In a homebrew PF campaign, our party was captured in a secret underground prison, and had to break out. We decided that it should be done stealthily, which for our group translated to "kill things quickly and hide the bodies!" since the dwarven fighter boasted the best stealth. We decided the best place to hide the bodies was our cell, which worked well for us, but not as well for the only guard we knocked out and had chained to the wall. He woke up some hours later, neck-deep in a pile of his dead friends. According to the DM, no-one came to set him free, so he eventually died.
Same campaign, we were tracking down the "leader" (or so we thought) of the group that captured us. Our search lead us to a large underground lake. It took us about an hour of rowing to cross, but we did and found the lair. Miraculously, 2 of our enemies survived, including the "leader". We stripped them down, tied them together spooning each other, put them in a raft, and gently pushed them into the underground lake. So we left two naked dwarved bound together in a raft in the middle of a huge underground lake that is populated by scrags (yeah, we fought one). I'm not sure how we retained our Chaotic Neutral (or in my case, Chaotic Good) alignments in that campaign.
Not cruel necessarily, but definitely the most evil thing I have done. In a different campaign, using a somewhat modified 4e setting, I played a cleric. He was a standard heal/buff bot, and was welcomed with open arms. We eventually ran afoul of a super-powerful evil dragon, who my cleric made friends with by inviting him to afternoon tea. We found a tea shop that sold delicious pastries. Since the primary benefactor of the entire town was the evil dragon, it sold a number of oddities in addition to the more mundane fare. These treats were things such as meat-pies made out of orphans, or blood-filled donuts (from only the most innocent of virgins). Our party loaded up on our favorite pastries, with the evil warlock buying extra of the orphan pies. Pretty soon a new game had started. The warlock would offer the paladin a meat pie, promise him it was not made out of orphans, succeed at the Bluff check (the paladin had no Sense Motive), and make the paladin feel horrible. The game didn't last too long, as my cleric helpfully stepped in. With his higher Sense Motive, he was able to spare the paladin, and would intercept and replace the meat pies with ones from his own pack, that he had blessed to make extra tasty. The thing was, no one had paid attention to what pastries my cleric had bought. They were all worse than the warlock's purchases. So every time the paladin thanked me for saving him from having to do penance for cannibalism, I was feeding him orphan meat infused with necrotic energies. It was an experiment of some sorts, to see if I could force the paladin to fall via eating habits, a worthy quest for knowledge for a cleric who secretly worshiped Vecna. Unfortunately the campaign ended right as my plans came to fruition and a portal to another plane opened from the paladin's stomach.
Otherwise, I am in the same boat as many other on the thread. When I DM, I am far more cruel than my players are. I think some of them are still wary of me from Council of Thieves, where I spiced it up by adding traitors, and killing off almost all the NPCs they cared about. The Children of Westcrown Massacre was particularly horrifying to them, as I think only 3/10 of the NPCs survived, and most died horribly off-screen.
I mean, it's absurd. When I'm reading Sanderson I'm about ten times as alert as I usually am while reading fantasy, because I know that not only is a plot twist coming, but that it will be well set up with what would seem like some minor details. It happened in all of his books that I read. And still, time after time, he surprises me. When I finished reading Steelheart the twist was so darned elegant that I lay down my kindle and clapped respectfully when I read it, despite being alone in the room. Other authors may write as fast or (equally rarely) as smart, but not both.
It's really quite amazing. In Steelheart, I knew the twists were coming. I even vaguely knew what characters and plot points would be involved in said twists, and still I was unable to fully predict them.
Then with the Stormlight Archive, you have some characters popping between the worlds, and little hints of the crossover that are only apparent if you are paying attention (for example, you might notice a character using Rioting from Mistborn). And it all makes sense. It all fits. I legitimately don't understand how he can keep the entire Cosmere so consistent with so many tiny hints that are almost unnoticeable by the reader.
I agree, there could be some legal ramifications. Granted, what those ramifications are depends a lot on the government in the area.
Paladins are known for being good and just, so in a good society, it is likely that his actions would be viewed in the best possible light. This does not excuse him from wrongdoing, but it will sway a he said/she said situation. Which is kind of what the current situation is. The paladin can say, "she was about to cast a spell, I had to act quickly and decisively for the good of my comrades and the innocent children who may have been harmed", and unless the party turns against him, the authorities will likely take him at his word. There might be some skepticism, but once it comes to light that this woman was kidnapping children and ransoming them back to their families, the reaction from the authorities may very well become "thanks for taking care of that for us!". Perhaps a few jaded guards are sick of those adventurers walking around like they own the place, but he would be by-and-large in the clear.
This is assuming the standard behavior that I generally see from guards in my campaigns. Depending on the town, the legal ramifications could change drastically. If they are mistrust paladins, don't recognize the paladin's deity, are extremely strict about "no killing" even when doing good, or are corrupt, the reaction would definitely change drastically. But in generic good village #53, flashing his paladin credentials, revealing what she was doing, and saying "she refused to surrender and may have been casting a spell that would harm innocents. I did what Torag would expect of me", would probably alleviate most of the legal concerns.
Here is the issue I have with the "unarmed woman" portion. She is casting a spell. Is someone partway through casting a fireball unarmed? I would say no. They are about to unleash a huge weapon.
Which comes to a bit of a grey area. He may not know what spell it is. It could be a fireball that will consume the entire "orphanage", killing everyone inside. She could be casting a spell to provide better illumination. If the paladin doesn't have Spellcraft, he doesn't know what it is. That is where a bit of a judgement call comes in, and Sense Motive can be a helpful substitute. However, modern cops I believe are trained to assume a weapon when in doubt. That is part of why toy guns generally have bright orange tips, to make it obvious it is not a threat. An unknown spell is potentially more dangerous than pretty much any weapon the woman could be wielding.
So then the question is, does the paladin err on the side of caution for his allies, or the side of redemption. And this is where the many variants of paladin come into play, as there is no single way to play a paladin. A more redemption-focused paladin, such as Sarenrae or Shelyn, holding your strike or going none-lethal would be preferable. Not absolute, as the individual paladin would need to weigh the situation (where are the innocent children, if it is an offensive spell, can they weather it). However, paladins of Torag are incredible severe. For a paladin of Torag, after you declare yourself an enemy you should expect no quarter. Not interrupting the caster to protect those around them would be a betrayal of their code. For lethal vs non-lethal, Torag's code sets a clear precedence of "if you are my enemy, I will not hold back".
TLDR: Depending on the paladin's diety and personal code, the actions can be justified (or found abhorrent) quite easily. There is no single way to play a paladin, and for your average paladin of Torag, I see no reason to consider the OP's actions extreme.
Not going to go through a detailed response to each section, but seeing as we have 1 session left, I think I can weigh in. I was the GM for our campaign.
1) GM Ease of Play - 9
2) Synthesis of the Story - 4
3) Role-play Friendly - 3 for out of the box, 8 for potential
4) Combat Design - 7. There are a couple boss encounters that are pretty easy (Liebdaga). Overall, there are a decent mix of challenging and easy encounters.
5) Fun factor - 9. I heavily modified the campaign, mostly to improve on points 2 & 3. The fact that I enjoyed modifying the campaign and thought CoT was a great scaffold makes this score high. I think without heavy modifications, it would be more of a 5.
Council of Thieves is pretty good if your group likes intrigue and your GM is willing to put in effort to make the city alive and interesting.
My caution with Skull & Shackles is that I think the quality of the campaign varies greatly based on party composition. If you have players and a GM that will dive into being piratey head-first, and enjoy a sandboxey campaign, it will be great. I am playing it with a group that contains no piratey PCs and the GM is not a big pirate fan, and it has been kind of a flop. My sense is that most of the APs provide solid stories that any party can be pretty happy with, but Skull & Shackles is somewhat reliant on the party buying into the "You are pirates! Be pirates!" aspect of the campaign.
so let me get this right, none of you like pirates and your GM doesn't like pirates, yet you pick... a pirate campaign....... do you see where ya lost me?
what exactly were you expecting? why on earth did you pick this AP with like 12 others to choose from? was it so you had something to complain about? (my wife's parents do this they'll go places they dislike, just so they can complain about it during and after)
Same question here.
Were the AP volumes a present or something?
The campaign is a friend's first stab at GMing, and she decided to let the players choose the AP. Of the original 5 party members, 2 didn't particularly want to play S&S (including me, I wanted Reign of Winter), and 3 really did (including the GM's fiance). The GM incorrectly figured that she could run a campaign well without having much interest in it (against my advice). I figured that I may not play a natural pirate, but I can play a character that gets swept up in it, so sure, I'll stick around. Then, 1 of the 3 pro-S&S people dropped 2 sessions in, and the other 2 pro-S&S people brought forward the most bland, flat, and inactive characters I have seen to the table. One has no character to speak of (honestly, remove the character completely and not much will have changed), the other only drinks and complains that he is not actively killing something (I am not exaggerating, I can count the number of non-drink/killing related things he has said/done on one hand, and we are in book 4). The character that acts the most like a pirate is my character, who was supposed to be a reluctant pirate, but ended up Captain and trying to lead the group to some semblance of being piratey. So the issue is the people who like pirates aren't actually acting like pirates, and the ones who don't really like pirates are trying to pull up the slack. Not ideal.
