more often!

Except that other characters that are less skilled with weaponry don't even have the capability to make those extra attacks. The Fighter's increased skill with such weaponry is reflected in the fact that they get multiple attacks at all. If the intent were that doing so was just as easy as making a single attack, then why does the fighter have lower attack bonuses on each successive attack? (Hint: Because it's harder to do than one single attack!) Beyond that, on the whole, I'm quite willing to bet that the ability to perform multiple attacks generates amounts of damage that vastly outweigh the risk of more fumbles.

Yes, even an untrained farmer is going to have less of a chance of stabbing with his pitchfork without dropping it once in six seconds than a trained fighter is going to have of swinging a sword without incident four times in that same amount of time, especially in the heat of combat. The difference is the farmer wouldn't be able to swing/stab his pitchfork four times in six seconds at all.

With Hero Lab it makes creating characters so much easier.

And yes, I have made way more characters then I could ever play, ever.

Hero Lab for a "character creation-obsessed" person is like giving a heroin addict an IV that's connected to an oil tanker....

The snarky in me would add

"If you've ever crafted for profit or advocated for such."

Beat me to it, though I was going to say:

"You've ever used the item creation rules as written for anything."

So I've seen several people here mention that it's statistically unfair to follow fumble rules because "the average NPC only lasts one encounter so they don't get affected by the fumble rules as often" or something to that effect.

That seems...a ridiculous argument, because the chance of fumble collectively affects every single NPC the DM is running. Given that in most circumstances, the GM is going to be rolling far more times than the PCs (since in many cases the opponents outnumber the PCs), the chance of fumble actually affects the DM more so than the PCs, or at the very least is statistically (roughly) equal.

Ergo in the grand scheme of things, and in the context of the overall game, fumbles affect PC and NPCs equally.

I will grant that multiple attacks grant a higher chance of fumble, but this also seems in keeping with the spirit of the rules...more attacks per round give you a greater chance to miss with the latter attacks. The capability to make multiple attacks in a given timeframe is in and of itself the representation of a character's greater skill at arms, but that doesn't mean making those attacks is easy or that they should come without risk. If I pace back and forth across a room 400 times rather than 100 times, there is indeed a higher possibility that I'll trip and fall flat on my face when the number of revolutions is higher, and even more so if I'm trying to do the four-times-greater iteration in the same timespan as the lesser (since now I'm speeding up and paying less attention to stepping carefully).

This isn't to say that anyone's a horrible DM for not using fumble rules, just pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, it not only makes sense, it also balances out not between individual characters and individual NPCs, but between player and DM.

All in all I was pleased with the conclusion, particularly in the sense that it genuinely WAS full of surprises (at least for me). Very few of the conflicts turned out the way I thought they would, and the final fates of many characters was definitely a shock even if in hindsight I should have realized that many of them were basically expendable.

The main gripe I had with the book (again with the caveat that overall I very much enjoyed it) was what felt like a lack of emotional payoff. Yes, there were plenty of emotional moments here and there, but even much of what was there felt incredibly rushed. As blasphemous as it may be to say, I almost think one more book wouldn't have been unwarranted. Almost. Simply because there was so much of the actual "last battle" to cram into the book that a lot of the "human" moments seemed to get lost in the shuffle.

While I was thrilled with the payoff/send-off for Rand (trying to be relatively non-spoilery here), I did feel there was a comparative lack of closure/proper "farewell" to many of the other characters. Though by the same token with many of them it's not hard to extrapolate how things might have gone/where they ended up (if they survived). I didn't need a Harry Potter "20 years later" epilogue but the book does really seem to end quite abruptly.

On one hand, I'm glad there's very much a sense of "the world continues past this" (I don't think it's too spoiler-y to say the good guys ultimately prevail...it'd be quite anticlimactic as a series if they didn't), on the other...despite the many years and thousands upon thousands of pages...I still kind of want to know more. Ultimately I think this will remain one of my favorite fantasy series, despite the criticisms (many of which are warranted in the grand scheme of things), and while I'm glad we got a conclusion I'm definitely a bit sad to see it go.

Been waiting for an opportunity to play one of the Swordlords. Haven't had it yet.

The idea that the Church of Abadar would have different branches for different aspects of the faith certainly makes sense, as I would imagine his faith is rigidly and thoroughly organized and hierarchical.

Hmm, I had presumed that Abadar's faith would have a "Grand High Priest" of some sort, but now that I think on it, with the "community" aspect it could well be that each "branch" would have a high priest and they work together in a committee/council to administer the faith as a whole.

I don't have the Adventure Path book that goes into detail on Abadar and his church, but a thought struck me as I was pondering Abadar and his faithful:

As a God of Nobility, would Paladins and Clerics of Abadar have to be from the Noble classes?

Would the higher ranks of his church hierarchy be reserved for those of noble blood or title (as I would imagine that Abadar himself would not discriminate between those who are noble through inheritance and those who were lawfully raised to the ranks of nobility)?

