Shadowdweller's page

That's a personal discipline - that has nothing to do with adhering to rules or society.

His men are expendable, and he only has loyalty to himself and making money. And he will murder or lie at every moment to do so. Having a personal credo, oath or methodology doesn't = Lawful.

Having a code of honor strongly correlates with Lawful even if it is not the entirety of the definition. Or at least a code that is consistent with what is considered by society to be "honorable" behavior. My recollection is that Angel Eyes does NOT in fact ever lie. Though I will admit that I have not seen the film for quite some time so I will have to concede that you may in fact have a point. I was under the impression for example that Angel Eyes was in fact a union officer from previous viewing... while further investigation seems to suggest otherwise. Considering one's underlings to be expendable is a classic evil trait, not so much a lawful nor chaotic one. Many overtly LE overlords are portrayed in this manner.

As far as Tuco - he's just mercenary.

As soon as he realized Blonde had the secret - he went from torturing him (which was revenge for what Blondie did to him earlier) to taking care of him and partnering up with him.

Tuco is the perfect CN - destructive or not. He isn't evil or malicious, not like Angel Eyes, and that's...

This, however, is flat out wrong. Tuco is not a villain, neither wholly unsympathetic...HOWEVER being partially sympathetic does not make a character neutral. You do not get to ignore the deeds he commits off screen. His particulars include murder and rape, according to the judge in one scene. On screen, Tuco cavalierly commits blatant armed robbery (of a gun, no less) and attempts murder. He takes what he wants and exhibits little remorse when his own confederates are killed. These are not traits in keeping with neutrality.

There is really very, very little resembling a D&D Bard in any actual mythology or even in "early" modern fantasy fiction (by that, I mean starting with the 1800's novels which sort of opened the genre and going through writers like Tolkien, Lewis and Le Guin). The class has always felt to me like a solution looking for a problem; it "fills a niche" that was never really there in the first place.

People: STOP making stuff up. Myth, legend, and early fiction are all thoroughly riddled with bards. If one takes even a cursory look. Vainamoinen, Thomas the Rhymer, Alan a-Dale, LUGH of Irish folklore, arguably Apollo and the Muses to some extent, Luthien from Tolkien and a good portion of Tolkien's conception of elven magic; heck, Illuvatar - the grand creator of Tolkien's world - created it through song; Lloyd Alexander's Prydain chronicles, Prospero from the Tempest via allegory, the 1001 Arabian nights...

Because, from its very conception, the bard class's primary function was as comic relief. I mean, the most direct inspiration for it came from Assurancetourix in the Asterix comic strip. More recently, OOTS brilliantly shows how silly it can be to sing for skill check bonuses.

Not even remotely true. Bards were originally the historians of the celts - keepers of oral traditions since the celts did not tend to write things down. The concept predates Dungeons and Dragons by many centuries in history, myth, and legend. The Asterix comics are based on the celts, so yes bards appear in them. But no, the comics were NOT the source of the bard in D&D.

3) IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT GYGAX SAID... REPEAT AFTER ME. IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. 1e and 2e are NOTHING like 3.x. AT ALL. EVERYTHING is different. Saves, BAB, THAC0 vs BAB... Heck, back in 2.5 clerics cast up to 7th level spells and Wizards cast 9th... There is NOTHING similiar.. the only reason cleric's still have armor profiency and weapons is because:

a) Legacy. People got used to it from 1e and 2e

I'm sorry, but the historical roots of the game are not at all irrelevant to the present. Most particularly (i.e. by definition) if the game suffers from 'legacy issues' as you put it.

c) Role Filling. The classic role of the cleric is buffer and healer. In order to accomplish that role, the cleric often needs to get up to the other martials. This requires him to be able to survive melee combat to not become a liability himself. So, armor was given to the cleric.

