Malagant's page

That is literally what the rules say. But I don't really like that answer.

Where could I find the rule for this in the Player Core or GM Core?

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.

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.

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.

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

If you multiclass for 4 levels of Hexcrafter Magus you can get Hexes. It's not quite clear if the Magus can take Extra Hex but it seems reasonable that he could.

The magus can take extra arcana and use that to take a hex in its place.

There was a dev comment in a thread about a similar topic. And it said that victims are not crushed. I think the reason was that the new ground (the wall) becomes the anchor for the pit spell.

Edit:
Found it. Was not a dev but JJ:

James Jacobs wrote:

This is certainly a creative use for the spells, but it's also well beyond the intent of the spell. I'd say that if you create a wall over a pit in this manner, the pit's new opening simply shifts up to the top of the wall—the pit stays the same size, it just shifts upward enough so that the upper edge is still flush with the "surface" above. Then when the pit spell ends, things within are deposited atop the recently-created wall.

Going with the "cap the victim in place in the pit" option can be fun, though... fun enough that it should probably be it's own specialized spell.

And anyway, the create pit spells are already arguably too good for the levels they're all at anyway. They don't need help being better. ;-)

As he's no rules guy it is more of an opinion but one that's important for some posters.

I personally think he is wrong. He just didn't want to reward his players for coming up with a great synergy between spells. More of a jerk GM move to me...

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:

The pit does not need to be dismissed, it will run out on its own soon enough. Assuming the trapped victims have no way to escape, they should suffer falling damage at the least, but to have them appear on top? That is BS...

how's it BS? Anytime anyone gets poofed into an occupied space they instead take damage and appear in the nearest available space. I guess you could argue that the spell isn't teleporting them to an occupied space, but its experation forces them into one. I'm pretty sure its handled the same way

Ok, I can concede that they can get shunted, but not without paying the price. The minimum penalty should be falling damage for the distance traveled.

As an aside, I like to create pits and then cast cloudkill into them. :)

I see quite a few folks jumping on this guy for being passionate about his hobby. Some of you sound like real jackasses, jumping all over this guy. Can't you just ignore the parts you think are "whiney" and just focus on the rules questions? Haven't we all at one point or another been exacerbated by a GM that doesn't have a clear handle on the rules? Give this guy a break...

1) Color Spray would create a prismatic/kaleidoscopic display of color. There would necessarily be some light emitted but not enough to overcome Darkness effects. Since Color Spray is a pattern, it must be seen to have effect.

2) If Color Spray has an effect and stuns its target, then it would drop all it is carrying. However, as others have said, this doesn't necessarily follow that the creature would fall off a ceiling, or stop flying, or swimming. It just makes you unable to act and applies disadvantages to the creature.

3) The knowledge skills are useful to see if you know anything about the creatures being faced. Making a successful roll will reveal useful information regarding its abilities and/or weaknesses. The higher the roll the more you know. Have your GM read the knowledge skill entry.

After a fairly long thread about the subject, the original question was marked as answered in the FAQ... except it wasn't. When I commented, someone suggested they had marked it to clear it from the queue, but couldn't determine the actual question. So I thought I'd simply ask again and clarify.

Please mark this for the FAQ so we can get a response.

Question:
Does the paladin have to cast the Detect Evil SLA normally before he can use the move action version on a single target, or is the latter an independent use that can be done on its own?

I read it as an either or scenario. Either the paladin can cast Detect Evil and follow its normal rules governing the spell, OR he can use Detect Evil as a move action to focus on a SINGLE item or creature and determine if it is evil in a single round.

The former would be used if you are unsure if/where evil is nearby, whether invisible or whatever. The latter would be used if you needed to make an on the spot judgement if you can see an item or creature, presumably to use Smite Evil without wasting it.

You seem to be confused.

I'm curious where you think I'm confused?

