Timothy Hanson's page

Timothy Hanson wrote:

Mavael wrote:

>Then again, if it didn't give you the metamagic feats, people would be shouting it's a pathetic feat... lol.

No, it would still be insane. You can quicken every 5 level and below spell every turn basically doubling your spell output for the cost of a few engineering skill ranks.

If this feat read

"attach quicken to a spell (if you have it), do some math with engineering, if you succeed you cast the spell for it's original spell rank" it would still be incredibly powerful.

Quickening only lets you use the spell as a standard action instead of a quick action with the feat. So it would be a waste of your time. You can not use quickening and another metafeat on any spells above 4th, so 5th level spells on are going to take a full round action to cast and have the possibility of not even doing what you intend them to do. You also need to sink ranks into Engineering.

Most of the time you are casting as a full round action, which is a HUGE drawback as if you take any damage you could easily fail to cast at all, and in addition to that you are not guaranteed to even get the metamagic you want.

Rules:

A spell whose casting time is more than 1 round or 1 full-round action cannot be quickened.

The spell would be a swift action provided you aren't a spontaneous caster. It's just.... math.

"applying the Quicken Spell metamagic effect negates the increased casting time but still contributes to the modified spell's effective spell level."

This implies to me, that all Quicken does is negate the casting time being upped from Sacred Geometry.

A Shadow Giant, a Stone Giant, and a Frost Giant walk into a tavern...

Shortest AP ever.

Don't listen to these chicken littles, it will be fine. Let your players have fun and play what they want.

El Baron de los Banditos wrote:

I really want to play one of these races and call all humans "apefolk" now.

That's actually a very good idea. It highlights the humancentric bias that developed these race names in the first place. Though then you have the pressure on the GM when the human in question says "Well, what do you call yourselves?"

I agree the people at Paizo should hire more non-humans so they can get away from these human biases.

Timothy Hanson wrote:

I must admit I am rather surprised with how many people are fully on board with this to be honest. Go across Tian Xia people throw a fit, have pirates people through a fit, go to Earth everyone is on board. Seems odd.

I think you've provided your own insight to the paradox without realizing it. The elements you mention: Tian Xia, pirates (and the polarizing possibility of firearms they bring with them), etc, all changed the nature of Golarion itself when introduced. By opening up those avenues to exotic locales as accessible parts of Golarion, I think it may cause some stress for GMs running more "traditional" games. Like players showing up with ninjas and gunslingers when the GM was hoping for some traditional sword & spell dungeon-romp fantasy. When it becomes not only part of Golarion canon but highly-featured aspects of books like Ultimate Combat, it gets harder and harder for GMs to say no to those elements, lest they alienate PCs who want to play around with those new toys, because they are now an official part of the game world.

But if you bring the adventure elsewhere--taking it off Golarion--it is less threatening, and, most importantly, you can explore new realms and exotic locales, whether it be other planets or weird pocket dimensions, without redefining the fabric of the game-world assumptions of Golarion itself. It is safer and less threatening, I think, because if GMs know they hold the key to that particular lock, and they stay more firmly in control of the introduction of those elements, then there's a certain comfort that they can sort of swim around in that exotic pool for a little while, then dry themselves off and get back to business-as-usual, the key to those locales swallowed, if need be, so that those aspects don't ever again taint their more "pure" definition of canon Golarion. Denying a PC concept from another planet or dimension is easy enough, but it gets harder to say 'no' when someone brings a samurai PC to the...

Except I do not really see any difference in the two. If one person can get there, so can another. If Golarion can go to Earth then so too can Earth go to Golarion. I feel like this redesigns the fabric of the game world even more then any of those other APs by a million. The Pirates have always been there, they were just never a focus, nothing in Skull and Shackles really changes the world any more then any other AP. The same goes for Tian Xia, that was there all along, there were paragraphs in the World Guide, there is a Guide for it even, completely independent of the AP. That is not at all the case for Earth. There is/was no mention of it until now. Exceptions can become rules. The AP makes real life canon, and that just carries a lot more baggage then it is worth in my opinion. I guess it is a slippery slope, and I fear Hitlers invasion of Varisia (not that I think that would ever actually happen, but I am not a fan that it could).