This is a fiction. The devs could, for example, have given the class ranged healing if Pathfinder is supposed to be a wholly separate creature. They did to an extent in the form of Channel Energy. They could have given the class equal capacity to inflict spell damage with arcane casters. They did not. They could still create a class with a divine spell list that was a match in potency for dedicated arcane casters. I'd wager if they did so it would ALSO be low HD and BAB regardless of convention.

b) balance. The Wizard/Sorcerer have much more powerful and robust spell lists. The cleric's spell list is very reactive and not quite as powerful, so they didn't suffer spell failure in armor and gained martial abilities to compensate

Indeed - it's almost as if the classic divine spell list is INTENTIONALLY inferior to counterbalance the benefits...

2) BAB/HD mean nothing when it comes to describing the class as more or less spell casting focused. HD and bab are tied together. They are all a basic formula:

If we compare two classes, A and B, where class A gets weak abilities and full spellcasting and class B gets...stronger...abilities and full spellcasting then: In which class does spellcasting represent a greater proportion of class power or resources?

4) Now talk about rude. The simple fact of the matter is that the only roles a Cleric fulfills is that of the Combat Cleric, the Buffer, or the playing a summoner type role. Every other role (like blaster) is horridly sub-par...

I'm sorry, that was indeed unnecessary. These threads makes me angry. I seem moreover to have missed the fact that you included summoning in that list originally. That said, I've certainly seen debuff-based clerics that were viable. Or at least killed off parties of PCs. As a whole the cleric is not as good at debuffing as an arcane caster, certainly, but makes up for it to an extent with defenses and general robustness.

The cleric and the cleric spell list is very nearly the last thing in the game that needs any buffing whatsoever.

Many, many ways:
1) Insult intelligent enemies in a language they understand.
2) Wave a holy symbol in front of intelligent undead
3) Make yourself seem like a prime target:
- Use a Hat of Disguise or glamered armor to appear unarmored and squishy.
- Wear a spell component pouch and/or holy symbol
- Pretend to walk with a limp
4) Smear meat juice on your armor and/or affix raw and possibly slightly rotten steaks to your shield, etc. (Barbecue sauce optional).
5) Use the Disguise skill to fake wounds

Halflings win. By virtue of comparative sanity.

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent?

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you in retrospect. Was just a brainstorm :) I kinda don't think rogues have terrible AC, given that the majority tend to be Dex-focused. (Or at least the fantasy stereotype tends to be). If they lag behind inquisitor AC it's prolly because of magic buffs, judgements, and/or shields. I also sorta don't think they SHOULD be matching or exceeding dedicated martials. That said, a bonus of a point or two seems reasonably thematic to me - dodging around blows. I don't know, the scaling of everything is off.

4) Ugh just no. Still bad. Making it a 1/day ability blows and is absolutely not worth a feat imo. Make...

Scaling of course is the tricky part. I kinda think that by the time you get to +stat times per day you're reaching the point of "not reasonably going to run out" which I don't think is great for this ability, given the existence of Tumble, Mobility and the like. Eh.

Also I'd add:

5) Crafty Combatant - Gain either Improved Feint or Improved Dirty Trick feat, you may treat your Rogue levels as your BAB for qualifying for further feats enhancing this maneuver and may ignore any other(non BAB) prerequisites for selecting said feats.

6) Sharpened Eyesight - Gain Darkvision - 60ft

Both of those seem pretty good to me, though I might be tempted to label the darkvision one as *gasp* supernatural. I've long thought that darkvision disproportionately affects rogues given the concealment and sneak attack thing (which I'd like to see disappear WITHOUT the need for a feat...at least by a certain rogue level). From a conceptual standpoint, I don't even have problems with giving generally non-magical classes some quasi-magical abilities. Who is to say a fighter, rogue or whatever WOULDN'T normally try to make use of a few magical tricks if such things existed, worked, and were generally within the realm of their expertise? Alternately, giving them the ability to crudely locate obstacles and creatures (and sneak attack the latter!) within a certain relatively short radius rather than full on accurate darkvision would be reasonably thematic and potentially worthwhile as a possible extraordinary alternative. In addition to maintaining a certain market for dimly lit rooms, concealed candles (or Thieves' lanterns a la Name of the Wind / Wise Man's fear) and the like.