Just because the modern world has essentially abolished all forms of slavery as legal and declared freedom an inalienable right, most specifically in the USA, does not mean that in a non real world context that freedom is an inalienable right.

Just because evil men/women convince folks of the merits of an evil act and integrate it into mainstream society does not a right act make. Evil people throughout history have justified the oppression of millions/billions to preserve THEIR status.

Throughout history there has always been a struggle for freedom, to cast off the yoke of oppression. The earliest modern incarnation that I can recall off the top of my head was the Magna Carta in the early 1200's. It wasn't until the late 1700's (IIRC) that the ideas of liberty and personal freedom gained enough traction with the people that governments throughout the world had no choice but to enumerate it into law. It took longer to implement in some cases like America (and not fully realized given our current system, which is another nest of wasps), but the struggle goes on.

Stop imposing real world morality into this fantasy game and world.

Quite the statement considering the world of Golarion was built by injecting REAL WORLD cultures into the setting in roughly geographically consistent analogues.

What basis should I base fantasy morality on then if not the real world equivalents? Every fantasy culture is an amalgamation of real world systems...

There have been many cultures in our real world history where freedom was not inalienable.

True, but why? Who convinced the people that they should accept such a state for their fellow man?

The feudal system essentially used the common folk or peasants as serfs. Born a serf, almost always remain a serf. Born into servitude to your lord. The lord had duties to protect his people.

True, but were the people really given a choice? Did they have weapons, armor, training to oppose their "lords"? The self appointed aristocracy were experts at divide and conquer, convincing their serfs/slaves that their way was right and just...

It was the social contract of that day and age.

An uneducated public can be convinced of anything that goes against their best interests.

But that was no less slavery than the reprehensible slavery of America in the 1800's.

Agreed.

But feudalism wasn't evil.

To expand the comment regarding social contracts, as a system feudalism is not in and of itself evil, I agree. Although, I would argue that it promotes the idea that some people are just better than others (caste system). The evil comes in when the aristocracy and their enforcers become abusive of those they are supposed to be protecting. When they see themselves as somehow better than those they rely on for their livelihood, seeing the public as their property/chattel.

...It seems that everybody hates the guys who capture slaves, because they take victims who start out with rights, such as freedom, and strip them of those rights. But owning slaves is a different story.

How is it a different story? Are you saying there is no linkage between the one who captures and strips someone of inalienable rights and the one who buys the slave, who by extension condones and reinforces the unnatural status? Just because society gets acclimated to evil does not suddenly make it right and just for that society; it is evil that has gained acceptance (the status quo). What does that say about the people of that society that they would justify such practices? I'm quite certain they would be incensed if someone tried to strip them of their rights and sell them into slavery...

Recently it has become clear to me that there really is no interest in a reasoned discussion on some certain "taboo" subjects. It's ok for those that support the "enlightened" opinion to call folks bigot or other objectionable names, but those of us that represent more traditional viewpoints have their posts deleted receive moderator thread warnings... It's censorship pure and simple and it is disgusting.

You allow very politically charged threads to exist but only so long as the "enlightened" agenda is promoted. If you really wanted to have an even handed approach, you would just remove the threads altogether.

I'll be waiting for this post to be deleted as well...

So, I recently was running a game, in which I had a succubus to play around with, and one of the characters ran up and grappled her.

On her turn I stated. Okay, we are grappled. We both have the grappled condition, with you being the grappler, so I um. Level drain you.

As it states, a succubus must be in a grapple to perform her Kiss / drain. Am I in the wrong for level draining the grappler who had me held up?

The question I have is, was this succubus in her natural demonic form, or was she taking the form of some hot piece of tail? A succubus should be trying to lure the party into giving her a kiss on their own, without even having to resort to combat.

In the Council of Thieves, we almost had a TPK because of a succubus...

