Scaevola77's page

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.

captain yesterday wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

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.

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.

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).

Dread Knight wrote:

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.

Kthulhu wrote:

beej67 wrote:

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 2 cents . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Scaevola77 wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

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).

Scaevola77 wrote:

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.

it's funny how most people don't realize that Zeus was the Greek God of justice, and was a lot of times a jerk and incredibley unfair at times,

Adjusting for Zeus:

Success: Your destiny is to go on a quest, kill some monsters, and eventually end up with a kingdom. Your queen may or may not attempt to kill you.

Failure: I'm gonna throw some lightning at you, permanently blind you, then go impregnate all your living female relatives.

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.

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."

My Rise of the Runelords campaign is currently on hiatus, unfortunately, but the campaign manufacture a lot of funny moments.

Sir Swa, the gnomish cavalier, was the target of Shayliss, and while he was not interested in the girl, he was ridiculously dense. He fell for Shayliss's "help me exterminate rats!" routine, and ended up in her room with her blocking the door. He tried to Bull Rush/Overrun past her, but flubbed his CMB check. I chose to play Shayliss as a bit of an aggressor, and had her attempt to grapple the dashing gnome. Nat 20. So, the gnome follows Shayliss to her bedroom, belatedly realizes her intentions and tries to push past her. Then this teenaged girl lifts a fully armored gnome and drags him into her bed like it was nothing.

Sir Swa also challenged Aldern Foxglove to darts one night at the Rusty Dragon. Swa thought it would be an easy win, after all, Aldern was unable to fend off a couple measily goblins. Swa's allies figured that they could make a bit of money betting on the games. Well . . . Aldern never rolled lower than a 15 in the 4 matches they played before Swa gave up. Now the party is convinced Aldern is secretly really powerful.

The Aldern rescue:
Aldern (to the beautiful sorceress): Thanks milady for your aid in my rescue. My deepest thanks to your vassal here for her help as well!
Mia (fighter): I am no one's vassal, pretty boy!
Aldern: Oh, I assumed you were more than a maid.
Mia swings her greatsword at Aldern and misses
Aldern backhands Mia and knocks her unconscious (Mia was at like, 2 HP)
Aldern (to sorceress): My apologies, it is not my place to discipline your servants

After a failed combat against Erylium, during which Sir Swa perished, the group does some research to figure out Erylium's weaknesses. Using the library, the Inquisitor and the Sorceress make many attempts to find information, aided by Brodert Quint, but keep coming up empty. Finally, Mia, the 10 Int fighter, decides to crack open a book. Nat 20, Mia knows all about the standard weaknesses of quasits. After her companions spent a day studying to no avail, Mia walks in, grabs a book at random, and opens it to the quasit page immediately.

I don't look at it as "forcing someone to roleplay a particular stat" so much as not wanting someone to play the opposite of their stat.

I agree with this. At a recent session, I was very annoyed with another player. His gunslinger has 7 to Int and Cha, 0 skill points in Appraise or Diplomacy (or even Sense Motive), but spent a solid 20 minutes haggling, trying to figure out the best possible deal with a merchant, and coming up with increasingly complex arguments (all spoken "in character"). As a fellow player, it severely hindered my enjoyment of the game because it caused a major disconnect between what the player wanted and what the character actually would be able to do. Also, I feel slighted because I have a character with 8 Cha, but who has invested heavily in Diplomacy and Sense Motive to overcome her social awkwardness and allow her to speak with some competence. It is really frustrating to have a character with weaknesses and that struggles to overcome them only to have another player have a character with even more glaring weaknesses just completely ignore them on a whim. Thus I see it as less "forcing someone to roleplay a particular stat" as a negative thing, and more of a "keep players from breaking immersion and hindering the fun of the rest of the group". (and yes . . . I plan to discuss this issue with my GM and I would actually be very disappointed if she did not address it and "force" the player to roleplay their stats).

In a 4e homebrew, I once managed to open a portal to hell in the stomach of our group's paladin by feeding him cursed pastries made out of orphans.

What's worse is the entire party thought I had been doing the paladin a favor. An openly evil party member kept trying to trick him into eating orphan-pastries, and my cleric kept intervening. Since my cleric claimed to worship the same god as the paladin, and no one noticed I was holding a holy symbol of Vecna instead of Lathander, they assumed I kept replacing the orphan-pastries with normal ones. Unfortunately the game ended right after the portal opened due it being the end of school.

