Karzoug the Claimer

Malagant's page

Organized Play Member. 140 posts (390 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

So, let's say I cast Hold Person on an eligible target. The target fails its save. It is now paralyzed. In the same round the targets initiative comes up. It takes a full round action to save against the spell. It saves. Now for the question. Is the target still paralyzed until its next turn, thus allowing for a coup de grace? Or, is it no longer paralyzed and has full access to its defensive abilities?

Seems like it's a bit unfair if it gets 2 saves in the same round with a net effect of basically being dazed for a round. I have no problem with the target getting a save the next round to end the effect, but 2 saves in the same round seems unfair to me.

Liberty's Edge

As the title asks, how does Improved Outflank actually work? From the reading of the feat, and since your flanking partner would have the feat as well, is flanking calculated for each based on the unoccupied space, or does one need to actually be in the proper space? I contend the feat reads that both can be adjacent to the unoccupied space that would normally flank.

What do you guys think?

Liberty's Edge

The text of the spell, Kinetic Reverberation reads:
Copied from d20pfsrd.com

This spell converts the momentum and force from melee attacks made against the target of the spell, reflecting them back upon the attacker’s weapon. After making a successful melee attack against the target, an attacker must make a Fortitude saving throw for the weapon used. If the weapon fails the save, it takes damage equal to the damage rolled against the target. Creatures using natural attacks or unarmed strikes are unaffected by this spell.

The question is, does the original target of the attack take damage when the damage is successfully "reflected" back on the attacker's weapon? The language of the spell implies No, but it doesn't spell it out specifically.

Liberty's Edge

Gotcha, thanks for the answers. :)

Liberty's Edge

Which takes precedence though?

Liberty's Edge

So I'm making a Time Oracle for an upcoming game. The Revelation I want is called Temporal Celerity. My Oracle's Curse is Powerless Prophesy. The two effects are diametrically opposed. How do I reconcile them? There is nothing saying I can't take both that I can find.

Liberty's Edge

Right, but this doesn't address the question.

Liberty's Edge

As the title says, is it possible, by feat, ability, or magic item to summon creatures with maximum health? As a Monster Tactician Inquisitor, it would really be nice if my summoned buddies would last more than 1 or 2 hits and getting to attack before returning to the planes. At lower levels, it's not so bad, but at higher levels, say summon monster V, you have Bralani Azatas, 7d10+28 HD (66HP). Seems like it would be enough, but not when you are facing stuff that can chew through that in a single round easy. If they had more HP then even if they die in a couple rounds, they will have at least accomplished something useful. It does me no good to share my teamwork feats with summoned critters if they aren't there to use them.

Liberty's Edge

Adjule wrote:
Have you checked out Kingmaker? It's the sandboxiest AP that they have, and is about as popular as Rise of the Runelords. While it is recommended that you do the things in a certain order (mostly due to level ranges), it isn't a "you must go here before you can go there" type of AP.

Yes, I've seen it, haven't yet played in it, but it's a bit of a hybrid.

I guess what I'm looking for is a setting where I can play as a con man/professional thief/assassin or guild wizard/university professor or captain of the guard/investigator. I don't want to be roped into long term adventure path deviations outside of the sandbox. The world should be dynamic and your actions should affect the world in a real way.

Am I making sense?

Liberty's Edge

I have recently checked out the contents of the Ultimate Intrigue book and I have many ideas for characters. The problem I have is that there aren't any real options for playing, long term the types of characters I want to play. All the adventure paths are theme park style that follow a very scripted timeline and locations. I'd be interested in an adventure path that is more of a sand box style where the players are able to explore, interact, and progress in any order they see fit, without being railroaded by the GM.

Is there any serious discussion going on at Paizo for an Adventure Path of this nature?

Liberty's Edge

Malagant wrote:
kageseishin wrote:
Can anyone give me some feedback on this please? :(

Shameless thread necro here, but I can't find anywhere that this question has been definitively addressed.

Personally, I'd be inclined to go with "C".

I also think the Versatile Performance ability should be rewritten so that all that is replaced is the Perform skills ranks and ability used to modify the skill. Every feat/trait/ability that modifies the original skill should be added to the total bonus. The point is to reduce the skill point burden of a bard so they are more flexible in spending skill points, after all they are supposed to be a jack of all trades. It just seems really silly to have an ability like VP and then nullify feat investment to make it convoluted.

