Gah! How this subject does draw out the long winded chaps and lasses for some pedantic pontificating pompous wind baggery. I see what you did there :)
I'll preface this last statement with the acknowledgement that you're probably not going see it. I too agree that there can be a right answer when it comes to morality/paladins/alignment/whatever, however the right answer is dependent entirely on what one means when they say moral. I'll spoil my rant but it's here for those that dare look: Spoiler:
One thing that leads to stable theories/paradigms is having a strong foundation in what you're defining.
To give an extreme example, if someone defined morality as "the way to cause others the most pain possible", then they'd be justified in torture/murder and calling it moral. Now in addition to being horrible, this would also be disingenuous since it doesn't fit with the average layman's definition of morality at all, and is likely to just cause confusion. The reason I bring this example up at all is that even small quibbles over what morality means can have profound impacts on what different people see as moral. Now of course I'm not suggesting anything quite so extreme as "pain=moral", only that we can't talk about what the moral code of a paladin entails until we talk about what the people involved want morality to mean to them in their game. Heck, we can move past objective morality in a heartbeat if we wanted since we're not even talking about our world, but rather a hypothetical fantasy world. That said, I do believe morals can be objective, but only so long as we define what it means to be moral first. With that said, I think we've reached the point of going past the point of the OP's thread, and have moved to philosophy, which while interesting, isn't relevant for this thread at this time. have a wonderful night with the wife, hope it's a good movie.
But it doesn't matter, and neither does it that goblins in the beastiary and Golarion are evil. They don't have the evil subtype, there for they are not 'kill on sight without question' monsters, not for a paladin anyway. This specifically I disagree with and think depends entirely on the group in question and how they choose to handle morality in their game. I think my biggest qualm with statements like that, are that they are absolute without at least acknowledging that, there isn't some hard and fast rule that is actually backs it up. It's an opinion that's being touted as fact. As for me, in my group this would be a fall worthy moment for the paladin, but I try my best to separate my group norms from others.
I agree the paladin should fall here, and that it's not the GM's fault that the Bard stayed in the town. However why should a paladin necessarily care about begging sobbing goblins. This same scenario could happen to a group of CE murderous band of goblins faces the Paladin realizing that he's far superior to them, and they're about to die. A paladin needn't show mercy to creatures who's purpose in life is to murder, kill, and cause pain to other living beings. In fact in the AP they're playing the town offers gold to players to bring back goblin ears. (you'd think the AP would mention if a Paladin should fall for this act). Now, the paladin in question to his detriment wasn't killing evil goblins, he was killing innocents. He probably didn't realize this, and that sucks for him.
Murdering fleeing children in a defenseless village of sentient beings, whatever the race, is an evil act in any non-dystopian setting I've ever played in. I certainly don't remember Forgotten Realms being a "child murder is Lawful Good!" setting. I won't speak to the novels, as they were basically garbage.@wraithstrike please see the comment I made directly above yours. Not getting into legal trouble is much different than adhering to morality. You definition is lawful, but not good. A paladin is both, but in the case that they conflict then he is good before lawful. I disagree. It depends entirely on the setting, and how a GM runs that setting. IRL sentient beings have the inherent ability to become anything from good to evil regardless of their parents. In our world, sentient beings make choices that determine their alignment, but in pathfinder and other setting it's sometimes the other way around. I've played in many a FR setting where it is stated that evil races are all evil no if and or butts about it. In this setting, goblin children are as evil as their parents. A goblin child who gets away is now just a hungry psychopath who will probably slaughter some innocent child if it catches them alone in the woods. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is the way the world ought to be played, was played by the OP, or even the default way, but it is at least a semi-common way people play pathfinder. (it does help remove unnecessary and unintentional moral dilemmas).
