Shadowkire's page

My spoon is too big.

Starfinder core rulebook, page 168:

"Weapons that use standard ammunition (arrows, charges, darts, mini-rockets, petrol, rounds, scattergun shells, etc.) are sold preloaded"

Would this not mean that a character could purchase a 100-credit scattergun to gain a 330-credit high-capacity battery?

High capacity batteries are level 4 ammunition, you can't get them at level 1 character generation. *Loophole closed*

Starfinder core rulebook, page 218:

"Items specified with a usage use a battery that comes fully charged when purchased. Such batteries can be recharged as normal using generators or recharging stations (see Professional Services on page 234), or they can be replaced (see Table 7-9: Ammunition for battery prices)."

Lower down on the same page:

The reason undead are no longer set to evil by default is directly linked to the ultimate fate of Aroden, Golarion, and Rovagug.

Now you just have to crash a ship through a parallel dimension on a course running through and perpendicular to the path of a time traveler in order to link a far flung alien world with Golarion's wild west and post apocalyptic past. Then and only then can you solve the mystery.

I have read a lot of complaints over the years about players "taking everything that isn't nailed down" from dungeons. 10% (used) equipment value vs 100% trade good value WILL make it worse.

Get ready for heated arguments as to whether furniture counts as equipment or trade goods. If Paizo makes the mistake of describing any weapon as having a particularly valuable component(gold plating, focusing gems, high-tech mini-generator, etc.) get ready for players to rip apart "good" weapons they aren't specialized in. Then get ready for the flood of threads from players and DMs about the drama when players are still only allowed to get 10% of the value from those scavenged/salvaged components.

When the value difference between gear and trade goods was 50% vs 100% most people were willing to let things go and not try to game the system(though of course some people still did that). In Starfinder the gulf between the sell values is large enough that gaming the system is more rewarding for many more players than just letting things be.

I know that personally, I've found myself selling a +2 unique item because I didn't have the right feats to use it, in exchange for a +1 item that I could that was plain vanilla, and wondering how I got to this point. :)

I think that it won't change the way you want it to in Starfinder. You will find powerful niche weapons that nobody in your party can use. Instead of getting a good amount of currency for the item you will now get piddly pocket change.

The ways people will game this change(surprise! people will try to game a game!) are many and varied. If I can't make good money off of my enemies' gear I will try to make money off of their bodies. Animal and monster skins would be trade goods, and therefore sold for 100% of their value. If my enemies are common character races I may consider taking them alive and harvesting their organs.

If weapon focus and/or exotic weapons are still a thing I will advise everyone in my party to become proficient in the kinds of weapons our enemies use so that we get the full value out of weapons used by bosses.

With the outrageous expense of consumables everyone in my party will hoard grenades and potions(called serums now yes?) to the point that our characters should realistically be clothed in bandoleers.

The true problem we are struggling with in this thread is "money = power". Players will do whatever they can and say whatever they can say to get more money. They do this because they want their characters to survive the game. They do this because "power = survival" and "money = power" within the rules of the game.

This was far more time that I ever expected to spend trying to explain myself on this thread. Perhaps I'll just not bother in the future if I have to worry about writing my posts as if I have a panel of rules-lawyers waiting in the wings to nit-pick them.

Panels of rules-lawyers are an almost guaranteed encounter in threads where rules are debated. Safe journeys friend.

Aelryinth wrote:

yeah, that portion was a reply to Talek and Luna. No reason to give a Wizard tons of skill points. They are stressing their brains learning spells so they don't NEED to have skill points.

==Aelryinth

Why? Because you are biased against wizards? It makes far more sense for a wizard to have a ton of skills than a fighter. Wizards deal in academia. Most people in academia have a far greater selection of skills than others in a profession that does not require much learning.

You are equating the word 'skills' with the word 'knowledge'.

I imagine a wizard would need mathematics, alchemy, chemistry, writing, literature, poetry, all the various knowledges, etc. That training requires a lot of skills.

Which the wizard has, namely Craft(Alchemy + Literature), Linguistics, all the knowledge skills, etc. All of them are based on Int, the most important stat for a wizard. As such the wizard will already be well off in those skills from level 1.