As was pointed out, her sword was not Radiance. If it had been Radiance, she not only wouldn't have sold it, but would have given her an element of fame as the wielder of Yaniel's blade (in addition to her fame for uncovering Staunton Vhane's treachery).

As for the "selling advanced weaponry" angle, you need to put it in context. She sold her sword to a merchant in a town on the edge of the Worldwound that is filled with crusaders. She had no clue that her sword would end up in the hands of the enemy. Most likely, the merchant would sell it to another crusader in the city, as demon-slaying swords are probably in pretty high demand. Said crusader would likely use the sword to combat evil, potentially to a greater effect than she would. So the most likely scenario is that the longsword ends up still doing good for the crusades. The fact that the sword fell into the hands of a traitor was unforeseeable. However, even if she thought the enemy could get a hold of it . . . the enchantment doesn't hold much benefit for people fighting against the crusaders. She would have given her enemies a single +1 longsword.

The real value of the sword was in its sentimental value; it was her father's blade. Her selling her sword to get Anevia's potion was basically her sacrificing a memento of her dead parents to help the woman she loves. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of someone else? Certainly sounds paladin-like to me.

Well, with Martial Versatility, you can take the feat twice early on (level 4 and 6), once for Weapon Focus, and once for Weapon Specialization, and then at level 16 re-train one of them out for Martial Mastery. Then, for most of the fighter's career he is able to at least not worry about Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization going away when forced to use a different weapon in the weapon group.

Also, Martial Mastery kind of is a powerful feat, as it applies to all weapon-specific combat feats, from any number of weapon groups. So, with a cost of 2 feats, you can ensure that any weapon-specific feat applies to an entire weapon group, which is pretty sweet. Level 16 seems a reasonable time to be granted such a potentially powerful feat.

Personally, I think the human restriction should be removed, and that maybe Martial Mastery should come automatically for fighters, perhaps bundled with Weapon Training. So, when you get Weapon Training, you get the standard +1 Atk/Dmg, and can start applying weapon-specific feats to all weapons in the group. It would help further establish the fighter's role as kind of a versatile master of martial combat.

Seems like it was fine.

One of the things I notice with my group is their complete aversion to using things like Sense Motive to figure out the best angles for their diplomacy/intimidate. While there are increases to the DC based on the target's attitude, there are quite often bonuses available to make it easier. For example, no doubt if the player had offered to buy the NPC a drink, and lamented about the loss of his own beloved dog, that would have improved the check.

Knowing what to say, and how to say it, is vital to diplomacy/intimidate, and to obtain that knowledge, your character needs to be able to ferret it out, and you as a player need to be willing to look for it. It is why in Skull and Shackles, my druid actually had success at gaining allies. I may have had a -1 to Diplomacy, but my Sense Motive of 7 ensured that I was at least saying something that the person would like hearing.

I'm pretty amazed at how some players feel diplomacy and intimidate work. They feel that a high roll should always grant them a positive result. But in-game, as in the real world, sometimes no matter how smooth a talker you are, or how intimidating you are, people have reasons to do what they're going to do.

Something that the group I DM has been learning the hard way. First, that insinuating to a drunken girl that you were sleeping with her paladin boyfriend might upset her, Diplomacy check of 37 notwithstanding. Second, beware what you ask, because asking a chick to lower her veil so you can see her face is not a good idea when she is actually a medusa.

To be fair the only time diplomacy, and therefore charisma, matters to a captain mechanically is if you're piloting a manpowered ship. Since you're piloting a sailing ship, profession: sailor is the necessary skill. The fighter in my group, I'm sure, has an average to low charisma. The halfling bard is the charismatic one and she's boatswain and is in charge of raising infamy and recruiting crew. The captain just pilots the boat. I'm just putting this out there becuase a few posts seem to be assuming the captain has to be charismatic.

Mechanically speaking, this is true. However, having a decent social skilled captain makes sense as they are the likely representative for the ship and crew as you gain power and potentially join the Pirate Council. Also, would be good in terms of making sure the crew doesn't mutiny. So not absolutely necessary, but also not a bad idea.

Was . . . interesting for our group.