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I've realised that, going off of what's presented in the Books of the Damned, the daemons should have been wiped out a long time ago. Here's why:

First of all, everybody wants them dead. The demons, the devils, the empyreal lords, pretty much every body wants the daemons gone. Now, that in and of itself wouldn't necessarily damn the species to extinction (we could say similar things about the demons after all) but it will be important once we examine point two.

Secondly, and more importantly, the daemons are the weakest faction of the various archfiends. Think about it--according to their own faction book, each of the Horsemen is about en paar with a demon lord, archdevil, or empyreal lord. Each harbinger is of similar power to a nascent demon lord or infernal duke. This means there's a massive power disparity. There are eight archdevils, not counting Asmodeus (a god). There are countless demon lords, not counting Lamashtu (a god). There are many, many empyreal lords, not counting Sarenrae (again, a god). There are only four archdaemons, and they don't have a god in their corner (at least not since the Oinodaemon was bound).

With that in mind, how am I supposed to believe that Abbadon was able to resist Lamashtu's invasion, or any of the other incursions they've suffered. The daemons are so much weaker in terms of the power they have available to them, that there's no believable way they could have lasted this long. They are outnumbered and outgunned by Heaven, Hell, and the Abyss.

While we're on the subject, why was it decided that the daemons should be so much weaker? I get that the Horsemen of the Apocalypse theme is cool, but only four archdaemons? In all of Abbadon there's only four daemons who can stand up to a demon lord, archdevil, or empyreal lord? I find that hard to believe. It seems silly to make one faction so much lesser than the rest.

When I run a campaign, I'm going to have to alter the rules somewhat. I'll likely make the Four...

It's all a ruse, put on by the yugoloths. It's their greatest peel ever, to make everyone believe they don't exist (in Pathfinder). Daemons are just their servitors...

stop reading subjective opinions as matter of fact A+B = C.

This is ambiguous. Each GM must and is specifically allowed, to make their own determination based on the circumstances at hand, how charm person will work at their table.

This isn't, "Either I convince my new "friend" to kill his other friends, or he must kill himself." I can see that getting abused big time.

It is:

Player: GM I cast charm person on that guy.
GM: Ok, he fails his save, he's now your friend.
Player: Ok, I command him to kill the lady sorcerer over there.
GM: He looks at you quizzically, "But my friend, you want me to kill my wife? Why?!"
Player: Hah! He has to kill himself now, the FAQ says so.
GM: Get off my table.

I agree, a better way to handle this scenario would be...

Player: GM I cast Charm Person on that guy.
GM: Ok, he fails his save, he's now your friend.
Player: Ok, I ask him to intervene on my behalf to prevent that sorceress from hurting me.
GM: He nods his ascent and tries to interpose himself between the sorceress and his "friend", trying desperately to reason with the sorceress, even going as far as to try to subdue the sorceress for her own good of course.

Charm Person (or Monster for that matter) are subtle controls that take tact and patience to use effectively. Asking someone to intervene on your behalf is reasonable to just about any person, asking them to attack friends and loved ones should immediately trigger resistance in the victim.

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:

The way I run mine is to take Spell Blending early to pick up Touch of Fatigue. Even if the spell is resisted, you still got that extra attack with your weapon to deliver the spell, which makes it like a ghetto monk's flurry. Since Touch of Fatigue is a 0-Level spell you can do this indefinitely. Also, since it is a 0-Level spell, the concentration check required to cast in a melee is fairly easy at any level.

Why bother? You can spellstrike with Arcane Mark. It does no damage, but you can brand "loser" in aklo on their forehead. If you want added damage potential, you can take the Close Range arcana for Ray of Frost.

For a chance to apply a decent debuff, of course. The chance may be slim, but it potentially holds more utility than Arcane Mark. At least as far as battle is concerned...

Fatigued may not seem like much, but -2 strength and dexterity translates into -1 attack/damage and -1 AC making your job of defeating the enemy that much easier. Besides, if you need to withdraw, he can't very well keep up as he can't run or charge...