It sort of amazes me that they danced on Egg Shells the whole Skull and Shackles AP about firearms and two APs later they are adding tanks. I will still look it over, and I might be wildly surprised, I just think they are taking some overly large leaps all at once and that surprises me. There first Planet Jumping AP and they are already going to Earth?

Someone just casually looking for a Blacksmith, and too impatient to find someone helpful and just flings Charm Persons around will probably get himself into trouble eventually. But that is true for anyone wielding magic around so casually, even wielding a sword around causally is going to get you into trouble. If I happened to be on the receiving end of a charm and I realized it, I would probably be annoyed, and that guy would lose points in my book, but I don't think it would go much farther then that. Though I would have a slight fear of the guy, since if he could do that, then what else could he do, but I am not sure if it would have any long term effects.

I agree with Ilja whole heartedly.

especially on the matter or randomly charming people in town to make them like you.

Quote:

your position boils down to, intentionally or not, "It's wrong to use magic to negate hateful prejudice and get along well with neighbors. "It's wrong to use magic to negate hateful prejudice and get along well with neighbors."

Not quite.

The position boils down to, 'It's wrong to use magic to remove my right to have my own opinion.'

The idea is this... if you walk into my neighborhood/town/city I have every right to not like you. It doesn't matter why I dont like you, maybe I am having a bad day, maybe yesterday a group of new comers kicked my dog, or maybe I am just a racist. I still have every right to not like you, you have the right to try and convince me that my opinion is wrong but that right does not include the right to use a mind altering spell/drug/lie or other action in order to force my change of opinion even if all you want to do is ask for directions.

Having said all that the most important point in this entire discussion is this...

Quote:

But it wasn't just about alignment, it was also (and mostly) about how the rest of society will react towards such behavior.

Remember, the point is not 'Is this evil' the two tangents are 'would people seeing this from the third person consider the act bad/wrong' and if they did 'would they see the act of influencing a person through mental assault as better or worse than influencing a person through physical assault'

1) Someone not using magic to get you to like them is an arbitrary rule you placed on the situation. I see where it comes from, but in the end it is a self defined limitation to the situation. Since it is your opinion that is fine, but just note that is all it is, your opinion and can not be used in broad sense. Granted a lot of people probably share that opinion but it is not a universal truth.

2) Do not take this personally but the person you are describing sounds like a terrible person and I would have a major internal struggle dealing with someone charm personing him to get directions. If we were townfolk together I probably do not like you, so when someone does something like that I probably take a little pleasure in it, at the same time I would not want someone to do that to me. But then I realize I am a nice person and would have given the man assistance if need be. At the same time I can see how you do have the right to be unlikable and he took that away from you.

3) I think we personally disagree on what people have the "Right" to do. While you have a lot of rights, those rights all come with responsibilities as well. This idea opens up a whole can of worms, and does not directly relate to the situation. However there are a few things that in today's society are illegal to do. Let's take racists for example. Bob is a fanatical white supremacist, he hates all people not of his race. In today's America, if Bob knows someone who built a bomb and planted it in a church, and Bob does not say anything, just by merely not talking Bob is breaking the law. Granted that is not the same as denying someone directions, but the point is our rights are not as rigid as we like to think, they typically bend a lot. Bob has a right to hate whoever, but he has a responsibility to come forward to the police so no one gets hurt.

Asmodeus gets killed

Imagine it: There would be a huge power vacuum in Hell, and battles between different archfiends would soon spill over into Golarion. Losing Archfiends might decide it's better to flee than stick around, leading to small hellish kingdoms and a lot of mortal manipulation. Cheliax would probably fall apart after the loss of it's SECOND patron diety. In the chaos from that, who knows what nations will rise and fall, and which will profit. The whole inner sea balance of power would be ruined. And with two gods recently dead, we might see a stark rise in people abandoning their gods, forming new cults and philosophies

The loss of Asmodeus would also shift the cosmic balance of power. Good Dieties might start taking a more active hand in running things, which in turn could lead to some unintended holy wars. Other evil gods might decide to attempt a rise to power, some of which are not to worried about playing nice in the Material. And what happens to the key to Rovagug's prison? Who ever gets ahold of that is going to have a huge bargaining chip in the Great Beyond.