What is the fighter doing in his time? Drinking at the bar?

And training his body, preparing for the rigors of combat and everything involved with that. So from the drinking maybe the fighter should get Diplomacy because he actually talks to people. Physical training should make him a capable climber, swimmer, and acrobat. Nights spent on watch/guarding would make him good at recognizing the difference between an empty shadow and one with a person in it. He would probably learn to ride a horse and how to handle one. Maybe he would learn how to treat the wounds any soldier is likely to accrue in battle. Maybe the fighter would learn a bit about weapon and armor crafting in order to better care for his gear.

So I just covered 10 skills that a Fighter might learn as part of becoming a fighter. Only 4 of them are tied to key fighter attributes (climb, swim, arcobatics, ride). Meanwhile the wizard's key attribute is linked to more than a dozen different skills in addition to being the attribute that give extra skill points.

The fighter needs more skill points.

Would you "drink the Kool-Aid" if it meant a Doctor could find the cure to cancer? How about the cure to aging? How about if it meant world peace? Youre just being unreasonable to be dismissive. Especially in a roleplaying game, there are plenty of reasons for people to sacrifice their lives for good. Also, again, he brought them all back to life so it was a temporary inconvenience at worst.

Why is it only this 1 person can do it? Why not share his research with colleges who may have good ideas that speed up the process of creating these cures/world peace?

To actually engage (though I do maintain the entire discussion is pointless but I am bored):

Abadar is silent on whether it's OK. An oath against chaos/fiends gives us new burdens. But let's look at them all:

Paladin Code wrote:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin ...

Now we don't know whether it broke local laws but we can certainly say the fiend in question was not a servant of chaos, nor malicious. So neither Oath actually offers any justification beyond assumptions made by the Paladin in our situation. So we're then onto the vase Paladin code of conduct: Willingly commiting an evil act. Willingly, as a word defined elsewhere, makes no references to whether the character had knowledge of what they are doing. This just shifts the burden onto: Is it evil?

WillFULLy =/= WillINGLy

Willfully:

adjective
1.
deliberate, voluntary, or intentional
2.
unreasonably stubborn or headstrong; self-willed.

So now that people know what that word means:

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who deliberately, voluntarily, or intentionally commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin ...

Did the paladin intend to do evil?

phantom1592 wrote:

That line of thinking gets dangerous too. The god granted power detected her as chaotic (just noticed this paladin can't even detect evil...) the god granted power is what let me smite her... The oaths made to Abadar were to destroy any Chaotic Fiends...

At that point it's really saying this is ABADAR's fault. I want you to kill chaotic fiends... Here's something to detect them, here's something to kill them...

WHAT DID YOU DO!?!?!?

Flavor text with Oath against Fiends is this...
A paladin who takes an oath against demons, devils, daemons, and other evil outsiders is constantly on the lookout for malicious fiendish insurgence into the world, and faces it with swift and unwavering defiance

Swift and unwavering. Honestly, I think 'Oath against Chaos' is a ridiculous thing to give to a Paladin. Paladins should NOT be able to smite CG things... It's kind of mind boggling to me... but whatever. That's a different debate. As a legitimate Paizo Paladin option... This Paladin did what he was supposed to do, by the rules in front of him...

You do have a point. And perhaps the Oath against Chaos muddles the main point a bit (I sort of agree with you the Oath is a bit off for Paladins).

Let's simplify the scenario a little bit. The paladin is a paladin of Iomedae (who doesn't like Fiends, I'm sure). The paladin only has an Oath against Fiends. The rest of the scenario plays out as described before.

How does the paladin reconcile the competing duties he has? His Oath says "Never suffer an evil outsider to live if it is in your power to destroy it." However, his paladin code of conduct requires him to protect the innocent (indeed he must find and punish those who hurt innocents). The succubus, at this point in time, counts as an innocent (or she wouldn't qualify to be a paladin herself).

So, how should he decide how to satify both duties? Oh and of course there's a (perceived) time pressure. If the fiend is a threat, then he must act QUICKLY too or...

Honestly if the succubus detected as evil and smite was working on her then she is not innocent.

Shadowkire wrote:

Where does it say they don't/can't micromanage?

