Louis Lyons's page

I'm preparing to start Ironfang Invasion and really enjoy the plot progression through books 1-4 of the AP. Book 6 looks very creative and is well packaged as the finale of the AP also. My problem (not only with this AP but many of Paizo's) is that the focus of the campaign shifts too far from the goals of the players as the story progresses. Book 5 is a great example of this.

Why would the party spend the time and risk so much when diving into the Fangwood? I just don't think that the history of this scarey fey-filled land would lead many to believe the denizens would get involved in the war. The side quest of gaining the aid of anything within this forest is lending more to the production of the necessary number of volumes for the AP and the publisher's requirements rather than fortifying the great classic story of the Ironfang Invasion.

What would you recommend changing to make the story work when slicing out book 5 (other than CR modifications in book 6)?

Am I missing something and making a big mistake in the narrative by shortening the AP?

If anyone else has done this or is considering it, what have you done to make dropping book 5 work for your group?

Thanks for your feedback!

I completely understand your sentiment. Now, me, personally, I would replace the 5th book of Ironfang Invasion with the 3.5 Module Red Hand of Doom (leveling up and converting a lot of the enemies in that book appropriately). Because I think if the players are dealing with and attempting to stop an invasion of Hobgoblins, many of them are going to want to actually stop the invasion of Hobgoblins. I have a copy of that module and was going to use particular elements in it for my game at the appropriate juncture, so there is an idea for you.

I was going to go with a dramatic origin story where the paladin was given his powers fighting some chaotic evil attack and entered a contract to fight evil forever. I like the paladin being constantly high instead.

The opium throws off his perceptions about what is the greater evil to face allowing him to worship Asmodeus without thinking anything of it. Giving his oppenents 1d8 of temp hp with every swing seems like an honorable thing to do.

Maybe go with the chosen one archetype. Wait would that let you get an imp familiar as a paladin. You could have it start as a raven that only speaks infernal and tells our erstwhile crusader what to do. then it turns into an imp. If it is on golarion he could help our paladin constantly plan his crusade to purge the moon of evil.

Don Quixote style crusading sounds better than rigid enforcer.
ain't no rule saying paladins can't do all the drugs. Heck lay on hands and lesser restoration can get rid of the ability damage.

Alright, while I do give you points for fun zaniness, this does not jive from either a mechanical or RP perspective. And perhaps you could play a drug-addled fallen Paladin who thinks he is a wonderful person who has been given amazing divine powers by Asmodeus, when in reality your character is just delirious junky with delusions of grandeur. Because I cannot see how you would have any goodly divine powers whatsoever.

First, from whence would this hypothetical Paladin's powers actually emerge? In order to be a Paladin, you have to be both lawful and good, and stand for justice and abide by the Paladin's Code. While you do not necessarily have to worship a Good God like Clerics do, you do have to abide by the Paladin's code. Worshipping and following the moral precepts of an Evil God isn't simply "associating" with a lesser evil in order to defeat a greater evil. You are making yourself a servant to one of the greatest evils in the multiverse...Asmodeus is literally the divine embodiment of tyranny and oppression. And again, your character is LITERALLY WORSHIPPING HIM AND PUTTING HIS FAITH IN HIM. This isn't a mere "association" or "alliance of convenience," unless your understanding of religious conviction is like that of Beni Gabor's from The Mummy. Just wear a holy symbol and mutter some incantations. That's all a religion is!

Second, being a drug addict generally means you are giving into your most base desires (the pursuit of physical pleasure through drug highs) at the cost of other important moral duties. I do not know if you have had to deal with drug-addicted people IRL who are constantly high. The novelty of being around someone who constantly puts him/herself in a pleasurable drug-induced stupor wears off very quickly.

Now, perhaps you can play a Paladin who is able to maintain both his lawful good alignment while still being a slave to his drug addiction, never breaking any moral precepts or being derelict in his duties all the while being addicted to opium. A lot of drug addicts are able to live relatively normal lives and can function while in the grip of addiction, and can continue to do so as long as they can feed their addiction (at least until their addiction interferes with their lives and things fall apart and they choose to continue feeding their addiction over maintaining their other social responsibilities). In that same vein, the moment your paladin character has to choose between following his alignment and code, or feeding his addiction, what does he do? If he always follows his code lives up to his alignment and his code and does not fall...what exactly was the point from an role playing perspective? Why is he a drug addict if you are not going to play him as a drug addict? And if you are playing someone who you know is going to be unable to maintain his alignment when push comes to shove, why on earth be a Paladin?

I mean, if you want to play a character who is destined to fail and basically fall in the first play session, bully for you. I cannot think of a better character concept for such purposes. But, again, why not play the drug-addicted fighter or rogue? Or wizard or alchemist for that matter? Why do you want to play a character that you are essentially trying to cripple right out of the gate?

Another similar one is in Paizo's 3.5 Module Clash of the Kingslayers.

I've read through the first Ironfang Invasion book, but I've been hesitant to buy more until I know whether or not I'm gonna run it. Now that we're (almost) at the end, what's the overall impression people have of the adventure? Any weak sections/books? How does it compare to other adventure paths?

Since I am preparing to run the Ironfang Invasion as my main campaign in the next few months, my overall impression of it is extremely favorable and I would recommend it. One's mileage may vary, of course, but most of the Adventure Paths written by Paizo that I have truly enjoyed generally have one or two books that feel "out of place" or just do not match the tone set up by the prior books (or just plain do not work for me). For example, becoming the Kwizatz Haderach for the Shoanti Tribes in Book 4 of Curse of the Crimson Throne springs to mind as a massive departure from the general tone of a dark urban Gothic Horror adventure that I simply found jarring (it felt more like it belonged in Rise of the Runelords if anything, but that is neither here nor there). The Ironfang Invasion is the first Adventure Path where I do not feel that anything feels out of place. Everything seems to connect. And I love it.

As far as the adventure itself, and whether you would want to run it, it depends on what you enjoy. Here are some of the adventure's selling points:

1. It has a very classic Dungeons & Dragons feel, in that it takes place away from major civilization; Large portions involve wilderness exploration and survival; There are several dungeons to explore and delve into; and, of course, the adversaries are classic creatures of D&D, including an army of evil goblins, dragons, and a wicked fairy queen to defeat.

2. There is a wide array of environments too keep things interesting, but they are much more grounded in classic fantasy adventure. It involves forests, hills and plains, mountains and valleys, and the Darklands/Underdark, and later, extraplanar locations such as the Fey Wild and the Elemental Plane of Earth.

3. This is a game that involves careful resource management, and I do not just mean the new survival points subsystem, but that the characters must learn to use limited supplies, weaponry and items wisely. In the first two books, the players will not have the luxury of buying or selling much in the way of magic items, with the exception of the svirfneblin merchant if they find her. Even then, they can only buy and sell a limited number of things once per week. This changes of course when the players get to Longshadow and later to Kraggodan (or other locations in Nirmathas/Molthune if the GM allows). Speaking as a player, I love being able to survive by the skin of my teeth for the first several levels with limited resources before I get access to being able to purchase the fun toys that are higher level magic items.

4. The AP overall as others have mentioned is very sandboxy, so the world is both yours and your players' oyster. Because the campaign area is mainly open wilderness and frontier, this gives the GM many opportunities to put in encounters and dungeon locations in such a way as they do not feel forced or arbitrary. Nirmathas already has ancient Elven locations (such as Fangwood Keep), as well Dwarven ruins, not to mention Vault Builders. I plan on running Crypt of the Everflame, and having locations from Hollow's Last Hope/Crown of the Kobold King, and, of course, Fangwood Keep for my players to run across.

However, what are selling points for me may not be selling points for you, or, just as important, for many of your players. If you are gaming with players who have gotten used to being able to immediately go back to town to rest, recuperate and sell their loot and commission new custom weapons, armor, equipment and/or magic items, and they expect that from the early game onwards that is definitely going to be a problem. If your group wants to run an adventure that is much more heavily urban-based, or WAY more dungeon crawls, this is not for them (look to CoCT or Shattered Star). And if your players do not enjoy the sandbox, and prefer an adventure with much more clearly mapped-out goals to start off with (other than mere survival), then that might be a problem too for the first couple of books. Additionally, the classic feel itself, despite being polished to a mirror shine (whether the environment, the plot, the characters, the adversaries, etc.), may feel stale to some players who prefer to eschew the familiar and focus on novel or perhaps even outlandish adventures (I'm looking at you, Iron Gods).