The GM thus far has not cancelled it due to the fact anytime she broaches the subject of stopping the 2 pirate-loving ones (again, one of which is her fiance) persuade her that it is really fun and they want to keep going. Yeah, it doesn't make sense at all. The main reason I haven't dropped out of the group yet is due to not wanting to deal with the social fallout and the GM's continued promises me that she will turn it around. I think I finally have persuaded the GM to drop the campaign soon though.
Anyway, all my personal group dysfunction aside, I definitely see the potential of S&S. I have another group that I kind of want to run it for, because I think they would have a blast with it. I just think that compared to the other APs I have read/played/GMed, having the right group for it is far more important. I mean, you don't have to have the group commit to a particular theme for Rise of the Runelords or Reign of Winter to be good For Skull and Shackles I think having the group buy into the theme is about as important as what is in the books.
Rise of the Runelord is my top
Council of Thieves is pretty good if your group likes intrigue and your GM is willing to put in effort to make the city alive and interesting.
My caution with Skull & Shackles is that I think the quality of the campaign varies greatly based on party composition. If you have players and a GM that will dive into being piratey head-first, and enjoy a sandboxey campaign, it will be great. I am playing it with a group that contains no piratey PCs and the GM is not a big pirate fan, and it has been kind of a flop. My sense is that most of the APs provide solid stories that any party can be pretty happy with, but Skull & Shackles is somewhat reliant on the party buying into the "You are pirates! Be pirates!" aspect of the campaign.
I don't think having him come back as a spectral undead is the perfect solution, because Thesing plays a major, public role in book 2.
Here is what I, personally, would do. (Spoilered just in case)
Spoiler:
If the dottari are aware of the crime, they presumably took the body with them. I would say have the Ulvauno family, with generous and very public donations from his adoring fans, resurrect Thesing. Again, have the PCs encounter people on the streets raising money for the resurrection of the beloved actor. Then the Six Trials of Larazod can also be Thesing's grand comeback performance. Have a scene where Thesing publicly lavishes praise on the PC for eliminating his "killers".
The preparations for the play will have a great underlying tension. Thesing knows the PCs killed him, and that he can reveal their crimes and send them to jail on a whim. He will use that leverage to take petty acts of revenge and make them do demeaning tasks for him. It will ramp up the animosity between Thesing and the party. He is already supposed to be a condescending jerk, but now he has leverage and can really taunt the party. Give him some powerful bodyguards as well, to ensure he "doesn't get attacked by any more Thieves".
After the play, he wouldn't dare try to expose the PCs, because it will seem like a false accusation of revenge for "ruining" his grand comeback. Then, have him fade into the background, popping up occasionally for some antagonistic jabs. For example, when my party emerged from Delvehaven they found packages waiting for them with rotten dishes from the Cornucopia along with insulting notes and hints that he knew they went into the Asmodean Knot. He is now primed to become a vampiric antagonist as he is supposed to be.
Yeah, murder is a big deal, and Thesing is a pretty big celebrity in Cheliax, so the group will need to figure out how to handle this.
If his body makes it to the proper authorities, you can have the PCs run into instances of people in the streets mourning his loss, and attempting to raise money to resurrect him. If the PCs stash his body away some where, imagine their surprise when he makes his triumphant return in book 2, perhaps courtesy of a Council of Thieves agent that stumbled upon his corpse in a hideaway and thought he would be useful.
Running Council of Thieves, I have made a lot of changes. I would say roughly 40-50% of what is going on is homebrew with the AP as the skeleton. I have added multiple subplots, enhanced NPCs, added recurring villains/themes. I have mostly kept the original enemies and encounters and basic plot though.
My Rise of the Runelords campaign was also fairly customized, using a lot of community created content to help. Unfortunately, half of the players moved away, and the campaign fell apart.
I think you really need to do a lot of customization for the AP for them to be truly great campaigns. They give a great skeleton, with good basic plots and encounters, but if you don't take the time to tailor them to your group and make them your own, I think they fall kind of flat. I am in a Skull and Shackles campaign where the DM has not really done much customization beyond tweaking difficulty, and the experience overall has ended up being pretty bland and not terribly fun (in no small part because all of the players have characters that are reactive/not-very-piratey).
It would be interesting to hear from the players since it has been 'resolved' in game and it probably wouldn't matter if they saw this thread now.
I mention my posts at most sessions. I use spoiler tags, and never post about stuff that ESSENTIAL to the story. When I bring up the paizo forums, they tend to say
"Let me guess. Kill his character?", in reference to my older posts getting a lot of "Just kill the character" sort of replies. It's actually an in joke for us...
If the forums are a joke to you and your group . . . why do you bother posting questions on the forum?
I'm glad things worked out for your group, and it sounds like you do have a very different type of group from the rest of us, but I can't shake the feeling that the forum doesn't get the true players' stories, and you are skewing the forum's response to the players. Add me to the group that would like to see a response from your players after reading this thread in its entirety.
Why does the fighter not have an Amulet of Natural Armor, A Ring of Protection, and so forth?
IF the DM is house ruling that Natural Armor and normal Armor does not stack, there's not much incentive for the fighter to take it.
Not much incentive for anyone to take it. Why shell out 50k for +5 to your armor when you can get the same exact effect for 16k via a +4 Hakarami and get the exact same effect? (No ACP or arcane failure chance). For the vast majority of martials, a 200 gp Breastplate would be considered superior to a +5 Amulet of Natural Armor if the bonuses did not stack.
I believe in Council of Thieves, the really bad ending has Mammon being brought to the Material Plane. Which means Cheliax is going to be dealing with or taken over by an archdevil.
Yes, let's make sure the mechanics ruin any attempt at fun the GM is going for.
I am all for fun. I was just listing the areas that can/will tip off the party. The GM can handwave them, or incorporate them to give the party chances at seeing the deception. Heck, I would set the DC for discovering the Ranger's Companion doesn't benefit from Favored Enemy really high (30+). It would be really difficult for a layperson to realize the druid is missing a +2.
Wouldn't the ranger figure out what is wrong when he tries to Handle Animal his Companion as a free action? Is the druid going to have to fake learning tricks so he doesn't suspect anything? I would say every time the ranger trains or gives his "animal companion" a command, he would get a check to figure it out.
What level is the druid? If they are under level 8, then they can't get a full night's rest while staying in animal form. The party is going to start wondering why the animal companion isn't healing from a full night's rest like everyone else is.
The druid will not benefit from the ranger's favored enemy. So any time they are in the favored terrain or fighting the ranger's favored enemy, they might notice a discrepancy with how the ranger is especially good at fighting this type of enemy, but the animal companion isn't. Similar effect with favored terrain, the "animal companion" will not seem as comfortable in the terrain as the ranger is.
The second the Ranger tries to case a personal/human target spell on his animal companion, the jig will be up, as the druid doesn't get the benefit of Share Spells.
Follow the Yellow Brick Road. Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Follow, follow, follow, follow,
Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Follow the Yellow Brick, Follow the Yellow Brick,
Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Not my kind of game either.
If you agree to play in an AP, then you have agreed not to stray TOO far from the path. If that's not your kind of game, playing an AP probable isn't the best choice for you.
Sure. But note that "TOO far from the path"- there has to be some reasonable room for side treks, etc.
Agreed. Deciding to open a shipping business in Absalom is definitely too far from the path for Rise of the Runelords.
Preferring a leisurely day in Sandpoint rather than going boar hunting is still on the path, if near the edge. After all, the PCs are supposed to bond with Sandpoint.
Preferring to stay at the brothel instead of the inn, standing next to the path. It should not be too disruptive unless the GM is being especially rigid in their railroading.
Still, the way to solve this is for the GM and player to talk and discuss why the player is going off the rails. Does the player find the hooks unsatisfactory? Does the player chafe at the railroading? Is the player intentionally sidelining himself because he wants to avoid metagaming (I believe the OP said they had played the first 2 modules)? Or is the player just being disruptive? Until you figure out the why, you won't be able to fix it.
They have royal protection? Lol, I missed that. That's ridiculous. That's doesn't change the fact that the paladin should fall, but to have a good, royally protected goblin tribe, that the goblin expert didn't know about is completely absurd. It sounds to me like neither you nor your players understand how to play this game
Just to clarify on behalf of Mulet based on info from the other thread, they have royal protection because the King of Varisia sees them as a potential bridge for peaceful coexistence with goblins. Apparently, Shalelu and the Mayor do have knowledge of them, but keep it secret to keep the village safe. Which, I suppose makes some sense. Except in the context of "Our village was just attacked by goblins! You, heroic adventurers! We entrust to you the task of unearthing what is going on with the goblins and preventing further attacks!". You would think that saying "Hey, there actually is a legit good goblin tribe, you might be able to talk with them to figure out what is going on." would be included with the mission briefing.
----------------------
It seems like the thread has reached a general consensus of in isolation for this event, the paladin should fall. The standard grey areas of innately evil expectations of goblin and the extent a paladin must go to show mercy apply, but those arguments will never be resolved.
The events leading to the fall are what brings it into question. It begins looking like a GM trap where information that should have been readily available to prevent the fall. For instance:
No Sense Motive behind the screen to determine the NPC was lying.
The omission of vital data from friendly NPCs about the existence of a good tribe of goblins when it really would make sense for it to be given to the PCs.
The fact that these goblins that embrace learning and culture somehow don't know Common when their less-educated brethren do.