If they don't micromanage how would a god know his paladin violated the code BUT doesn't know when to stop the paladin before s/he does something wrong with his/er powers?

The reason they don't micromanage is to keep the agency (and the responsibility) on the player for his/her own actions. Unlike the gods who are very circumscribed in both the actions they take and the perceptions they have, the player characters are the agents with free will. So they don't have the Nuremburg style "My god made me do it" defense.

This is shown by the fact that Sarenrae is still granting powers to the Qadirans who conquer in her name even though they violate her tenets almost constantly. And in how "Death's Heretic" Pharasma continued to answer the prayers and grant spells to her increasingly apostate cleric while she sent the title character as her agent to deal with him if he did not learn the error of his ways.

So what you are saying is that Abadar sees his paladin is about to attack a demon paladin and despite thinking it is wrong for his agent to do that keeps powering the paladin. THEN, when the LG succubus is already dead, he takes the paladin's powers away?

PFSRD: Oathboud Paladin

While all paladins have their own codes of conduct, either taught by an order, handed down from the gods, or inspired by personal conviction, an oathbound paladin devotes herself to a singular cause, which grants her additional powers but also gives further edicts she must follow.

Emphasis mine.

The paladin does not fall, or the GM is a t%@% who set up a trap.

Quote:

Wrong premise. A diety that orders mass infanticide is NOT Good, but Evil, and a Paladin would fall for obeying such an order.

Wrong.

What happens if Rovagug is released and all those whom he devours further strengthens him to the point the rest of the multiverse will be threatened by his increase in power? And innocent souls strengthen him further exponentially.

You can't stop his release, and you can't stop him from devouring others, thus consuming their souls. And there is no way to do a mass exodus of all the people on golarion.

What do you do? The only alternative is to prevent the food from being present upon his release, thus starving him and preventing that threat from endangering the rest of the multiverse.

Now, suicide also prevents the souls from travelling to the upper planes, but instead damns them to the lower, further strengthening a different evil.

Your presumtion in your "objective good and evil" is that all killing is wrong. This is wrong on it's face.

What's the alternative?

That isn't how Rovagug works. He destroys, he doesn't eat, if he did he would be really really weak by now, and kill-able.

But lets assume that is how it works:

The gods(even Asmodeus) would open portals/rapture people off world before that.

If you BS that option away, the elves of Kyonin open their planetary gate and evacuate Golarion's people to Castrovel.

Not enough time you say? Well how do a bunch of paladins kill the world in less time? They can't, and if they can't then BS Rovagug gains ultimate power from eating billions of souls anyway.

Allowing others to kill you is not suicide. Suicide is killing yourself.

And stepping off a cliff isn't suicide, gravity is doing the killing, you just don't feel like stopping it.

I believe he means that the Paladin and the Swashbuckler have a lot of overlap.

Many people like to put very different classes together to make a character with a greater array of abilities(like combining a casting class with a martial class).

I think the OP's idea for a Swashadin is pretty neat though.

A gestalt build mixing paladin and swashbuckler won't broaden your character's abilities very much, but it sounds like you have a solid idea for what your drow will be.

For build choices: look into swashbuckler builds before paladin builds, your character will fight more like that class than a paladin.

As for divine bond: the mount can be a good RP element of your character, but unless your campaign is going to spend a lot of time out in the open you may want to stick with the weapon instead.

Feats: look at what I said about builds.

Traits: Warrior of old(+2 initiative) is a good start.

With what info I have this is my assessment:

That wizard is in hiding. A level 16 running a shop is either a retired hero(which you should have had a chance to recognize/hear about), an anomaly that makes the existence of your band of "heroes" obsolete, or a person laying low while something with much more power searches for him.

My advice:

Research the wizard, if he is hiding find who or what he is hiding from and point it/them in his direction. Also negotiate with the wizard's enemy for protection for yourself in return for a peek at the spells the wizard has and a chance to jump the wizard when he jumps you.

On Mage's Magnificent Enclosure:

Somatic (S)

A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

Components V, S, M (a sphere of glass worth 100 gp and an iron nail, with which you pierce the glass on casting)

So the wizards has to use one hand to cast the somatic component, one to pierce the glass with a nail, and a third hand to hold the metamagic reach rod.