This isn't do much "gotcha" as "What the hell are you doing? What is wrong with you people?!" Depends on how much the GM played up the "please spare me" aspect of the goblins. Goblins are depicted early in the ROTRL as being particularly sadistic, evil, and crazy. Having someone warn of another "evil" tribe is something that makes sense in this setting, and would be believable as something a paladin would go out of his way to smite. Sure they could have asked the mayor/sheriff/whoever, but had this been a normal goblin tribe, it would be considered a waste of time. In most campaigns, goblins=evil. Now I definitely see how the paladin should fall, and need to redeem himself w/ the atone spell. in fact this seems to fit nicely with exactly what the atonement spell does.
You then compared him to a wizard with 0 investment in blasting.The OP's argument was, feat chains penalize melee more than casters. Not true. All optimized characters utilize feat chains, regardless of class. I think you are missing my point. I'm saying that utility for a caster doesn't come from their feats, it comes from their spells. Fighters only resource is feats, and long feat chains ensure that the only feats they get are ones that build on that. A blaster wizard is a spell away from being able to do anything outside of combat, because their main resource is spells not feats. Wouldn't you agree that a wizards main versatility doesn't come from feats but spells, and that fighters have to rely on feats to diversify?
I've determined that it would be a good change for Jotungrip to simply reduce the effort category of all weapons by one step (properly sized or not). This would give the Titan Mauler leeway to wield a Large 2-h weapon, Huge 1-h weapon, or Garg Light weapon. He'll still be able to wield weapons that "lesser warriors can't lift" Then, with Titanic Rage, he'll eventually be able to swing around a Col Light weapon.Nothing does this. Paizo adjusted the original write up of the Titen Mauler specifically because nothing ajusts the steps except the difference between the size of the weapon to the size of the character. Yes...... which is why he's house-ruled it.
agreed. Especially when they keep lines like " taking up weapons from her fallen foes that no lesser warrior can lift". Seems like they should've just re-fluffed the titan mauler completely if they stripped it of its core intended function.
True, only two ways to get a Large two hander : Thunder and Fang feat with a larger Earthbreaker (w/no Klar). actually, they can. The rules are quite clear on this ;P
I started typing up a response, and realized that Rich Burlew says it better then i could. "Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning." (Rich, Giants in the Playground) If you haven't read this section, I highly recommend it and recommend having your problem character read it as well.
Actually, now that I think of it, the PC in question is very much like Miko. He acted rashly and dumb in a situation. However, look at when Miko killed the bandits. There was no loss of paladin hood there even though her actions seem counter intuitive to being good. Just to be clear, it's not that I think the PC shouldn't fall, only that it completely depends on the group dynamic and definition of what good is.
Heck this adventure is entirely salvageable. Maybe a peasant from a neighboring community approaches them because of how famously they handled this lord, or if it's a secret, maybe they're approached by a secret group looking to take care of another evil lord. Either way, the group in on to a new town to save by another greedy tyrant. This one is better prepared having heard what the PC's did last time, and therefore the same tricks won't work. Really, the only thing that changes is the re-skinning of the previous characters, and shoring up some of the last dukes holes in defense. This works especially well since it happened so early in the adventure path that hardly any plot was probably developed.
If the paladin views death as a mere inconvenience, surely atonement isn't worse? Is atonement worse than death? Belkar disagrees Link.
I just dont understand the rogue hate. you know, we've seen a lot of people come on to this particular thread and say almost verbatim what you've said multiple times. Funny thing is they never present a character that stands up to scrutiny. At the same time you kinda hedge your bets by admitting that you modify the rogue class anyway. So what is it? are rogues under-powered, or does everyone just do it wrong? If so, throw out a build that does it right.
What do? Give the players a slow clap, and run another module. Heck, run the same module in the next town over, but reskin the setting. Sounds like a fun creative bunch.
and I've re-bolded other relevant sections You're making the judgment that the point of this was for the sake of convenience, when it could have been to protect the innocent. Actually, under this definition, Paladin's should put away their swords unless it's undead. Heck: 1. Killed a giant Dire Bear intent on eating you: Fallen, you didn't show respect for Dire Bear's life 2. Killed a murderous band of Orc's who invaded a village: Fallen you didn't have respect for their life. 3. Killed... Fallen, you killed something. Heck, under you're definition of Paladins must be good, not just neutral: 4. Watched a Lawful execution of an serial killer: Fallen, didn't make a sacrifice to protect others.