So in the end, it is up to you as to whether you would wish to spend the money, time and effort purchasing the books or pdfs and running this adventure. I certainly did, and I think this is a phenomenal AP. But only you know what you enjoy, and, just as importantly, what your players enjoy. Take that into consideration above all else.

Hey guys

so my players are slowly working through Crown of the Kobold King. My LG War Priest has succumbed to the kiss of a Vargouille.

Now the only solution I can see out of this situation is the Heartripper Blade at the end of the dungeon. But using he has to sacrifice a creature which I would consider an evil act

do you think that using it should have ramifications on his alignment/spells/abilities in some way?

I find it helps to bring some moral clarity to most alignment questions, and many might be best solved by a version of the Golden Rule.

Most alignment questions seem to boil down to this:

"This Player of mine is proposing to commit [X Action] against [Particular Character] to achieve [Supposed Good Result]. Is [X Action] an evil act under the circumstances?"

Just replace [Particular Character] with someone you love and care for deeply. Perhaps your spouse or life partner; perhaps your child; perhaps a sibling or dearest friend.

Now, if [X Action] were committed against your loved one in a real life situation, would you consider it a heinous act? Would it shatter your life, traumatize your and perhaps permanently ruin your psyche knowing such an act were committed against someone you loved and treasured so much? If the answer to any of these questions is yes...it is probably an evil action.

Sawing someone's heart out while they are still alive and devouring it to cure a life threatening illness is probably squicky when you are sitting around the table passing the chips and Mountain Dew. Now try to imagine that being done to your son or daughter. In my opinion, you can call the person who did that many things. Good is not one of them. Even if they claim "But I really, REALLY needed to do that! Honest!"

In my opinion, I think you made the right call, Dylan.

Trail of the Hunted contains several references to hobgoblin soldiers being paid in gold for services or bounties. There's even an army payroll that comes up at one point.

Where do they spend it?

I thought that in Golarion, hobgoblins raid and pillage and use slave labor (and the downtrodden non-soldier hobgoblin underclass) to get the goods and services they need. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wasn't under the impression that there was a well established enough goblinoid civilization for them to have their own economy and commerce (except Kaoling in Tian Xia and maybe in the Darklands) and most cities don't really welcome hobgoblins (at least not in army platoon form.)

What's the point of coin, if you don't have anywhere to spend it?

I can think of a couple few places where they could, like Kaer Maga and Urgir, but it seems like a long way to go to spend your foot-soldier wages.

Honestly, I could copy/paste this query for most situations involving "monster-folk" carrying coin pouches when they don't seem to have an opportunity to participate in trade and commerce.

Very good questions. First, let us look at the hobgoblin people as a whole. Unlike orcs, Hobgoblins are not a barbaric hunter-gatherer society. Unlike their kin the goblins who live in relatively small tribes, or bugbears which gather in small familial bands, Hobgoblins form themselves into massive armies that need literal tons of foodstuffs each day to stay functional when at war. At the very least, even at peacetime, the hobgoblins need to be able to feed themselves. Even if they only eat meat (I cannot remember if Hobgoblins are carnivorous; I thought they were omnivorous?), they still need cattle, sheep, goats, and the fodder with which to feed them. They would thus need the means of growing massive amounts of food that only agricultural societies are capable of producing. But as has been established in the canon, Hobgoblins are not farmers or herders. They are warriors and slave masters. The only tools fit for hobgoblin hands are the sword and the whip, not the plow or shepherd's crook. In spite of their violent nature, Hobgoblins are one of the most "civilized" of the monster races and are capable of developing complex, hierarchical societies with functioning economies. As has been shown in your cited example of Kaoling, this is one example of a major Hobgoblin society and it is a brutally rigid, stratified caste system reminiscent of Japan's government during the Edo Period under the Tokugawa Shogunate. The Hobgoblins act as the Samurai caste, and non-hobgoblins are serfs who must demonstrate absolute obedience and provide goods and services to their military masters in exchange for protection.

With that extremely long preamble out of the way, as for what hobgoblins in general spend their money on in a practical sense, they would most likely spend their money trading for goods that they do not have the ability to make (or force their slaves to produce) with traders and societies who are too powerful for them to conquer or enslave outright. The second thing that Hobgoblins spend their spoils or military pay on, most likely, would be slaves. As a helotistic society, the center of Hobgoblin life and its economy, both in war time and in peacetime is slavery. Third, the hobgoblins would pay each other for the products of their respective slaves' labor. A hobgoblin who owns several shepherd slaves and sheep would probably sell meat to hobgoblins who like the taste of fresh mutton lamb and want something more than the standard military fare (which probably consists of heavily salted or dried meats); or might sell wool to a hobgoblin who owns a family of enslaved weavers, and in turn sells woolen cloaks and clothing to hobgoblins who want warm-weather gear, etc. And finally, the Fourth thing that Hobgoblins would spend their money on would be land to either purchase or lease. The reason I say land is because what good would be owning a bunch of slaves whose only useful skill is farming if they have no land with which to farm? Or slave miners if there are no mines or quarries that their owner has a right to use? Or for that matter, land on which the slaves would live while their master is off to war?

With that in mind, looking at the Hobgoblins of the Ironfang Invasion (and depending on how the series of APs unfolds), it would be necessary for them to develop a monetary system for their own internal trade economy for the above reasons. First, they are capturing large swathes of territory and enslaving many thousands of people who will act their tillers of soil, hewers of wood, and drawers of water. These enslaved people will literally be the means of production who would provide the goods and services to their hobgoblin overlords. Working under the presumption that individual hobgoblins of whatever rank can purchase and own slaves, the mark of wealth and prestige in their society would be the number of slaves one owns as well as any particular slave's individual talents. I imagine that a hobgoblin who owns a dwarven blacksmith slave would be considered of far greater prestige (and probably would have had to have been of higher rank to afford purchasing such a talented slave) than a hobgoblin who owned, say, a family of turnip farmer slaves.

I just want to point out that is a famous moral dilemma discussed for years. The tram problem.

The tram problem goes as follows: there is a tram traveling down a track towards a fork. One side of the fork has multiple people tied to it. The other side has one. The tram will hit the many people unless you pull a level to send it down the other fork.
The same situation could apply to people walking across the forks. Not tied down. So no third party has any blame.

There are also defined moral reasons to explain how people have been arguing this. I can't for the life of me remember the names. One says that any action or inaction is wrong as it results in death. Utilitarian morals I believe they are called, state that inaction is the wrong choice as action to shift the cart protects more human life.

I believe that when all other options are exhausted, one must approximate to the best of their ability which choice is the objectively better. Inaction or action.

Inaction in this matter might be horrible. But it is just that. Inaction. You are not responsible for someone's death if you did not put the events in motion that led to that death. You are not the killer if you do not jump in front of the bullet. On the other hand, one must consider both the moral and possibly the legal ramifications of such an action. You see, intentionally changing the tracks when you have considered the consequences and are absolutely sure that doing so will lead to someone's death (i.e., premeditation upon the action) has a very specific word attached to it. It is known as "Murder."

Of course, there are justifications for knowingly taking action that lead to someone's death, including self-defense and defense of the lives of others. But that is only a defense if the person being killed is the aggressor, not if they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

So here is the REAL question for any "Greater Good" advocate: Would you, in real life, or would your character in the game, after having killed an innocent person or group of innocents for the net "greater good" be willing to turn yourself over the authorities and face your punishment for having killed those people? After having made the relatively easy decision to sacrifice others, will you stand by your principles and make the far more difficult decision to sacrifice yourself?

In this case, slaughtering the family is a net good.

A net good. Wonderful. But it is still the murder of an innocent family of men women and children that has done no wrong to warrant such an end. Perhaps you can justify it from a philosophical standpoint and debates with net goods versus net evil. Try justifying it to a Court of Law and a jury of your peers.

And turning to the personal for a moment: would you accept such justifications if it were your family who was on the tracks or up for being slaughtered for the supposed greater good?

While inaction is an objectively evil act.

Inaction is quite literally not an "act."

It is not good to simply not kill anyone. It is evil to allow people to die when you had an option to save them where net life is saved

And what do you tell the families of those people you murdered? "The deaths of your mother/father/brother/sisters/sons/daughters were necessary in order to prevent more people from dying. I could not have acted in any other way other than to kill those you loved and cherished in order to maintain my moral principles."? I mean, perhaps that is what you/your character would say. Just as long as you are okay with being led to the gallows or into a prison cell for the rest of your life afterwards.