He probably has a will.

Bill Dunn wrote:

phantom1592 wrote:

Arm bars, bending fingers back.. that could be a 'mild, bloodless' kind of torture..

As would be depriving the person of sleep, putting them in physically stressful positions and situations (even if not immediately painful) for extended periods of time....

By that definition, enlistment in the army is torture...

I guess so would raising a child.

Waterboarding and the Rack were invented specifically as bloodless torture methods to conform to the requirements of church law in the middle ages. Use this information as you will.

I was just sort of assuming the PCs did not carry around a little portable Rack with them where ever they went. You know, just in case. I also assumed they were not highly trained and had advanced knowledge of water boarding, though I still hold to my statement that both of these things would draw pretty much all attention away from the bard.

Its interesting that most people assume that torture is always a bloody murderous affair. cutting off fingers flashing blood. In the example I pretty much mean a few gut punches and ominous threats. but every one jumps to a cackling blood bath of amputation and tooth pulling.

Torture-the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

Excruciating is the key word there. Just roughing some guy up a little bit is not torture, it is merely roughing some guy up. It is probably also not going to work on a trained assassin but that is either here nor there. So yeah if your definition of torture is pinching a guy real hard and telling him he looks fat, then yeah, Charm Person is probably right on par with that.

Anyway the story line specifically excluded side rooms, power levels, relationships dress... hell when I gave the point of view example I didn't even mention class. All of that was irrelevant.

in the example I didn't say "a bunch of level 5 guys known to be heroes" I said "some people" because thats all you know. you dont know either side of the fight, you dont know why they are fighting, why one group attacked the other or why the defenders are now interrogating them. they are not a part of the question.

I have not really seen many people make any of those things matter. People have said context is important, which is true, but most of them have been talking about context from the point of the location not the PCs at all. I, along with others, have said privacy is important, but I am not sure why that does not matter. Some one torturing someone in the middle of a crowded bar is going to be scene as a sociopath.

I can not conceivably see how you think Charm Person would be viewed as worse then even the beating they are being put throw. And again I will restate the whole fight will draw more suspicion and fear then anything else. If you just watched two men light a homeless person on fire, you will not be more frightened of the one with the swastika tattoo. You will be equally scared out of your mind.

to be honest this thread has become a research project to me. its interesting watching people ignore a question as its asked to answer it in a way that they think makes them seem smarter or makes the other person seem more malicious. Its very enlightening, I though that only politicians did that and it was a political maneuver... but it appears to be something somewhat basic to human nature.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. I have seen a lot of people answer your question directly. There are also a lot of people who have a side conversation about what Charm Person can and can not do, but that is sort of a separate conversation altogether. No one seems to be trying to one up anyone, there is merely a discourse between people. Other then a few jokes about winning the internet I do not see anything remotely like what you are talking about.

So say you pass this test.. Does it ever say how its determined what you are a god of.... Just asking.

The Final Test is a written exam where they do a psych evaluation and a Career Aptitude Test.

He was noted to be a successful sellsword, however (IIRC), which implies a certain degree of capability. That he might have frittered away his material gains in drinking and gambling and whoring doesn't necessarily indicate any lack of ability on his part.

I don't think anyone is implying he was some vagabond just that he probably was not some 20th level fighter no one had ever heard of before. Personally I would like to think that part of the test is true personal conviction in yourself and the reason for taking the test to begin with. Cayden seems like the type of person who truly believes in himself and would find winning a drunken bet a perfectly valid reason why he should be made into a god. That type of conviction seems rare, even for evil would be world conquerors and righteous Paladins.

My 2 cents. Why aren't there greatswords of digging or +2 vorpal forks? Because this is a story based roleplaying game. Just an optimization fest. NPC's and in-game people don't think of their character sheets when making gear.