I also thought about adding a talent that would allow you to sneak attack even without a flanker assuming you(general statement) did not want to go with making feint a swift action for a rogue, which would be a talent if you did not want to make it into a rogue ability.

PS: Moving them to medium armor might also be a good idea. With the increased damage they become more likely to be targeted unless you have another idea to boost their AC.

Actually I do. The fact of the matter is, the non-magic limitations are NOT what is keeping rogue talent power level down. Developer imagination and balance misconceptions are. Some combat-focused rogue talents I think might be a good idea:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

2) "Sucker Punch": The rogue learns to be adept at causing debilitating pain when they get the jump on their enemies. Living opponents who are not otherwise immune to pain effects suffer the sickened condition (no save) for 1 round after a successful sneak attack.

3) Streetfighter's tricks: X times per day, a rogue may attempt a Dirty Trick combat maneuver upon an enemy within 10 feet as a swift action (without provoking attacks of opportunity). The character uses their Rogue levels in place of their attack bonus (adding any attack bonus gained from other classes or racial HD normally) and may use their dexterity or intelligence bonus in place of strength. This might ease the difficulty of getting sneak attack up a bit. Or at least be another option/alternative to feint, etc.

4) Slip away: As a move action, the rogue may move up to their base speed without provoking attacks of opportunity (without requiring any sort of acrobatics or other check). Usable once per day plus one more time for every six rogue levels.

YMMV, of course.

shallowsoul wrote:

Touch AC was never the problem with Gunslingers, it was all the other BS. Weapon cords have been nerfed by the way.

I dont know if it is a "problem" but i think every body that have sisuens with Gunslingers and feel they are overpowered would name that as one of the major things.

I tend to think double-barreled firearms are a much more significant problem. Although, yeah, the first two bestiaries were not all balanced or scaled for touch AC. (Which is not to say that the latter two ARE...I'm just less sure of them).

And this just doesn't work for me. I'm happy it works for you, but I can't see an elf unable to look after themself at thirty years. I know we have plenty of folk in the real world who that can be said about, but an elf? Too busy learning secret elf-lore, astrology, lineage songs etc but failing to learn anything useful/life skills? And the elf-culture coddles them and keeps them safe for decades? Fair enough. But it doesn't work for me.

"I just can't see a human being unable to even walk after an entire year, let alone hunt or make a nest." The real world is full of organisms that develop neurologically at drastically different rates, my friend.

Good, not too good. About par for course for 1st level spells.

Demonstrably false. As has been shown in this very thread.

The way I see it a Chaotic Neutral character hates conformity, traditions, restrictive laws, authoritarian styles of governance. Note that this does not necessarily mean acts like a jerk to their friends or adventuring companions. A CN character will generally try to assert their independence from society in general. They will try to do things OUTSIDE the law where reasonably convenient due to disdain, distrust, or because they simply can't be bothered. Placed in a position of authority a CN character will try to keep their hands off as much as possible because they tend to believe that society functions best that way. Chaotic Neutral tends to correlate with counterculture, anarchism, and dislike of such practices as slavery, mind control magics, hierarchies, or imprisonment.

CN does NOT mean that a character is undisciplined, that they have no moral code (although it does presume that they are not prone to excessive altruistic urges toward individuals who are not their close friends/loved ones as that would make them CG), does not mean that they are inherently inconsistent or lazy.

Who describes the weapon? When the wizard identifies the weapon, who tells them what they detect? Who gets to decide precisely how magic items function in their game world? Whose responsibility is it therefore for injecting flavor?

The GM.

There are any number of ways to describe magic items:
"The rusted blade nevertheless seems to hold a surprising sharp edge."
"You detect the distinct pull of a spirit or deity's hand upon the weapon. It seems to be of moderate strength."
"The runes upon the mace seem to indicate a powerful curse that draws out the blood of victims it is wielded against."
"An echo of rage seems to permeate the length of this weapon. This would likely increase the strength of the bearer's attacks fairly significantly."
"After considerable examination, you are able to determine that the blur around the blade is actually a temporal distortion field. The runes on the hilt seem to indicate that the weapon was wrought with the ability to warp reality to a minor extent to better suit the desires of the wielder."