Also, we don't know how clear it was that the goblins were crying and begging for mercy, and that there were clearly children fleeing for their lives in terror. Since goblins antics are so wild and varied, I could easily see the PCs not catching the behavior indicators, especially if the GM was not extremely careful in highlighting the indicators that differentiated it from standard CE goblins acting like goblins.
Aside from the timing issues, and the "why would they tell anyone?" question, I would ask why they are going to have a trial at all. I mean, this is a goblin village that the government actively hid from the party and the general populace. They decided that the best way to protect the village was to keep it secret, to the extent that when sent out a group of adventurers to kill off the potential goblin threats in the area they didn't tell them.
Having a public trial just doesn't make sense here. This is the end result as I see it:
The general populace thinks the government is incompetent for denying people vital information from the people who needed it. Sandpoint just had an initial attack from goblins, and the Mayor and Shalelu (who certainly are in the know) sent the PCs out to figure out what is going on and stop the goblin threat. Which means the government sent out a group to sort out the situation but denied them vital information. This is gross incompetence of the government. Say the town gets razed by goblins during the trial. Well, that means that the government chose to prosecute the PCs, the town's best hope of survival, for killing allegedly good goblins (post-razing, the only good goblin would be a dead goblin and the government is the only source of information regarding the goblins' good-ness). So the government enabled the destruction of the town by denying them their best source of protection by bringing them up on trumped up charges.
The end result will be extreme animosity to the government from the people in the region, possibly extending throughout Varisia as they see how the government cares more about justice for an allegedly good tribe of goblins more than safety their own citizens. Peasant revolts and a possible revolution may ensue, and Cheliax could think, "Hey, I always wanted more control of Varisia . . . let's send some Hellknights there". A very cool turn for a campaign to be sure, but it sends the campaign completely away from the AP plot.
So, in my mind, any type of public trial would be out of the question. Now, perhaps a secret trial by a kangaroo court led by a certain corrupt Justice in Magnimar would be appropriate.
Defense: "Your honor. We stumbled upon a poor woman by the name of Natalie who told us of a tribe of goblins we had not heard of that had nearly killed her. Fearing that a new threat was emerging we took decisive action."
Prosecutor: "The goblins were fleeing and begging for their lives!"
Defense: "None of us spoke Goblin. Have you ever fought goblins? They behave erratically at best, though they can be surprisingly crafty. They are also a fairly cowardly lot. We had no way of knowing their panic and gibbering was an honest surrender, and not vicious goblins trying some ruse or caught up in the excitement of battle."
Prosecutor: "Well, you should have done research to avoid this sort of thing."
Defense: "Before we were sent off to cull the goblin threat surrounding Sandpoint, at the behest of the local government, we consulted an expert on goblins in the area. She gave us great details on all the goblin tribes in the area except this one. We had no reason to believe that she, or the local government, were omitting any information. Thus, we had no reason to assume that this particular tribe was unique and under the King's protection."
Just want to chip in my 2 cents. While the paladin's conduct in killing the tribe of good goblins and showing no mercy is fall worthy, I do think this was a GM trap.
The OP has another thread about how the party just failed Burnt offerings here.
Apparently, this tribe of good goblins was so notable that the ruler of Varisia granted them his personal protection. And NONE of the PCs knew about it. The fact that this unique goblin tribe had such status to draw the attention of the ruler of the country, but Shalelu didn't think them worth mentioning makes me think this was a GM trap. If not specifically for the paladin, it is something that the GM thought would be such a cool "gotcha!" moment for the party that he was willing to ignore past events and basic logic to accomplish it.
So in isolation, torching a village of good goblins and killing all of them is definitely against the paladin code, and would cause a fall. But personally, given the apparent misinformation and manipulation the GM is doing to the players with this scenario, I don't think a paladin fall is appropriate. I would feel like an slimy, evil a-hole if I made a paladin fall for doing something that seemed logical because I withheld vital in-game knowledge that should have been readily provided to the party.
I think the player retiring the character and never playing a paladin with this GM again is the correct course of action. If this type of bait-and-switch is how the OP generally operates, I personally would question my reason for playing in his campaign at all. I don't like playing in games where the world is so internally inconsistent.
My solution to the pursuit/maneuvering issue is more practical. I took Skilled Driver, Expert Driver, Skill Focus: Profession Sailor, Heart of the Sea, Besmara's Blessing, and other minor things to boost sailing checks.
I'm the pilot. A salty old sea captain.
He's only really very good at one thing, but wow, he is ever good at that one thing.
Slight derail . . . That was my original plan for my druid. Still plan to take Skill Focus (at some point), and I already have Besmara's Blessing. However, my party kind of needed me to be more combat heavy after our cavalier dropped, and since I am the Captain (and the only PC possessing both Int and Wis), spending a feat for Wild Speech is kind of required. Also, I am level 8 with a +20 Prof: Sailor with no extra bonuses and the last time we did a Prof: Sailor challenge, my DM told me I was able to pass the check with all potential penalties with a 3 on the die.
Since I have a druid in Skull and Shackles, I have been looking up tricks for naval combat. Here is what I have come up with so far.
Control Water - easy to outmaneuver a stationary ship
Repel Wood - fun spell to disrupt an enemy ship's positioning
Woodshape/Warp Wood - good for destroying rudders, opening holes in the keel, etc
Mad Monkeys - a lot of objects on the ship for them to destroy
Moonstruck - target the biggest guy on the enemy crew, give him claws, rage and confusion, and sail away to let the other crew deal with him
Old Salt's Curse - debilitate a single person by making them sickened when on the water. Good for eliminating a rival captain.
Epidemic - biological warfare at its finest. Infect the crew with bubonic plague and sail away to let the disease take its toll on the crew.
Fire Seeds - sneak aboard the enemy ship (made easy with Woodshape/Wild Shape), find their powder room (or just the hold if they have flammable things), and plant a bunch of Holly Berry Bombs. GTFO and detonate their powder hold.
Creeping Doom - hard for the enemy crew to continue sailing the ship when they are dealing with centipede swarms
Transmute Metal to Wood - all the metal components are now wooden. Of somewhat limited use depending on ship design.
Blood Mist- enrage the entire enemy crew and let them tear each other apart
I can sympathize with the point of view that a social agenda being pushed too much and where it doesn't belong could be annoying. I mean, if every day during breakfast someone gave you lectures about how murder is not acceptable, you would find it pedantic and annoying because that is a commonly held belief. For some who find no problem with non-heterosexual pairing, this same effect could come into play.
Now, my example of murder-talk-during-breakfast differs a lot from the issue of homosexual/trans/etc people primarily because it is still a controversial topic in society and the "no murder" policy is much less so. Thus I feel the threshold of non-preachy "pushing" is a lot higher. However, it is still possible for reasonable people who embrace to get annoyed with the message, especially since for most of us, game time is "escape for reality" time; for me at least, this includes "I don't really want to feel like someone is lobbying for a political agenda" in game. Our society has enough of that in real life.
All that being said, I don't personally think Paizo is anywhere close to crossing into the "annoyingly preachy" territory with their message of acceptance via non-heterosexual NPC pairing. I think it would take an entire AP of only NPCs in homosexual relationships for me to really feel that way.
Just to add, I love Paizo as a company precisely because they are willing to insert their personal beliefs into Golarian and stand by them. It helps that I personally agree with 99% of the beliefs they express. Also, as a heterosexual white male, I don't know if I will ever completely understand what having Paizo-created NPCs that mirror my sexual preferences/identity means to a LGBT person. Some wonderful forum posters have explained what it means to them though, and I would be perfectly happy to endure a stretch of "Come on, I get it! LGBT is ok!" frustrations in exchange for the benefits they can get from it.
. . . hopefully this all makes sense. Generally, the longer my post, the less eloquent I am, especially with complex topics.
In the Wrath of the Righteous, there are 2 homosexual couples with Irabeth/Anevia and Sosiel/Aron. So 4/8 of the NPCs that are flagged as important allies to the party are homosexual couples. Of the other 4, only 1 is mentioned as having any existing relationship (Aravashnial), but he got dumped not long before the AP. In the "not in an active and happy homosexual relationship" is also Arushalae, who we can safely conclude is bisexual. So the NPC makeup of the 8 NPCs that are expected to be close to the party is 4 homosexual, 1 straight, 1 bisexual, and 2 completely GM-determinant. Only 3 NPC-NPC relationships are mentioned, 2 homosexual relationships within the ally pool, and 1 heterosexual relationship that was over before the AP began.
In the Half-Dead City, 2 of the 4 NPCs listed in the back are in a homosexual relationship with each other.
So, looking at the past 7 books of AP without reading any supplemental material, it seems like at least recently, in AP-provided NPC-NPC relationships, homosexual relationships are far outnumbering heterosexual relationships. I considered combing through all the APs post-Skull and Shackles to do a tally of NPCs in active relationships mentioned in the NPC sections, but decided not to as I may end up as a player in one of them Shattered Star/Reign of Winter.
As Deadmanwalking pointed out, couples are more commonly identified in the setting books/articles rather than the actual AP. So while the "important to AP" group of NPCs may seem to have a disproportionate number of homosexual relationships, factoring in the setting books may make it seem less disproportionate.
Tangent101 wrote:
I think seeing some healthy heterosexual (or even bisexual-with-opposite-sex) relationships with the NPCS might be a good thing. That said, I wonder if Paizo defaults toward showing more non-heteronorm relationships with the NPCs as they expect most players to run with male-female relationships?