I'm just baffled why Touch of Fatigue wasn't on the Magus spell list in the first place though considering that the Magus is all about touch spells...

A Synthesist Summoner might be able to get his Str that high...

He can't cast wish, though....

EDIT: Start as an Orc w/ maximized Str, for a 22. Dip Ragechemist 1 and Barbarian 1.

22
+5 inherent (from a manual)
+4 level up (I'll assume you want to pull this off before level 20, otherwise...+5)
+6 enhancement
+6 Ragechemist
+4 Rage

= 47 Str

Still not enough...

Don't forget about mythic tiers! 6th Tier anything can get you to 50 and 8th will get you 51 using your method ;)

Why are folks up in arms over naming conventions anyway? If the name is obviously obscene, then sure, force a name change. For everyone else? If you don't like a character's name, don't deal with him/her, put on ignore and move along. At some point, people aren't going to be able to come up with "approved" unique names due to every good name being taken by another player. So what if someone wants to be Drizzt or Gandalf? I personally don't like being censored because someone read a book and doesn't like what I like, or likes it so much they get offended if someone wants to take on the name or a variant thereof. That said, I would prefer folks to be more original or perhaps take the name of a more obscure character from a book. It's like an easter egg when it dawns on you, oh yeah! I remember that character.

Maybe I'm off base here, but it really seems to me that the description of Field Plate and it's stats do not match up.

Shouldn't it read as follows?

Serisan wrote:

steve steve 983 wrote:

So i have a friend saying Palidans can threaten commoners or even people who pass a sense motive check and he has no idea they are lying.

Im pretty sure that it means he falls or is look down upon but im just making sure.

It doesn't take much to justify utilizing threats as a paladin. In fact, there's nothing wrong with threats, unless the specific purpose is to terrorize.

Agreed. Police use threats of force quite commonly, but so long as it's for the purposes of keeping the peace, it's OK. In a setting where you have the paladin as an enforcer of divine justice, threats that keep the peace for the benefit of law and goodness can themselves be acts of law and goodness.

I can't believe what I just read here...

You are saying that because police do it, it's ok...just so long as it keeps the peace? This has to be the most asinine thing I've read in a while. Is the peace so valuable that the guardians we put in place to protect it should resort to thug tactics to keep it? Where does it stop? Threats and intimidation are tools of tyranny. Are you aware that today we are living in a police state because over a period of time, incrementally, government has undermined our Constitutional protections? Ever heard of the TSA? Ever heard of VIPR teams? Why do they exist? Because someone demanded we give up liberty for protection! It all started innocently enough though. It didn't spring up overnight. Now, they are groping us and irradiating us all to keep us safe from the bogeyman...

When the people are convinced that such police/government behavior is acceptable, you have in place a system of corruption and domination that is the equivalent of SLAVERY anywhere else in the world. This is why we are supposed to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to prevent such tyranny. Today, everyone charged with defending and enforcing the Constitution seems to only want to undermine it and remove it. Thus we have tyranny on a scale not seen since the time of the American Revolution which started in 1776.

What does this rant have to do with the discussion at hand? Everything; it shows how "good" intentions pave the way to hell! Corruption is a slow process of going just a little bit further each time. "Give a mouse a cookie, and he wants a glass of milk..."

Evil lies in the heart; in justifications. By extension, evil lies in the actions that follow the hearts intent. Threats and intimidation are only outward manifestations of the corruption that lies in the heart. One could say, "but it's only a bluff". That too lies along the path to corruption for it is a lie, which is against a paladins code. So, as it pertains to a paladin and his code of conduct, it is absolutely evil to issue threats and intimidate. However, a paladin should not lose paladin-hood due to a single misstep. Rather, such corruption should be gradual in my opinion, as his actions match the intent of his heart.

The rationale you laid bare, is fit for Hellknights, not Paladins. Suitable for thugs, not peace officers.