The existence of those options do NOT make the barbarian unbalanced. However, yes, it is sad that there are not viable alternatives. I am vehemently opposed to the implementation of pounce amongst PC abilities. Not because it is overpowered for a martial character - no, it isn't. However, it IS so strong that it should never have been granted to only a single martial class and it should never have been made one of several exclusive options for that class. That is, sadly, just poor class design.

...and it should never in a million years have been given as an eidolon option...but that's only one of numerous idiocies that contribute to make up the abomination that is Summoner.

EDIT: I suppose that actually fits the definition of unbalanced to a T. My bad. Just not overpowered.

This change is yet another of those wtf were they thinking moments.

The Pathfinder half-orc is thematically fine. The floating stat bonus represents the human heritage and orc ferocity represents the brutish orcish heritage.

Hey Guys, did you know that a 1st level paladin has a 5% chance of not just deciding but actually killing a Great Wyrm red dragon. If said paladin came across the dragon sleeping. Cuz dragons are generally depicted as sleeping for long periods of time. That's the equivalent CR of BOTH Balors. That's something not even an INFINITE number of 1st level witches with the slumber hex could do!

Hold Person does not instantaneously break when the target takes damage. Hold Person allows multiple CdG attempts. A held victim cannot simply be freed by a flunkie or servant (barring appropriate magic items). Hold Person can be used at a comparatively safe range. Hold Person can be enhanced with Persistent Spell, Bouncing Spell, Heighten spell or appropriate metamagic rods.

A creature that is flying with wings, is perched on a pillar of sufficient height, or has a flunkie or familiar to wake them is effectively immune to the Slumber Hex. A mounted foe has 50% effective resistance.

A fighter is a highly-trained, expert warrior not some random peasant. In a world were magic is relatively common any reasonable weapon training has to include some basics on tactics and spell users. No, that is NOT meta-gaming. It's neither something exceptionally esoteric - it's not like the fighter is trying to identify the exact spell based on the precise sounds and glowy marks the caster is making in the air.

Unholy water allows one to bathe or wash one's hands in EVIL. Blood sounds nice and all, but it's really quite sticky. Gold has its uses, but that density makes the experience a lot less physically pleasant than you'd think. Excrement....

"I am Gorum's blade. Do I LOOK like your private nursemaid, boy (/girl)? Embrace the pain as a warrior or run back screaming to your mother's skirts."

I think that this explain that:

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

We didn't have time to do a top-down detailed analysis of all the language in the game and come with standard was of how we want to say things in the Pathfinder RPG. Most of the language is inherited, and it's inherited from a game written by people who weren't the 3E authors, so there's going to be weirdness and ambiguity, and stuff that simply isn't as clear as the author thinks it is. And there's some stuff that's written because of choices made 13 years ago by people who no longer work on the game, and much has been added to or changed in the game since then, so we can't even get a uniform context for the rules.

In a game written by three people, revised by three more, updated by another, and expanded upon by at least twenty more, you're not going to have an easy, clear consensus on how everything is supposed to work together.

This is not a simple game. We can't explain every possibility, and we can't go through every paragraph of the book to clean it all up so it's exactly how we want it. And even if we did do that, it still wouldn't be 100% clear for everyone. It's literally impossible to reach 100% clarity in a book of game rules.

If you want further reading, read this post:

SKR further post.

Oh, I don't fault Paizo at all for it. That fact of the matter is that they've created a product that I've derived literally countless hours of enjoyment out of. I just think that attempts to discern some deeper meaning out of the precise arrangement of words and/or the use of an indefinite article are essentially fruitless due to the general level of language-precision in the rulebooks.