I think this was the original intent that got lost in the writing.

Anyone know the answer to this, or able to show me where this has been definitively settled?

Liberty's Edge

kageseishin wrote:
Can anyone give me some feedback on this please? :(

Shameless thread necro here, but I can't find anywhere that this question has been definitively addressed.

Personally, I'd be inclined to go with "C".

I also think the Versatile Performance ability should be rewritten so that all that is replaced is the Perform skills ranks and ability used to modify the skill. Every feat/trait/ability that modifies the original skill should be added to the total bonus. The point is to reduce the skill point burden of a bard so they are more flexible in spending skill points, after all they are supposed to be a jack of all trades. It just seems really silly to have an ability like VP and then nullify feat investment to make it convoluted.

I think this was the original intent that got lost in the writing.

Liberty's Edge

Sennje wrote:
The close weapon is the fighters weapon group. Why it doesn't include daggers is probably because they wanted the dagger in light blades. You could go with a punch dagger cestus.

The point here is to have a weapon that is easy to conceal and synergizes with the Unchained Rogue's Finesse Training ability. Basically, an assassin. The build hinges on the ability to use specialized daggers for assassination. The weapons of the Close Weapon Group just don't fit the bill for what I want to do.

Also, Daggers can be used in a grapple which is the primary reason for taking the brawler levels.

Essentially, a martial artist/spy/assassin type.

Liberty's Edge

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue. Warlock is a spellcasting (magical bolt shooting) archetype of the Vigilante class.

Gotcha, thanks :)

Liberty's Edge

More specifically, for the purposes of the Brawler ability, Close Weapon Mastery, what is a close weapon?

I ask because I am building a character to specialize in close quarters fighting with a Dagger and Unarmed Strikes and am confused that Dagger is not included on the Close Weapon Group for Fighters. In almost every fighting style I've studied, the dagger/knife is used as the most common close quarters weapon available.

What considerations were made in forming the list? Weight? Close quarters viability? Fiat?

Liberty's Edge

The Fool wrote:

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that wants to build a Mystic Bolt focused Warlock now that the class has been made official but I am stuck on how to make the whole thing viable. It is great that the ability is unlimited but I feel that it is almost always better to cast a spell as things are now, and I was hoping to have more utility based spells backed up by a really powerful arsenal of mystic bolts.

This leads me to a question: What applies to these bolts? This passage is a pretty good explanation:

Ultimate Intrigue page 60 wrote:
Abilities that affect all weapon attacks the Warlock makes, such as the arcane striker Warlock talent, function with Mystic Bolts
I can't think of many feats or spells that applies directly to the ALL weapon attacks one could make in a round. I guess that maybe the Startoss Style might work since the blasts are technically light weapons that you throw, but when it comes to magical items and spells I'm drawing a blank. Anyone else got any ideas?

Slightly off topic, but where is this Warlock class that exists in an official capacity for Pathfinder? I haven't been keeping up with all the new stuff, so what have I missed?

Liberty's Edge

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:

While I kinda see where you're coming from, that only works of you want a star wars feel. What if you'd rather go star trek. Or stargate. Or firefly with some magic. Star wars comes with a feel to it that isn't right for every campaign. Heck, even for most campaigns. So instead, they made their own world with its own field.

Besides, off your logic: pathfinder? Why not just d&d?

That's great for those folks. I'm not at all knocking Starfinder at all, it does look interesting, however I have a very limited budget for RPG's and I only want to invest in 2-3 systems maximum. I've chosen Pathfinder (WotC ruined any chance of me ever returning to them as a customer), Star Wars, and Battletch/Mechwarrior. Basically, Swords and Sorcery, Sci-Fi with magic, and Sci-Fi of a different bent. There are other great games out there, and I do play them with friends, but I won't invest in them.

Liberty's Edge

If I wanted to play a science fiction setting with magic, I'm going to play Star Wars. I much prefer the Knights of the Old Republic era where the Republic, Jedi, Sith, and Mandalorians all clashed for supremacy of the galaxy. Fantasy Flight Games has made, what I believe to be, a great system that captures the cinematic feel of the setting.

YMMV

Liberty's Edge

CampinCarl9127 wrote:

I stand corrected. That is quite a unique feature.