He only has two hands so he can't.

Regardless the rules don't say anything about what you actually can recruit in terms of levels/race/type, so all of this would fall under GM fiat.

Kind of weird how you play Pathfinder:

No character sheet...

No GM...

[edit] ninja'd by Kthulhu

Marroar Gellantara wrote:

While the wizard is binding outsiders, the Fighter is busy not pissing off the entire cosmos.

Easiest win all thread. Wizard pisses off a deity and dies from its sheer unstated might.

Please, diety smiety. Caster can already roll on Cthulhu. Just wait til they get statted.

Its true, they will be stated long before your wizard is.

LazarX wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Rules:

CRB wrote:

A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.

Blood Money is a 1st level spell. I choose it. There is no rule that prevents this.

GM not allowing can do so. GM's are not required to accept avery spell in all of Paizo's non-core books. He can especially argue that his games are not set on Golarion and that spell IS setting-specific.

This is would be fiat. "The GM can..." is an empty argument in a rules discussion. Whether it is setting specific is irrelevant as we are talking about all the Pathfinder rules not a particular subset.

Wait, we are using ALL Pathfinder rules? All of them? This is going to be a short fight:

While the wizard spends all his/her time building a demiplane and collecting all the spells in existence. The fighter buys some land, which is in the rules, you can buy stuff. Fighter declares his land a soveriegn kingdom, allowed in Ultimate Campaign. Fighter builds up his kingdom. Fighter brings an army to the fight against the wizard. The army consists of various classes and some monsters, allowing the fighter all the abilities and actions needed to wreck the wizard.

All rules legal.

kikidmonkey wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Now who is blowing their WBL? A whole demiplane, hallowed vs TP, and every spell that ever was. The fighter beats the wizard by telling the debt collectors where they can find him/her.

Two words. Blood. Money.

How did you get a spell lost over 10k years ago? By by WBL/soul. Fighter wins with assistance from debt collectors.

legend lore.

I picked it as one of my spells during level up. It's really that simple.

Which would be acceptable if you were a sorcerer. But Blood Money is a Thassilonian spell, lost 10k years ago. The big bad of Rise of the Runelords doesn't even have it prepared, its just a wand. You have to come up with at least a decent reason why the wizard has it or I get to say the Fight just happened to pick up an army of Golems. Both things have the same amount of reason and chance.

I will try and build a wizard that can beat any mythic fighter out there.

What are the rules of engagement for the dual.

I propose standard WBL for both sides. The wizard has no idea at all that the fighter wants to kill him or even exists until the fighter attacks. The wizard spends 1 hour per day in a mage academy lecturing. The rest of the time he spends in a personal demiplane. He knows that he is exposed when teaching so protects himself accordingly. Spells a duration of 24 hours or more can be assumed to be always on.

I also assume a undetectable does not prevent me from know what square you are in once you attack.

Victory is incapacitation for more then a year or permanent death.

Thanks Matius, I look forward to this.

Shadowkire wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Now who is blowing their WBL? A whole demiplane, hallowed vs TP, and every spell that ever was. The fighter beats the wizard by telling the debt collectors where they can find him/her.

Two words. Blood. Money.

How did you get a spell lost over 10k years ago? By by WBL/soul. Fighter wins with assistance from debt collectors.

legend lore.

Requires someone to know such a spell even existed at one point to even try and find it/piece it together.

Now who is blowing their WBL? A whole demiplane, hallowed vs TP, and every spell that ever was. The fighter beats the wizard by telling the debt collectors where they can find him/her.

Anzyr wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Or is the wizard coming back with those 1000s of explosive runes. Does that mean all the fighter has to do is ready an action to dispel them all and then the wizard takes 9k?

I use free days on the fast time plane to stockpile them. I don't need to prepare some for a given fight.

The god that owes the fighter a favor, and whom you have been contacting, teleports the fighter into your demiplane while you are standing next to your stockpile. Fighter hits the stockpile with dispel. Wizard dies.

That is fiat. Having a god help you is not an ability or magic item.

Its a spell, one you use.

BTW Anzyr, I thought that was how we are fighting, with fiats. Because there are certainly no numbers or stats here.