Frankly, games consistently turn out BETTER with 'mobile' encounters. This is not railroading until and unless the DM arbitrarily starts to thwart reasonable player choices and resource investment to avoid the particular encounter or outcome that is planned. E.g. the players spend significant effort making sure the crew of the ship they hire are not pirates and then the GM decides the crew are pirates ANYWAY.

So I had a situation my most recent game that got me thinking about alignment ramifications. Now, nobody's class abilities are at stake (although one character is CG and this did not seem at all in keeping with that alignment to me), but I eventually came to the unusual conclusion that I don't actually know what I think about it. So I thought I'd put it to you all.

Background: In the most recent session of my weekly game the PCs were hired by a nobleman to assassinate an ogre that had raped and murdered his daughter many years previous. It turned out that this ogre had since become enslaved by a stone giant raider-turned-farm-owner. This giant was neutrally aligned. Due to his past, he had no moral qualms about keeping slaves. All the same, he mostly wanted to be left alone. All of his slaves were raiders he had caught trying to steal from him. And his tendency to kill off nearby monsters had lead to a village cropping up around his farm that he occasionally traded with.

The PCs eventually decide to try to bargain with the giant for the life of the ogre. The giant admits that the ogre has always been a trouble-maker, but relies upon the ogre's labor to run his farm. Consequently the giant demands a couple of alternate slaves in exchange. The PCs then set out to find the lair of some orcish raiders that had been troubling the area. They find an orcish warband leading off a number of (evil) goblin captives and immediately attack and subdue these orcs, trading them to the giant for the ogre.

Implications:Now, I'm still mostly inclined to just handwave the situation. As there really isn't anything at stake. But I got to thinking about the ethics of the incident. The PCs had just sold sapient creatures into slavery. True, slavery might be one of the better avenues for mitigation of damages caused by the raiders. And true, these orcs were evil themselves and were enslaving other sapient beings. But....if slavery of sapient beings is justified based upon the moral character of the enslaved...then these orcs were similarly justified in enslaving the goblins. Would it alternately have been more 'ethical' to have just killed the orcs? I expect they would have preferred slavery. Moreover, I got to thinking about real-world parallels. At least a minority of the African slaves obtained by Europeans during the colonial period were actually purchased from other African cultures.

Or maybe I just think about things too much. Anyway, the question I put to you all is: Evil act? Lawful act? I'm inclined to say at least Lawful on the basis of law equaling authoritarianism and chaos equaling libertarianism in my games.

Do you have any ideas for the kinds of encounters they could face in this dungeon? Maybe some traps or puzzles or roleplaying possibilities? Do you see any holes in my ideas? How would they discover what actually happened here? I guess they could find his journal to find out that he was trying to cure himself but...

One way you might disseminate plot information about the guy is to consider his reputation. The cave might be the last known resting or adventuring location of a well-known wizard. Perhaps historians or looters have come looking him over the years in search magical artifacts he is rumored to have possessed or created (only to fall prey to the fungi, of course). You can give out bits of information either directly through journal entries of explorers or indirectly. For example - an adventurer seeking the man may have a book about famous wizards. Or a collection of artifacts bearing his mark. Possessions of the man himself might include a book about curing fungal infections.

Caves may randomly have pits, cliffs, and sheer surfaces inside them. Fungus (and plants) may weaken cavern walls and ceiling, creating the potential for rocks to collapse upon unsuspecting PCs. Surfaces may be covered in a slippery fungal coating, making climbing and movement more treacherous. Pools of water may gather in places, either drawn out by fungal mycelia or simply naturally present because fungi require water to grow in the first place.

You can be hit for ten million points of damage critically and in all ways fatally until... a wave of your hand, dismissing it.

Question - this somehow strains credulity for you more than a 1st level human commoner being able to block bullets with his bare hands (i.e. Deflect Arrows)? Or say another commoner who despite not having trained with weapons a single day in his life is able to automatically stop a bite from the almighty tarrasque with a piddly little frame of leather and wood (i.e. Tower Shield)?