Would a Paladin of Abadar be required to be a "social climber" (in a lawful good sort of way, of course) if not already born into the nobility? If not, would they be expected to defer to those that were (assuming no chaotic or evil actions are involved)?

Or would it all depend on the particular sect/temple/locale in question?

That's what I get for having multiple tabs open at the same time. I intended this for the Pathfinder Campaign Setting board...) Pay it no mind....*waves hand* This isn't the post you're looking for....

By Urgathoa's nonexistent nethers, I like this idea!

Probably because I'd already been pondering a Dwarf that would unveil a seemingly endless supply of oaths and curses over the course of the campaign, growing more vulgar, silly, or nonsensical as time wore on.

Also, as others have noted, it would probably depend on which deity the Paladin follows and the circumstances involved (IE the Washington example...normally careful in speech but can curse up a storm in the midst of a fight...I could see that for Clerics of Iomedae for example).

Torag and Erastil? Yeah, could definitely see some salty, coarse-languaged folks following them. As noted above, just be mindful that their language isn't hurtful of those that don't deserve it.

Abadar and Shelyn would seem least likely to be "OK" with that sort of thing. Abadar because he's also the God of Nobility and coarse language is supposed to be more an affectation of the "lesser classes" (not that many nobles can't or don't curse up a storm, but we're talking about an exemplar). Shelyn because such language is more often than not "ugly." Yeah, there are rare folks that can raise vulgarity to an art form, but those are rare exceptions. If the Paladin was like that, then great, but otherwise they'd be falling into the "ugly" side of the spectrum.

I think there may be some misconception on the players' part about the desired result of a brace. Yes, they might hope that one of their opponents charges into it, but reasonably intelligent opponents are going to see the combatant "brace" and react accordingly. Yes, that means they may move towards the opponent normally and lose the normal bonuses for charging. Or it means they might choose another target altogether. In other words, the intent behind a brace can be just as much "don't charge me" as it is "No, come on and charge me so I can get a big hit." It's making yourself a less attractive target. Of course if the opponent in question isn't very bright they might (and should) charge normally (or if, as in the troll example above, they might be a bit cocky due to abilities like regeneration, etc...).

Now the AoO question certainly is a valid one and one worth considering. Personally, I would allow the AoO as normal, because to my mind a "regular" move is a slower, more deliberate movement than a charge, which would give the "bracer" time to readjust. Now maybe you could provide some kind of offset like a slight penalty to the attack or reducing the threat range of a braced reach weapon, but I think allowing the AOO is fair in these circumstances. Obviously not at double damage.

I also really like the idea of Bracing being used for other "violent rush" actions. I'm definitely gonna houserule that I think, even though my players rarely use polearms.

The base creature looses all feats when it becomes a normal skeleton.

The skeletal champion is a template you add to a living creature and while it uses some stats of the skeleton when it comes to feats all the skeletal champions stat block says is that it gains improved initiative as a bonus feat.

Does that mean a skeletal champion keep all the feats of the base creature?

I'd say yes. My impression has always been that's kinda the point of skeletal champions.

"I think you guys/gals severely overestimate Cheliax's power, unity (loyalty to itself), and position in the world."

If anything, we may be underestimating Cheliax. They have an innate advantage almost no one else in Golarian has, fiends.

Think about it from Asmodeus' point of view, "Hmmm, my number one source of souls is about to go under... time to send in some reinforcements." Or probably more correctly... "Well Abrogail, it appears this little war of yours is not going so well. I could send you some help, for a price of course."

Even a small army of Devils could quickly turn the tide of war in Cheliax's favor, if nothing else to recoup whatever losses Cheliax had suffered. Although devils may be stoppable by groups of hardened heroes (read the PC's), for most rank and file armies on Golarian the sight of even a single Pit Fiend (for example) would make most troops turn and run. Those who didn't, well Pharasma always has room for one more on line right?

Also in Cheliax's favor is geography. Most of the countries natural enemies are a few hundred, if not thousand miles away. The only natural enemy local is Andoran. Where as Cheliax has loyal vassal and/or allied states in Nidal, Molthune, & Isger all right next door.

I'm pretty sure that summoning armies of Devils en masse to Golarion is:

A: Not that easy, even for Asmodeus (otherwise he'd likely have done it already). In fact I would wager that it would require a degree of blood sacrifices (or something of that nature) that would cause Cheliax to start cannibalizing its' human resources to get more Devils in the ranks. That or opening up a second Worldwound in Cheliax. Neither scenario would have helpful implications for Cheliax as a nation or Queen Abrogail's rule. Remember that the official party line is not "Cheliax serves hell" it's "Hell serves Cheliax" and the scenario you present would quickly turn that little bit of propaganda on its head and would realistically lead to a great deal of internal revolt in Cheliax (even Lawful people can revolt if the government's trying to feed them to Devils)...or at least enough that Cheliax would have to tie up valuable resources keeping its' own nation in order while trying to fight a war at the same time (especially if you have agents of other nations stirring up said revolts). Heck, arguably even the Hellknights would balk at a genuine Devil takeover of Cheliax.

and

B: The scenario as presented almost certainly would to result in other deities and planar powers taking a hand in things, whether directly or indirectly. Hey look! Suddenly Andoran has a whole bunch of good-aligned outsiders patrolling its' borders...