You know, I just thought of a plausible scenario in which killing a single family of innocent people would save many many more families.

Think of a Game of Thrones-style Medieval civil war, in which numerous noble families are fighting over a throne. The countryside is being ravaged by war, and two noble families have legitimate claim to the throne. As long as a single member of the rival royal family lives, supporters will flock to and rally around that family in order to put them on the throne; and the supporters have already risked and sacrificed too much already to come to terms and seek peace now. Further, the noble houses on the losing side of this war will face execution, exile, and dispossession of their lands and titles; they have no choice but to fight on to the bitter end for their own survival.

This war has already raged on for a few years, and has led to tens of thousands of innocent people being killed in raids and ten times that number dead because of starvation and being displaced off their lands. As long as the war rages on, many, many more will die. The only thing that will stop this is if peace and stability is returned to the land. But in order to do that, one of the two royal family's entire bloodline must be wiped out, down to the last crying infant in their crib, so that no one can claim a legitimate right to the throne.

Dot

If there is one thing that I am growing tired of, it is the idea that Lawful Evil is seen as the "Good kind of evil." Yes, Lawful Evil characters CAN maintain certain behavioral standards and follow codes of conduct that many may consider moral and decent. But you know what? So can Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil Characters.

For example, can just as easily have a Neutral Evil character who cares deeply about his/her society and will do absolutely anything to protect it, up to and including torture, assassination and outright genocide. They are willing to get their hands bloody and their souls blackened for the greater good.

Likewise, you can have a Chaotic Evil freedom fighter who genuinely wants to free oppressed people from the bondage of their cruel overlords. But how does he do this? By spreading terror through murder, rape, and arson against the cruel overlords, and those near and dear to the cruel overlords.

Characters of any evil alignment can have goals, which on their face may seem positive. What makes these characters evil is the horrible means by which the seek to achieve their positive ends. Evil characters will often seek to justify these actions by saying that they were reasonable and necessary to bring about positive change.

LazarX wrote:

Do you understand that that was EXACTLY the case for most of Earth's history? In perhaps thirty five thousand years of human existence, many civilizations had innovations that died with them, because the things you take for granted, such as mass education, mass communication, cheap printing, the vectors which enabled technology to take off like a rocket in the 19th and later centuries DID NOT EXIST. About ninety percent of total technological and scientific progress was made in the lifetimes of you and your parents.

Prior to then technology and scientific progress was a mix of fitful isolated starts with frequent reverses... like the Dark Ages, and the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the collapse of civilization on Rapa Nui (Easter Island)

Not really...

First, 35,000 is a long time for humans. We really didn't even start farming until 12,000 years ago. Prior to that there was still potentially other human subspecies running around. Heck, 35,000ya there was still Neandertal man.

The thing is, technological advancement never really stopped. There was no time the world went backwards. Bits of information and certain techniques were lost, but technology as a whole only ever progressed.

Things certainly declined in Europe following the collapse of Rome during the early Middle Ages (aka the Dark Ages) but the scientific and technological advancements just shifted to the Middle East and the rising Arabic empire. When that empire began to decline, the Europeans resumed discovery using the texts translated and preserved by the Arabs and various monks.

The best example of a culture decline would be the fall of various Chinese dynasties, as some were incredibly advanced. But their knowledge was seldom lost, just their ability or desire to use the technology.

@JesterDavid:

In the words of Napoleon Bonaparte "Ability is nothing without opportunity."

Geniuses and potential innovators may indeed pop up in the quasi-Medieval societies of Golarion, but that does not mean that they will have the opportunity to develop their discoveries, or, indeed, discover anything at all. What good is it if you are potentially the most brilliant scientific or mathematical mind of your generation when you are, say, living in the serfdom caste and cannot leave your farm without your lord's permission? What good is it if you may be the greatest musical composer of all time when you have just been forced to join a levy and will be butchered as cannon fodder against the Orcish Hordes of Belkzen?

Going further, technological and scientific invention, innovation and progress is by no means an inevitability, nor is it evenly distributed when it occurs, as Human history certainly demonstrates. For example, Europe achieved incredible scientific and technological advances during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods and up through the modern age. However, many other countries did not. Imperial China for example most advanced places on earth in terms of its riches, scholastic achievements and technology, especially when compared to medieval Europe. However, it basically stagnated, and was left behind. The farming techniques and systems of governance remained largely the same for millennia. The same goes for Japan under the various Shogunates. These two societies were essentially ossified and remained in a relatively stable state with only minor technological advances, only modernizing with the advent of foreign intrusion.

So with Nidal, I guess you could treat it like Tokugawa Japan: to an outside observer an incredibly insular, isolated society that accepts trade from other countries but has extremely strange, some might even say cruel and barbaric traditions. However, the people of Nidal do not see it as cruel, but the harsh necessities of surviving in a world of monsters, demons, and a gigantic world-destroying God trapped in the center of the world trying to escape and kill everyone and everything in creation.

I'm running Shattered Star at the moment, and I have made a few major changes to the campaign setting in doing so.

I've upped the populations of many of the major cities to make them a tad more realistic basically doubling the population of most of Magnimar and Korvosa.

I have set my campaign after the closure of the World Wound, and now most of Avistan is focused on containing the Hold of Belkzen, which is becoming a losing struggle for two reason: First, unlike Demons, orcs are not affected by Ward Stones. Second, I have essentially made the Hold of Belkzen united under the leadership of Grask Uldeth and the Empty Hand, whose banners fly from every corner of the Hold. He united the tribes through brutal conquest and integration, and properly organized an effective orcish military system à la Shaka Zulu.

As a result, the orcs have spread out from every direction from the Hold of Belkzen, taking large swathes of the largely undefended territory in Varisia, the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, and Ustalav. Only Lastwall has managed to hold Uldeth's hordes back, but only just barely.

It is this invasion that is the impetus driving the players to try and find the pieces to the Sihedron, which they have been led to believe is the key to pushing back the orcs that are pouring over the Storval Plateau. I mainly did this because the AP really lacked any real motivation for the players to risk their lives looking for the Sihedron, other than adventurous curiosity. Plus, I love orcs in the role of the primary antagonists in the Campaign Setting.

Louis Lyons wrote:

Razmir appears to be a God. An amazing, benevolent, caring god actually interested in helping his followers, but a god nonetheless.

Fixed that for you :P

Razmir has a phenomenal Public Relations committee to be sure.

So how many much of Avistan that has heard of this guys smells b.s. about the whole "living god" thing?

Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer, page 50 says:

"Razmir claims to have used the Starstone in Absalom to achieve divinity, but any who have visited the City at the Center of the World know this to be false. The truth is totally suppressed in his realm, with “spreaders of sedition” facing a host of harsh sentences, from exile to execution.

Razmiran’s neighbors view the expansion of its cult into their lands as a plague. The willing defection of several border communities to the banner of the Living God underscores the danger posed by Razmir, pushing his neighbors ever closer to taking up arms against him."

This is because the Starstone Cathedral has 4 bridges - 1 for every successful attempt at apotheosis. Razmir does not have one, because, contrary to his claims, he never passed the test, therefore, he obviously cannot be a god. The real gods of Golarion are objectively provable - they grant their followers spells and domain powers and guidance and a place for their souls to rest in the afterlife. Razmir grants his lackeys nothing more than any other powerful wizard-king (like Nex or Geb) could.

I would contend that very few people would have caught on. Presuming Avistan largely cleaves to the equivalent of Europe's Late Medieval/Renaissance period, this would mean the majority of people rarely travel 20 miles away from the place of their birth. While I am sure most people of Avistan have heard of the Holy City of Absalom and the Ascension of the newer Gods, the vast majority of Avistan natives would not have traveled there unless they were nobles, diplomats, merchants/traders, pilgrims, or sailors working for the first four groups. I doubt the majority of people in Avistan have the time or disposable income to pack up and leave their home for months (or even years) to go to Absalom to determine the veracity of Razmir's claims.

The clergy and intelligentsia of various countries may be able to dispute Razmir's claims to divinity, but as for the other 99% of people who are ignorant of the Test of Starstone? Razmir appears to be a God. A frightening, tyrannical, controlling god more interested in worldly affairs than most, but a god nonetheless.