That was my thought too. However, if they do use that default, I think they may need to be a bit careful with application of that default, lest the underlying message of "non-heteronorm relationships are OK in Golarion" become overstated and preachy. The message is good, but over-emphasis of it could annoy people who just want to play a game.
I too think that the APs can be a little much. At least for my group that meets irregularly for a couple of hours each week. I think if you have the type of group that meets consistently for 6-8 hours on a weekend, they probably would be fine.
I think after my group wraps up our current AP (Council of Thieves, we are on book 6 so we are so close to finishing), I will take a break and do a bunch of modules instead of an AP.
I do like the ideas of what APs can be broken up into smaller portions and played as a module. For example, books 2 and 4 of Council of Thieves (The Sixfold Trial and The Infernal Syndrome) can be run independent of the AP with very minor tweaks.
Another TPK (or TPKO - Total Party Knock Out) for my group, bringing the death toll to 15. I count these as deaths because with the entire party unconscious, only the plot prevented a TPK. I actually now have a sign that says "It has been ___ days since the last perma-death".
Cast:
Magny, Halfling Sorcerer 4/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 3 (player of Davi and "Z", 6th PC death)
Hermod, Elven Cavalier 9/Fighter 1 (player of Skuld, 4th PC death)
Halung, Halfling Barbarian 10 (only surviving beginning character, 3rd death)
Mimra, Human Bard 10 (player of Maruk and Aubrey, 2nd PC death)
Adventure: Mother of Flies
Location: Ilnerik's Lair
Catalyst: Morrowfall backfiring, plus being completely unprepared
The Gory Details:
The party successfully killed the Calikang and began looting the Treasury. After securing the contract with Mammon that outlined Chammady Drovenge's doom, along with several nice pieces of treasure, they decided to press on. Despite being told by Eirtein that there was only one room beyond the Treasury, and knowing the Ilnerik lurked down there, the party chose not to resupply with anti-vampire equipment, such as a wand of Death Ward or Protection from Evil. The only anti-vampire tool in their kit was the Morrowfall. A potent tool to be sure, but one that they had already used a couple of times that day.
Undaunted, the party opened the door and came face-to-face with Ilnerik. And the 4 vampire spawn that they failed to kill in the Walcourt basement. And Jerusen, who they never killed during the Infernal Syndrome. And a vampiric Larko, who had just recently been turned (they could have rescued him had they moved a bit swifter through Walcourt).
Before anyone else can act, Magny raised the Morrowfall and used Sunburst. The vampire spawn all failed their saves and died instantly. Unfortunately, Ilnerik, Jerusen, and Larko all passed their saves, and since all had Evasion, were unscathed. Even more unfortunately, the Sunburst placement resulted in the entire party getting hit. Of the 5 (including Hermod's mount, Berzerker 2) intrepid adventurers, only Hermod and his bear made their saves. Thus the battle began between 3 fairly potent vampires and a group of blind adventurers.
Despite Ilnerik's cockiness and his refusal to cast Haste or to Dominate the only remaining enemy with eyesight intact, the party struggled. A couple of times, they barely missed attacks as the concealment penalty for being blind wreaked havoc, in addition to their quick accumulation of negative levels. Despite at one point bringing Ilnerik to 15 HP, they eventually ran out of momentum and began to fall. Magny was last to be taken out, chased down by Jerusen as he blindly stumbled down the hall to the treasury.
Amazingly, I was able to knock all of them unconscious rather than killing them. Thus they awoke the next day in Skarx's prison, where Aberten aided in their escape as a favor for the mysterious Council of Thieves agent named Abrogail.
My party is actually fairly competent in terms of build. The encounter seems like a lot, but with the damage that Halung can put out, and the ridiculous AC of Hermod, the vampire spawn and Larko were never a threat. I expected them to be wiped out within a round or two, and sure enough, none of them contributed to the fight. With wand of Death Ward and Protection from Evil, the party probably could have easily won the fight, even while blind. They just continue to try to brute force their way through encounters, rather than properly strategizing and preparing.
To confirm, those numbers are with respect to the change in WBL, correct?
If so, that means that in the end-game, the characters can be expected to be 772,166 gp over WBL. Which means they will almost be double the WBL for a normal, non-mythic PC without counting any artifacts, the vendor trash, crafting, or items saved (like from recharging wands). Yikes . . .
I am a bit fearful about what this means for my party. There only 3 people, so by my calculations (and assuming you used a 4-person party in your calculations), they will be 1,322,888 gp above WBL by the end, without counting artifacts. The witch in the party is already planning of having a crafting focus. With that wealth advantage, I guess I won't have to worry too much about adjusting encounters down for them.
Chuckg, not to demean your service in the military, but the point I was trying to make is that Iomedae would rather not send people needlessly to their deaths and thus strengthen the enemy. Is that not a good trait for officers to have?
To my understanding, the elite special forces often go through SERE training, which includes resistance to torture. How is that taught, if not by controlled torture? (I honestly don't know much about SERE, this is just what I have heard).
Would you care to respond to any of the other rebuttals I presented using quotes from the book?
Lastly, participation in this thread was originally interesting, but I grow weary of this thread. At the end of the day, we can have different interpretations of how this encounter portrays Iomedae.
I told a couple of my players about the encounter, and they thought it sounded cool and in character for Iomedae. I don't find it particularly upsetting and inconsistent with her role as a LG warrior goddess. James Jacobs seemed to express disappointment in the fan reaction, and seemed to feel that the representation of Iomedae was fairly accurate. I encourage everyone to evaluate if perhaps you are misinterpreting the encounter or Iomedae's character, and to find out what your players might think of the encounter. I suspect that the encounter's focus on negative consequences may have skewed some perspectives on the encounter.
The line between defiance and mockery is, as our very discussion here is proving, vastly subjective and all in the eye of the beholder. If the player thinks he's on one side of the line and the DM thinks he's on the other side -- which is entirely possible in any game, even ones where the players and the DM have gamed together for a long while -- then somebody's going to get the fertilizer smited out of him purely on a misunderstanding. This alone would justify the claim that this encounter is poorly written, because a well-written encounter does not set up PCs for this kind of misunderstanding without at least writing a sidebar for the DM saying 'Please keep in mind that your players and you may not interpret this the same way and err on the side of caution' or something. Which they didn't.
Tell me the exact quote where she wants "defiance". All I can find is
Quote:
She needs to know they can stand before a true deity and not quail or be reduced to groveling
I would argue that this is not active defiance. This is the basic ability to keep your wits about you and not be overawed. Mocking a goddess would be making the whole thing out to be a farce, and implying Iomedae is incompetent or lacks power. There is a spectrum, enough of one that expecting someone to be able to avoid both should be simple, and not contradictory, as you originally claimed, in the least. (I notice you backpedaling here. Before you claimed that she was being inconsistent with herself, and when I called you out on it, now you merely say that the appropriate forms of conduct is highly subjective. I suggest you pick a stance in regards to this rather than shifting.)
As for the smiting due to a player/DM misunderstanding . . . I really don't think that they needed to include a disclaimer of "communication and understanding between the DM and your players is important". That is kind of a given. Also, this:
Quote:
Deities exist beyond anything the rules say can or cannot happen, but you should take care not to be too arbitrary and overwhelming in running this first part of the adventure. Iomedae can, of course, do anything she wants to the PCs, but she doesn’t—she values them and what they mean to the crusade too much to deliberately antagonize them, even if she were interested in doing so (which she is not). If the PCs include worshipers of deities opposed to her, she still understands that as a group they are, perhaps, the Fifth Crusade’s greatest and most powerful weapon.
Should give the DM enough of a warning to err on the side of caution. Iomedae should not be too arbitrary and overwhelming, she values them and is not going to deliberately antagonize them, she understands that PCs might worship deities. This all sounds quite a bit like the disclaimer you wanted them to include . . .
Chuckg wrote:
Also, if Iomedae is looking for people who will fight even at hopeless odds, who will not surrender even if faced with the vast power of a demon lord... then she can hardly be surprised if they also refuse to back down when confronted with the vast power of a goddess. Trying to have it both ways at once is a failure of both logic and this encounter's writing.
Standing confident in her presence and refusing to back down and grovel is exactly what she wants! However, you can not back down without attacking her. There are other options than be cowed and attack. Again, there is a spectrum of possible conduct. Attacking her would also prove them to be "unworthy" I would say, because they would be showing themselves to be foolishly overconfident, dismissive or her powers, or idiotic.
Don't try to use the "they would think she is a demon lord!". The PCs were in the presence of Nocticula, they have been on the Midnight Isles. There is a palpable difference in how it feels to be in the Abyss and in the presence of a demon lord versus in Iomedae's cathedral and in her presence. They should be able to pick up on this. And if they still suspect Iomedae might be a demon lord in disguise, well, I doubt any but Lamashtu would really have the juice to completely fool the PC by faking the feel of a plane and masking her presence. In which case, they are still being a bit foolish and attacking a goddess when they should probably be looking for a method of egress.
Chuckg wrote:
Yeah, but here's the thing. Your building manager has the option of simply hiring an outside electrician. Therefore, it actually is worth his time to ponder the distinction between 'who is most qualified of the people on my staff' and 'who is sufficiently qualified in an absolute sense'.
But Iomedae doesn't have the option of hiring out. If she cannot find a team of heroes among her Crusaders capable of doing this job, then she just ain't going to get the job done ever. Its that simple and that hard.