Okay, this is a long thread and I'm not going to read the responses.

The OP wants to talk about societal ramifications. I've touched on this in an unrelated thread.

Charm person is absolutely toxic to the rule of law. Because it has a nonzero chance of causing the victim to commit acts contrary to their own morality as long as they aren't suicidal it is unjust to punish someone who committed a crime under the influence of charm person equally to someone who committed the same crime without magical influence.

There is no way to prove whether or not someone was charmed after the fact. The mere existence of the charm spell makes justice impossible.

Charm can be used to induce people to accept contracts they would not normally accept, and cannot be proven or disproven after the fact, poisoning the validity of contracts in general.

The rule of law and charm person cannot coexist. Arcane casters (except summoners and magi, but how do you tell the difference between a magus and a wizard/martial multiclass without looking at their character sheet?) must die or be exiled unless knowledge of the spell can be extinguished.

Without the ability to use an opposed charisma check to get results better than diplomacy it can be tolerated enough to not drive out arcanists, but should still be criminal for the same reason consent under the influence of mind altering substances is not valid consent.

Dominate is actually less bad. While it can still be used for contract fraud the extreme behavior changes it induces make it possible for witnesses to identify dominated people with enough reliability to salvage the notion of criminal justice. There will still be magic induced miscarriages of justice, but at least you can try to sort things out.

If you follow this logic, no magic should be permitted at all, anywhere, ever. Charm Person is hardly the only thing in the spell catalogs that would be a nightmare in regards to "rule of law."

Not to mention that this position you've taken seems to inherently presume the existence of such things as evidence-based hearings, trials, etc... when it's just as likely to be "Some nobleman/noble-appointed magistrate said I'm guilty so I'm guilty" or even simple "might makes right" or "possession is 9/10s of the law" (unless you "possessed" something belonging to the right/wrong noble).

Trying to apply "semi realistic" law to fantasy settings (particularly high-magic fantasy) is much like trying to do the same in a Superhero setting: It simply doesn't work well. "Realistically" the societies in question would have created laws that adjust and account for the problems that common understanding of the existence of magic and superhuman abilities cause (with varying degrees of success of course) but instead there often seems to be attempts to apply our own real-world frame of reference to settings in which such a thing is like fitting a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

Most D&D style settings seem to present an overall general acceptance of magic with degrees of regional variation and regulation: A nation or two that are "magic-user ruled" or "magic friendly" and one or two where magic-users are persecuted or oppressively regulated, with a whole lot of in-between. How the tavern-dwellers in the original scenario presented would react would almost always depend heavily on what the local opinion of magic in general is.

And of course, how strictly "realistic" your game master wants to be.

So objectively speaking of the morality of the act in a real-world context as the OP apparently wants us to: The act is not bad in any way, shape, or form, because it's a fictional act being perpetrated on a fictional character. In other words no act actually occurred.

In terms of crowd reaction: If the crowd is so blase (or hardcore) that they watch assassins and adventurers fight it out in the middle of the local tavern and calmly and keenly observe all the actions going on after the melee has ended, I'd imagine they're hardened enough that a little magic isn't going to faze them, since they obviously don't fear death or bodily harm while a bunch of (presumably) strangers are swinging swords and spells and whatnot around nearby. Unless it's specifically a magic-hating/magic outlawing society, in which case someone in the melee probably already cast some magic so they're screwed either way.

If the commoners ARE afraid they're probably not exactly going to rush off to rat out the folks who just WON the fight, lest they become the next victim. If they choose to have a negative opinion of the spellcaster/spellcasters in general because of the Charm Person, that's their own fault, not the fault of the party. Otherwise folks would have to start shifting alignment everytime they botched a Diplomacy check.

Though if you live in a society where magic is commonplace enough that the average tavern-goer can recognize a charm person spell/more subtle magic being cast and immediately know what's going on, I'd question the notion that Magic is particularly "taboo" in that world.

Hard to portray because it's all in the timing and tone, but I'll try:

Scenario 1: One of our players ("J") always played the exact same character in every 3.5 campaign we played: A buxom, dark (brown) skinned, white-haired female elven archer (Ranger) of Chaotic Neutral alignment. Basically Storm of the X-Men with pointy ears and a bow. Personality wise she was basically a "get rich quick" schemer, constantly trying to con (or "charm") just about every merchant or person of authority in town to try to get the things (s)he wanted (usually money). Bear in mind that "J" is a 30ish human male player for imagery's sake.