However, I'm still right that you technically have to roll since you aren't allowed to take 10. Even if you have absolutely zero failure chance :P

If a skill roll would result in automatic success, why waste time with forcing a roll? Hand waive it and move on. It's not like there are margins of success and failure here...

Liberty's Edge

Directed at the Paizo development team, what do you think the chances are that you will develop the other continents of Golarion? I have a keen interest in Vudra, and Arcadia and would love to see them fleshed out.

Liberty's Edge

The problem in the game my GM is currently running for RotRL (anniversary edition) is that we have a fluctuating group of 5-6 and we are currently at the library in chapter 4. I had a character that took craft magic arms and armor and only got to make 1 item for myself, and that was in book 2. We have been routinely behind in wealth and level the whole time. My cleric was killed in 1 shot by the hill giant guarding the townsfolk in the sacrificial pit area. The best weapon in the party was a holy greatsword +1 that I had crafted, everyone else had +2 overall weapons. We have a tank that is good at it and a ranger that is good at damage. Everyone else in the party would basically die in 2 rounds to all the giants and ogres if it weren't for them.

We don't get any down time to craft items since we are always on a "timer". I tried to craft enroute but the rules for that make it so you can't complete an item in a timely manner. Plus my cleric died before completing an item for the party so money lost there...

To top it off, we are woefully under-leveled for the content. I expect to be 1 level behind with 5-6 players, but we are 3 levels behind! Every encounter is a struggle and it's getting to the absurd level. The only significant damage is coming from our ranger! The grumbling isn't too bad now as long as the ranger lives and pumps out the damage, but the whole campaign has been about 2 players, the rest of us are just there for the ride...

Liberty's Edge

Slight thread necro, but consider the skills that are granted by the headband are not wizard/sorcerer class skills, such as perception or sense motive. Would they be treated as class skills since the headband imparts knowledge of those skills to the wearer? Or would they continue to be cross class skills?

Liberty's Edge

Could someone remind me how this works, without any special feats? Is the weapon just treated like a weapon of an inappropriate size category? Take using a greatsword in one hand as an example.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

I posted the exact rule that determines this.

Not my fault you have a problem with the order of operations here.

Me thinks you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the spell works. When an enemy that you threaten attacks an ally, the spell forces them to redirect the attack to you (or your eidolon if you have one). With a successful will save, the compulsion is ignored.

Back on topic though, nothing in this thread has yet shot down that spells (that deal damage) are attacks that can apply sneak attack damage should the conditions for a sneak attack be met. Is it RAI? I don't think so; I would not rule so. Is it RAW? It sure appears to be. Any confusion can be rectified with a simple FAQ on the subject...

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

You get interpretations like Rikkan's when you quote RAW in isolation.

**The lesson here folks is that RAW in isolation can be and is often incorrectly interpreted.**

In the greater context of the of the work the RAI clearly shoots him down again and again.

Read in isolation? Can you explain what that means exactly? Examples please. We are looking for RAW here, not interpretations of RAI.

Liberty's Edge

Rikkan wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

Rikkan, you're a broken record. You have brought this up before and been shot down before.

Sneak attack has never worked on spells that don't require an attack roll, unless you have the arcane trickster capstone. Ever.

This has been FAQ'd in the past and the answer was 'no FAQ needed'.

I do try to correct people whenever they are wrong about the pathfinder rules yes. I can't help it, if people are often wrong about this topic.

Sneak attack never mentions attack rolls in pathfinder. That is something people like to houserule in. But it is not in the rules.
And since the rules never mention needing attack rolls, no FAQ is needed, it is clear they are not required.

The FAQ does not contradict the passage in the CRB that Rikkan quoted and bolded. It actually looks like Rikkan is correct and everyone elses understanding is incorrect, by RAW. That may not be RAI, but by RAW Rikkan appears correct to me.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
aboyd wrote:

Sarenrae worship is illegal in Taldor, because Sarenrae is allied with Qadira, the nation that attacked Taldor and sent it into decline. Also, these particular worshippers of Sarenrae are not even Taldoran people who happen to like the goddess -- they are actually, at least in one case (Pasha's sister), Qadirans who are secretly within the borders of Taldor to further this illegal behavior.

So they are not only lawbreakers, but they may actually be insurgents/infiltrators/some other word that describes that.