Casters do NOT need any more 'get-out-of-threat-free' cards. They need fewer.

I use traps as part of more or less every appropriate setting I use. For three or four general reasons:

1) To create tactically interesting scenarios. Walls, pits, portculli, locking doors can be used to divide careless party members in combat or ramp up the tension against otherwise simple combat encounters. Poisons and status effects can be used to modulate the difficulty of future encounters. Or (see below) to encourage preparation and investment in restorative spells, items, and abilities. Something as simple as a weak javelin trap in a narrow hallway accompanied with an alarm that alerts a small enemy garrison with a secret door that opens BEHIND the party can create interesting encounters.

2) To encourage (or discourage) certain behaviors. For example, an enemy stationed at a lever-operated deadfall encourages targeting that foe and/or provides rewards and incentives to classes capable at neutralizing particular targets. A locked/trapped chest filled with breakable valuables such as potions, gems, ceramic art items helps to encourage investment in lock-opening skills, spells, or items. A pit trap on the other side of a door or curtain may discourage simply charging through. Some of us DMs LIKE it, for example, when players pay attention to and react toward elements of the setting.

3) To provide a rapid resource-sink or non-playtime intensive challenge. Contrary to BigNorseWolf's assertion, actual trap finding/disarming/triggering encounters take considerably less play time than combat encounters - collecting initiative rolls, waiting for each player to decide upon and then look up the spells they're planning on using, etc. As long as trap effects are kept mild and infrequent enough, they use up party spells and resources without tending to encourage excessive party caution. Depending on the players.

4) As puzzles - How does one, for example, reach or bypass the mechanism on the high cavern ceiling? What could possibly be the reason for those scorch marks in the corner? Or the bodies at the intersection?

"Ad hoc" means after-the-fact. Saying Prestidigitation isn't on the Witch list because that makes the list different is just an after-the-fact statement with no explanatory power.

Ugh. No, guy, it doesn't. Post Hoc means after the fact. Ad Hoc translates to something along the lines of "To the fact", or "To this". It refers to a solution, ruling, or judgment that was made to address a specific issue or incident (and therefore not based upon some principle or framework of guidelines). The decision that Wizards and Sorcerers would (almost entirely) lack healing spells is, by definition, NOT Ad Hoc.

The game writers create the rules. While some of the reasoning and methodology behind said decisions have been expressed, a great deal of it has not. Because, for instance, that would take a prohibitive amount of printed space for very little benefit. The fact that you do not know or understand the principles behind a given ruling does NOT make that ruling Ad Hoc.

"I'm with stupid."

The reason they hated you is because you deliberately tried to create a gruesome, unholy abomination that most sane people would prefer to pretend never existed. No, I'm not talking about Generalists. I'm talking about this:

He was envisioned as a Justin Bieber who just adventured from time to time...

***

151) The night passes peacefully, the PCs sleep well. Damn it, I guess that's one too many...

SOME excellent ideas. And then there's...

129) Three deities appear out of nowhere and squash the PCs into a thin, meaty paste for daring to camp.

The axe is the source of the song: it is a jolly, joking soul with a penchant for song. While the axe's powers (scaled by party level) are useful, it has an unfortunate tendency to sing softly when the party is attempting stealth, make blunt remarks when diplomacy is called for, and tell dirty jokes at court. This is not out of innate evil, just callous thoughtlessness, but this thought has been of little comfort to the axe's many previous owners, all now deceased.

Heh, reminds me of a "cursed" item I once had a gypsy sell to one of my PCs, dubbed the "Meow-blade". It was technically an intelligent +1 rodent-bane wakizashi, but its main purpose was to meow at inopportune times such as when the user was attempting stealth. Particularly when it hadn't been properly cleaned or washed with milk recently. It did, occasionally, growl in warning when danger was near.

Feats haven't been around forever. They weren't introduced until D&D had already been out for 26 years!

Feats are partly a redevelopment and outgrowth of the old nonweapon proficiency thing.

diehard is a pretty poor feat, essentially you give up self preservation for roughly an extra 2 hit dice worth of HP with the downside that when you lose them, you DO Die.