//Me: Watch your step demon. I have layers of magic woven around me and my allies, that will annihilate you if you so much as move. This magic comes from the highest heavens and deepest abyss, this magic can sunder worlds and create them. I've used this magic to slaughter many of your kind. Your only hope at keeping your pathetic life is to surrender, and hope I spare you. // Do I expect this to make him surrender? no Might the demon be slightly apprehensive about attacking me if I pull off a really high intimidate role that makes this sound convincing? yes. shaken doesn't have to mean they're literally terrified of you (there's rules for that), the penalty could literally just mean that their a bit reserved in how they proceed because you've caused just a slight bit of paranoia.
Wyverns are nasty, brutish, and violent reptilian beasts akin to more powerful dragons. They are always aggressive and impatient, and are quick to resort to force in order to accomplish their goals. For this reason, dragons generally look down upon wyverns, considering their distant cousins nothing more than primitive savages with a distinct lack of style or wit. In most cases, this generalization is spot-on. Although far from animalistic in intellect, and capable of speech, most wyverns simply can't be bothered with the subtlety of diplomacy, and prefer to fight first and parley later, and even then only if faced with a foe they can neither defeat nor flee from. I'd say that if you were attacked by a beast that considered it beneath you and therefore you deserve death, he was within his rights. Assuming the Wyvern attacked first, this description seems to indicate that it would not have shown mercy had the group lost, and asked for parley. Not showing mercy to a creature who intended to kill you, is not an evil act. It's not good either, it falls along the line of neutral really. Of course this is a generalization and not representative of all Wyvern's. I'd definitely give the player a warning, but Gm warning item or not, having a player fall for reason that you both dispute will only lead to bad times for all. If he felt he was justified, you two need to hammer out why he was wrong, since you're the GM. Making him fall when he considered his action in line, won't make anyone happy. As others have said, a few nights rest that are disrupted by his deity is a good way to represent his digression.
Well, a 10th level character with 18 AC and 70 HP is that fragile.You sir, win the internet this day. :D I can picture it now. Challenger: Grand Master, I need advice how I might beat this dastardly rogue Master: Wait for it Challenger: I don't understand, you want me to avoid him? Master: Wait for it Challenger: How can I just wait, he's got a high initiative and can poison me from afar. I need help or else I'll surely..... oh he just got influenza, nevermind he's done for. Thanks anyway. Master: Challenge passed.
I agree that enjoyment should be held highest, and that it's not necessarily a team work game as well. Typically you hear that as the default assumption, because many people not only do play that way, but unless your entire group plays this way it's causes too many problems, and you're all but guaranteed to cause others to not have fun. Let's take a look at starting with 2 different assumptions assumption 1: Assuming pvp is fine and good from the start Imagine if you will that everyone at the table thinks it's a team game, and in the middle of the night you slit a PC's throat, steal his goods, and run away into the night. You've likely ruined the fun for the entire party, and probably the animosity of the player you killed. Now if this same scenario happened but everyone agreed pvp was ok, said player would probably have safety precautions prepared to stop you, you'd be spending resources defending against him, and it balances itself to a certain degree. Assumption 2: Assuming pvp is not ok from the start Imagine if you will that everyone at the table thinks it's a pvp game, and in the middle of the night someone slit a PC's throat, steals his goods, and runs away into the night. You're fun is likely ruined for that character, but now you know that pvp is ok, and can make a character ready for the situation. At worst, you fun has been temporarily stopped. Now if the situation happens that everyone thinks it's a team game, you go on your happy adventuring way. So my whole point is that it's a good assumption to assume team game unless everyone explicitly agree's otherwise. Better yet, ask people ahead of time. But if you have to assume the assumption that pvp isn't ok has the least amount of consequences compared to assuming it's a free for all.
agreed, however he is not likely to make friends (and likely to make people angry) with this type of behavior. The part that is particularly egregious is using his GMing power over another. It's one thing if the GM doesn't mind and pvp is common in the group. It's another thing entirely to say "screw the people I don't know, and the GM can't stop me b/c I'll mess with him in my game if he does". Not only is it immature, it's mean spirited. It's just a toxic environment he setting up. This would be completely different if no one else minded/cared and it was all in good fun. But judging from the OP's comments, this isn't the case. He's willing to screw up a gaming group for no reason.