So at one point in one of our campaigns "J" has wandered off with the Half-Orc Barbarian ("B") to try to find the "general store" owner of the particular town we were in. They knock on the door, and the shopkeepers 10-year old daughter opens the door.

"J" says in a "soothing" voice: "Hello little girl, is your father home?"

GM as little girl: "No..."

"J" says in the same soothing tone, but at a strangely "urgent" tempo and responding practically before the DM has finished answering: "Can I come in?"

It was a case of OOC blurring the line but his delivery was so perfectly creepy that the entire table ended up in tears.

Scenario 2: Same player, same character, different campaign, trying to pawn off loot from our last adventure on one of the local merchants:

"J": "But these daggers were forged with iron from the legendary Mines of Galidor!" (Completely making this up as he goes along)

*NPC refuses to buy them for a copper more than he originally offered*

"J": "Well, how about I just trade them for a quiver of masterwork arrows?"

NPC: "No, that'll cost you the daggers and 2000 gold pieces."

"J": "2000 gold pieces, that's outrageous!"

NPC *deadpan*: "They're made with wood gathered from the fabled Forest of F***youtopia."

*Cue laughter*

Scenario 3: We had invited a new fellow to our game who turned out to be...a little odd, even by gamer standards. At one point in our session, this new player goes off on a completely non-sequitur tangent in conversation that has nothing to do with the game or well, anything that was really being discussed previously (seriously it was about the ice in his cup cracking). As he concludes, one of our other players, who is ordinarily one of the nicest and most inoffensive guys you'll meet responds in a positively acidic tone:

"Yeah man, I like Chocolate Chip Cookies, too."

Of course, if I do play good, I like Good with a capital "G". I don't think Wolverine would even pass my litmus test for a GOOD character. Empathy is the basis of all good, and in most incarnations, Wolverine was straddling the sociopath line. I'd put him at Chaotic Neutral at best. (Chaotic Evil any time Marvel decided to go darker and edgier.)

I'd have to disagree there. I've never bought the notion that "Good" characters in most fantasy RPGs can't or won't kill a whole lotta bad things in the course of their adventures and likely not shed many tears over it. Others are free to interpret otherwise, but I and my gamers tend to prefer things be a little more simple than trying to figure out what to do with all those unconscious opponents the Good character(s) always leaves around and get into debates about whether it's OK to kill intelligent opponents in the heat of combat. If that's the kind of roleplay you and your players enjoy, then that's great, but if you want to remove all the hack and slash from the game, I personally would tend to think there are other RPGs better suited to that.

But in the case of Wolverine you're faced with the fact that any character with as long a history and multitude of writers and interpretations will not easily fit into the alignment conventions of the game, because most heavily-developed characters don't. People don't fit into neat little personality boxes, there are massive shades of grey and "tendencies" involved.

Wolverine might chafe at authority but he also follows it when he knows it's the right thing to do and he respects the leader giving him the orders. He's dedicated to the X-Men's cause(s), and a highly disciplined warrior when he's not in "berserker" mode. He's extremely loyal to his friends (not something that can be said of most Chaotic Neutral characters), and most certainly does not regularly put his own needs above all else.

As I said, he doesn't always easily fit into a specific alignment, but I would agree with others that overall "Chaotic Good" fits him far better than Chaotic Neutral.

Jmacq1 wrote:

Just out of idle curiosity as I only own a few of the Adventure paths thus far and am curious about several of the topics in these articles: Is the information from many of the articles replicated elsewhere? For instance, are the "God articles" basically covered by the "Faiths" books or do they go into much more detail?

The diety articles in the APs are 6-10 pages each, compared to the column or so they get in the Inner Sea World Guide or the two pages each in Gods and Magic or the Faiths books. Many of the AP articles, especially the earlier ones, tended to be longer because they included spells and prestige classes peculiar to that faith. All of the articles have the same bones, but the AP articles have the most meat on them; the Faiths series are like a great gravy, since they give you a lot of 'flavour' in the form of many very good RP tips for playing a character of Diety X, but simply don't have the same amount of space per diety for the more day-to-day details.

Putting the AP article and the Faiths of X article for a given god together would be the ideal mix, IMO, but alas, I don't have all of the AP issues, so my free opinion may be worth what you've paid for it. :S

It'd certainly be nice to have a single source for all this stuff, particularly as old APs start to sell out in print form. An updated "Gods and Magic" as it were, or even a big ol' hardcover "Gods of The Inner Sea" that goes into more detail on some of the minor/racial deities or some of the powerful Outsiders that have prolific cults or even a segment on the Aboleths (to give it some length worthy of a hardcover). Then again, the articles are undoubtedly an incentive for folks to go out and buy the APs even if they don't necessarily plan to play the APs themselves, so it may be doubtful that Paizo would make such a move.

Just out of idle curiosity as I only own a few of the Adventure paths thus far and am curious about several of the topics in these articles: Is the information from many of the articles replicated elsewhere? For instance, are the "God articles" basically covered by the "Faiths" books or do they go into much more detail?