Group is an extremely ill-tempered gunslinger, a socially awkward sorcerer, a rogue with a romanticized view of pirates, and a druid who was an experienced sailor (my character).

Basically, the gunslinger and the sorcerer were automatically out of the running. Neither seemed interested, neither were particularly good sailors, and neither were particularly well liked by the crew.

The contest was really between the rogue, who had been the one winning over the crew and slowly seducing the women aboard the ship. And the druid, whose rash actions had given her a reputation of "she's insane, but she keeps winning in unwinnable situations". Of them, the rogue seemed to have clear aspirations of becoming an infamous pirate, and the druid really just wanted to be a regular sailor again.

Right after seizing the ship, the rogue gave a speech to the crew naming the druid as the captain. This was quickly seconded by the gunslinger threatening to kill anyone who disagreed. And thus the druid, too much of an emotional wreck to provide input due to recent events, had the role of captain thrust upon her. The rogue is First Mate, the Gunslinger is the Boatswain/Master Gunner, and the sorcerer is the ship's mage.

Now there is an interesting dynamic where the rogue (both the character and the player of the rogue) seems to want to be doing captain stuff, and may have intended to be the true power, with a lower profile. And the druid is trying to figure out how to be a good captain while also keeping the rogue in check.

There was also the metagame angle for this decision as I am probably the most experienced in my group, and I generally play the party face role (though with my druid's negative to Charisma and no social skills, I definitely am not this time). Also, I think that the gunslinger and sorcerer players would rather have me playing the captain than the rogue's player due to our social dynamic.

In one of the campaigns I play in, I play a dwarven fighter named Thorngar. The group doesn't let him make important decisions anymore, much to the relief of the DM.

The campaign is set in a ruined city, destroyed by a great fire thousands of years ago. Our intrepid band all live in the small village on a cliff overlooking the ruins, and the campaign started with us joining a guild that regularly sends expeditions down to the city for exploration. On a previous mission, we had discovered some secret tunnels underneath the city after the floor collapsed under us in a building that seemed like a theater. On this mission we also discovered some magical maps that enabled travel through the city via teleportation. One destination, known as the "Waterfall" led to a small cave right next to the village.

So we go down into the city, and start exploring the tunnels. After a while, we make our way into a building that seemed to be a spa, and there ran into 3 folks we were able to identify as citizens of the original city, who were very confused as the last they remembered, they were fleeing a fire. With these people in tow, we started teleporting around the city. Eventually, we somehow got sent back in time.

Now, what does a group of adventurers do when they suddenly find a ruined city actually in decent shape? Go back to home? Nah, that would be the logical thing, and what the DM would have prepared for. Thorngar had the brilliant idea of "let's go to the theater!". Why? Well, to see what is there! So we arrive at the theater to find a bunch of people, and immediately set about trying to convince everyone there that full-plate was in fashion, and they should start wearing it. That way, future us would get better gear when we looted the theater. After some schmoozing, Thorngar decided it was time to get drunk, so we went to a bar. Shortly after arriving at the bar, the cleric found out about a temple to her goddess and immediately rushed off to the temple and gave an impromptu, and remarkably well received, sermon.

Our poor DM, who had prepared for a bunch of encounters at the "Waterfall", and the site where the modern village would be, was left to wing it the entire session. Worse, Thorngar de-railed her scheme to get us back on track.

We were staying the night at the temple of the cleric's goddess, when the DM decided a night-time kidnapping would get us back on track. As such, we were visited in the night by 2 ancient dwarves, and 2 guys from the ancient race. Since we were sleeping in separate rooms, each of us got 1 opponent. Unfortunately, the DM forgot that dwarves had darkvision, and the members of the ancient race don't, so when Thorngar got ambushed in the night by a strange blue man swinging wildly at his bed, bad times ensued. Also unfortunately for the DM, Thorngar is a paranoid vagrant (and was established as such prior to the ambush). So while the blue man was stabbing at his bed, Thorngar was woken from his spot on the floor (feels more like a ditch, it's what he is used to), and was quite ready as he always goes to sleep cuddling his axe and shield. Thorngar managed to take out his attacker, and 1-2 others, almost took out the "boss" guy, and held off the press long enough for the sorcerer to run away. Thus not only de-railing the attempt to get us back on track, but also splitting the party.