As for how Razmir is viewed by the rest of the world, I would say he, his country and his followers are all viewed more like North Korea, or the Islamic State, rather than Scientology, i.e., an extremely dangerous, insular, enigmatic force with sinister motives. Even if most of the surrounding countries and their leaderships doubt Razmir's divinity, they still do not know what he is. What is known is that Razmir is extremely powerful, ruthless, and is willing to spread his putative faith across the face of Golarion through coercion and violence. And his faith and following is growing by the day, because like the Islamic State or North Korea, they have a great propaganda and recruitment campaign that works upon the ignorant and unwary.

I'll take up two issues, specifically Property Law and Weapons Laws.

First, if any law is developed at all I would say the most important would be how property ownership is decided and how it is divided and passed from one set of hands to another. In Avistan, just as in Medieval Europe, wealth appears to tied to the ownership of land and that which can be taken from it, either by farming, lumber, mining, etc. Though property laws can vary and be very simple or very Byzantine, one thing that is necessary to prevent internal division and outright civil war is the clear marking of boundaries between one person's land and another's. In most cases, property ownership may ultimately rest with a sovereign, such as a King/Queen/Emperor/Grand Duke, etc. who owns all the land in a realm, but allows nobles to care for it, and pass down their ownership (or caretaker) rights to their descendants. If the Noble who has title to the land betrays the sovereigns trust, ownership rights can be legally stripped by the sovereign and transferred to other more worthy nobles. This would probably be the case in Cheliax, Taldor and Brevoy. Other times, the sovereign entity may not be a Monarch, but the state itself such as in Andoran or Galt.

With regard to the issue of weapons laws, and whether or not someone would be allowed to wear armor and carry around swords, bows, axes, I would say it depends entirely on the region. However, even though Golarion (or Avistan to be precise) is a something of a pale reflection of Medieval/Renaissance Europe, keep in mind that Golarion is a world wherein trolls, bugbears, dragons, and orcs exist and prey upon people.

It would make little sense (even in the more authoritarian countries) to limit people's access to arms in order to allow them to defend themselves, unless that authoritarian government invests a huge amount of money and resources garrisoning every city, town and village with soldiers loyal to the government to keep them safe. Keep in mind having large standing armies is hugely expensive, and is a relatively modern invention with only a few notable exceptions in history (such as the Roman Republic and Empire). Further, many powerful nations may depend on calling up levies (the Medieval/Renaissance equivalent of an involuntary draft) to fill up the ranks of their armies when war appears imminent, with the nobility serving as officers.

This is my long, roundabout way of saying that I believe that most nations in Golarion would be very liberal compared to Earth concerning the ownership of arms. In fact, depending on the region, ownership of arms may very well be mandatory, either for the common defense, or to be kept in case subjects/citizens are called up for war. One of the more famous examples of such a Medieval mandatory arms ownership law is England's Statute of Winchester of 1285, which commanded all freemen between the ages of 15 and 60 to purchase and keep arms and armor, with specifications of what they were to buy based on their level of wealth. At the very least, I would imagine any community of significant size would have a militia that are the de facto if not de jure police/military force and that would train with weapons regularly to respond to raiders, bandits and wandering monsters.

Zhangar wrote:

Yeah, the drow should be chaotic evil, not chaotic stupid. Being too psychotic to even engage in basic trade takes them into chaotic stupid territory.

So I assume that generally, the drow aren't that psychotic.

Or if they actually are, it's a recent development that's going to cause a population crash.

I could probably buy it if the drow's current stupidity is just a recent thing. Chaotic Evil "almighty empires" in general strike me as rather implausible—instability is inherently problematic—but we let Andoran get away with it, so why not?

The drow's current decadence would definitely make sense as a plateauing point, though: The height from which they'll inevitably fall.

I think a Chaotic Evil Empire is a possibility: It would simply require an immensely powerful unifying figure at its center who rules with fear and brutality. Of course, one can expect it to crumble the second the unifying figure is gone. One of the better and realistic examples of this is the Hold of Belkzen. The Orcs of Golarion did have an empire at one time under the warlord Belkzen, whose rule was absolute. But the moment he died/disappeared, everything descended into fractious tribalism and infighting.

Remember at this point Kaer Maga has gotten a lot of pages:

** spoiler omitted **

If you're looking for a more in depth than this, have you read all of the information? Are you looking for this all in one spot? If so, I suggest that you head over to The wiki. If you see official information that isn't there on the city; The project is open, add it. Then you'll have all of the information in one place like you ask for.

I'd say wikis and working from a patchwork of various adventures can only go so far. What makes huge city book compendiums such a pleasure to read is that they are (usually) well written by professional RPG authors who are intimately familiar with the setting; they contain a wealth of locations and interesting NPCs that tie into one another; they have detailed maps that allow the GM to more easily plan appropriate and interesting role-playing encounters depending on which part of the city they are located in; and often they have a fantastic amount of plot hooks for campaign ideas. Best of all, everything is compiled together by the authors, so a GM need look no further than the book.

I just wanted to have a little spirited discussion and brainstorm with the community here.

For those of you who have read the background history of the Drow inthe Second Darkness AP, Into the Darklands, and the Advanced Race Guide, there are a few things we know about the Drow: First, Drow culture revolves around deception, cruelty, demon-worship, and capricious acts of sadism, which is expressed against all races including other drow. Second, everyone who has discovered their society and has encountered them hates them due to their extraordinarily cruelty, and they are constantly fighting against other races in the Darklands for supremacy. Third, Drow are constantly assassinating one another, with matriarchs of the various houses killing other matriarchs, younger nobles murdering senior nobles in order to advance in station, and drow male and females being flesh-warped into driders and other monstrosities for real or imagined slights or for simple amusement. In other words, the Drow show little to no solidarity with one another; Drow simply hate each other, distrust each other, and kill each other for any number of reasons (or no reason at all). The closest real-life analogue to living in drow society would be living in the most violent unregulated prison on earth.

With that in mind, we must remember a few things about elves, and drow in particular. First, elves take over a century to reach adulthood; the longest time to mature out of any current playable race. Second, even after a century taken to reach maturity, they are still novices. It takes many more years, decades, and even centuries for the Drow to master their crafts as wizards, clerics, and warriors. Every time a matriarch, demonic cleric, or senior military commander is killed, centuries of institutional knowledge is wiped out. Each of these drow leaders is worth their weight in gold not merely for their abilities, but for the sheer time it took them to achieve their powers.

And this is what really confused me about how the drow as a society and culture are written. You see, I understand how a constantly in-fighting chaotic evil race such as orcs have managed to survive extinction despite the way they were written: Because they breed in litters, with a gestation period of only six months, and they reach full physical maturity in just twelve years (according to canon). Thus, even though orcs are constantly killing and dying by the truckload, there is always a huge new generation of orcs on the cusp of maturity. If one orcish warlord kills another orcish warlord, there are many more up-and-coming orcs who can take his place.

The Drow have no such advantage. Each time a drow leader is murdered by another drow in a moment of pique or caprice, the race is made all the weaker because there is no one who can immediately replace that person. Unless the drow are uniquely fecund, with each drow female birthing dozens or even hundreds of children during her lifetime, I do not understand how drow society would be able to survive such immense self-inflicted attrition. I contend that if any race behaved in such a manner while in the midst of a sea of enemies that hated them, that race would have been conquered and enslaved or utterly exterminated long before they became a threat to people living on the surface.

So all this leads up to the question: How on Earth have the Drow managed to keep from going extinct in spite of their constant infighting and murdering? I welcome any theories, speculation, or explanation from the authors!

Hi everyone, I am new to Golarion and I enjoy every moment of it. I haven't read yet any of the books, if i would like to tella Red hand of doom story (an amy of goblins, orcs, hobgoblins attacks the countryside) where could I tell this story. Is there an AP that tells a similar story? Thanks in advance.

Hey Mantriel, if you are still looking for a place to set Red Hand of Doom in Golarion, Isger is definitely your best bet. There are several cities in it that act as perfect analogues to those in Red Hand of Doom. Further, setting it in a region that suffered from the Goblinblood wars (where the humans suffered from raids, enslavement and butchery while goblinoids suffered from ethnic cleansing) gives the Hobgoblins real motivation to unite under a leader who promises them vengeance and glory.