Got the Second Darkness bundle and a few odds and ends (map packs and the like). Was hoping the CoCT bundle would get the same kind of deep discount, but it didn't drop under a level that would allow me to afford both of them.

Well it's House Rules/Homebrew so I say "Have at it, whatever works for your game and players."

From a more detailed/personal viewpoint, I can see both sides of the argument. I LOVE RAW Paladins. I've played a lot of them. I think they fill a potent (western) cultural touchstone.

I also completely agree with others that they should ideally have been a prestige class.

I also really loved the "Variant Paladins" ideas that WotC/TSR popped out from time to time.

From a practicality standpoint on some of the more problematic "hardline" alignment followers I'd put things this way:

Neutral: Less about "alignment" and more about "cause." Neutral characters are perfectly capable of feeling strongly about things. A "champion" of a neutral deity of magic could be devoted to advancing and preserving the knowledge and study of magic in the world, regardless of the alignment of those practicing it. They'd be fans of both Dumbledore and Voldemort, to use a Harry Potter example.

A neutral deity of death could make a champion a relentless hunter of the Undead (for example). But that could quickly lead to a whole boatload of rules for every specific occasion, so not likely a practical solution.

Alternately a generalist (non-Deity specific) Champion could be devoted to balance, making sure neither side gets too powerful in the grand scheme of things (and I would suggest that their "smite" could be either good, evil, law, or chaos, but has to be chosen at the beginning of the day and cannot be altered until the next day/8 hour rest period, and they cannot have the same "smite" two days in a row). They might spend one adventure helping the rebellion free a Kingdom from a tyrannical ruler, only to spend the next helping a scheming bastard son of the ruler the next kingdom over seize the throne in a military coup.

Chaotic Neutral: I don't think chaotic needs to automatically mean "fight against the law/authority at all times." Practically speaking I would play a Chaotic Neutral "Champion" as an "agent of change." They would have to actively work towards altering the status quo in ways both large and small as opportunity allows.

Side Note: I'm kinda hoping that in addition to "Champions of Purity" we get "Champions of Balance" and "Champions of Corruption" (and actually I'd bet we do).

TOZ wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Be careful when using real world logic because in today's society there is no such thing as evil.

*falls over laughing*

I'm sorry but it's true to an extent. You hear about mother's drowning their children and the first thing that pops up is what kind of mental condition does she have not she's just some evil mother who decided to kill her children.

Because she's probably NOT "just some evil mother who decided to kill her children." Most individuals that evidence genuine, direct, willful evil do in fact have psychological conditions that make those actions possible and palatable to them (psycho- or sociopathy for example). Evil could even be considered a form of insanity in and of itself, or it becomes more a chicken-and-egg argument. The kind of evil you use in your example is not normal human behavior, ergo they do not have a normal human mind.

You're evidencing a ridiculously black and white (or perhaps just uninformed) view of the world. Certainly, evil exists, but that doesn't mean that it often isn't built on a foundation of psychological flaws and aberrations, and in many cases where underlying psychological reasons are found, the perpetrators are still punished regardless. The "insanity defense" is actually far less commonly used let alone as successful as fiction often portrays.

Basically, insanity/psychological instability is more often used to describe the reason for the crime, not to provide an excuse for it. Insanity pleas only work if you can prove the suspect could not distinguish between right and wrong, and even if successful will likely mean years of confinement in a treatment facility, making it effectively a prison sentence anyway.

Now when it comes to more indirect/less extreme forms of evil, it usually boils down purely to greed and self-interest coupled with the natural human tendency to not really give much of a damn about any human beings you don't know (and like) personally. Some people have a greater capacity for empathy with the faceless masses than others, but by and large even the deaths of large numbers of people elicit more of a detached "Oh that's too bad/such a tragedy" than massive levels of righteous indignation and fury in those not directly affected by such losses.

Does that apply if they attack you while you're breaking into their home for no better reason than looking for a magic item?

As noted above, the locale in question was essentially public property. As such, the Girls would have no right to keep them out just because they were squatting there. If someone attacks you with a deadly weapon on public property, you're still justified in self-defense.

Also: It depends on how important the magic item in question is, and the consequences if said item is not found and/or falls into or remains in the wrong hands.

Isn't the real question whether the PCs have the right to execute punishment, capital or otherwise? Can a Lawful character be a vigilante? I don't think so! Fighting in self defense is one thing, but unless the law of the land has provision for citizen's arrest then making the first move would be illegal. Maybe a Chaotic Good character might try to incapacitate them non-lethally, but it would probably be improper for a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral character to get involved without a warrent or comission. A Chaotic Neutral character, on the other hand, might not have too many scruples about their actions.