Shadowkire wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Or is the wizard coming back with those 1000s of explosive runes. Does that mean all the fighter has to do is ready an action to dispel them all and then the wizard takes 9k?

I use free days on the fast time plane to stockpile them. I don't need to prepare some for a given fight.

The god that owes the fighter a favor, and whom you have been contacting, teleports the fighter into your demiplane while you are standing next to your stockpile. Fighter hits the stockpile with dispel. Wizard dies.

That is fiat. Having a god help you is not an ability or magic item.

Its a spell, one you use.

Shadowkire wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Shadowkire wrote:

Actually the Wizard loses, because he has no stats.

Everyone is picking apart the mythic fighter build that was presented as if the mythic wizard could cast anything and everything from its spellbook at will, knew the fighter had no immunity to mind-affecting spells(or did know in case of the unbreakable archetype suggestion), and could totally beat the fighter in initiative because reasons(remember the wizard hasn't been stated yet).

So when the fighter enters the arena to face down the imaginary wizard a dog farts, distracting the people who are imagining the all-knowing and all-powerful being. Thus whats existence that creature had fades until nothing is left:

FIGHTER WINS!

I use the same spells every time this argument comes up. It's hardly Schrodinger at this point.

Cool, then the fighter steps into the arena with a spellbook. To bad there is no character holding/using it. Maybe if we saw some stats....

Otherwise:

FIGHTER WINS VS UNATTENDED SPELLBOOK

Builds do not prove anything. In fact, they tend to highlight the builder's skills rather then the class or ability being discussed.

So you play Pathfinder without a character sheet with stats on it? Or how about this:

Instead of the fighter presented earlier, we have one that has no defined mythic abilities. Instead it has what we want it to have in order to counter any spell you cast. Also it has any magic item it needs. Because that is totes possible right?

Actually the Wizard loses, because he has no stats.

Everyone is picking apart the mythic fighter build that was presented as if the mythic wizard could cast anything and everything from its spellbook at will, knew the fighter had no immunity to mind-affecting spells(or did know in case of the unbreakable archetype suggestion), and could totally beat the fighter in initiative because reasons(remember the wizard hasn't been stated yet).

So when the fighter enters the arena to face down the imaginary wizard a dog farts, distracting the people who are imagining the all-knowing and all-powerful being. Thus whats existence that creature had fades until nothing is left:

FIGHTER WINS!

9. "Before we proceed further into the enemy lair, which is sure to be guarded by a small army, we will take 10 minutes strip-searching the corpses of those we have already killed."

All this bickering, all this name calling.

AND IT IS OVER 0.5 OF SOMETHING.

FAQ the thread, then step away.

This has become ridiculous and toxic.

I am almost sad that this journal is coming to its end.

Lawful is the "sit on buns waiting for others" alignment.

Hence the scribes who are just recording the dissent, waiting for their superior to read their reports, who will then wait for some enforcer/soldier to come around and actually crush us.

By then we will have moved on to recruiting others, the thug will be overwhelmed and we will be emboldened by our victory.

Then my best shot:

The archer jumps up pressing her/is feet against the wood of the bows, drawing with his/er hands. It would look like a drop kick from pro wrestling.

[edit]
Here is a picture of a D&D creature doing the 'brace with feet, pull with hands' thing

I think anyone who would spend his/er time to complain on a game's message board about changes the game should make does in fact like the game.

@ Everyone:

You are now far off topic. Take these discussions to new threads and let this one either get back on track or die.

My two cents: The Exploiter is a viable generalist. Maybe it is as powerful as a school wizard, but it isn't as crazy powerful as some felt it was at first glance.

It was a party of 4 and i think we had leveled but he said we wouldn't level until we rested, but the goblins upstairs were practically push overs we plowed through them pretty easily so most of the group wanted to stay and have the stealthy members scout ahead and see if we needed to rest up for the encounters ahead. (Bad idea apparently)

I've played with the DM before on a few campaigns and he has always had a since of him vs the party, we fought a beholder once and he said before the fight that when we fight the beholder he was going to kill at least 2 party members (granted its a beholder, but who says that to the group they're DMing). when I've made characters in the past, i made them as tough as possible because if i don't he just flat out murders them. I made the character for this campaign as resilient as humanly possible and he seemed to take it personally when the enemies couldn't hit my guy, he said he was going to knock up the difficulty of the encounters which would hurt other members of the group so i should dumb down my character.