Besides im not gonna get kicked because im gming another game for the current gm, and he doesnt want to have any problems on my game. This will sound rude, but what you've said and are implying is really not ok. This makes you a jerk if you actually go through with it. You're essentially saying that you're willing to ruin the fun of others, because you know that the GM won't stop you for fear of what you could do to him. Take a step back, take a deep breath, before you decide what to do. It sounds this group isn't a good fit for you. Since your characters dead, now might be a good time to take an extended break from the group.
wait. I wasn't supposed to kill my players? *hides bodies*
I personally just find the uncompromising "my way or the highway" to be selfish, immature and generally irresponsible. Which is how a lot of people have phrased their advice. Iron, your missing the point. No one is ordering the OP to do what we say. We're giving our advice. Some of us see spoiled players, and that's how we'd handle it. Get off your high horse. Now you might handle it differently. Cool, throw your advice out here. But in my opinion when you have a really toxic group, having someone step up and make the hard decision usually works out better then someone who acts wishywashy. This way when your expectations are clear, the group can have fun, which it sounds like it wasn't having prior. How other people play at other tables is largely irrelevant. except, when the OP is specifically asking for advice.
how about the
Not the best, but it's a start until more creative people pop up. edit: and already ninja'd by a better one.... dang it!
thank you thaX, we are very aware of your position, and aware that you don't understand ours. I think we all accept this state of affairs we are in.
Would now be an apt time to apply Occam's Razor to our problem? It seems like we have at least one interpretation that works, and does not cause weird rules problems (tripping a prone person to generate extra attacks, tripping a flying person, etc.), and we have a reading that is under contention, although it might also be valid that would allow these problems. If we for a minute assume that both interpretations are plausible (not to suggest that they are, but for the sake of argument it sounds like both could be plausible) then isn't it time to pick the one with the least amount of possible errors? This of course should not take away from continuing to debate since, if one side is ultimately wrong, it will influence the overall outcome, but if our current state is such that both work, why not choose the one with the fewest internal problems?
So I'll be taking a trip this fall, to the store Target to meet up with an AOO (air operations officer). It's all on the condition that I hit it off with him. What should I pack? ;-) You didn't honestly think this would be another greater trip feat thread did you?
No, my point apparently went over your head.... not sure if you missed the point, or are being purposefully obtuse. ok, missed the point you did. That's ok I'll clarify for you then. I agree that fundamental knowledge of basic words is assumed when you walk into the game. However, when were talking about a specific action we should have a clear definition in case we run into the problem of different definitions tripping us up (pun intended :P ) So there is a section within the CRB that is titled Trip. You can interpret it as either a definition, or as the effect of trip. If you interpret it as the definition, than it is easy to see that to trip someone is to knock them prone. It's simple, well defined and were done. However if you interpret it as the effect and not the definition then you're in a muddled mess. Trip can be defined as to stumble, it can be defined as to be knocked over, it can be defined as to fall, and so on. With this being the case, there is no objective way to move forward. Were stuck relying on each individuals definition of trip. So you say that to trip is to stumble. So what? The next person can say it's to fall. Who is right in this case? Are you going to bust out dictionaries until one person is right? All of this disappears if you assume that the subsection on trip is what trip is defined as in this system. Now you can continue to act like this isn't the case, but it is the world you're stuck in if "trip" in pathfinder is just what you define it to be in the dictionary.