I believe it is specifically noted in multiple sources that Lawful characters can still defy the law if it does not align with the other side of their alignment spectrum. To my mind "Lawful" is not a term that only means "Obeys the law at all costs" (though I agree with your later interpretation of Lawful Neutral as hewing closer to that description). It is just as much "strictly adheres to a personal code" and "favors order over chaos." The law itself can be disorderly or contribute to chaos and disorganization. A Paladin, for example, should not be expected to follow a law in a evil-aligned kingdom that requires or supports the sacrifice of innocents on a weekly basis just because "it's the law" and should not to my mind suffer any alignment penalties or shifts for doing so. Same thing with slavery or other evil acts which may be perfectly legal in a given place.

Would anyone argue that (for example) Superman has not been a "lawful good" character for most of his existence (though I would mark his earliest and most recent incarnations as closer to neutral good)? Yet, at various times in his career he has operated without government sanction or approval. Indeed at other times he has actively worked against it when he felt it served the greater good. The same could be said of Captain America, a character often held up as a typical example of "lawful good" when such descriptions are applied across genres and media.

Jmacq1 wrote:

I've always kind of assumed that most fantasy RPGs operate under a general morality that's closer to medieval mindsets than modern-day morality. In other words...life is harsher and cheaper than we tend to think of it in the present day.

Life, in medieval times, wasn't as cheep as it's often caricatured. Sure, people died of diesease more often, but the law was the law. Have a read of some medieval philosophers. Lynch mobs in some of the more frontier areas of Medieval Europe were probably no more common than in the Southern States in the Twentieth Century, but in other places such things weren't tolerated. A vigilante in the Twelfth Century was still a vigilante. Sure, there were probably more people (local lords and such) who had the legal right to execute capital punishment, but it's unlikely such rights extended to random soujorners off the street. A CG person might throw themselves into a nest of bandits and hack and slash without regard, but a LG or LN wouldn't without the proper paperwork.

Yes, and capital punishment was FAR more common, and many nobles had absolute power over life and death over commoners under their rule. In short life was not so highly prized as it is in the modern era, largely because there was a much higher chance you were going to lose it prematurely, and even if you didn't life expectancies were generally far shorter.

But I should amend my original statement to read "to the morality of the typical fantasy medieval world." If I intend to run an intensely realistic simulation of medieval life, then what you speak of is excellent information, but there comes a point where the the "realism" can very much get in the way of the "fantasy."

Don't mistake me: If deep ruminations on law vs. chaos, good vs. evil, and the moral and ethical implications of every single action a typical adventuring party will take over the course of a campaign is what you and your players enjoy, then by all means have at it. To my mind, though, you're reaching a level of examination that in most campaigns would start to impede virtually every decision the players make if there is so much as a single lawful character among them (or any characters really, since the flipside of the coin is that chaotic characters would be violating their alignment almost every time they -obeyed- the law, and Neutral characters would be violating their alignment every time they did...nearly anything at all of significance.

And of course, your argument also bases itself off the presumption that vigilantism is specifically noted as illegal in the fantasy kingdoms being described. Given that we rarely see "the book of law" for every given kingdom, and more often then not (at least in the "typical" campaign settings and adventure paths) governmental authorities are often just as quick to reward those that perform vigilante actions that result in favorable outcomes than condemn them for it, that may be a big assumption.

Harrison wrote:

This whole situation was horribly handled.

The GM threw an impossible encounter at the party and the players made some really terrible decisions based on thins impossible encounter.

As a GM, were it me, I'd have immediately regretted the situation, gone back to the party and told them the session sucked ass and told them they were gonna redo it and hopefully it wouldn't have gone to s%@& like it did.

The encounter was far from impossible, not sure what you have been reading but it was a huge overgeared party. The vamp was also given very little gear as well considering.

As mentioned prior, the party took on a Graveknight cr 7 and the Samurai alone just about aced him. Sounds like the encounter was fine.

The party is what failed. The pally saw the aura strength of the vamp, but the party didnt. So why did they run? They dont know how powerful he is, just like more of them would not know how powerful most of the things they fight are without detections appropriate.

Why should the encounter be changed just because the party failed? If anything the gm could give the pally some fiat of assistance or survivability even if dropped.

It doesnt matter what the CR was, if the party just runs leaving a player or two to handle it, they will always fail. This one is no different, it was well within the parties ability to deal with it if they fought it as a you know, party.

I didn't mean to imply that a Paladin's ONLY option should be "See Evil: CHARGE! No matter the odds!" I also didn't see the OP's mention that the Paladin did attempt to restrain the villagers going into the wall, and also didn't realize we were speaking of a Gnomish Paladin until later, for that matter.

Given that information, I would not have "dinged" the Paladin for the Vampire encounter, as at least they tried SOMETHING. Part of my earlier issue with the Paladin in the scenario was the mistaken belief that they had essentially given up and just stood there while this all went on. However, there'd be a serious ding for standing by while the villagers were burned. Pardon the Marvel Comics reference, but it would've been time for a "Captain America Speech" at that point (The "It doesn't matter if you take a vote if what you vote for is wrong" speech).