Weirdo wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

You can somewhat mirror the effects by having the party encounter enemies that test the limits of mercy (e.g. a puppy-kicking anti-paladin that they have encountered before), and have any lethal damage dealt be suffered by the damage dealer as well. Thus the more merciful the party is to their hated foe, the better they will weather the trial.

I like this. A 12th-level party should have at least one personal enemy they hate enough to make this work. And I do think that for this one to work best you have to present them all with a target that they really hate, someone they don't want to be merciful to.

I certainly have a few characters in mind, I just don't get how to set it up, really. Does the bad guy get teleported in or is he an illusion? It will take this party all of 5 seconds to conclude that this is a setup. They won't let him just kill off the party, but on the other hand, they'll be on their guard because it's a test and try to follow all of the established Pelor rules possible.

If you really want to keep some suspension, surely the bad guys would be interested in the ancient paladin treasure too. Have them show up a couple of times before, appearing just out of reach as the party completes the other trials. Give a sense that there is a race for the relic, that it is possible the bad guys will beat them to it, or that there will be a climactic battle with them after the trials are done.

Have the party finally run into them in the Mercy trial room. The bodies of several monsters lie at their feet, the original subjects that were supposed to be a test of mercy. Dramatic lines are said. The first blows are struck, only to find that there is an enchantment on the room, where lethal damage is shared between victim and attacker. Furthermore, as this damage was dealt in breaking Pelor's rule of Mercy, it can't be healed through his divine gifts. The Orb of Mercy lies beyond their enemy, and beyond the corpses of those he has slain. To get the orb, they must defeat their enemies without killing them.

After they pass the trial and show Mercy upon their hated enemies, you can reveal their enemies were illusions all along. Pelor cares about Mercy above all, so the trial of Mercy was the most intricately crafted trial of them all. What the party thought was a "race for the relic" culminating in a showdown in the trial of Mercy chamber was the trial of Mercy all along.

It is working as intended.

I also think it is kind of wonky because basically the crafter is able to emulate spells that are unfamiliar with a flat DC. I find it weird that crafting something without using a level 1 spell that the crafter can cast increases the difficulty of crafting by the same amount as "faking" a 9th level spell that isn't on their spell list and that they may not have ever seen before. One of my house rules is that the DC for crafting without a spell scales with spell level and how unfamiliar the spell should be to the character (whether it is on the class spell list, divine vs. arcane), rather than just being a flat +5.

Hey, actually, I owe your post for the creation of mine. I'm sorry I didn't credit you - I wasn't thinking of a way to find out who'd said it at the time (though now I've come up with several), and I wasn't planning on responding to your specific points so... sorry.

But yeah, before I'd seen you make your post, I was planning on making a practically identical one, then dropped it because, you know, you'd already covered it. Then when I noticed that yours was more or less ignored, I guessed that it might have been because of a lack of context or information, so I revamped my original idea for a more detailed look.

But if your post hadn't been there,...

No worries about credit. As I said, you explained the details of the AP far better than I did, and in more depth. A wonderful thing about the forums, on occasion someone else manages to say what you are thinking far better than you. :)

... ton of Council of Thieves stuff that I alluded to but was unable to phrase nearly as well ...

Thank you for explaining the Council of Thieves paladin issues better than I did.

Also, reading through it, I realized a couple interesting things. First was that the Council of Thieves is a really good example of how paladins can have very differing codes. Why? Because there is Seelah, running around breaking the law for the greater good. One of the earliest enemies in the AP are the Hellknights, who are basically paladins that focus on Law vs. Chaos instead of Good vs. Evil. The thing is, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a Paladin/Hellknight. Some of the Hellknight orders are more paladin-friendly than others, but there is no reason why the Order of the Rack Hellknights (who focus on limiting forbidden knowledge and are the ones present in CoT) could not have a paladin in their ranks. Thus you can end up with a situation of a lawful-oriented paladin hunting down a greater-good-oriented paladin.

The second thing I realized, is that that is pretty much what Marthkus is arguing in terms of a paladin following the law. His paladin is really more of a paladin that went into the Hellknight prestige class (at least in my opinion).

Wait,

did I saw paladin the guy was a dwarven bard not a paladin. stupid Auto correct. can we end the thread now?