I also can't name the number of times he has had the bad wizard of the month use hit and run tactics with the dominate spell and members of our group.

Ouch, I had a GM like that before. Everyone was annoyed by his attitude. Eventually I got fed up and started making wizards/sorcerers with Con as a dump stat and a tendency to get close to the action.

It took the GM a while to realize that I was using his murderous style to give everyone else enough money to buy anything they needed to survive. When he threatened to ban me from the game if I didn't stop the entire table mutinied. We ended up letting the GM back into the group as long as he would stop being such a jerk and things have been great since.

So if you continue to play games with him and don't want to see another cherished character bite it, try my strategy.

A lot of people have not been reading the original post, because people keep suggesting that the paladin's party should work together to do something to stop the slaughter. It is a good sentiment, but ignores the fact that a member of the party was aiding in the slaughter.

There is not enough information to gauge the situation, we don't even know if the PCs consist of more than the paladin and the oracle.

Perhaps the paladin can't defeat an army of bad guys by force of arms, but he could still:

* Call town guards
* Challenge the bad guy leader to a duel or single combat (bonus points if the paladin's allies use the duel as a diversion to ameliorate the situation otherwise)
* Get as many innocents as possible to safety.
* Fight the overwhelming forces (maximizing defense as he does so) while other PCs get innocents to safety.

A paladin should always look for ways to protect the innocent ... even when the situation seems hopeless.

*Can't call the guards, the grey maidens are guards/soldiers of the government.

So what if combat leads to the paladin's death?

* Party pays to raise the paladin.
* Church pays to resurrect the paladin.
* Player decides to play a new character based on one of the innocents saved by the paladin's sacrifice; who takes up the paladin's cause.

A noble death for a paladin is far better than an ignoble life.

1. The party should be about level 5, so Raise Dead is just within the price range(to bankrupt the party), but finding a cleric willing to raise someone who died fighting against the authority that rules the city can be tricky.

2. I don't like to rely on GM fiat for bringing my character back from the dead. Also making decisions based on this possibility is meta-gamey.

3. If one of the innocents was anywhere close to the level of power the paladin had, why would s/he need to intervene?

Sorry, but the Anti-Paladin is a very bad designed class at all (they simply exchanged LG with CE in the description).

Have to say the Black Guard from 3.0/5 was much better (design and flavour wise) then the Anti-Paladin.

Don't want to offend you guys at Paizo, but think you really have to redesign the Anti-Paladin!

Also being chaotic doesn't mean you can't have your own code.. you'are simply a little bit more "flexible" with it. ;)

And the Paladin is badly designed, they really need to redesign it, but it is what it is just like the Anti-Paladin.

The Anti-Paladin Code is no more flexible than the Paladin's. *winkyface*

Dread Knight wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin.

This screams Neutral Good to me not Lawful Good. I also personally find the other restrictions that have been mentioned in this thread and agree with what others have said.

I also find other alignment restrictions stupid such as Necromancy and Intelligent free willed Undead always being evil; but enough about that back to Paladins I think it would be better if they were restricted to Any Good, Anti-Paladins to Any Evil, and finally another class similar to them which could be Any Neutral and could decided to Smite an alignment that doesn't match theirs(LN can pick Chaos, Good, or Evil), Channel Positive or Negative(Which would decided if they get Lay of Hands/Touch of Corruption and Mercies/Cruelties), their weapons are as their alignment and they get DR opposite that(LN weapons Lawful DR/Chaotic Neutral picks one and it can't be changed), etc.

What about that screams neutral good?

Maybe the part where the neutral good character is concerned primarily with goodness, and handles order/chaos decisions on a case by case basis instead of being conflicted between a sense of law/tradition and doing what is good.

And don't go "But the Paladin follows a code and that is lawful behavior!"
Anti-Paladins are CHAOTIC evil with a code.