Iomedae is, literally, in the position of a military commander who needs a high-risk mission done deep into enemy territory, and has only one team that is even possibly qualified for the job. At this point, why the hell is she screwing around with evaluation tests and games at all? If the mission is really that important that its worth the risk, and there's only one possible choice to do it, then its not really a choice at all is it? If there was anybody else around who could possibly do this job then maybe setting us both up to be tested to see which one of us has a better chance would make sense. But there isn't. The entire conceit of the Adventure Path is that there specifically is not. Its all up to us.
So since the entire AP is based on the principle of 'Send in the PC heroes and hope for the best'... why is she just not doing that? Why does this encounter exist at all? It damn sure ain't because its literary merit or entertainment value justify spending time on it on its own hook. And as just laid out at length, its hardly necessary to the plot either.
Yes, Iomedae doesn't really have the option of calling in an electrician. After all, if she decided to recruit some empyreal lords, or high-CR angels/archons rather than the PCs . . . that would be rather lame, wouldn't it? Also . . .
Quote:
One of her fears is that by sending the PCs into the proverbial lion’s den too soon, she would be giving the enemy tools to spawn new lions.
She doesn't have the option of getting anyone else, true. However, she doesn't want to just throw the PCs away to their doom. They are the best able to do the job, but if they are not actually able to do the job, sending them would do more harm than good. She is being a good, caring military commander in that respect. She is not just going to toss them in right away because they are the best she has got at the moment. She is going to evaluate if they are good enough, or if sending them in is just going to result in giving Baphomet more hostages.
On re-reading this encounter, I am struck yet again by how horribly sloppy the writing is. Page 8 of 'Ivory Labyrinth' contains a specific mention that Iomedae is supposedly looking for PCs that will defy her, because if they have the cojones to remain proud and defiant in a goddess' face then she knows that they won't quail vs. a demon lord. And yet Page 9 is all about 'if you dare offend the goddess she will SMITE THE FERTILIZER OUT OF YOU'. In addition to being unable to remain consistent with prior Pathfinder supplements about Iomedae, this thing cannot remain consistent with itself from page to page!
She wants them not to quail and grovel before her, but also doesn't appreciate them mocking her. There is a HUGE spectrum between "quail and cower" and "openly mocking". There is no contradiction here beyond what you are manufacturing.
As a side note, this could add more reason for her "torture". How do the PCs handle a display of power from a goddess? Will they cower in front of her? Will they behave rashly and attack? Will they remain collected and respectful? If they are truly worthy, they will do the last.
Chuckg wrote:
Quote:
Welcome, heroes. I am Iomedae. You are those who have proven most worthy to strike back against the Abyss' latest injustic: the kidnapping of my own herald. Answer my questions truthfully and be found worthy of the great task I would set before you. Remain silent, and be known as cowards in the face of evil."
Within the space of two sentences this thing has just fallen back on itself. In literally one breath the goddess tells me I am "proven most worthy" of the quest, and in the next she tells me that I need to take a test in order to prove myself worthy. Make up your mind, ma'am! Am I worthy or not? Have I already proven myself or am I yet to?
This was already discussed. Someone can be "most worthy" and still not actually be "worthy". At my job, I may be the most qualified to re-wire the building due to my electrical engineering background. However, that does not actually make me qualified to do the job. The same is true with the PCs. There is no-one around close to the same power as the PCs. They are the most worthy for this task. That does not automatically make them worthy. At best, you could say it implies they are at least the best of the worst. Awkward wording, yes. Contradictory, not at all.
Chuckg wrote:
And the sheer clumsiness of the phrasing of "be known as cowards in the face of evil". Um, ma'am, the only people here are the party and you. So, where exactly is this evil that I'm currently in the face of again? Wait a minute...
Cowards in the face of the evil that is confronting them actively on a day to day basis and she is about to ask them to face? Iomedae assumes they have object permanence and can remember what happens outside her realm. No issue I see here.
So, no, I would venture to say that permanently crippling people simply if you don't like what they're saying to you /does/ qualify as "torture" by a reasonable sense of the definition.
Please note that all of this is what happens /before/ you get to the three questions. It's entirely possible to end up permanently blind, deaf, beaten to -1 hit points, and bounced back to Golarion before you've even /taken/ Iomedae's hero quiz, if she felt that your character was disrespecting her. This is something entirely separate from the sonic damage you get from not answering questions correctly. And its horrifying.
This only happens if you either attack her on sight, which is probably one of the dumbest things a PC can do. I mean, any character with more than 3 in Int or Wisdom should know not to do this. Or you openly mock her, suffer the warning blast, and think "I'm going to continue goading this goddess that without any effort was able to deafen and mute me".
So yes, it is possible to permanently crippled . . . IF YOU ACTIVELY ANTAGONIZE A GOD! I think in such situations, it is less "torture", and more "just desserts".
This is comparable to me getting "kidnapped" by my friends for a surprise party, then after we arrive at the location, I pull out a knife and try to stab him. Why on earth would I do that? Why on earth would I not expect retaliation for that?
Even if torture is hyperbole, kidnapping really isn't. And in game terms, there wasn't even a Will save to negate.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think most kidnappings "fill each PC [victim?] with a feeling of pride and hope". It is also hard for me to judge it as a kidnapping (ignoring the "torture" portion for a moment) when the "kidnapping" victim gets to be one of the first in a long time to personally talk with a goddess, marvel at the glory of her home plane, potentially get some extremely nice goodies (one of which is a piece of her cloak), and have all of this occur in the blink of an eye. If not for the "torture" portion (which I do think is hyperbole), I fail to see any aspect that merits being labelled as "kidnapping". I suppose in the purely legal sense of "taking someone against their will", but it is more like kidnapping a person to take them to a surprise party or something.
So, yeah. I think the "kidnapping" portion is hyperbole, because the only reason I can think of it being objectionable is due to the "torture", which I also think is hyperbole on the basis that it is pretty ridiculously easy to avoid the 20d6 blast (have someone heroic in a heroic campaign?), and 10d6 with a save to halve really is a slap on the wrists at this point. Regardless of how much sound damage they actually take, the PCs emerge from the meeting no worse for wear (except for anyone who is dumb enough to attack a goddess), potentially get a few goodies, and miss out on just a couple moments of time. I wish kidnappings went that way, the world would be a much better place.
Even Michael Carpenter has an edge though. I actually agree with the idea that he would make a good Iomedaen Paladin. That being said, in the short story "The Warrior", his daughter gets kidnapped, and he was so angry that Dresden was scared of him. At the end of the story, Dresden has to talk him down from beating the unconscious kidnapper with an aluminum baseball bat (one of the previous blows was to the guy's kneecap too, so major damage had already been dealt). He barely succeeds by appealing to Michael's merciful side. When Harry Dresden is afraid and is acting as the voice of restraint . . . yeah, you are being intense and not so nice.
So, why would Iomedae act this way when in a completely peaceful encounter with the PC's, where the only person with any power potential (her) is using force on friendly people whom she abducted?
Well, I have enumerated numerous times why she might be doing that. You obviously disagree with me, and won't be swayed in your opinion on that. I would rather not just go around circles trying to explain my views to someone who obviously either doesn't understand them, or fundamentally disagrees and will not change their mind.
The problem here is that you are setting up a false premise to support your case. Citing Michael Carpenters behaviour from an extremely stressful situation as supporting Iomedae's behaviour in a situation which is fundamentally different in its nature is not a valid point of comparison in the first place.
The problem here is you were assuming I was setting up a premise to support my case regarding Iomedae's actions, whereas I was setting up a premise to support my case that paladins are not restricted to being kind, caring, giving people all the time and that they can have an edge to them. Yes, it is a false premise when viewed as an argument for a completely different case than what I was trying to argue at that point. It wasn't a false premise for case 1 (Iomedae's conduct in the encounter), as you seem to have interpreted it, but a real premise for the much broader case 2 (the capacity for LG to be harsh and angry). I would not use that as direct argument for case 1 precisely for the reason you dismiss it, Michael was acting as an avenger against the person who wronged him, while Iomedae is not. They have completely different motivations. I admit, I was remiss in my original response by not pointing out that you were misinterpreting my point. I responded to your comment stand-alone, rather than addressing it in the full context of my post you were commenting on.
If any part of that original post was a premise for my case regarding Iomedae's conduct, it would have been the second portion where I mention Charity Carpenter. Charity has all of Michael's good qualities, but is quite frankly a @*#&$ to Harry for a long time. Until he proves himself to her and worthy of being considered family. I admit, this is somewhat reminiscent of Iomedae's treatment of the PCs. Anyway, of the two Carpenter parents, she is the more strict and harsh, and easier to anger, thus in my mind, more Iomedaean. I always pictured Iomedaean paladins as being kind and honorable, but also the type of people you really don't want to cross. If you were going to read an argument in favor of Iomedae's conduct anywhere in that post, it should have been there. You still would have been reading an argument that wasn't there, but you would be closer. An argument comparing Charity's conduct towards Dresden to Iomedae's actions in this encounter would still be a bit silly because Charity has very complex reasons for treating Harry poorly that are vastly different than the reasons for Iomedae's treatment of the PCs (which again, have been presented multiple times in the thread, even touched upon by James Jacobs I believe).