And they are not only lawbreakers and insurgents, but they are running an illegal smuggling ring, and the main goal of the mission is to help them escape punishment and cover up evidence of illegal activity.

Now, you may not cause a paladin to fall for helping with all of that in your games, but I absolutely, 100%, every single time, will force paladins to fall for doing that mission.

This is why I am asking for alternatives. And again, "don't make them fall, let them do it" is unacceptable to me. This is why I'm exploring other options.

The Underground Railroad was also illegal in the South, but it was the right thing to do... There is a difference between legal and lawful, legal and the right thing to do... Everything the nazis did was within the letter of the law, but it was institutional evil and immoral. Sometimes to do the right thing requires one to ignore an unjust law. You don't have to feel comfortable about stepping outside the law but in the end the paladin's patron will understand.

Liberty's Edge

B is correct IMO. Let's keep in mind the flavor of a Diviner of this subschool; they are supposed to know things before they happen. They have a limited number of uses per day so it is not game breaking to let them choose after they know the result.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:

Worse than that, how do you ever get away with suggestion on that guard if he can clearly see you casting a spell on him? No suggestion will seem reasonable after an apparent attack (except maybe "How's about you stick me with that pike?")

Similarly, detect thoughts.

It is this and other similar scenarios that concern me as well. There needs to be a way to disguise spellcasting. The Dark Sun campaign had rules for this as it was virtually death for any wizard to cast spells in the open.

Liberty's Edge

Kaboogy wrote:
Elemental Manipulation is an evoker ability...

Doh! I should have caught that lol!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slight thread necro here, but with the addition of the Advanced Class Guide, I feel there are additional options to make this style of Blaster more viable.

Spoiler:
Assume 20pt buy and Pathfinder only products
Human
Ability Scores:
STR 7 (Dump)
DEX 12 (help a little with Ranged Touch, AC is next to worthless IMO)
CON 14 (more hp, increased death threshold, increased time to drown)
INT 20 (max it to the hilt!)
WIS 8 (with crossblooded your will save will suck anyway, may as well go with it)
CHA 12 (helps with UMD, and a bonus spell per day is nice)
Favored Class: Wizard use hit point option level
Traits: Reactionary (+2 Initiative), Magical Lineage (Fireball)
Initiative: +11 (+2 Trait, +4 Improved Initiative, +4 Familiar, +1 Dex)

Wiz1 Familiar (greensting scorpion), Evoker (admixture specialist; Opposed - Enchant/Necro), Scribe Scroll, Intense Spells, Versatile Evocation, Spell Focus (Evocation), Mage's Tattoo (Evocation)
Orc/Draconic (Red) Sorc1 Orc Subtype, +1 Damage/die, Touch of Rage, Claws, +1 Fire Spells/die, Eschew Materials
Wiz2 Spell Specialization (Burning Hands -> Fireball)
Wiz3
Wiz4 Improved Initiative
Wiz5 Intensified Spell
Wiz6 Greater Spell Specialization (Fireball)
Wiz7
Wiz8 Empower Spell
Wiz9
Wiz10 Dazing Spell (Ectoplasmic would be good too), Greater Spell Focus (Evocation)
Wiz11
Wiz12 Heighten Spell
Wiz13
Wiz14 Spell Perfection (Fireball)
Wiz15 Persistent Spell
Wiz16 Spell Penetration
Wiz17
Wiz18 Greater Spell Penetration
Wiz19

Sorcerer Spells: 0 level - Detect Magic, Prestidigitation, Disrupt Undead (since necro is opposed, nice to have) 1st - Heightened Awareness (used correctly will raise initiative to +15, 4/day)

Highlights:
1) High Initiative, almost always have the option to go first
2) High Damage potential early, have access to the meat of the build by lvl 11
3) Still fulfil duties as buffer/controller, always have something useful to do each round in addition to blasting

Further Assumptions:
1) gaining access to scrolls to round out utility
2) gaining access to certain metamagic rods to further empower blasts (maximize, quicken)
3) gaining access to headband of intelligence +4 or better, pearls of power and possibly a ring of wizardry (3 or 4)

Notes:
1) If using for PFS, you can advance most of the feats by 1 step since you get Spell Focus instead of Scribe Scroll.

I can find no record of Elemental Manipulation as a feat or arcane discovery. Is this 3rd party? or 3.x?