Just like the longbow revolutionized markmanship, but it wasn't the norm, so people never made it. The shortbow was the norm, it didn't occur to them to make something outside of that.

D20 has become too optimized, people have to have high dpr, have to have gear that sync's perfectly with their char sheets.

My group does none of this and we still tackle CR's 3-4 higher than our lvl because we play intelligently. We use the environment, we use teamwork. That's how it's done. Not by giving the courtesan rogue the +2 vorpal fork, a high bluff and sleight of hand, and improved crit (fork.)

You can do that, and sure it's neat, but it serves such a limited purpose. So yes, it's 300g cheaper, yes it's more optimized for the same purpose as a dagger. You guys remember that you're roleplaying a character that doesn't know all of this right? At least not like you do.

In what universe is spending money on a Greatsword of Digging optimizing? These seems like the complete opposite of optimizing to me. The only reason to make silly weapons is to add to the roleplaying aspects of the character. No one in their right mind would go through all the trouble of making a vorpral fork because they think it would make them a better killing machine. They would just use the weapons in the book, as those are much better in combat situations then improvised weapons.

Also having gear does not limit your ability to use teamwork and playing intelligently. In fact I would consider buying the best gear for your buck a very intelligent thing to do. Not saying you need it, or there is no place for low magic games, but using it does not make you any worse at gaming or roleplaying.

I feel like you went through a lot of work, just so you can say "Ok, you buy some syrup, that will be 5 gps." Next time why not just ask him how much he wants to spend, then describe something equivalent. A really nice artistic hand blown crystal bottle with filled with a rather rare Elven Syrup for 100 gp, some exotic syrup from the First World for 500 gps, or just some standard bottle of syrup for 5 gps. Just wing it.

I never saw it as I want the fire ball to go off 300 feet away. I more see it as you are looking at the point where you want to have the fireball go off and that is where you put it. You do not need to know the bad guy is 30 feet away and you want to put it ten feet behind him to see the spot behind him and just put it there. I always just assumed not catching people in the blast is a bit of experience with blat radii.

Timothy Hanson wrote:

Again I think part of it has to do with the whole infused with negative energy, trapping the persons soul until destroyed thing that goes along with being undead. Also if you lined up 10 little girls the mummie would smite each and every one of them, it guards and kills without any sense of right and wrong. Mindless killing machines made with negative energy sound rather evil. For the more mindful mummies, see Lich above.

Bold - How can something without any sense of right and wrong, be intrinsically evil? That makes zero sense.

Italics - That whole, "People don't kill people, guns kill people" argument, eh? ;)

You are going to have to take that up with every Zombie Show/Movie/Book ever written ever since that is the general sense of it. You do not need a morality to be evil, you do not need a consciousness to be evil, An Unholy Longsword will detect as Evil if you cast detect on it. All it does is sit on the shelf and lay there. A Paladin could save the world with it, the next day, it would still be evil. There is no Good Morality and Bad Morality, and you either have a lot which is Good, a little which is neutral, or almost none which is evil.

Honestly though, I am not sure why Golems are fine and Mummies are evil other then the whole Negative Energy thing, since I feel like Golems can be mindless killing machines as well.

Or, how about this: A good/neutral caster has some pressing need to become immortal (what that need is isn't important - Just know the need is there.) He doesn't want to do some of the horrible things that are required to craft that Lich's Phylactery, but what he wants is less important than the greater cause.

What's to stop that caster, after he successfully becomes a Lich, from getting an Atonement?
Does the atonement work? If yes, then clearly it doesn't make sense that "all undead must be evil." If no, why doesn't it? Negative Energy is not evil, and sentient creatures with a sense of morality are allowed to choose their own path (alignment), so what's forcing this one into evil?

The good caster should probably go about finding some non-evil way to becoming immortal. I have no issue with immortal beings being good. Aroden was alive for a long time, and he never became a lich. It also take a lot of time and resources to become a lich, I am sure if there really was a greater cause, he would have to ignore it for a good long time.