Jmacq1 wrote:

Roberta Yang wrote:

> "I don't believe paladins are required to be Lawful Stupid"

> "I believe paladins are required to make futile heroic sacrifices"

K.

Perhaps context is a difficult concept for you to grasp, so let me explain for you again:

If it were a situation of "Vampire shows up in a room that only contains the Paladin's companions and the companions immediately flee," There's no reason the Paladin shouldn't flee as well.

In this situation of "Vampire shows up in a room filled with innocent people + the Pally's companions, and the companions flee," then yes...a potential heroic sacrifice is very well called-for. In this instance, it is a genuine heroic sacrifice. THe presence of a few dozen innocent villagers makes all the difference. Not to mention the "DM Fiat" aspect that the situation immediately takes on. If you're a strictly RAW, Dice-rule-all kind of player, then yeah, it's probably futile. Most DMs and players aren't, though.

I mean, maybe trying to stay in character and save lives is "stupid" and "futile" for you, but in that case, I doubt you'd ever properly play a Paladin anyway. The alignment and code of behavior are the balancing aspect of the character class. If you don't like it? Don't play 'em.

First of all, there's no call for rude personal attacks. It does nothing but demean you and argument.

Second of all, I really don't think you could ever get a group of, say, three people to agree on how a character should "properly" be played, even if that character were a paladin. Just because they have alignment restrictions and a code of conduct doesn't mean they can't have personalities. (I believe someone mentioned Order of the Stick? Plenty of paladins with personality there.) I would think it perfectly in character for the paladin to grit their teeth and wait for something to happen so that the valiant, reckless, suicidal charge can mean something more than a few seconds of life for the villagers. The...

Sorry, I replied to snark with snark. I'll try to keep a better rein on that. My apologies in particular to Roberta and Serum.

I think the fundamental difference here is that some folks are taking it for granted that it was guaranteed, 100 percent, no-matter-what that the Paladin would have died to no effect in the scenario if they attacked the Vampire. It seems some have decided that there's absolutely no way that such an action could have made any difference whatsoever. I take issue with that notion, and admittedly it's from my own perspective as both a player and Dungeon Master, and from having a tendency (and having had players with a tendency) to get some amazing "clutch" die rolls on a frighteningly frequent basis. That, and the OP already noted that they had made adjustments to weaken the opponent after the other characters fled and/or got some lousy dice rolls, implying that they DO in fact exercise DM fiat in situations like this.

From a mechanical perspective, the code of behavior is the only balancing factor that the Paladin really has as a class. If that code is so lax as to allow the Paladin to run away anytime anything bigger and badder shows up because it's the intelligent thing to do, what's the point? To my mind, the Paladin is the one that stands on the bridge while the others get away. They're the one that takes that last shot even if it probably won't do anything, because -not- trying is surrendering to despair when you're supposed to be a beacon of hope.

To me, these are moments for excellent roleplaying of an archetype that is supposed to be the epitome of heroism. That doesn't mean they're devoid of personality or "all alike" but yes, they absolutely share many fundamental similarities, and selflessness is a huge part of that.

These are my opinions, and I stand by them. If you believe they force the character to be "stupid" then you are entitled to that opinion, and I will not argue it further. What you (and your DMs) do with your characters and your campaigns is entirely up to you, and as long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.

Jmacq1 wrote:

Unless they get away while you're fighting. Unless the Dungeon Master chooses to play the situation out differently. Unless the Paladin gets some lucky dice rolls.

Have you only roleplayed with ironclad "RAW" Dungeon Masters? If so, I feel very sorry for you. If I wanted to play a game where the only thing that matters is dice rolls, I'd play Yahtzee.

The villagers were dominated. They weren't going anywhere. In fact, it's possible the Vampire could even have used a couple as meat shields while still sending others into the prismatic wall.

Sure. He "could have." But I guess in your games the DM doesn't have any control over how situations play out? Doesn't reward players staying true to what their characters should be?

If you don't like the standards Paladins are flat-out described as being held to, then don't play them, and don't allow them in your campaigns (or tailor them so their codes are not so strict if that's your preference).

At a bare minimum, just standing around and seething in this particular situation sure as heck isn't remotely close to "Paladin-like" behavior. Especially when it seems to stem more from a player's concern over his character than a character's concern for themselves. I would even accept "fleeing" as acceptable in this instance if it were in an attempt to rally his companions to get back in there and fight it out, but just standing there being angry? Nope, not gonna keep all your fancy powers and bonuses when IIRC it flat-out states that "allowing evil through inaction" can "ding" a Paladin too.

Jmacq1 wrote:

Roberta Yang wrote:

> "I don't believe paladins are required to be Lawful Stupid"

> "I believe paladins are required to make futile heroic sacrifices"

K.

Perhaps context is a difficult concept for you to grasp, so let me explain for you again:

If it were a situation of "Vampire shows up in a room that only contains the Paladin's companions and the companions immediately flee," There's no reason the Paladin shouldn't flee as well.