Advice as a player; start the adventure before the Swallowtail Festival. Introduce the PCs to goblin stomping around Sandpoint in the weeks leading up to the festival. Let Hosk start paying a bounty on goblins before the festival. Introduce some of the baddie NPCs in the taverns and shops around town.

The hook of the festival is so much stronger if the PCs already have a friend or two in town. So encourage some of the PCs to be local and make sure to add any friends of the PCs into the people that can be met around town. The fact that my character has friends in the guard and at a few of the establishments around town, as well as 'enemies' that he doesn't get along with makes Sandpoint that much more fun.

I wonder if I can get Athos to do a funeral for me if the party reincarnates me instead of resurrecting me.

This.

Personally, I would recommend starting the campaign off with the adventure from Beginners' Box. Here's why: First, it will help introduce your brand-new players to the rules of Pathfinder in a fun, intuitive sort of way. Second, it introduces the setting of Varisia and Sandpoint in particular. Third, the adventure gives them a good bit of bonus treasure and experience for their starting wealth, which is always nice. And lastly, by the end of the adventure (assuming they survive) your players will be the toast of the town, and will probably be honored town heroes at the Swallow Tail Festival.

Personally, I love my archaic system of weights and measures. You can have my yardstick when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

I'm giggling to myself over the thought of a Utilitarianist antipaladin performing good acts with the intent of serving his own selfish interests. Like, oh I don't know, Greed from Fullmetal Alchemist?

Or, ooo, what about an antipaladin who performs good acts while remaining entirely convinced that they're evil and sadistic?

"I made you cookies. Ha-ha! Suffer from the diabetes I'll be giving you in a decade, wretch!"

"I'm taking out the dog, dear. If I meet an early demise, my eternal absence will inflict a lifetime of suffering and longing as you linger over my grave."

"Ah, this old lady needs help walking across the road! I shall grant her assistance so through her survival she will continue to waste her family's precious resources."

I just pictured an antipaladin saving children from an orphanage while cackling and yelling to the surrounding crowd "Bwa-Ha-Ha! Now SUFFER as these miserable little wretches exacerbate the city's overcrowding, crime and drain its municipal resources! All Hail Rovagug!"

I agree with the general consensus is that

(1) The Paladin deserves to fall for having slaughtered innocent good creatures for no other reason than they belonged to the wrong race without any further investigation.

BUT

(2) The OP was playing dirty pool with his players by giving them no background knowledge of this tribe of good goblins.

I want to ask the OP: why exactly did you decide to create this tiny tribe of good goblins that are GIVEN ROYAL PROTECTION FOR NO ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED REASON?

Because on the face of it, it sounds like you laid a trap in order to give grief your players. If that was your overt or covert intent, bravo sir. But I do not think I would want to play in the kind of games you run.

Why on Earth would the King of Varisia care about a small tribe of Goblins enough to make them a state secret? Why should he care if they were good? Goblins, while a sentient race, are generally viewed as intelligent sword-wielding vermin by most other races.

Did this tribe manage to rescue the King's only child and heir from pirates? Did the tribal witch doctor concoct a cure for his gout? Is the king just eccentric and loves little green, smelly fiends? Why does he care?

You ever see "Braveheart" The Scotts were considered barbarians and Wallace was perfectly capable of diplomacy so was De Bruce. So was Conan for that matter. I suppose it depends on the type of game that you're playing, but historically, most barbarians weren't suicidal. Diplomacy is an option, even for barbarians.

To build on this, that probably would have been a good point to pull an intimidate check.

Paladin: "Drop your weapons and surrender! You are under arrest for the theft of the sword of Andúril."

Barbarian: "Don't know what you're talkin' bout. Best be gettin' on your way captain shiny-pants."

Paladin: *drawing sword* "I said surrender, barbarian! You are under arrest!"

Barbarian: "Boy, if you don't sheathe that sword in your scabbard, I'm going to have to sheathe it up your arse." (Rolls a 20)

Paladin: *shocked* "How dare you!"

Guard sergeant: *seeing the size of the barbarian's sword and the rest of the PCs backing him up* "Perhaps we should withdraw, sir."

Paladin: *seeing the same* "We shall meet again, you filthy lout."

Barbarian: "Oh I bet we will."

I realize that I joined in on this conversation a bit late, but wow. It seems that many are characterizing the actions of the OP's character as self-defense, and thus not evil.

Charging a group of town guards and "slaughtering" them before they can even get a word in edgewise is NOT self defense, even if they had their weapons drawn. And why wouldn't they have their weapons drawn when they are trying to arrest a group of armed criminals?

If the paladin and the guards were charging the barbarian with their weapons drawn and he killed them? That would be self defense.

If they were shooting at him with arrows? That would be self defense.

Or if the Paladin said something along the lines of "Prepare to die, evildoers!" Then charging and killing him would be self-defense.

I can think of many ways to end this situation without bloodshed. Heck, what about simply taking a -4 and hitting the paladin with the broad side of your greatsword to do non-lethal damage?

But no. Instead the OP's character decided to butcher a bunch of officials for drawing weapons on him because they thought he was a dangerous criminal. And lo and behold, turns out the character was a dangerous criminal. Yeah, Korgoth's Chaotic Evil, darling. Deal with it.

In my opinion, the only time a Paladin should fall is immediately upon performing an action that is extremely contradictory to his alignment and the will of his/her God, and that the Paladin knew or should have reasonably known at the time was wrong, without any extenuating circumstances to justify it. He should not be punished or made to fall at a later time for actions that were wrong in hindsight. A Paladin making a bad call based on incomplete information or poor evidence should not be stripped of his powers. That is holding the character up to unrealistic standards, and as others have said before, it is difficult enough to play a Paladin without constant "gotcha" moments like this.

Short answer to the OP: No. No I do not believe there should be an update to the female iconic characters (or at least not the original female iconic characters), because I do not see any real intention on the part of Paizo or their artists to simply objectify women.

Were every single female iconic character (or the vast majority) drawn to present as much leg and cleavage as possible, then I would say yes. Definitely, there should be an update. However, even from the beginning of the Pathfinder Iconics, it is clear that most of the female iconic characters are dressed conservatively as opposed to those who are dressed more scantily. In the core rulebook, the only scantily clad female iconic was Seoni, and to a lesser degree, Amiri (bare midriff and thighs), while Kyra, Lini, Seelah and Merisiel are all dressed rather conservatively.

I do not find there to be any sinister or prurient motivations behind these artistic depictions.

Please stop trying to go off to extremes. We are talking about a country that has every right to be in power, not a horde of orcs. ... And yes, time to find that paladin discussion thread that was mentioned. We also aren't talking, necessarily, about war. The subject as I understood it was a single paladin that had not been given any orders to do so trying to overthrow a lawfully and legally empowered government it disagreed with. That is the very definition of unlawful. More specifically, there was no mention whatsoever of this government having done anything negative to other, surrounding countries. Nor was there any mention of abusing its people, unlawful acquisition of slaves, torture, or many other things that could actually justify a paladin taking action.

On what basis does that country's government have a "right" to be in power in the eyes of a Paladin?

A Neutral Evil king may have ascended to the throne legitimately, without murdering other family members or the prior king to get the throne. However, if he then engages in assassination and torture of any dissenters to his rule, after having decreed that such activities are perfectly legal as long as they are done in the name of the Crown, does that make his governance and authority legitimate?

I don't think anyone is trying to justify the player saying eff you, only trying to explain why he might have said it. I would assume with the purpose of helping you avoid the situation in the future.

Well, no one except for Vivianne Laflamme.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing..."

Why is that? The way you phrase that, you make it seem as though you think saying f*** you to the GM is more serious than saying it to another player. That's a bad approach to take as a GM; you shouldn't think that your authority over the game means you deserve some special respect.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

That was when he said "You know what? **** you. I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no."

This is a rather reasonable response, though it was clearly stated in anger. Telling a player he cannot take a certain archetype and then giving it to an NPC is just bad GMing.

Why are the Four Horsemen and the Daemons still around?

For the same reason Communist Vietnam is still around even after being involved in head-to-head conflicts against France and the United States, and a massive invasion by China, all while being a smaller, less well-equipped power.

Simply put: Experienced, battle-hardened soldiers; extremely well-developed and flexible guerilla fighting techniques; use of shocking and demoralizing surprise tactics; intimate knowledge of the lay of the terrain; possession of a ruthless resolve to combat and destroy any and all invaders; and a terrain in which it is an absolute nightmare to engage in close-quarters combat.