In the Pathfinder setting all undead are evil, this has been stated many times by Paizo. You can do whatever you want with your home settings, but then you need to find your own way of explaining things, which I honestly would be curious to hear.

All I know is Negative Energy heals undead, all undead are evil, making undead is an evil act, and Negative Energy is used to make undead.

Also if good and evil do not care about life and death, why are Paladins suppose to save the innocent and smite the wicked? Why is it a good act to rescue a baby from a fire or a farmer from a pack of wolves? Those are just forces of nature going about their business right?

spelljammer had atleast 2 nonevil liches.

One was driven by revenge, and wanted nothing else but kill every last single damn neogi anywhere and anytime.

I know when I think obtaining immortality to commit genocide across space and time, I think non-evil alignment.

I personally have no problems with the books individually, I just think that they lack a little too much of a pirate feeling and when you add all that up the AP feels like it comes up short. More bar fights, sword fights in the streets, important ship boardings later on, more weather conditions, more underwater exploration (and not caves and the like, more deep sea diving adventure with sunken cities). I would have had at least one of the final dungeon crawls be underwater. There was some underwater stuff early on, then it seemed to disappear a bit.

I am barely through the first part of Book 1, so my assessment is limited to what I have read, and I plan on using most of the AP without any problem, I just think I might have to break it us a little so my players do not think I am just going from one fort to the next.
i have no problem adding things, I love to do it, I have added several encounters already just to add my own touch on things. I like the idea of switching the last two encounters around and I think I can make that work really well.

I think over all is that my complaint is I wanted a Pirate AP and got an AP where you play as pirates. I am not sure if that makes any sense or not. I see a lot of people saying how the love Shatter Star and how it is getting back to the roots of dungeon crawling and it frustrates me a little because I do not really see when or where the APs have ever really gotten away from Dungeon Crawling. Skull and Shackles seems like it could be very much like Shatter Star except the mode of transportation is boat. It might just be a personal taste issue, as I find dungeons the least interesting part of any of the APs. I think they are the easiest thing for me to design on my own and have less flavor then a lot of other encounters.

Given the developments of AP-IV (Island of Empty Eyes) and AP-V (Price of Infamy) the Adventure Path gets ** spoiler omitted **

Sort of feels ......underwhelming. Dungeons. No Dragons. Now with pirates. Arrrrrrrh.

This sort of makes me sad, I really would have looked for somethimg more along the lines of "Fantastic Voyages" and "Forgotten Coasts", hidden beaches in the mist and rich treasures on faraway shores. You know piracy and "Bring me that Horizon !"

probably just me

It is not just you, I am not sure why all the APs need to be set up the same way like they seem to be. They put a dungeon crawl in pretty much every book for one reason or another. They could have easily done this AP with relatively no dungeons in it at all. The first few books seem ok, but as it goes on it falls into the same trap as all the higher end stuff seems to abide by. I definitely plan to add more Piracy in the later APs for certain.

I'm DMing a Legacy of Fire game and one of my players is a goblin ninja. Recently he asked if he could acquire several mice and carry them along while adventuring. After looking at him oddly, I agreed. Then, at our next game, he successfully Stealthed near an enemy, then threw a mouse at the creature, saying that it was a sneak attack. I gave him the -4 to attack for an improvised weapon, but I couldn't come up with anything that explicitly said he could or could not do this. Granted, the base damage was minimal (1 point), but the sneak attack damage was what he was after.

1. Is there anything that rules for or against this?
2. If this is allowed to continue, at what point does the suspension of disbelief break down? "I throw a speck of sand at a guy." "You hit." (Player rolls sneak attack damage).

You are asking at what point does your Arabian themed adventure with mouse throwing goblin ninjas break down?

Typically as a rule I do not RAW away things that the players need a lot of work to do, take a lot of penlites to actual game play, that minimize the amount of gain they get from it, to try to do something they think is fun. That is just my personal opinion though. I would let him do it for a little while, and if he thinks its funny then great. At some point it will either just be rote and no one will be paying attention to it any more, or he will get tired of it.