In this situation of "Vampire shows up in a room filled with innocent people + the Pally's companions, and the companions flee," then yes...a potential heroic sacrifice is very well called-for. In this instance, it is a genuine heroic sacrifice. THe presence of a few dozen innocent villagers makes all the difference. Not to mention the "DM Fiat" aspect that the situation immediately takes on. If you're a strictly RAW, Dice-rule-all kind of player, then yeah, it's probably futile. Most DMs and players aren't, though.

I mean, maybe trying to stay in character and save lives is "stupid" and "futile" for you, but in that case, I doubt you'd ever properly play a Paladin anyway. The alignment and code of behavior are the balancing aspect of the character class. If you don't like it? Don't play 'em.

Attacking the villain in a heroic sacrificial effort would just have resulted in the paladin's death, and followed quickly by dead villagers. You aren't "protecting innocents" by dying.

Unless they get away while you're fighting. Unless the Dungeon Master chooses to play the situation out differently. Unless the Paladin gets some lucky dice rolls.

I mean, it's not like selflessness is a big tenet of the Paladin codes or anything right? Oh wait....

Have you only roleplayed with ironclad "RAW" Dungeon Masters? If so, I feel very sorry for you. If I wanted to play a game where the only thing that matters are dice rolls, I'd play Yahtzee.

Then again, if you DID play with a RAW-only DM, you'd be forced to agree that I'm right, since y'know, that whole selflessness bit is right there in the rulebooks.

> "I don't believe paladins are required to be Lawful Stupid"

> "I believe paladins are required to make futile heroic sacrifices"

K.

Perhaps context is a difficult concept for you to grasp, so let me explain for you again:

If it were a situation of "Vampire shows up in a room that only contains the Paladin's companions and the companions immediately flee," There's no reason the Paladin shouldn't flee as well.

In this situation of "Vampire shows up in a room filled with innocent people + the Pally's companions, and the companions flee," then yes...a potential heroic sacrifice is very well called-for. In this instance, it is a genuine heroic sacrifice. THe presence of a few dozen innocent villagers makes all the difference. Not to mention the "DM Fiat" aspect that the situation immediately takes on. If you're a strictly RAW, Dice-rule-all kind of player, then yeah, it's probably futile. Most DMs and players aren't, though.

I mean, maybe trying to stay in character and save lives is "stupid" and "futile" for you, but in that case, I doubt you'd ever properly play a Paladin anyway. The alignment and code of behavior are the balancing aspect of the character class. If you don't like it? Don't play 'em.

A paladin doesn't need to sacrifice herself if the only result is her being dead. That's the epitome of the Stupid alignment.

And what if the potential result is that several innocent lives are spared?

Sorry, while I do agree that Paladins aren't required to be Lawful Stupid (with strong Good tendencies) to maintain their class/alignment, in this particular instance, I'd say anyone roleplaying a Paladin of ANY level that's true to his (or her) cause and vows would have thrown themselves against the Vampire regardless of the futility of it all. If nothing else they'd be trying to buy time for the villagers (or their friends/companions) to escape with their lives. There are few Paladin-like virtues higher than the genuinely heroic sacrifice, and in this case it would have been wholly justified.

So yeah...I'd have stripped this Paladin of their powers as soon as they decided "They're too high level, I'd just be committing suicide, so I'm just gonna sit here and seethe." A true Paladin would say "I'm going to die, but I'm going to give my all to make sure I sell my life dearly, and if even one life is saved due to my actions, then it will be worth it." In short, it was time for a "Boromir's Last Stand" moment.

I wouldn't say the situation was inherently a bad one from the DM perspective, but the player's actions compounded with how the DM played it out to make it...a bad situation all around. I would agree that a "do over" would be warranted -if- the players are amenable. If they like how things stand, make it clear that there will likely be IC consequences for it, up to and including alignment change and loss of powers.

As a DM, if I had a Pally player attack said vampire solo, there are a multitude of ways to handle the situation. If the player is mature enough to accept that these actions will likely result in him having to make a new character for the next session, then so be it, but let him or her have their moment of heroic glory and make the sacrifice worth something. This could even become a major plot point for the rest of the party (particularly good-aligned members) as they are struck with their failure to support their (presumably) friend and comrade when they immediately resorted to a cowardly retreat.

If you want to keep the Pally around (or they're NOT mature enough to handle losing their character...which seems like it may well be the case here), then a little (stat-boosting) divine intervention would likely not be out of place to make it a suddenly-even (or at least more even) fight, and give the players a fun gaming memory of the time that Vampire suddenly got a serious case of the "Oh Crap!" when someone they thought they could steamroll was suddenly kicking their arse. Or you could have the Vampire steamroll them, but spare their lives for not being "worth their time." Not necessarily as much fun for the players, but it successfully avoids punishing them for being true to their character.