Just as in Vietnam, in a campaign against Daemons, you may win every single battle, but end up losing the war to ghastly and costly attrition.

If you came over and painted my car neon green, I wouldn't even pretend to say thank you, I'd just be mad, regardless of how much time and effort it took you. Similarly, I hate my own birthday parties.

Please do not let us be obtuse. That is a poor analogy, since the act of throwing someone a birthday party involves getting presents, food, decorations, guest invitations, etc., while the other act involves ruining your personal property.

So throwing me one would (and has) shown a fundamental lack of understanding about me and my personality. Why should I show appreciation when someone else is clearly showing a lack of empathy for me?

Yes it would show a lack of understanding, and your antipathy would certainly be justified. But only if you made it known very clearly to the person who threw you the party from the very beginning of the relationship that you absolutely hated birthday parties and could not stand them. And it would have to be made crystal clear because most people tend to enjoy parties, but many will say things along the lines of "shucks, you don't have to throw a party for little ol' me," or something along those lines, because they don't want to come off as a self-entitled spoiled brat who demands parties be thrown in their honor.

If you had made it clear from the very beginning to them and said something along the lines of "Dude, I'm not kidding. I really don't like birthday parties. If you want to get me a gift or bring some beer for my birthday, that's cool. But seriously, no parties. Can't stand 'em." then the party thrower has only him/herself to blame for the wasted effort.

Because some people take it to passive-aggressive levels. "I did so much work, you have to respect and appreciate me for it," doesn't fly with me. I'll respect and appreciate you because your my friend and if you do a good job, but you don't get a free pass because you spent X hours working on this, particularly if you spent time working on things that no one asked you to work on.

That is why I said that GMs "generally" deserve a high degree of respect. Not that they are "always" or "automatically" entitled to a high degree of respect. There are indeed some GMs who spend massive amounts of time and energy to craft a game and end up making the gaming experience miserable for everyone involved. I do agree, respect is earned and not given, and the quality of play has a great deal to do with the amount of respect that is afforded to a GM.

However, even in cases of poor GMing, I think there should still be some appreciation made for the effort. But afterwards, the GM must be ready for some constructive criticism in order to up his own game. Unless the GM was one of those people who uses his/her position to have a power trip over the players, insult them, degrade them, or simply uses the players as props in his own personal story without giving any regard to their thoughts, feelings and actions, I feel that GMs should generally be given the kudos they deserve for putting together a game.

I've had people throw me birthday parties and get angry because I didn't say thank you or appreciate them enough for it... even though I didn't ask them to do it, and if they had asked me, I'd have told them not to do it.

Hold the phone. You didn't say "thank you" when someone worked hard to throw you a birthday party? So let me see if I got this straight...someone went out of their way to do something very nice for you and you did not show any appreciation for it even in the form of a "thank you"? You realize that friends and relatives do things for each other out of the kindness of their hearts without being asked, right? And the only thing they want in return is a "thanks, dude." to show that their effort was appreciated. Are you surprised they got angry? Or were you purposefully snubbing them in an effort to make them angry?

I'm sorry, but that seems to demonstrate a severe lack of empathy and lack of regard for other people's feelings. People who go around saying "Hey, I never asked you for this!" tend to come off as spoiled adolescent children who haven't developed a sense of empathy and only appreciate gestures of kindness if they are absolutely perfect according to their own specifications.

I also don't have sympathy for GM's, because often they're working harder, not smarter. There are a myriad of ways to reduce your prep time, many of them including shifting portions of the creative workload to your players.

Irontruth, I do not know you personally, so I don't think it would be right of me to gauge your personality by what you are putting in writing, but I really hope you are posting these comments on a bad day. Because if what you are posting is a sincere reflection of your thoughts and feelings, you don't seem to have any sense of empathy for the people who are working hard and spending a great deal of time, money and effort to try and make sure you have a good time. And if that is the case, I hope you work hard to overcome your lack of empathy, because it's a perfect way to lose friends forever and make enemies for life very fast in the real world.

"I worked so hard, carrying all these boxes by hand. You owe me."

"Why didn't you just use the dolly sitting right there?"

That analogy only works if you pointed out the dolly to them before they went to all the trouble to do the heavy lifting, but then they did it anyway.

Otherwise this is the equivalent of pointing out the dolly that was hidden under the stairwell only after they went to all the trouble.

As to the OP, you handled the outburst just fine. Props.

Typically, if someone I was not friends with outside of the Game said anything along those lines to me, I would immediately have booted them from the game and they would no longer be welcome to play at my table ever again. Intertwined friendships complicate those matters of course, especially in areas with few active role-playing gamers.

As for the restrictions on races/classes/archetypes, etc., personally, I would explain to a player asking about it that the class/archtetype/race is not suited to player characters for my campaign, and leave it at that. I would not simply say "No" which is rude and standoffish. But I would not try to over-explain myself and say "Oh, no. My big bad is the exact same race and class. Can't do it." or something that will come back to bite me in the rear like "That class/archetype/race does not exist in my game universe" because then somewhere along the line, the class will probably be used. You don't have to be vague but you don't have to explain yourself ad nauseum either.

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing..."

Why is that? The way you phrase that, you make it seem as though you think saying f*** you to the GM is more serious than saying it to another player. That's a bad approach to take as a GM; you shouldn't think that your authority over the game means you deserve some special respect.

I would argue that GMs do generally deserve a high degree of respect, but not for the fact that they are in charge of running the game. They deserve that respect for the fact that they invest a greater deal of time, effort and energy to create and run the games for the players. It only takes an hour or two for a player to create a character. It takes hours upon hours to prep and ready an adventure. For those of us with full-time jobs, families, etc., free time is at a premium and could arguably be better spent doing other activities that require less sit-down time. But good GMs the ones actually investing huge portions of their lives and free time in order to ensure that others (not just themselves) are having a fun.

So, yes, an average GM does deserve a good deal of respect and a great GM deserves a very high degree of respect, just as good players deserve

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?

No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.

If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).

Oh, I disagree. I can think of some perfect times that a GM needs a good tongue-lashing, such as when the GM in question is found to be a racist, a misogynist, or enjoys using the slight amount of power that he/she has to verbally or emotionally abuse or degrade the players. Of course, it is at that point that the there is a definite severing of ties between GM and Player with no salvation to be hoped for.

General Varisian proverbs:

"Treat your luck well and it will never leave you."- Do not be brash or believe that your good fortune is limitless. Always plan for the worst.

"After bad luck comes good fortune, and after good fortune comes bad luck."- Be hopeful but guarded.

"Stay where there are songs."- Stay amongst your people (i.e., the Varisians), who you can trust.

"Bad people don't sing."- Do not trust someone who will not break bread with you, and more importantly, someone who will not share songs with you.

"If you cannot give bread give a good word."- Even the poorest Varisian can give comfort to the bereaved in song and simple kind gestures.

"Burn your enemies caravan and you burn you future."- Varisians depend on their caravans for their nomadic lifestyle, and to destroy a caravan completely is considered an act most heinous. Varisians who engage in such acts are ostracized from their clans. It is an admonition to never take one's vendettas too far.

"There are such things as false truths and honest lies."- Not everything is black and white.

"We are all wanderers on this earth. Our hearts are full of wonder, and our souls are deep with dreams."- This is not necessarily a Varisian proverb, but an excerpt from the Eight Scrolls of Desna. However, it is commonly repeated by Varisian wanderers and followers of Desna.

Sczarni Sayings:

"Credit is better than money."- Amongst the Sczarni, a highly-regarded reputation that one can bank off of is more valuable than any measure of money.

"He who is late may gnaw the bones."- Don't let a good mark get away, lest another better Sczarni beat you to the prize.

"It is easier to milk a cow that stands still."- Do not let your mark know that he/she is a target for robbery. The best thefts are the ones in which the mark does not know they were ever robbed at all.

"The patient thief is as a tree whose root runs deep as he waits for the sweet fruit."

"The winter will ask what we did all summer."

"You don't kill a Sczarni by cutting him in ten pieces -- you only make ten more Sczarni."

Modern values have zero to do with traditional roles and positions of power that have been held by men and women in the past. Not everything is Castles and Christians, so stop with the false equivalency of women who are not relegated to the job of nuns/housewives = modern values. This isn’t what we are discussing and you know it.