"The CG paladin has been tried before (3E Unearthed Arcana) and despite being well written it was not particularly popular, as I recall." This statement was quotes twice and disagreed with both times. My statement is that, as near as I can remember, the CG paladin was not very popular in 3E. Disputing my claim is disputing that I am accurately describing what I remember from ten or so years ago. If one claims that the CG paladin was popular in 3E, that returns to Russell's Teapot and burden of proof.

Improper use of Russell's Teapot.

You claim one thing that is reasonable, they claim another thing that is reasonable. Neither side has offered much in the way of proof.

Explanation of why Russell's Teapot doesn't work here

Anyone who says no is wrong.

Imagine if American troops went over to Africa and slaughtered a small indigenous tribe that they couldn't communicate with but refused to fight back. There elder was on his knees pleading with them, and just because they couldn't understand him, they threw him into a fire. Then as small children ran out of a building fleeing in different directions, they were all shot down. Just because some other tribes may be cannibalistic does not mean it would be ok to slaughter this one as it begs for its life.

Disagree if you like, it really only speaks as to your comprehension of right and wrong

EDIT* that wasn't directed at you Garg, just using the closing of your last statement as an opportunity is all

The DM left out any actual description of the good goblin tribe, bluffed his players without giving them sense motive checks, and apparently left out all mention of the entire in-game history of this tribe the DM inserted into the AP.

Mulet did this to the players, face to face. What makes you think s/he is telling you the whole truth?

It would also be consistent with his apparent DMing style to not point out the goblin children were children, or smaller than normal goblins.

Also, your analogy of American troops in Africa doesn't hold up. Humans are not intrinsically evil in the real world. In many fantasy worlds, including unmodified Golarion(the setting of this AP), goblins are intrinsically evil. You can say "apparently not because there are good ones in the OP's game" all you like, but as far as the players knew and were told until the trap was sprung, all goblins are evil.

[edit]
And not 1 "progressive, fond of writing" goblin in this village that has a treaty with the "King of Varisia"(seriously, check out the link Scaevola77 provided) could speak common? Goblins show up for the first time in the AP singing a song that is apparently in common.

First, if you are one of my party members, please leave this thread. Spoilers ahead. I need this post to make sure I'm not bullying Justin.

** spoiler omitted **...

I say there was a lot of misunderstanding and some misapplication of the rules:

1)[the rules] When an NPC lies to the players it is a bluff vs sense motive check, meaning it is up to you to tell the players they need to roll for sense motive. Otherwise your players will spend every following conversation with a NPC rolling SM to catch lies instead of listening to what the NPC is saying.

2)[lack of info and past in-game experience] You had Shalelu(the local goblin hunter) tell the players about a bunch of different evil goblin tribes in detail then mention this 6th(7th?) tribe without any details given. Then you say "They just needed to ask Shalelu!!!1!!". They did, in that meeting where she was telling them about half a dozen goblin tribes, YOU left out Shalelu saying "Oh, but there is 1 tribe of good goblins that are peaceful, so don't go murderhobo on them." At that point in the AP the players should have fought between 12-20 goblins, seen them kill 3 dogs, attack a child, kill that child's father, and possibly slaughter an entire building of people. At no point in this game has anyone even mentioned a NEUTRAL goblin, let alone a good one.

3)[bad description] These are level 1-2 PCs going up against 20+ goblins on their home turf, and with apparently no indication these goblins are any different from the last couple dozen they have fought. So lets not be surprised they struck hard and fast. But what kind of description did you give the players when, after the players were told those were good goblins, they were surprised and repentant? The goblins are running away? That is what half the enemies in the AP do when you are winning the fight, and usually it is a strategic retreat to regroup with the BBEG.

4)[Racism] This AP, as written, reinforces the X race is always Y alignment trope, and you don't appear to have given your players any indication otherwise until after they killed a village.

5)[What did the PALADIN do?] After saying "the paladin even took the first shot!" we were told what the party did, that they killed children and begging goblins. Did the paladin kill the children? The surrendering goblins?

6)[Locals?] I already mentioned this in my last post, but if any of the PCs that met "Natalie" lived in Sandpoint for more than 5 years, they should have received an easy chance to use knowledge(local) to identify her.

I don't think you meant to spring a gotcha! moment on your paladin(and party), but you pretty much did.