But . . .

No, yeah. I'm pretty much done with the paladin bickering unless someone says something truly earth-shattering that I must respond to. Sorry about the thread-jack. Hopefully you were able to get some useful advice/alternate perspectives before it got horribly de-railed.

Well you're getting closer now. Petty Alchemist brought up a point that changes most of that.

Also I love the example of a ghoul hugging a post pleading for its un-life. Because that happens...

You realize that the point Petty Alchemist brought up was one that you were arguing against for roughly 2 pages? It is why Kobold Cleaver brought up the baby-eating town. It is why I referenced Cheliax and Council of Thieves.

I am now thoroughly convinced you are a troll. Quite an entertaining one, and one I would bait again. But I find it nearly impossible to believe that my ludicrous post was "getting closer".

So wait . . . if I am a paladin I may be required to eat goblin babies, but have it be breaking my code.

I need someone else who is appointed by a governing body to tell me it's ok for me to kill someone, unless they were conscious up to the last time I hit them. In no way, shape or form am I qualified to judge them, divine powers stemming from the forces of Good and Law notwithstanding. Even if I have an ability specifically built to be more just and fair than any other mortal person or governing body because I chose to specialize in making sure justice is carried out, I should not use that ability unless someone else gives me the ok first. In fact, having that ability makes my job more dangerous, because I might think it will actually protect me from making mistakes. Not only that, but I can't intentionally strike at a weak spot, as it is dishonorable to attack someone where they are weak.

If I don't want to overthrow the entire government of a nation, I am not allowed to quibble about any of their laws. It is all or nothing, either the government must go completely, or I must comply with every law they have. For me to want to overthrow the government of an entire nation, it must first be in complete anarchy. Even if it means I need to volunteer to get tortured to death by devils due to the laws. It is better that I submit to death by torture than break a law of a government that is in a state of less than complete anarchy.

Killing myself by repeatedly attempting to hug a ghoul is far preferable than killing it to make sure the farmers nearby that it has been attacking remain safe. The safety of innocents is far less important than my honor, and it would be very dishonorable to do anything but hug a bloodthirsty killing machine.

I am so confused right now. I thought I knew how to play a paladin. It seems I was very wrong.

Superman is the closest thing you can find to a non-paladin paladin. Although he will not lose all of his power if he should fall. Many DC hero's have codes that they follow that are beyond what LG requires. For example Batman does not kill. Could he kill and still be LG? In many cases yes, but then he wouldn't be the Batman that we know and love.

Superman breaks America's laws all the time. He runs around far faster than the speed limit, flies through the air with no regard for FAA regulations. Destroys property (often in fights) and does not reimburse the rightful owners. By your logic, Superman doesn't consider the American government to be a legitimate authority (obeying the law is all or nothing), and wants to overthrow the American government. That completely changes how I view Superman.

Petty Alchemy wrote:

"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority..."

Emphasis added. I doubt Paladins will consider a lawmaker that institutes a baby-eating law as a legitimate authority, any more than he would consider a prince of Hell a rightful lord.

Ah now this man brings up a point of debate and doesn't just claim that paladins can ignore the law.

It would be entirely up to the GM what constitutes as legitimate government and what is honorable. Essentially your paladin class features are always in the GM's hands to be taken away at a moments notice. And that's at RAW tables.

I don't think anyone ever claimed paladins can just ignore the law willy-nilly (aside from Ilja's initial hyperbole). We have re-iterated, ad nauseam, that paladins can ignore laws that are deemed unacceptable, and not stemming from legitimate authority. You have been countering our examples of fairly blatant illegitimate authority with, "Nope, they have to follow the law". You essentially said Paizo was wrong in Council of Thieves for allowing (nay, requiring) paladins to ignore the laws of Cheliax, by stating that the nation of Cheliax must have been in horrible anarchy for this to be acceptable (when nothing can be further from the truth).

On a serious note. A split personality would do wonders. Giving him a still-human personality that is legitimately terrified and wants redemption, especially if you are having the ghoul be someone that one of the characters knew while he was still alive. Have the "human" personality be constantly at war with a darker personality that occasionally exerts itself. It should provide a good character that hides his core irredeemability well, after all, there is obvious good in there, actively fighting against the evil. He's not lying when he says he wants redemption, it just is not possibly, and his darker personality is slowly taking more control.