The concept of gender equality is a modern value, as is social mobility (i.e., a bunch of non-noble adventurers roaming the land in arms and armour typically reserved for knights and the Second Estate).

And if you are going to say "There is gender equality in my fantasy game, so that there can be viable female player characters, but it's based on the traditions and values of my fantasy world, not on real-world modern values" fine. But that is somewhat nonsensical, because you are still applying a modernized version of gender equality into your world where none had ever existed in real-world history for you to draw inspiration from.

And that dichotomy about the Prince and the Princess you just drew is laughably not historical.

It should have been followed by Princess leaves Prince...Prince's family declares war on the Princess's kingdom for breaking their family alliance and moves in to claim the lands that were added to the family possessions in the marriage.

Or should GM stop a good aligmented character from having slaves, murdering opponents in random encounters or stealing from fallen enemies as they are viewed evil acts in modern culture?

As Snorter stated above, it is entirely dependent upon the GM and the group of players. Some may not want to play in a game where characters are allowed to take and own slaves or engage in atrocities and STILL be considered morally good by the standards of European Medieval times. Others would think that would define an absolutely great time.

I do not think the people who do so are engaging in Badwrongfun. It's just not the kind of game I prefer to run or play in, unless I am deliberately playing an evil character.

When I first came across RPGs in 1980, the emphasis was very much that you were attempting to play another person, from another time and place, with different abilities and outlook to oneself.

That appears to have changed over the years, to players treating their PC as an idealised avatar of their own self.
Therefore, if their avatar behaves in a way that is disapproved of by the polite standards of today, that is an indictment of the player themselves.

"Your character behaved in an awful way, therefore you are an awful person!", as opposed to the previous view that "Your character behaved in an awful way, therefore they are an awful person!"?

Often that "You're an awful person in real life!" reaction doesn't come from someone's character doing a bad thing. It came from that person being a selfish player who disrupted the game for the laughs (or because they were bored) and ruined everyone else's good time. Like the instance of a player who deliberately murders an innocent while the rest of the player characters wanted to establish a good rapport with the town, its people and the authorities in order to further the story.

Fantasy doesn't stop being fantasy if it goes beyond copying a narrow view of Medieval Europe with dragons and elves tacked on.

Inclusiveness, a lack of universal sexism/racism, modern morality, and so on don't make something "not fantasy" at all.

Different people want different things out of the game. There's not going to be a solid answer to "what should be in the game" beyond "what you want out of it".

For example, I'll have settings that definitely do have some deliberate values dissonance and unfairness built into some cultures, some of which might reflect real life, some of which might be entirely fantastic. But I'm also not going to heap misery porn on people who have to deal with that crap in real life, and there will be options available to them.

Personally, there are certain things that might get pushed as okay for good people to do that will make me bail on a game, like genocide. Someone else wants to play that, fine. But the games the reject that notion are no less fantasy for it.

That James Wyatt article about what is and isn't fantasy is horribly, horribly wrong.

edit-possibly a bit >:( after reading yet another thread moaning about Paizo's inclusiveness somehow not making for coherent setting. What.

Hey Mikaze, could you include links to the Wyatt article and that particular thread?

We think that slavery is evil, but only because we value so much of individualism and freedom.

...And? That is correct. We view certain things as being evil when they are diametrically opposed to our values. Most people also find the murder of children evil because we value the lives of children and find destroying innocent life reprehensible. I think it is right that we value these things.

Lawful Good could fully support slavery if

- It won't bring injustice
- It won't bring unnecessary suffering
- It wont disturb harmony
- It support his/her view of world

In other words, Lawful Good people would not support slavery, because slavery violates all those things. It is unjust, it causes unnecessary suffering, it disturbs harmony, and lawful good person's worldview generally does not have a place for slavery (especially in the form of chattel slavery).

For example, many good Chelaxians may think that all halflings are just cute pink skinned goblins, who need hard discipline and care provided by slavery to keep them out of troubles, like drinking, stealing and overeating.

Yes. And Chelaxians who think that way are not Lawful Good, or any other form of good for that matter. They are morally Neutral at best.

If you think that slavery is never righteous, what do you think property of cattle or pets? Do you accept conditions of Cows, Dogs or Delphins? Would you accept same for Criminals or Orcs?

You know, I am not one who believes most animals are "people" as human beings are, or should be afforded the same number of rights as human beings. Not all living things deserve the same levels of same treatment simply by virtue of living.

But you know the funny thing? Well, not so funny, really: Many slave owners and slavery proponents throughout history, most infamously in the American South, justified slavery for the reason that they believed black Africans to be little better than animals who needed to be domesticated and controlled. Those slaveowners saw themselves as good and moral people, even when they were physically, mentally and emotionally torturing the slaves they saw as chattel, because it wasn't as though the slaves were people. Guess what? The slaves were people, and the slave owners were not moral. They were simply sick pieces of garbage who had mastered the art of cognitive dissonance.

Simply thinking yourself as good does not make you good. Morality in D&D/Pathfinder is objective, and people who support slavery as some form a benign social institution fail to meet that objective standard of goodness.

Laurefindel wrote:

My point is that PCs, even at high levels, are not Superman. They are not invulnerable, even if they have many resources and magic that allow them to survive against impossible odds. Their hit points is a limited, measurable amount of plot immunity, a la Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones or an unarmoured Tony Stark. Regular firearms work just fine against them, it's just that bullets (or laser blasts) somehow never get to hit them (ie. they lost an abstract amount of hp).

Well, they might not be literally invulnerable, but they sure are tough enough to ignore mundane threats.

Tony Stark would be a 5~6th level Artificer with unlimited WBL and access to artifacts. 5th level is about as far as "realistic and gritty" campaigns go. After that, character are no longer limited to the realm of what's humanly possible anymore. By 10th level, characters are supposedly tougher than a T-Rex and even a young dragon. They can kick Hercules' ass. Crossbowmen don't stand a chance.

That's why I say that wanting a bunch of crossbowmen to be a threat to high level character is like wanting a bunch of thugs to be a threat to Superman. In game terms, it's something like wanting a CR3~5 encounter to be a threat to 10th level characters.

It isn't a threat because the character are above that point. They are justifiably capable of ignoring an enemy so much weaker than them. There is no point in trying to keep PCs afraid of ordinary enemies when they are far beyond what an ordinary person can do.

To threaten the PCs, you must use level-appropriate threats, not fiat low-level encounters into something they shouldn't be.

Of course, injury is not the only risk PCs are forced to deal with. The enemy can use hostages or threaten to remove his support from the PC's kingdom, etc. Just because the PCs are tough enough to ignore an enemy's attack, it doesn't mean the enemy is not a threat.

You, as the player, know the full extent of your character's strength, abilities, hit points, armor class, etc. Your character, on the other hand, does not.

First, it is meta-gaming for your character to laugh at a dozen armed guards and say, "Crossbows? P'shaw! I have nearly 200 hit points, damage reduction, and my armor class is through the roof. Hit me with your best shot!" Your character knows that he has indeed gotten more powerful, but unless you are role-playing an arrogant and bloodthirsty psychotic, very few people, even battle-hardened adventurers, will want to risk getting shot in the face by guards who have them dead-to-rights.

Second, how does your character know the relative CR threat level of the guards?

Very, very, very few people would truly want to release the Whispering Tyrant, and certainly almost no one sane. Even the most evil people would rather become tyrants themselves rather than have to bow and scrape to that psychopathic genocidal undead God King.

Were it made known that someone had a chance and the means to actually release him from his prison, I suspect that a huge number of governments and organizations (good, neutral and evil) would want to put a stop to it immediately.

In response, let me ask you a question. Imagine you are roleplaying a LE character. Of course, this isn't a one dimensional "I'm evil lol" character. This character has goals, motivations, desires, etc. They're a fully-fleshed out character who just so happens to be lawful evil. This character is captured after a botched encounter and the paladin who captured him forcibly puts a helm of opposite alignment on this character until it sticks. Your character is forcibly turned CG. My question is: how do you roleplay your character now? How do you roleplay someone who has had their values forcibly and suddenly changed like this? What this character was thought was the right course of action yesterday now fills them with disgust. The sorts of things they were doing yesterday they know condemn as evil and are staunchly opposed to. How do you roleplay how your character deals with the fallout of this? What do you think this does to your character? How does this affect their sense of self?