You misunderstand, that's probably my fault for being unclear. There are three different viewpoints on how this feat is handled. #1. The only thing you care about is what your character treats the weapon as. By this I mean that if you treat a weapon 1-handed, you can wield a large version 2-handed. #2. The only thing you care about is the weapons actual size designation. If you treat the weapon smaller, it doesn't matter since it's 2-handed designation forbids you to wield a large version. #3. You care about both what you treat it as and the actual size designation is. In this view, you need to both treat a weapon as a particular size, and have it's designation fit the appropriate size. which camp do you fall into?
An Earth Breaker is a Two Handed weapon that some, with the T&F feat, can use with one hand. If you wield an oversized weapon, you are no longer wielding it in one hand. perfect. By that exact logic you can wield a large bastard sword 2-handed without the feat. Seriously, read what you just wrote. If what you are saying is accurate then 2-handing a large bastard sword requires no feat.
Notice, it still says it is a two handed weapon, but only acts as a one handed weapon when used. ok, so when being used it counts as one-handed. That's step 1. Now, ThaX, what are you able to do with a weapon 1 size category bigger that is one-handed for you?
While I don't think it occured to anyone here, it is still a possible outcome that one player becomes irritated by homosexual content... even in a tabletop game like Pathfinder. it occurred to me. It's just I don't care. Just like if a racist on these boards was irritated by multiracial characters, I couldn't care less. Or if a misogynist on the boards who was offended by strong female leaders, I couldn't also care less. Now hopefully these sorts of people are disappearing from the world (although some on this board have shown otherwise). Frankly, I don't care what offends them because they're wrong.
When I think of Chaotic Neutral the iconic character that comes to mind is Han Solo. Han doesn't go out of his way to help anyone. he's in for whatever it takes to get his paycheck, whether that come from Hutt's, or rebels. He'll even shoot first (before his PC decides that in fact he didn't) to maintain his liberty. What we don't see is him going on random murder sprees for no reason whatsoever. He also was loyal (eventually) to those closest to him.
They have nearly 9 ships I think, and what they can't carry they stow at Tidewater Rock, which they know to be an easily defensible position thanks to the module. This is better then my other PC/GM The players wanted a more realistic game and so they divide all plunder/loot into a shares. Each pirate gets 1 share, officers 2, and captain 3. The other players don't want to deviate from this, and my GM doesn't give extra loot to compensate, so we're all extremely poor, but boy oh boy do we have the most well paid crew ever. For example when we cashed in a large magic item (15,000 gold) and 10 points of plunder (10,000 gold) it was divided this way. There are 25 crew, so there's 33 shares (2 extra for captain, 1 extra for each officer). So our 25,000 gold reward was actually 1,500 for each PC except the captain who got 2,272 gold....
Some people on this thread make me very sad. very very sad. On the other hand, I'm really happy that the Devs at Paizo have a strong moral sense to not just exclude whole groups for the sake of "ease". Challenging stereotypes helps the community as a whole.
Or the DM could choose to be a good host and accept that the player's opinions are important. Guess what? They have no game to DM if they piss their players off into leaving due to constant hardass behavior. Compromise is the buzz word, not "dominance." For this reason (among others) it's important to get a bit of social contract going between players and GM before the game. That way it's less likely for someone to quit due to strong disagreements with the DM's policies and mindset. If this was a game the GM was making by the fly I would be more inclined to agree. However, I do think it's really bad form if the players agree to play a AP and then go off the rails. They're not the ones who spent money buying an adventure to follow, and acting like sociopaths is a good way to ruin any AP. That said, I do agree that communication is key, but if players knew they were running an AP and decided to do this, I'd say that this is already an implicit breaking of a non-spoken player contract. The same way if I brought a board game over and my friends dismantled the pieces to play a new game, it wouldn't be overreacting on my part to say they're being jerks if they agreed to play the game.
PC's always use an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes it's too little, sometimes too much, but it's almost always inappropriate....