Even Michael Carpenter has an edge though. I actually agree with the idea that he would make a good Iomedaen Paladin. That being said, in the short story "The Warrior", his daughter gets kidnapped, and he was so angry that Dresden was scared of him. At the end of the story, Dresden has to talk him down from beating the unconscious kidnapper with an aluminum baseball bat (one of the previous blows was to the guy's kneecap too, so major damage had already been dealt). He barely succeeds by appealing to Michael's merciful side. When Harry Dresden is afraid and is acting as the voice of restraint . . . yeah, you are being intense and not so nice.
So, why would Iomedae act this way when in a completely peaceful encounter with the PC's, where the only person with any power potential (her) is using force on friendly people whom she abducted?
Well, I have enumerated numerous times why she might be doing that. You obviously disagree with me, and won't be swayed in your opinion on that. I would rather not just go around circles trying to explain my views to someone who obviously either doesn't understand them, or fundamentally disagrees and will not change their mind.
Even Michael Carpenter has an edge though. I actually agree with the idea that he would make a good Iomedaen Paladin. That being said, in the short story "The Warrior", his daughter gets kidnapped, and he was so angry that Dresden was scared of him. At the end of the story, Dresden has to talk him down from beating the unconscious kidnapper with an aluminum baseball bat (one of the previous blows was to the guy's kneecap too, so major damage had already been dealt). He barely succeeds by appealing to Michael's merciful side. When Harry Dresden is afraid and is acting as the voice of restraint . . . yeah, you are being intense and not so nice.
Also, I kind of think Iomedae would be more like Charity Carpenter. Same goodness, same warrior fierceness, same general sense of honor as her husband, but not as quick as Michael to be accepting of people's good nature.
I'm still frankly kind of surprised at how violently some folks have reacted to the encounter in question. And that violent reaction really caught me off guard. So it's certainly something I'll be keeping in mind going forward when and if we do similar encounters,... if only that means limiting such encounters to the actually friendly and nice good guy deities! :-)
I do think there is no way this encounter could be handled without such reaction. Tomedae IS "the goddess of paladinhood", "the perfect paladin", even if she just showed up and said hello people would still complain. Everyone has his idea of what a paladin should do and Iomedae breaking this archetype idea is too much for some people to handle.
Indeed. You just need to look at how many paladin alignment threads exist where people get very spirited disagreeing about what types of paladin are allowed. Portraying a paladin goddess was going cause a bit of a ruckus no matter what.
For my part, I hope you remember that there are people who think that the portrayal was not overboard in any respect, and don't shy away from this in the future. Speaking for myself, I really like that Iomedae has an edge to her. I like the complexities that come from a good deity that is not nice and hug-able. My group likes it as well, which is what drew one of them to play a paladin of Ragathiel for this AP. I think you did a good job portraying Iomedae as having a gruff, no-nonsense, "I expect better of you, BE better", attitude. The only real change I might consider, is having the damage of 5d6->10d6->20d6 scale with regards to wrong answer, rather than be set by question.
I still want to know how actual players feel about the encounter in the context of the campaign. Unfortunately, my players are still marching to re-take Drezen, but I have a feeling that when running the encounter close to as written, they will not get the sense of "being kidnapped and subjected to sound-torture".
If one of those players follows Sarenrae, for example (among other possibilities, but she's a stand-out), then it's odds-on that they'll get punished for perhaps nothing more than remaining true to their beliefs.
According to the text, this would only happen if ALL players are followers of Sarenrae and/or have the same conviction for ANY player to be punished. Only ONE PC needs to seem conflicted about the answer to this question. So unless ALL players follow Sarenrae and/or similar gods/goddesses, it is unlikely this will happen.
Furthermore, if you, as a DM, have Iomedae punish a group of known worshipers of Sarenrae (or a similar god) for adhering to their beliefs, that is your own failure as a DM, not Paizo misrepresenting Iomedae. Iomedae certainly doesn't agree with Sarenrae with regards to redemption, but I see nothing that indicates she is dumb enough to intentionally punish a paladin/cleric of another good god purely for holding true to their ideals. If anything that is something Iomedae would probably respect, as she was a human of strong convictions.
Having caveats for how Iomedae should factor in every potential PC's favored deity is not something you can expect Paizo to do. It would take up way to much space, and I prefer having more AP content over getting a few pages on how each question might change based on what deities my party worships. I can adjust for that just fine on my own. It is the DM's job to take the framework given in the AP, and make adjustments to suit their party. In my mind, this is clearly a situation where the DM should be expected to make the adjustments.
Stating "Iomedae will smite people for merely staying true to their goddess" is, in my mind, actually claiming "I am unwilling to make a small logical change in order to make it work for my group, and blame Paizo for not including instruction for specific group compositions", and is not really an indictment on Paizo's representation of the goddess, but your unwillingness to deviate from the AP exactly as written.
Stuff regarding Iomedae needing no better proof and her testing the PCs
So, yes, the PCs actions up to now should be pretty good indicators that they are up to the task. However, Iomedae still wants to assess the personally. While she no doubt has been following them, I don't think she has spent the entire AP sitting on the couch watching then on her big screen TV. As far as I know, gods in Golarian are not omniscient. So . . . assuming she has been watching at all, why the tests?
Well, from a narrative perspective, they provide a reason for the PCs to meet her. If it was just a matter of "you guys are good to go, have some stuff", then she would just appear to them in a dream, and have the stuff appear in their backpacks. There is no reason for her to meet them in person, especially when she has never done it before, not even for Galfrey, who for some parties will be more worthy of becoming Iomedae's herald than any of the PCs. Also, the "god questioning the hero" is actually a decently well know trope. In mythology, the gods appeared and tested heroes quite often. Failing often mean horrible things, passing meant great boons. Often, the mortals aren't even aware they are being tested by the gods. In Greek Myth there are a lot of examples of this.
But let's just throw that out the window for now. Let's ask the question, why does Iomedae want to give some personal assessment time for the PCs before giving them their goodies and sending them along their way? Well, first of all, Iomedae never struck me as a "free stuff for you!"-type of deity. I think she wants the PCs to earn the goodies, even if the test she gives are not difficult. Also, I think she wants to confirm that what she has seen is actually accurate and that the PCs are truly ready for this new trial that dwarfs all previous ones. So . . . let us look at the questions, and what they could tell her about the PCs.
Test 1: A simple question regarding history, and an evaluation of humility. As I explained previously, the history lesson should be trivial to any group that has done anything to keep their knowledge half decent. This likely is just a test to see if the PCs know about her, and thus can adequately understand where she is coming from. The second part is probably more important. The PCs are amazingly powerful, and they almost assuredly know it. Do they recognize that power, but also appreciate it. Can they see they are mighty without letting it go to their heads. They are about to invade the realm of a hostile demon lord. If they are too confident in their abilities, they may misstep and fail. This is harder to recognize by observing from afar, and the PCs may never have had a situation where this could have been seen anyway. They have been elevated to great heights, but how often have they not been the most powerful people in the room and not been trying to kill the other person in the room? The meeting with Nocticula may be the only time since book 2. Their actions are being celebrated all the time, so it may be hard to observe their humility. Regardless, as long as 1 PC has decent knowledge, and 1 PC is playing the way the campaign seems to want them to play, success. Overall, an easy test.
Test 2: A moral quandary on whether to show mercy or not. Now, this question only requires that the PCs show uncertainty, and are able to civilly discuss the matter. Obviously, if the party is a group of Sarenrae worshippers, Iomedae must be smart enough to account for their answer of unanimous "Yes", and it is the GM's responsibility to adapt to that appropriately. I think she is evaluating here is are the PCs able to see the grey area regarding redemption. This takes on a whole new meaning when you consider that she probably knows that Baphomet has corrupted her Herald. Will the PCs endeavor to redeem her Herald? She no doubt wants this. However, if the PCs are too focused on that, they could end up dying and failing, and she would rather they kill her Herald than die attempting to redeem him. I think the other takeaway is are the PCs capable of thinking through tough decisions and evaluating things on a case-by-case basis. Again, this is something that for most parties playing Wrath of the Righteous will be ridiculously easy. All they have to do is have 1 PC playing a character that fits well. However, this is also something that they may not have encountered in fullness yet. Arueshalae is the only character where they are pretty much guaranteed to attempt to redeem, and that decision is easy because Desna has already given the green light. It is entirely possible that the PCs have never had to answer the question "is this evil person redeemable?" before, much less have encountered it multiple times and arrived at different answers.
Test 3: A test of "are you up to this?" Once again, trivial provided 1 PC is actually playing a heroic character. However, while the PCs have done some impressive stuff already, nothing comes even close to what she is asking of them. She is asking them to invade the realm of a hostile demon lord who actively wants them dead, may have turned her Herald against them, and knows they are coming. Yes, the PCs have been to the Midnight Isles, but there they were guests of a demon lord who was a potential ally. There is a significant difference between those two. Here, Iomedae wants to know that they are determine and are up for the challenge. She is looking for willingness and bravery, because if the PCs go in uncertain and scared, they will quite likely fail. Again, if you have even 1 heroic PC, this should be easy, but it is necessary because it is entirely possible that the PCs would be daunted and not want to take on this challenge.
As for the punishment. The first is kind of a rap on the wrists. If the PCs are being punished for not having humility, this is kind of a "yes, you are powerful, but keep that in perspective". The second one is harder to justify. I see it as either a lesson that not everything has a straightforward answer (in the case of "Yes"/"No" response, as they gave a simple answer), or a "listen up and stop bickering" blast. For the third, I think it is sort of a test in itself. If the PCs go in with no plan and no will to accomplish the taste, their hesitation and uncertainty will cause them great harm. The 20d6 is kind of a way to "test" if they can survive the repercussions their uncertainty could have in Baphomet's realm.