I know that this was addressed to Tacticslion, but I'd like to take a stab at this:

I personally would LOVE this as a role-playing opportunity. Were I to play an introspective character, he would realize that this was simply a conversion, not a true walk on the road to redemption. As such, he would do everything in his power to make sure that his new moral and life is as genuine as possible. Personally, if given the opportunity, I would go on a soul-searching quest to try and make up for all the horrible things that I did in my past.

Let's go further. Say your character knows all about the helm of opposite alignment (maybe the paladin told them). They know that in addition to changing your alignment, it forces you to not want to change back. So this character doesn't want to change back, but they know the only reason they don't want to change back is because of the helm that was forcibly put on their head. They know this and still, they don't want to change back. They are aware of how the helm has stolen their self-determination from them. Yet they are incapable of resisting it. They are made powerless in their own mind.

My character would shrug and say "You know what? That's fine. I love the new me. I like being kind and helping people for its own sake, without have to care for cruelly-enforced order and discipline. I love seeing the smiles of good men, women and children who are gladdened by my presence. I am free to love, to help, to share, to be kind and generous.

I now understand the value of decency and freedom, where I was so blinded by hatred and zealotry before. Don't you see? The helmet does not "forbid me" from going back to my old ways. I do not WANT to go back. And perhaps that is just that helmet talking. Maybe it is. But the happiness and joy I feel is REAL. It's the most real thing that I have ever felt. It's the most real thing I have. I will not go back to the misery and emptiness I felt before. It was that misery and emptiness that drove me to cruelty and atrocity."

And I would tell people who I affected "Please know, if I ever change back to the way I was...if some horrible calamity or act of the cruel gods turns me back into the monster that I was, please know that I am sorry. That I am so, so sorry. But do not show that monster one single shred of mercy. He doesn't deserve it."

This is just a quick question as a GM. Has any one forced a Paladin to fight an angel of the same alignment? The Angel has been commanded to guard the room at all costs. How would you handle this as a GM?

Both history and fiction is rife with examples of people of the highest moral character fighting one another. It is the center of many a great tragedy.

The Angel would say "Please forgive me, dear Mortal. But I am sworn to guard this room from all intruders, from the most foul to the most righteous. All who enter, I must strike down. I beg thee to not take another step forward, and flee."

The Paladin would then probably say to the Angel "And I have sworn an oath to take this room at all costs to bring the treasure therein hence. Is there nothing I could say to stay your hand, or stand aside, dearest child of the Empyrean?"

Angel: "Nay. Nothing."

Paladin: (sadly) *raises sword and shield* "Then we both know what must be done. Please know that I do not begrudge you in this."

Angel: (sadder still) *a sword of flame materializes in his hand* "Nor I you. I shall commend thy soul to the Concourse on High, good sir."

Being able to choose one's own values and principles is a pretty big part of agency.

Let us say that, for the sake of argument, I were to grant that the Helm of Opposite Alignment does diminish a person's agency to some degree.

Why do you think that it is an evil act to strip an evil person of their agency and desire to commit atrocities?

If one uses the Helm on a random person in the crowd (until it works its curse), is it Good ? Neutral ? Evil ?

You mean just forces the Helm of Opposite Alignment on some random passerby? That would be so incredibly reckless that if it were done with the knowledge of what could occur, I would consider it extremely evil.

I realize that the analogy does not necessarily hold, but to me, it is like shooting a gun randomly into a crowd of people on the off-chance that the person you hit might be a dangerous criminal.

No. Whether your making them evils or good violating someone on such a fundamental level us an evil act it doesn't matter which way your going.

How is giving an evil person a conscience and a sense of empathy a violation?

"I had plans to burn down that orphanage full of kids to collect the insurance, and you TOOK THAT FROM ME!! You violated everything about me!"

If that is indeed a violation, then I believe evil people are deserving of that violation.

But for all those who consider forcible alignment conversion a total violation of the apparently sacrosanct free will of evil persons, how does this sound:

A violent criminal who would normally be sentenced to death for their crimes is given the choice between being hanged or being given the helmet. Is that fair?

Orphans are a notorious tax-sink for a good kingdom, and one of the prime recruits for pick-pockets and future assassins. To eliminate orphans is to perform a great service to the kindgom's greater good in the long run. Yet most would say that wasn't very nice

How is saving tax money by killing orphaned children part of the “greater good”? Good for whom exactly? I cannot think of anyone who would be considered good either in-game or in real life for murdering orphaned children simply on the off-chance that they might become bad people. And I do not believe any good person, real or imagined, would want to live in a society that regularly murdered children for the sole purpose of keeping the tax burden however much lighter.

Well it's no different here.

Giving an evil person a conscience is no different than murdering orphaned children? Okay, then.

To force a helm of opposite alignment on someone is to annihilate their very being.

No, it is to give them a different set of values. Their being remains intact. How they view the world, how they view themselves, how they feel they should interact with other people…that is what changes.

That's not very nice. You were not content to only end their corporeal existence and send them to whatever afterlife, nay, you decided that for whatever it is you consider good, every shred of their personality, free-will, ideology and way of looking at the world had to be torn out from under them, replaced by what you consider acceptable.

I think we’re dealing with simply changing their alignment. I do not know who is arguing that their corporeal existence must also to be ended.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Sound familiar to anyone?

Yes. And do you remember the Next Generation episode when the Enterprise crew had a Borg POW, and helped give some of the Borg free will and identity, essentially helping them to unplug from the collective? The individual Borg never asked for that. It certainly a stripped them of their identity as merciless, soulless, unfeeling cogs in a greater all-consuming machine. In fact, that very matter is touched upon in a later episode. Was giving individual Borg the ability to think, feel and communicate as individuals an evil act?

You did not just kill that criminal, you took away his past, future, afterlife and legacies

…And? I have little interest in allowing evil characters to continue on causing death, destruction and suffering. I think the interests of the innocent come before the interests of the monstrous...especially when he is not going to be harmed in any way by the process of forceful alignment conversion.

It's a helmet we're putting on his head. We're not talking about throwing him into a sphere of annihilation.

If one were switching them from good to evil, there would be no question in anybody's mind that the one doing this was an irredeemable affront to all goodness and freedom. There is no redemption, only replacement by a twisted mockery of what used to be a person.

Yes. Turning someone from good to evil is a horrible action. Turning someone from evil to good is a good action. In the same way that ending the life of a mass-murderer just before he killed another innocent person may be considered good action, but a mass murderer killing another innocent person is an evil action. I argue that it is not the “turning” that is the problem, any more than “killing,” but who is being turned and for what reasons.

The only people that deserve this do so because it's a fate far worse than death.

How is an objectively evil being turned into an objectively good being a fate worse than death? Especially since the RAW states that the character enjoys his/her new alignment?

Any who use it on these monsters had best use another on themselves right after though, because they stared into the abyss, fingered the hole they were staring at it through, and got utterly smashed on the sweet megalomaniacal syrup of self-righteousness.

I do not follow the point you are trying to make here.

It begs the question: can we, without hubris, declare ourselves to be above the morality of our fellow humans, to pursue the greater good for our society?

I have not read the Dragonlance novels, so unfortunately I cannot comment on them. But I do not find it necessarily hubristic to declare oneself as being more moral than another person.

For example, a Paladin is not being hubristic if he believes himself morally superior to an Orcish marauder who kills, rapes and devours the helpless. He is not necessarily declaring himself above the morals of his fellow creatures. But he reasonably believes that he is adhering to a higher standard of conduct and that he is right to do so.

Going to your example, in my opinion, a Lawful Good priest king who becomes a tyrant and begins to cause unjustified suffering would no longer be a good person. If such a person started to believe himself to be the ultimate moral authority who need answer to no one (even the Gods who granted him his power!) because he has a total grasp on what is true, moral and just thereby making every action he takes moral he would no longer be Lawful good. He would have slipped into the zone of Lawful Neutral because he is no longer being a good person...one who values life. Instead, he simply values order and society as a whole. If some do not see the truth and goodness of his rule, they are brought to heel. Anyone who speaks out against him are detained for reeducation. And if he continues on down that road and became more harsh and repressive in enforcing his morality, he would soon become Lawful Evil.

And if the writer (or a GM) were to declare, "No, that character is still Lawful Good!" then I would have to respectfully disagree, because I do not believe vicious tyrants are lawful good. A Lawful Good ruler could certainly slip down the path towards prideful absolutist rule, but if he did so, he would no longer be Lawful Good.