Would twist it to be very much in line with Ilja's suggestion of having it be a tragedy.

Heh. I can see it now. The GM introduces the paladin into the CoT game and immediately has the guy Fall. Just on the spot, no reason.

Not me. My backstory is that I turned myself in immediately after entering Cheliax like a good little paladin. Thus I begin the story being tortured by devils at the hands of Asmodean clerics. On occasion, I get to overhear them talking about what my party is doing! Best AP ever!

Scaevola77 wrote:

So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.

You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .

In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.

Scaevola wins the debate! I'm sure Marthkus will now apologize, realizing he was utterly wrong.

Haha, PSYCHE! I hope this debate never ends. Whoever says paladin falling threads need to be stopped is clearly nuts.

My point wasn't that strong. Like the omission of sneak attacks and coup de grace's being dishonorable, the fact that the adventure path does not instruct to GM to force paladins to turn themselves in and be tortured to death is probably an example of lazy writing.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, Marthkus's paladin is LN, and will eventually turn LE if exposed to a dilemma like the Baby-Eating Law.

No.

Paladin has to be good and lawful. If being good requires him to break the law, he can't kill all the guardsmen in the town "because the law is bad". He must turn himself over and await trial.

So how would your paladin attempt to change things. No doubt he (and his god) would want the city of baby-eaters to change their ways. Unfortunately, it is illegal for him to enter and attempt to enact any change, because he will immediately need to surrender and be jailed upon entry. Plus, he can't attempt to overthrown the baby-eating regime, as that is against the law. He can't even have agents enter the city and repeal the baby-eating law so he can come in and enact change, because he would be asking others to do evil for him.

You might say "that is an edge case" . . . but in Cheliax, worshipers of Iomedae are persecuted. No doubt there is some legislation regarding paladins of Iomedae not being allowed. So, immediately after entering Cheliax your paladin is required to turn himself in to the church of Asmodeus so he can be tortured to death? That really sucks . . .

In one of the Paizo adventure paths there is actually an example of a paladin (well, potential paladin) who is part of a rebel group (in Cheliax no less). Sclavo in Council of Thieves is intended to be a pre-paladin, and is a member of the rebel group that the lawful authorities are hunting. By your logic, he can never become a paladin, because he is breaking the law. Furthermore, Seelah, the iconic paladin, is one of the iconics for the adventure path. Paizo seems to have omitted the part where she either falls, or turns herself into the authorities for prosecution after she frees a prisoner and joins an illegal rebel operation.

Ilja, you're branding one side completely unfairly.

Marthkus has actually stated the "proper duel" thing, and more besides. Therefore, you're not exaggerating his side at all--you're portraying his side with utter seriousness. However, you are exaggerating the other side. I know it's hard to make Marthkus's position any more comical, but could you please try, for the sake of balance?

Indeed, applying hyperbole properly it should be:

Team "paladin can do whatever she wants because what the paladin does is always justified"

versus

Team "paladin must become a butler for any always chaotic evil undead abomination he encounters until it accepts his challenge for a proper duel".

Marthkus wrote:

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

Oh! I know! I know!

The paladin's god!

. . . wait a minute . . .

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

Also, I still want to know why Bill the Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader can lose all of his class abilities just because he used one of them on a guy guilty of serial murder.

If your interpretation of the rules ends up with a class losing all of its class abilities due to using one of its abilities in the intended way, you need to re-think your interpretation.

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Court mandated executions fall under the code. That is not the same as killing a defenseless prisoner where you are not the assigned executioner or Judge. A paladin cannot just take the law into his own hands.

Except it is not really a court mandated execution. It is a "we don't know if he is guilty or not. You there! Try to kill him using your god-granted powers that make you the perfect judge!"

He can only do that if a legitimate authority figure appoints him to do such.

And the ability doesn't specify that the paladin needs someone else to give him permission to use it for its intended purpose . . . why? Lazy writing again? Or you making things up? Heck, in the ability description is says he "may use his power to judge the guilty and absolve the innocent", is the "but only if he is already duly appointed by a court" implied?

And what makes him not a legitimate authority figure in himself.

A paladin is not some random schmuck given divine powers.