Liberty's Edge

Malagant wrote:
Duiker wrote:
Second standard action: (from burning a mythic point, everyone who's mythic gets this at I think 3rd tier or so). Shape Channel at the mass of bad guys in front of me, deselecting the three party members in melee with them. Regardless of whether they save against the channel, they get pushed back thirty feet. So take 10D6/2 damage from the channel, and then get thrown through 4 mythic empowered persistent maximized blade barriers. Roll your saves twice. DC 35 I think is what it was up to. This killed four of the five bad guys in the fight regardless of whether they made every single save. I think it was something like between 400 and 800 damage to all of them, which none of them were surviving even at full health.
I can't find Shape Channel anywhere, how are you accomplishing the knockback effect on a failed save exactly? Could you site sources please?

Anyone have an answer for this question?

Liberty's Edge

Duiker wrote:
Second standard action: (from burning a mythic point, everyone who's mythic gets this at I think 3rd tier or so). Shape Channel at the mass of bad guys in front of me, deselecting the three party members in melee with them. Regardless of whether they save against the channel, they get pushed back thirty feet. So take 10D6/2 damage from the channel, and then get thrown through 4 mythic empowered persistent maximized blade barriers. Roll your saves twice. DC 35 I think is what it was up to. This killed four of the five bad guys in the fight regardless of whether they made every single save. I think it was something like between 400 and 800 damage to all of them, which none of them were surviving even at full health.

I can't find Shape Channel anywhere, how are you accomplishing the knockback effect on a failed save exactly? Could you site sources please?

Liberty's Edge

Anyone?

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
well you could always ask the GM for a custom monk weapon list. Am I the only one who finds it silly every monk anywhere in every would uses Asian named weapons?

I too find it silly, I have custom lists by region for my campaigns. There is considerable cross-over, true, but there are also flavor additions. For example, drow monks from the darklands have access to hand crossbows, varisian monks have access to bladed scarves and star knives, and so on...

Liberty's Edge

Jeremiziah wrote:

I guess my point is, passing a piece of false information to someone shouldn't simply guarantee that everyone who hears the subject repeat that information will believe it completely. They're likely to Sense Motive on that person, and if you just say "the person believes it's true, the check is unopposed therefore the Sense-er of Motive must believe it to be true as well" - well, I think that's not how things work. In order for the Motive Sense-er to actually believe the lie themselves, it's got to be opposed by a bluff check.

Granted, this is all interpretation and personal preference, but in my games this would be a strong feat.

I see this principle in play everyday I hop on the internet or watch "E" TV, many are the rumors both true and false that are spread by word of mouth or media. Where do these rumors originate? The original rogue (i.e. gossip monger or reporter) of course. For the sake of the example here let's say the reporter had a bluff of +20, every person who hears, believes, and spreads the rumor uses the +20 to convince others of the truth of the bluff. This happens in politics on a daily basis too, just watch any of the pundits on any of the news channels to get a full dose. :)

Liberty's Edge

Garden Tool wrote:

Grick's theory sounds good, but the ability states that the guard is rolling Bluff using your modifier instead of his own. That makes no sense, because the guard would never roll Bluff just to tell the captain what happened. As far as he knows or believes, it's not a lie - he would never roll Bluff in the first place.

I like the idea behind the ability, but it makes absolutely no sense as-written. I think it was meant to "force" the guard to make a Bluff check (using your modifier) unkowingly.

I think what is not being understood is the principle of transference at play with this ability. You tell the lie to the guard, the guard believes it, but when he tells the captain the same line you told the guard, there is another bluff check needed for the captain to buy the same story you told the guard. Without this ability the above scenario quickly comes to a halt when the guard tells the story to the captain and the captain shakes his head in exasperation at the gullibility of his guards and sounds the alarm.

You have the gist of it though :)

Liberty's Edge

Aleriya wrote:

Another possible use of Memory Lapse - use it on your party members to allow them to re-roll failed will saves.

Example:

Fighter smacks Evil Guy
Evil Guy casts fear. Fighter fails his save
Wizard casts Memory Lapse on the fighter and makes the fighter forget that he was ever afraid

I like this, however if this was the primary motivation for the design of this spell, perhaps it should be renamed to "Redo" or "Do Over" or "Take Two, Action!"