Sloppy? now you can fall for spilling and getting beer on your armor? I wouldn't go as far as to say upset, I'd say that many view your view as extreme, and unwarranted by the rules. Then again, looking at your house-rules it seems you run a very different game. You can't expect to invent rules that aren't there and then be annoyed when people call you out for punishing your players for those rules. That being said, it's your table, do what you will hoss. The thing is your train of thought leads people into not playing Lawful Good, but Lawful Stupid. It's already a problem many of have seen, and find frustrating at the table.
Only If you make up stuff that isn't there. Especially since you never end bothered to do more then assert that point.
During an assault on our keep, My cleric evil was injured by a fireball. I ran to the storage room and found we were out of healing potions. So I instead filled my backpack with alchemist fire, cast all my buffs including fly. I flew over the longboat with the intention of dropping the bag, but was shot by a lucky arrow that dropped me to -1 hp. I fell 500 ft onto their deck.... and exploded. The entire boat was sunk within 2 rounds. The only disappointed part was that our other cleric couldn't raise me since the fire reduced me to tiny bits of ash mixed with other bits of ash.
Good Morning MiniGM, Despite the fact that I still think it's being purposefully stubborn to demand that to follow the RAW you need to have a rule stating to do just that, I went ahead and asked James his thoughts on the matter. The benefit section is what tells you how the feat works. The description/flavor text at the start of the feat is just that—flavor. If there's a conflict, that's something the rules team needs to know about, since there shouldn't be conflicts there at all since it's flavor text versus rules text. So there's is my evidence that you asked that indicates that the benefit section lays out what the feat does, and the flavor is just flavor. So, can we all agree at this point that the RAW allows the earthbreaker to be wielded one-handed while the RAI is obviously meant to only imply that it can be one-handed with a Klar?
Let's get philosophical. If you go out to buy a raincoat that is "guaranteed to keep you dry, even in the toughest weather conditions" would you ask the shopkeeper if said raincoat also would keep you dry in ordinary rainy weather or when getting sprayed with a hose? Of course not, because you would rightly assume that the "guaranteed to keep you dry" part of the sentence is a statement about the general characteristics of the raincoat and the "even if" part of the sentence is there to provide an example of a situation that still does not compromise the garment's general ability to keep you try. If we're getting philosophical I'm all in. Premise 1: you can perform X
this is a false conclusion, that does not follow from the premises. In this case X stands for a particular skill check. W, Y, and Z are stand ins for circumstances that prevent X. X' is the special clause on UMD that prevents it from being synonymous with X. The conclusion does not follow because X' does not equal X even when the conditions for X are met. Now if you can show that X'=X we would have a valid conclusion to draw from the reading. I do see where your coming from, in that you see the latter half of the sentence as a non all encompassing example. However, we have two competing rules and neither appears to have the specific>general upper-hand.
I disagree. Allowing someone to use 2 earthbreakers is hardly gamebreaking. Considering that they're one-handed weapons, you'll be taking a -4/-4 even with twf feat. It's cool thematically, and makes an interesting character. I honestly wish they left more material this open ended. That way your not boxed into stupid corners like being forced to use a scimitar to add your dex to damage with a feat.
The thing is, I don't think you really need to even change the fluff to justify it. "His spell dissipates as the towering human smashes through Geralf's last defensively woven spell. For a brief second the overwhelming murderous intent seems to vanish from the savages eyes, and as quickly as it was gone, it came back stronger then ever as the barbarian turned his sights unto Geralf. That was the last thing Geralf ever saw" clearly rage, clearly rage cycling, and didn't need to feel immersion breaking. btw. I agree the name rage suggests anger, but who cares... sneak attack implies striking from shadows, and yet most sneak attacks occur in broad daylight, sometimes with a giant hammer, for non-lethal damage.
I rarely see a monster more than a round before initiative is rolled. IT's OVER, IT's ALL OVER!!!! and I announce without further ado the winner of the "Finding something the rogue does better then anyone else statement of the month.... no wait Year!" proceed to the nearest rogue is useless thread to claim your prize. ps: Sorry I really couldn't resist :D
|