A paladin is chosen by a god, or potentially just by the cosmic forces of law and good to act as their agent. Why? Because presumably, the paladin innately has a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Presumably, even before being instilled by divine power, a paladin would be a fairer judge than most of the population.

Would a goblin rather be tried by a court in a town that has utter hatred of goblins? Or tried by a paladin that will judge him fairly and actually be open to the possibility of redemption?

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?

honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.

Lazy writing, or you providing your own interpretation? No where does it say sneak attacks or coup de grace's are dishonorable. You are interpreting that they fall under so forth. Many of us here seem to think that is silly. You have a different interpretation of the rules, and that is fine, but you have been stating them as fact, which they are not.

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus, if it is inherently dishonorable to kill helpless creatures, how can paladins be an Inheritor's Crusader? The class specifically calls out paladins as a potential entry class. When they use Sword Against Injustice on a helpless prisoner and it kills (because they are guilty), are they stripped of their paladin powers?

I dotn think that ability would apply:

As a standard action he may announce he is bringing divine judgment upon a target who is accused of a crime, lie, or other affront to justice.

I dont see starving to death in a cell besides that ability screams DM fiat. It is super cool but who decides by RAW who is innocent or guilty?

Not trying to apply it to the captive morlock situation (though I would argue it could apply, as the Inheritor's Crusader can be the accuser). Marthkus's contention is it is dishonorable to kill a helpless creature.

Consider the following scenario:
Paul has been arrested on suspicion of being the leader of a murder cult and committing a series of killings. Unfortunately, the town has no way of definitively proving this, but a Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader named Bill is in town. The town decides to ask the Bill to use his Sword Against Injustice on Paul. If it hits Paul, he is guilty. If it fails, he is innocent. Bill, wanting to see justice get done, agrees. Paul is brought to him tied up and in chains (as he is a suspected murderer). Bill activates his ability and gives a mighty swing and lops off Paul's head.

According to Marthkus, Bill loses his paladin status as he just killed a helpless creature. Why?

Marthkus, if it is inherently dishonorable to kill helpless creatures, how can paladins be an Inheritor's Crusader? The class specifically calls out paladins as a potential entry class. When they use Sword Against Injustice on a helpless prisoner and it kills (because they are guilty), are they stripped of their paladin powers?

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

Should he have healed up the morlock, given it a weapon, and then slew it in combat? Why? The morlock likely has absolutely no chance winning, in which case you are setting up a farce combat in order to create a facade of honor. This almost seems evil to me, as you are deliberately setting up the morlock to suffer more.

So tell me, what is intrinsically and indelibly honorable about giving a creature false hope and prolonging its suffering?

Certain paladins may believe strongly that every creature should be given a trial-by-combat, in which case they might believe killing a helpless creature is dishonorable. Others may be more in the lines of thinking that the creature should have a merciful end.

Again, I posit that it can depend a lot on deity:
Torag - probably doesn't care much
Sarenrae - definitely falling from her grace if you kill the creature in any way but a swift execution
Iomedae - probably favors a trial-by-combat

EldonG wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

Kamelguru wrote:

This is all irrelevant if you are playing a happy go lucky My Little Pathfinder edition, where there is no real evil, only victims of circumstance and tragic figures who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A magical world of rainbows and sunshine, where every villain can be turned to serve good, given the time and understanding that it was deprived of as a child.

Counterpoint: Sarenrae, Goddess of Redemption. Her very existence in the Pathfinder setting demonstrates that "evil is evil by nature" is not 100% true.

I'm going to be playing a paladin of Sarenrae soon, here.

Let me give you a scenario. You're a paladin of Sarenrae. You've made the knowledge roll - these are morlocks. You understand their culture. Response?

You attempt to redeem them at least once. Only followers of the Rough Beast get no chance to be redeemed.

I would say, you examine the morlock closely, ask them some questions, determine if you believe they seek redemption. If you are convinced that they do, you attempt to aid in their redemption. If you are not convinced that they seek redemption, you kill them swiftly and mercifully. Such is Sarenrae's creed. Any creature who truly seeks redemption should be given help in his quest. Any creature who remains unrepentant should be put to the sword. Now, within that you still have a lot of lee-way on how your paladin will decide if the creature is redeemable based on race, backstory, gullibility, and how far is "too far to be redeemed".