I really think this needs to be a weaker version of the 2nd Ed spell Forget, that covers the last minute or if you like 1d10 rounds (for that element of randomness).

Perhaps the version I suggested could be a 2nd level version?

Liberty's Edge

Dire Mongoose wrote:

In social situations this spell sort of doubles down when you've rolled bad, doesn't it?

E.g., you failed to persuade me, and now you're casting a spell on me -- if I make my save, we've gone from "I'm not convinced" to "You're attacking me!", especially given that the victim knows it made a save but possibly not what spell was cast.

This is a prime situation where a skill or feat that allows a spellcaster to disguise or hide spellcasting would be a great addition. It works well for Dark Sun. :)

Liberty's Edge

ItoSaithWebb wrote:

Ya, I didn't think of that but it does improve the odds so eventually you do end up getting an extra attack. There has got to be an additional thing you can do once you have them down, you know, just to run the salt into the wound.

Wait there may be a way, although it may visually be like something from Xena or a Jackie Chan movie.

In addition to the combo we have been talking about, have the feat combo of improved Bull Rush, Greater Bull Rush, and Bull Rush Strike. According to the RAW you have the option on the critical strike but you don't have to take it on either Bull Rush or Tripping Strike. So have both chains of feats coupled with improved critical and a high critical threat range weapon like an eleven curved blade.

Note: This only works because as far as I know there is nothing in the rules that says you cannot Bull Rush a prone target. However, I am...

You just have to remember, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander". Be careful what idea you give your DM because it will rebound on you at some point. :)

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:
CrackedOzy wrote:

The situation was this; the party were in combat with a solo opponent and the Hexcrafter Magus used Slumber to knock her out, the party then took time to heal and surround the sleeping foe, then all coup de grace the target. First of all, was this legal, RAW? Second what would you other GMs have said anyways, and why?

Now, as it happened the first CDG would have been sufficient, but I could see times where with a foe that has a crazy high Fort might shrug off the CDG.

By RAW the attack should have been resolved individually.

The first one hits. check for hp damage. If the creature is alive do the fort save. If the creature survives a fort save then it wakes up. It is prone so it has a -4 to AC, but it is not helpless. I would redo initiatives so that those surrounding her were going back to back. After everyone else got their full round worth of actions in then let her go at the bottom of that round, or the top of the next round.

Also, barring uncanny dodge or the improved version, the target is also flat-footed as it has not acted in the round yet.

Personally, as DM fiat, I rule that an awakening character, monster, NPC, is Staggered the first round it awakens to get the cobwebs out. I have never seen anyone be instantaneously combat ready upon awakening, even with artillery and machine guns going off. There is always that momentary "WTF is happening" interlude.

Liberty's Edge

ItoSaithWebb wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
It works fine. Might want to take an AoO instead of an OoA though.

Haha, oops ya that would probably be better. I am partial dyslexic though so that happens occasionally.

Still so far it seems to be a legit thing. I just keep picturing on my first attack scoring a critical, performing a trip, getting a AoO as a result, and then proceeding on to the rest of my attacks. It might even get even better with an elven curved blade that is keen or has improved critical applied to it. Imagine multiple confirmed criticals with combat reflexes.

It's a great combo of feats. Even better when you have a high critical range weapon with either keen or improved critical for it. However, once a trip succeeds, he is already prone by that point, so additional criticals will not make him more prone. It just about ensures a trip though. Great thing about the tactic though is attacks against a prone target receive a +4 to hit (as seen in the -4 to AC), so the chances to hit with any iterative attacks are significantly improved. Kick em while they are down! lol :)

Liberty's Edge

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
Malagant, you seem to be on a crusade to derail this thread.

I'm sorry you can't see how my posts in this thread support each other, but derailing? No, not intentionally anyway...

Quote:
You just can't grab a definition of morals and ethics from an online dictionary to prove your point.

Explain to me why I can't please.

Quote:
Moral originated from the Latin word morè, which meant something like “the way people are.” Ethics, on the other hand, came from the Greek word ethos, meaning “the way things should be.”

The origin of the terms is irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

Quote:
And your explanation of logic is once again wrong.

In what way? Please explain.

Quote:
Programing is frontloaded behavior. It doesn’t allow for learning, it doesn’t allow for learning. Granted Humans have some autonomic reflexes, but that’s not logic. It’s not learned.