If you have a party that thematically fits the AP, these tests should be really easy, and perhaps even completely unnecessary because the PCs have already demonstrated that they are worthy. In which case this entire encounter becomes a "I want to do a final check before I send you on your way, good luck heroes!"-type encounter. That is great, and my guess is the PCs will still find it a fun roleplaying encounter.
I will take a stab and add a bit to Fabius's point and respond to you GreyWolfLord.
As Fabius Maximus said, the play and the build up to it is meant to be distasteful. Death of the main character is expected, to the point where Thesing is outraged that the PCs survived and claims they ruined the play. In a very real sense . . . they did.
For the players, Robahl is supposed to be an angry jerk. He is not meant to be sexist. Thesing is a self-absorbed, pretentious jerk and a womanizer. While he wants to bed Calseinica, having him chase after a female PC playing Larazod could also makes a lot sense (and is what I did). The entire character of Thesing is an exercise of "how can we make the most unlikable, sleazeball NPC ever?". Calseinica is a naive starlet, and while the book says she chases after the actor of Larazod, a think to remember is that seldom are NPCs truly solid in their sexual preference when it comes to the PCs. If Larazod is played by a female PC, Calseinica could still chase after them. None of them should come across as intrinsically sexist.
For the play, the all male parts could seem sexist, but the once again, Hell is sexist. Also, all of the characters can be gender-swapped pretty darn easily. There would have to be some pronoun changes in the play, but nothing depends on the characters being male or female with the exception of Ilsandra, as she is an erinyes and they only are female. But even Ilsandra can be swapped to a Bone Devil or something without much trouble.
And again, the entire play is in poor taste. It is meant to make good characters unhappy/uneasy. Players can either share in that sentiment (which it seems yours did), or they could disassociate themselves from the game and find it interesting or even amusing (my players found the whole thing fun and amusing . . . but they did have the barbarian playing the wizard).
What I am slightly more concerned about, and I apologize if this comes across as an insult or attack upon you, is that you were unable to predict and adjust the encounter to prevent this issue. As a GM it is important to be able to anticipate what the group will like/dislike, and make sure to make adjustments as necessary to facilitate that. I think this encounter may be something you can learn from. Now you know something that your players react strongly against, and will be better able to find it and avoid it in the future.
As for the "blowing out of proportion", I agree saying someone is blowing something out of proportion does not seem like the right thing, but I find when there is something that someone finds offensive, and reacts as strongly as it sounds like your players did, it is imperative for them to look back with a level head and evaluate whether their response was appropriate. Sometimes, if there is a sore spot, our reactions can far outweigh the offense. I posit that Fabius was merely suggesting that this might have been the case.
Personal story illustrating this:
I have a friend dating a guy who has, on occasion, acted in ways I did not approve of. Due to my history, I am extremely protective of my female friends, as quite a few have been in abusive relationships, and thus I reacted very strongly. I then looked for more evidence, found it, and it built and built to the point where I couldn't be in the same room as the guy because I was so angry with how he was "abusing" my friend and frustrated that she couldn't see it. But then I stepped back from the situation and re-evaluated everything. I then realized, I was finding "abuse" where there was none, and overreacting to the whole situation. Just because of a couple comments/actions he did early on that hit my trigger point. A simple hit to a trigger point caused a snowball effect that seriously impeded my happiness and ability to interact with my friends. Now, while I still am wary of him at times, we are able to get along fairly well and I don't see potential abuse in everything the does.
In this thread, you have people who have run and/or played this encounter and emerged without being offended by it being sexist. It might be that the people who have done so have really thick skin, or it may be that the encounter hit some trigger spots for your players and it snowballed beyond what is merited. In my mind, that is something that should be investigated. That being said, they are the ones who need to do the investigation and identify what offended them and if the offense merits their reaction. This is not something you can force upon them.
Okay. Let's assume you're correct and not everything fails on a 1. We have a 15th level Cleric. He needs a 20 to know what Iomedae wants. The player rolls a 1. They only have an intelligence of 14, and 15 skill ranks in Religion. The result is a 17 as Knowledge is an Intelligence-based skill. (And that Int. of 14 is being generous, btw.)
Let's say they only need a 15. What if a Cleric only put 10 skill ranks in Knowledge: Religion? Assuming the same Cleric with an Int of 14, then the Cleric rolled a modified 13 and fails that Skill Check.
It is entirely possible for a player to, because of bad die rolls, flub this. It is not "ensured" that others will have knowledge in this. Thus a bad die roll can result in the characters being damaged and lose out on a boon. Oh, and let's say they decide to burn a point of Mythic to try and boost their chance... and roll another 1. Still failed.
The entire point of requiring skill rolls and the like is the chance of failure. But in this case, bad luck can result in players losing out on some equipment that would make their job easier. And at the same time the players are harmed because a simple die roll went bad on them, when they are talking with someone who is nominally their ally. All because she disapproves.
I honestly can see even a worshiper of Iomedae getting upset at this point and calling her on her action, and in doing so being hit with another disapproving strike for their actions. And in doing so, Iomedae is not being honorable, but petty. You don't summon people to your presence and then go about harming them because they aren't 100% to your approval. Especially if you're requesting their aid. It's not an honorable course of action.
Correction here. Assume a 15th level Cleric of Iomedae getting the DC lowered to 20, which is reasonable. They have 15 ranks in Knowledge(Religion), which is reasonable as the campaign has been sprinkled with many instances where Knowledge (Religion) would be helpful. With an Int of 10, the Cleric has a +18 (15 ranks + class skill bonus) to hit the DC. He needs to roll a 1 to fail. If they have even 12 Int, they can't fail.
A different party has a lvl 15 vanilla bard, with 1 rank in Knowledge (Religion), thus their Knowledge (Religion) would be +11 (1 + 3 class skill bonus + 7 bardic knowledge). They use their Lore Master ability to take a 20 (they are in front of a goddess, why wouldn't they do this?) and get a 31. Certain party compositions will make this absolutely trivial. Others can make it more difficult.
Both of these also assume a character with 0 Mythic tiers whatsoever. Not a single mythic ability. If I am trying to make a knowledge check to answer a goddess, I am definitely using an extra 1d10 from Mythic Surge. If I roll a Nat 1 on my skill check, I am using Force of Will to get a re-roll immediately. All of a sudden, that first cleric can't fail. hitting a DC 25 when you get to roll 2, take the highest and add 1d10 plus some skill modifiers? Not too tough. 7 Mythic ranks give you so much extra padding that not making this check would require active neglect of Knowledge (Religion), which would be ridiculous to do considering the campaign so far. And all this is also assuming they do absolutely nothing to augment their abilities besides putting in a couple of skill ranks.
If a worshipper of Iomedae gets upset and calls her out . . . then I would question if they were ever a true worshipper of Iomedae. Iomedae set a test with a potential reward and a potential punishment. They failed the test. The lawful and honorable thing to do is accept the punishment. Rebelling against/complaining about the test is not the action a true worshipper of Iomedae would do. They would honor the terms of the test. A test given a being they revere. Does the PC truly believe they are a better judge of fairness than Iomedae? Are they so arrogant that they think they know better than their goddess?
Also, I find it weird that so many people are saying "Iomedae is requesting their aid", and even spinning it to seem like Iomedae should be grateful the PCs are even listening to her request. Yes, Iomedae is desperate and is asking the PCs for help, but this is not a "oh please will you help me?" from a position of weakness. This is a draft notice. This is a "you have been chosen to fight for the forces of good". Regardless of how you feel about the punishment aspect, let's remember that Iomedae is a goddess. No matter what, the PCs are not negotiating from a position of power. They have been selected as her agents, and she can't directly intervene, but she can find someone else if she really needs to. She could probably call up Irabeth and Galfrey and instantly give them 10 Mythic Tiers if she really wanted to. Just because the PCs are the best option, doesn't mean they are the only option.
Iomedae needs the PCs help because she can't intervene, but they need her more than she needs them. From the deity level, losing her Herald sucks and sways the balance of good and evil, but probably not much on the cosmic level. It is probably something she would be able to deal with eventually, after all Aroden dealt with the loss of a Herald as well. In the PCs' world, having the Herald as Baphomet's pawn has dire and immediate consequences. One of the Demon Lords trying to expand the Worldwound has just taken one of the strongest opposing forces and twisted it to his side. This is potentially devastating to the crusade. This could result in the expansion of the Worldwound and the destruction of nations. The draft notice is more for the PCs' sake than for her sake. The PCs reaction to this summons should be "Oh snap! This needs to be stopped or we are in trouble! What should we do?" not "Well, Iomedae, if you treat us right we might be willing to help you out here."
I DO have a problem with the fact, that if one player fails, everyone gets punished.
As I read it, this is the opposite of the case. Only one player needs to succeed for the entire group to succeed. Only one PC needs to answer the first question, for the second they need only to not fall all begin bickering, or not all respond immediately in the same way, and the third requires only one PC to show heroic bravery or confidence. Thus it one PC will never be the cause of a failure to answer correctly unless they make a point of bickering with the others.
Personally, I would find it interesting to hear how the encounter with Iomedae as written is being received by players at the table.