As stated, this was not a paladin of Sarenrae, but of Torag. And Torag thinks Sarenrae is kind of a sissy with that redemption stuff. Torag and Sarenrae are pretty good examples for showing how different the "right" actions for a paladin can be based solely on deity, though as ub3r_n3rd and I have said, there are a lot of different factors at play.

I straw man'ed the people who said "perfectly acceptable action" because it wasn't acceptable, nor hardly perfect. They went far to left, I had to bring it far to the right.

That and it was fun. :3

The general problem I have with a lot of people arguing against the "kill the prisoners"-type option being acceptable is (in this thread, as well as the deluge of other paladin alignment thread that plague this forum), as Kobold Cleaver pointed out, they use straw men rather than proposing a valid course of action that is both incorporate's a paladins ability to make logical conclusions (releasing evil willy-nilly is bad), and also stays in keeping with their deity's creed (ex: for Torag/Sarenrae, killing evil/unrepentant evil is not just acceptable, but expected) and personal beliefs.

Options, remembering that if these creatures are pinging as evil, they are either steeped in evil, or potent creatures in the service of evil, and while Detect Evil is not the be-all and end-all, it is a pretty darn good basis for further conclusions:
1 - Execute the prisoners <- viable depending on your god, personal beliefs, and the potential for repentance. The paladin has to weigh the snuffing out of a life with the fact that he may be preventing the creature from taking someone else's life in the future.
2 - Heal them, give them weapons, and then fight them honorably <- this is a bit cruel if they don't really have a chance to win in a fight with the paladin
3 - Leave them to starve to death <- execution would be more merciful
4 - Release them into the world to do more evil (if they are unrepentant) <- as a paladin, aren't you supposed to be stopping evil when possible? Also, how easy/hard it is to convince the paladin that repentance is possible can vary to a great degree.
5 - Determine that they intend to repent and release them, trusting they will do good <- mileage may vary depending on deity and personal creed, this could be interpreted as a no-no for Torag, and a big yes for Sarenrae or Shelyn
6 - Take them prisoner and take them with you <- until what? You find a town to dump them in, one that likely has fewer compunctions about killing evil creatures than you? Until they turn good, an outcome that you may or may not believe will ever happen? For some paladins this is the best course of action, but not all paladins have to be redeemers, some paladins can be simply soldiers for good.

As I see it, there aren't really any perfect sparkly wondrous options that works for every paladin. Depending on the deity, the preferred options can change. Sarenrae is big on redemption (5 & 6), but if as her agent you don't believe redemption is possible, killing is the required course of action (1). Torag believes Sarenrae is too soft (more in favor of 1). Shelyn would be far more merciful than either, as she believes killing should be avoided whenever possible (strong aversion to 1).

On top of all this, regardless of the deity component, there is a range of perfectly valid approaches to being a paladin. You can mercilessly hunt down evil wherever it lurks, or you can believe all creatures are capable of redemption and try to save everyone, or anything in between. Neither of these is objectively wrong. A player or group may lean towards one interpretation over the other, but that doesn't mean the other interpretation is intrinsically wrong (except for that particular player or group).

For clarification, I am not saying executing the prisoners is the only valid option. I am not saying that in all cases it is the best option. I am not even saying that if I were playing a paladin, I would chose that option. I lean towards playing more of a redeemer myself, believe it or not. My last paladin basically believed in "love conquers all", and tried to spread love to all his enemies with varying degrees of success, and would avoid killing whenever possible. But depending on the type of paladin, and his personal and religious beliefs, execution can be the best option. Likely, for a paladin of Torag who takes the extermination of evil seriously, option 1 is the best option, and 4-6 would not be considered valid options.

People seem to want the paladin code of conduct to be black-and-white. If you are a paladin, you can do X, but can't do Y. But that is not the case. There is a full spectrum of paladins out there, all capable of having different interpretations of where to draw the line, and what their duty is. From any individual paladin's perspective, things may be black-and-white, but looking at the big picture, there are a lot of shades of gray in the paladin code.

Rambling post over . . .

tldr: frustration with straw men in lieu of constructive arguments in the various paladin threads, lots of different perfectly valid types of paladins, the best option for any given scenario can change greatly depending on the paladin's personal beliefs and his deity's tenets