You missed the point. I said they were programmed using logic. What do you think a computer program is?

Quote:
Not every though that goes on in a person’s mind is “critical thought”. That’s reflective thought where you take an action and you measure the outcome from all perspectives, something that can’t be done all the time, day in day out, 24/7.

You assume that the application of logic is a conscious effort. I'm not saying that every thought is critical in nature. It is interesting that you should inadvertently agree with me here though (note the bolded section).

Quote:
Philosophers try to use logic and reason to find answers to a wide variety of human questions, from the nature of reality or knowledge to the meaning of truth, to differing conceptions of beauty, much like the discussion we are having now. Logic implies introspection and reflection, it is more than just a reaction.

Granted, but somehow you missed the point that ties into the discussion.

Quote:

But once you have moved into the world of play, you are moving into fiction. It’s not a truth, or a certainty and since all players perceive the fiction from a total different perspectives based on their personal perception filters, you are far from logic.

I'm tired of debating this, but once again, you missed the point.

Liberty's Edge

Forlarren wrote:
Malagant wrote:
Congratulations, you just justified murder via a false flag attack. After all they are guilty of something, right?

Actually Malagant, that is correct (despite your implied sarcasm), at least according to the D&D alignment system. Monsters are suppose to be monsters, and in most D&D situations (unless your DM is trying to undermine your paladin) being evil is a crime.

If the goblin attack was precipitated by a false flag attack, then that is a second crime that our intrepid pally gets to hack and slash his way through to justice. The crux of this is that the paladins enemies initiated violence first, not some petty pick pocket attempt either, but real violence.

It was meant as sarcasm, yes. But also to illustrate a point. It may have sounded as if I hold the goblins blameless, and in that particular crime, I do. However, the point trying to be made was the paladin could have investigated prior to going on his crusade. Were the goblins viscous pyromaniacs? Yes, but that does not automatically mean they need to be put down just for existing.

I can accept in a game a certain amount of vigilante justice, but when it comes to paladins, I hold them to a much higher standard. :)

Liberty's Edge

HappyDaze wrote:
Malagant wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
I'd like to propose that killing someone isn't necessarily a big deal.

Try that on a cop and I guarantee you there will be a SWAT team looking for you...

Such flippant disregard for life...

Stop your trolling. Real world has nothing to do with this. Had you quoted my whole statement, you'd have noted that I mentioned that spells such as Raise Dead make death a reversible condition.

Trolling? I thought we were having a discussion here...

Liberty's Edge

Stereofm wrote:
Okay, it'd probably deserve a lenghtier response : but basically, under your view, nobody should ever do anything, because everyone is guilty. A Paladin should automatically be doomed from character creation. A Paladin should let goblins slaughter innocents, because their neighbour was mean to them.

You obviously don't have a handle on anything I've said. Your entire babbling statement here completely takes everything I've said out of context...

Quote:
So I do not and can not agree with you. Ever.

No one said we had to agree...

Liberty's Edge

Stereofm wrote:
idwraith wrote:


Note, that is from BEFORE CONQUERED BY ROME Era Greece, which means Pre AD. So the Jury Trial is in recorded history from over 2,000 years ago.

The concept of "Common Law" in which Judges get to make interpretations upon the Legal Code which the US Court system is based off us can be tracked back to the 12th century and earlier.

"In the late 800s, Alfred the Great assembled the Doom book (not to be confused with the more-famous Domesday Book from 200 years later), which...

Sorry, still can't agrre with that either.

Oh yeah, trials, and courts, they did exist ... on the paper. How much were they enforced ?
truly ? /snip...

Of course, this post reinforces my earlier statement...

Malagant wrote:
I find it very difficult to view any society as lawful when the laws don't apply equally to everyone. High and low, rich and poor.

Liberty's Edge

HappyDaze wrote:
I'd like to propose that killing someone isn't necessarily a big deal.

Try that on a cop and I guarantee you there will be a SWAT team looking for you...

Such flippant disregard for life...

Liberty's Edge

Stereofm wrote:
Malagant wrote:

He was given reason to suspect the goblins only acted in self preservation and he went out and murdered them in cold blood anyway for a perceived crime. All the while lifting up his god's name in praise. Does it matter that the goblins were viscous little pyromaniacs that would kill you as look at you? No, there was no provocation, no lawful justification in this example.