My reading of it, and many others, seemed fairly in-line what James was saying they were shooting for. Others clearly disagree in their evaluation. However, I am a big believer in the idea that what is seen in the book and what transpires at the table can be very different even without any tweaks. I think this is especially true in a case like this where a lot of the text does focus on what will occur only if the party fails to live up to Iomedaen ideals or seriously blunder. So what comes across at the table could be all of the positives from the encounter, and none of the portions that people are discussing or upset by are even a factor.
I plan to run it pretty much as written, possibly with a bit extra content as a nod to the paladin of Ragathiel in the party, but my group is a long way from encountering the Inheritor. I just wonder if our perspectives are colored by the writers accounting for things that quite probably won't happen and we are unduly focusing on those aspects of Iomedae's portrayal.
And the first blast of horns is 5d6, so yes, she can withhold her power easily enough.
The blast of horns for failing to answer questions isn't her, it is from choirs of unseen angels and archons. Her minions can do less than 20d6, yes, but the only aggressive action Iomedae is listed as able to do are:
- Permanently deafen and DC 40 Will save to permanently mute a character
- DC 40 Fortitude save to reduce someone to -1 HP.
- I suppose rescinding the ability to look at her without saving and/or banishing the PCs count
It is entirely possible, and likely, she can do less than this, but on a the scale of power where she is listed as being able to do those things on a whim and without any effort whatsoever, 20d6 damage is ridiculously minuscule. So again, for the scale of power she operates under, the blasts of sound from her choir are a minor scolding. If she was actually torturing the PCs, it would be so much worse.
Did that riding instructor also beat the crap out of your sister when she didn't do as he wanted?
Do you think Iomedae yelling at someone would do less than 20d6 damage? Just looking at her requires a DC 40 Will save. Just raising her shield forces a DC 40 Fort save to not be brought to -1 and she isn't taking any overt aggressive action. If just looking at her requires a DC 40 Will save, hearing her yell probably is instant death or at the very least instant deafness with no save for a mortal. 20d6 is probably not even equivalent to Iomedae tickling someone.
These few heroes are legends made flesh. They are as Iomedae herself once was. Or even her mentor, Aroden. And she treats them as a schoolmarm scolding unruly children. Worse. She treats them with no respect, and yet they have earned respect. Perhaps a disciplined and seasoned group of players would just roll with the punches and accept this plot coupon as needed to get to the quest, but plenty of players will sense this lack of respect and dig in their heels.
While the PCs have earned respect compared to other mortals, there is a huge scale going on here. Merely by speaking to them directly and "in-person", Iomedae is showing them a lot more respect than she has shown anyone else. Even Galfrey, a Queen who has reigned in Iomedae's name and led the crusade for over a hundred years, and who is considered worthy of becoming Iomedae's herald, never got a face-to-face chat with the goddess. The fact that Iomedae is giving that to the PCs shows a combination of desperation and respect to them.
That being said, even with their legendary powers, the are nothing power-wise compared to a god. She probably can see potential in them, but they are merely the strongest insects to her. Also, the scolding can be seen as a measure of respect. My sister rode horses as a teen, and her riding instructor would get on her case and yell at her all the time. The reason? He saw that she could be good. He wouldn't have bothered yelling at her if he didn't see any potential. So you can view the "torture" as more of a "I know you are better than this, be better than this". If she didn't respect the PCs, and see their potential, she would not bother with them at all.
Another thing, the damage is not that strange when you consider that:
Meeting a Goddess wrote:
Although Iomedae knows the PCs are powerful, she wants them to demonstrate their righteousness and valor
before her. She needs to know they can stand before a true
deity and not quail or be reduced to groveling, for if they
can withstand her presence and impress her, then surely
the taint of a demon lord’s realm will have a difficult time
corrupting or destroying them.
She wants to see if they can stand before her and withstand her. The trumpets are a part of that, and could be easily modified into withstanding hearing her "angry voice", as someone suggested earlier. The trumpet blasts are less of a "how dare you get the question wrong! I'm going to beat you now!" and more of a "well, if you can't prove your mettle via your answer, can you prove it through your fortitude?".
Also, yes the PCs have been in a demon lord's realm before in the Midnight Isle's, but Nocticula was not actively hostile to the PCs, and Baphomet is. There is a huge difference between a manipulative potential-ally demon lord, and a vicious, brilliant, angry demon lord. Some additional vetting is merited.
Face it - if you would have seen a movie about a human doing the exact same thing Iomedae is doing (say, a high ranking military man kidnapping his best soldiers, asking them questions and torturing them when they get one wrong, "to prepare them for a mission"), you would be very comfortable with dubbing that human The Bad Guy, calling him a psychopath and cheering when the good guys catch him and stop him in the end. But somehow, because Iomadae is Good, everything she does is arbitrarily declared Good, too.
I see what you call "kidnapping of his best soldiers" as the divine version of the commander walking into a room full of soldiers, saying "you three, with me", and then walking out with soldiers in tow. That trope is played out a lot in movies by the good guys. Yes, if a mortal commander randomly took 4 soldiers to a different plane of existence to give them their orders, that would be absurd. But Iomedae is a divine being. She adheres to different rules. Sending a celestial messenger is a good middle ground, but the "kidnapping" is really just a divine way of taking some of her soldiers into another room to give them their new orders. Ask any military commander if they would like the ability to instantly have any soldier they need to give orders to in their command tent immediately and not have any time pass during the meeting, and I'm guessing they would ask where to sign up. Quite frankly, if the PCs are indignant at the "kidnapping", then they shouldn't be there, or are at least likely to be the uppity PCs that get blasted for mocking the goddess. "How dare the goddess in charge of the Crusade against the Worldwound stop time and whisk me off for a private chat! Can you believe her nerve?". Any PC with proper respect for the gods should have the attitude of being honored to be taken to the realm of a god and personally talk with them.
For the "torture" portion . . . again, it is really unlikely that the PCs, if even one fits in at all with the campaign, will get hit by the 20d6 damage. The 5d6 and 10d6 are minor scratches to the PCs at this point, and a DC 25 Knowledge(religion) check should be ludicrously simple to make, and the redemption answer just requires them to deliberate a bit before answering. I don't disagree that this punishment seems somewhat out of place, but given the average military commander in modern times, do you really think they would be happy with an elite squad of soldiers saying "We have no clue if we are going to be able to do this and we don't really want to try"? Because that is the equivalent of an answer that merits the 20d6 damage. For none of the PCs to reply with any bravery or confidence.
I would argue that they PCs could be the most worthy of striking back, and still be considered unworthy of the task. "Most worthy" implies a non-binary scale of worthiness. In this, the PCs are most worthy because of their mythic tiers and all they have accomplished thus far. They are the only ones around who could possibly undertake this task. The second use of "worthy" is a binary usage, or is indicative of a threshold of the non-binary worthiness that the PCs must meet. The fact that they are highest on the scale of worthiness, or "most worthy", does not mean they pass the threshold of worthiness to undertake the task.
This is confusing and awkward wording, and they should have used different words to differentiate. Simply changing "most worthy" to "most able" completely clears up the confusion, and doesn't change the meaning by a significant degree.
So, I don't think anyone can disagree with the "If the PCs are uppity and openly mock her, trumpet blasts and divine light". Also, the first two questions deal trivial amounts of damage, and can be healed immediately. No PC should have trouble surviving wrong answers to those two, and they fit very well in the stern teacher rapping the knuckles or drill sergeant shouting at/punishing a recruit in boot camp.
3rd question wrong is 20d6 (Fort 25 to halve). For a level 15/tier 7 character, that fortitude save is high, but not too bad. The lowest Fort save will probably be around +10. Paladins and Fighters will probably have an easy time passing, and thus halving the damage. On top of that, assuming HP average rolls, the weakest PC should have 71 HP + 15*Con Mod. So, a wizard with 12 Con would be rocking ~86 HP. On average, the final blast does 70 damage. A lot, to be sure, but it should not be fatal. Other PCs should not care as much. Even at max damage, this would be barely enough to kill the level 7/Tier 1 Paladin in the group I DM. And even if a PC dies, they are instantly resurrected.
This all can be circumvented by the PCs acting heroic, which, you know, they should be doing. That is kind of expected in this AP. They way I read it, they don't even need to have a good plan at all, they just need to say, "We shall find a way, he no doubt has some form of weakness we can exploit". That is it! They just need to have an attitude of "We can do it! We will find a way!". On top of that, only one of the PCs really needs to respond this way, as she asks the question to the group. If none your PCs are capable of being heroic in book 5 of this AP . . . then you are running the wrong AP.
Iomedae is not a "supportive, nurturing, caring" goddess. She is a warrior goddess. She doesn't have time to coddle these warriors, and they need to step up. I don't see her as a "petulant child", I see her as a somewhat frustrated commander making sure that the people she has in front of her are right for the job. Them answering wrong is no doubt frustrating to her because she has no other options. If you are really concerned about them missing the 3rd question, have it so the damage only increases from 5 -> 10 -> 20 d6 each time they get a question wrong. Then, the 20d6 is a punishment for the all of the PCs completely failing to live up to the standards of "warrior for good", which is kind of what the PCs are supposed to be in this AP.
I really don't see Iomedae as coming across as a demanding, petulant child to anyone other than PCs who are uppity or mistake Iomedae for Sarenrae or Shelyn. Iomedae may not be as harsh as Ragathiel, but she is no where near as cuddly as her NG counterparts.