Diehard is a poor feat for a player character. Here's a hint: Not all character options are designed with the PCs in mind. Diehard is a fantastic feat for a DM wishing to beef up mooks so that they present the semblance of a threat.

Orcs.

For a CR 1/3, their damage output is insane. And their effective HPs excessive due to ferocity. I'm convinced they SHOULD have had 'orc ferocity' as per the half-orc ability rather than full on ferocity.

I never use truly random encounters. I will have a list of possible encounters and invoke some when I feel something needs to happen. Based partly on the PCs' actions or inactions (making lots of noise vs hiding themselves) as well as what I feel will be most entertaining for the players at the time.

Removed a post. That's too graphic for paizo.com.

You realize, of course, that this just makes us all insanely curious?

Hmm....Box of Distant Voices. Price unknown; moderate conjuration.

This burnished wooden box has been carved with reliefs of all sorts of bizarre and fantastic creatures. The interior seems perpetually shrouded in shadow, and is prone to making bizarre speech-like echoes in any sort of breeze. A knowledgeable user who concentrates on the box can make contact and communicate (but not otherwise interact) with a random extraplanar creature. The creature is under no compunctions to tell the truth or even answer questions appropriately. Whatever entity the user of the box makes contact is granted a psychic image of the user and his or her surroundings, as if using clairvoyance and clairvoyance. The user of the box, however, does not gain this ability.

DM secretly rolls d8
1- Alien entity from the Dark Tapestry
2- Lawful Neutral outsider
3- True Neutral outsider
4- Chaotic Neutral outsider
5- Lawful evil outsider
6- Neutral evil outsider
7- Chaotic evil outsider
8- Random good outsider

1/day the box can open itself and speak to anyone within earshot (rolling randomly for an outsider as normal).

As DM, I'm -generally- fine with a good or neutrally aligned PC engaging in cannibalism so long as they're not seeking out still living, sentient creatures to ingest.

HOWEVER - in a fantasy magical world improper disposal of a body may have magical/spiritual ramifications. It was a common European historical trope, for example, that improperly burying people had a tendency to disturb their afterlife. Possibly causing them to come back as undead. Many cultural variations on burial and entombment were based on some concept that disrespecting the dead caused some unpleasant attitudes and effects upon the living.

And in a fantasy magical world where spirits and undead DO exist and gods walk the world...

...who is to say that some of these beliefs are not in fact true.

Good casters get...

...allies and minions that do NOT try to stab them in the back.

Not to mention the old question of "after it wears off, do they realize they were charmed?"

The spell makes no mention of causing targets to forget...the description of charm effects makes no mention of causing memory loss, the description of enchantment effects makes no mention or causing targets to forget...

...so our default assumption must be....?

Uhh...take a few steps away from it and used ranged weapons? The thing has an AC so low that a commoner stands a good chance of hitting it with a thrown rock.

Yeah, can you read that part about the druid having a whole host of other abilties? Such as wildshape? Poison immunity? Alter Self at will? How about the different spell list...including the ability to spontaneously cast summons?

This game needs Batfolk.

The problem with this example (saving the world by killing an infant) is this: as a DM I think you should try to avoid this challanges for a paladin PC. IMHO the paladin MUST kill the infant if he cant find another way to save the world BUT i agree with the idea that "the end justifies the means" it's far from the paladin concept..

But this doesnt mean that you (or your pcs) should play the lawful (and boring) stupid paladin pc.. Paladins are more than this i think.

Actually, the proper way to set conundrums like this up as a DM is that NEITHER choice causes the paladin to fall. Game world morality thus allows for variable ethical paradigms and even cases where paladins may very validly come to blows in disagreement. This isn't to say that nothing should cause a paladin to fall, but...

Cases where a PC cannot help but fall are equivalent to instances where a PC cannot possibly evade death or some other highly undesirable result through any possible action of their own - highly immature and inappropriate conduct for a DM.