Sorry can't agree with you.

What perceived crime? Crime alright. They ARE raiding the town.

What is the greater crime? Formulating a false flag attack to induce a response from the target group, or mobilizing to punish the criminal society that perpetrated such an attack? Is punishing an aggressor even a crime? Or is it justice? Or is it something else?

...from wikipedia.com

Spoiler:
False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.[citation needed] The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and can be used in peace-time.

Quote:
He did an astounding community service. These goblins murdered citizens, and probably not just the guilty party. The paladin acted nobly, responsibly and saved the town from current and future threats since you admit yourself they are pyromaniac murderers.

Congratulations, you just justified murder via a false flag attack. After all they are guilty of something, right?

Quote:
He might want to have a talk with the town soldiers afterwards who started this mess though.

To what end? You sanctioned their behavior, which makes you just as guilty as them, when you had that paladin go out to slay those goblins. You did no investigating to learn if the crier was telling the truth, you didn't care enough. Your bloodlust would not allow for it. You may as well go have beer and swap war stories with those soldiers...

Quote:
Ignoring the threat of these goblins to the town would not have been lawful good.

True, the paladin could have investigated what caused the goblins to attack. He could have used some DIPLOMACY! Perhaps arriving at a mutually beneficial arrangement that sees that the perpetrators get justice and protect the people at the same time. These would be examples of "lawful" paladin behavior.

Quote:
I guess the real problem with playing a paladin, is the DMs and players who will be trying to ruin your fun because of their own twisted ethics.

If you mean by "fun", continually stretching and breaking the expected limits on moral/ethical behavior of that paladin character, then perhaps paladin isn't the class for you. I expect a paladin to behave in a manner that is above reproach. I'm not so slavish to perfection as to strip paladin powers for a single or even a few infractions of a questionable nature, but should it become clear the character is not holding to the code of conduct in spirit and to the letter, I will.

Funny you mention twisted ethics here, when you so casually justify murder when there is reason to suspect the real enemy is among you...

Liberty's Edge

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:
I'd say feeling comes from gut instinct. But that's not logic. You can't mixup instinct and logic. The two different things.

I fear you missed the context of what was written to make a statement like this.

Quote:
But your last sentence says it all. You're mixing up ethics with morality and basically it would seem that we are living in two different worlds. My world has a whole slew of colors than just black or white.

Which last sentence would that be; to which post?

Allow me to clear it up a little, since there seems to be some confusion...

...from dictionary.com

Spoiler:
mor·al [mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

or

mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-]
noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

This is how the two terms tie together...

eth·ics [eth-iks]
plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

As you can see they are co-dependent terms while ethics can comprise a different system of morally accepted behavior, for the most part they are principles that transcend culture and nations. For instance, the moral behavior of a devil worshiping politician will be much different than a God-fearing layman. Which is more prevalent in society? Which do the vast majority of folks accept as correct?

By the way, my world consists the full spectrum of color. It just seems I can tell the difference between them more clearly. So, like you say, we appear to be living in two different worlds...

Quote:
I have to say you have a very twisted idea of what logic is.

Twisted idea of logic? I simply see the situation for what it is. What is the brain? A complex bio-computer, right? How does it know what to do? It has programs pre-installed (there is your instinct) to translate stimuli into usable information the brain can process. Computers are programmed using logic, just as the brain is. Do we fully understand the logic? Not likely (although I suspect some are very close). Just like computers, the brain can get a "virus" (some cultures or religions see this as sin) that messes up the correct processing of information. Ever wonder where we get psychopaths or other deviants? The logic has become corrupted. For some, the corruption comes earlier based upon experiences. Thus, we come back to my points. It all boils down to what I have said in previous posts.

What is a role-playing game if not an exercise in logic? It is a game of choices that the player makes, the GM interprets, and the group accepts as plausible. Need it be a formal exercise? Isn't this just an application in simulated morality but using a different set of parameters? If you read any studies on the brain you will inevitably find more than a few that delve into the brains potential for simulation. It puts supercomputers to shame in the scope of complexity and flexibility to on the spot changes that are possible. Supercomputers are fast, yes, but they cannot adapt on the fly, like the human brain can.

In the end, however, the ideas of right and wrong come from the players in the real world, a new set of morals doesn't just spring up out of nowhere as some would imply in this thread.

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>