If you do not want him to do it, then just tell him it is not going to work though. Or you could make him grapple the mouse first, and hope the action economy is enough to make him give up. Not sure why everyone is trying to add more penalties to something that is already terribly unbeneficial though. This might have the unintentional effect of showcasing the action though.

All in all I would just be happy he is not breaking the system with the rules that are allowed. I would much rather have silly/stupid then a 12th level gunslinger running around 1 hitting every encounter I have.

Edit: Also, you realize in the example that you gave about, if the goblin threw a dagger at the guy he would still have gotten sneak attack damage right? The post makes it seem like he is trying to cheat the system when he is actually doing much less damage then he could be doing.

Papa-DRB wrote:

Is this Players Guide really only 12 pages long? It seems like it was cut off and there should be more. There is no character class recommendations, etc.

-- david
Papa.DRB

We've cut back on listing that kind of stuff for each race/class a few Player's Guides ago. Hints and tips are still present in this one, it's just more condensed. For a while, and especially the first few Player's Guides, presenting that information was far more vital because it was also serving double duty in explaining the world of Golarion. Now that we've said so much about the world, specifically the Inner Sea where pretty much all these APs take place, that kind of information seems redundant.

Also:

James Jacobs wrote:

The primary reason that the character-specific material has shrunk in size is because we're trying to manage our time better. Building a player's guide is a significant hit to our design, development, layout, and editing time, since it's not a For-Sale product it's "traditionally" ended up being a "do this in addition to your actual job" type job.

We've recently made a lot of changes to staffing levels and organization to address some of the resource issues, so maybe some day in the future we'll be able to go into a bit more detail, but for now we're trying to do less so that we DON'T burn ourselves out.

It's going to be a constantly evolving process of adjustments that, by the nature of the situation, we only get to adjust twice a year. If folks want to see longer "how to build a monk" or whatever sections in these Players' Guides... please look at what we're doing now and let us know if THAT is enough or not enough.

Personally I preferred the old style better. This seemed more like weird hybrid between a Pathfinder Society Guide and the Intro to the AP itself (I mean the literal intro, that you would start off with, I realize there would obviously be some overlap). I guess it is important for the players to know how preside works, but it did not really feel much at all like a Players Guide to me. I never felt inspired to make a certain type of character or really got anything out of it that I felt with the character making process, which is what I liked most about the players guides. My players are lazy so they are not going to read the Setting Books, and have all sorts of intimate knowledge of the world like I do. That is why I liked the Players Guilds before, they could read a few pages and get a feel for the kinds of characters that would make sense both mechanically and thematically. My players need little motivation finding ways to get free stuff.

Now I realize this is a free product, so my complaining is more or less my personal opinion and I know I do not have the right to be overly disgruntled or anything. I thought that is was a quality product, I just think it left me disappointed as a Players Guide.

The only think I can think of is the Peasant Railgun.

-Line up a bunch of NPC's.
-Give the one on the end a +5 shortbow with all the enchants you can.
-Peasant 1 fires it, then drops it. Peasant 2 picks it up (move action), fires it (standard), then drops it (free action).
-Repeat all the way down the line, for however many peasants you have.

Result: More attacks with your enchanted bow per round than you've ever seen in your life.

That is not the peasant rail gun, but it is sort of the same general idea.

The peasant rail gun is when a line of thousands of peasants pass an object down the line increasing its speed at an absurd rate due to the way the time rules work in D&D like games. Your thing I think is more problematic though.

Edit: Yours would be like a peasant gatling gun.

It is also difficult to find traps. You need to be actively looking for them, and that takes a move action for every square. This can be easily mitigated at times obviously if the party is just going to slowly navigate the area, but that option is not always around.

If they find a trap I would just describe what it is, and then see if they can figure out a way to bypass it. You can jump over pit traps, set off traps with visual components with summoned monsters,break down doors instead of touching trapped knobs, cut snares from a safe distance ect. Sometimes your party is just going to have to suck it up and take the damage though.

There are Gods, Great Old Ones, Demon Lords, Liches, Archdevils, and all sorts of other things that would fit in here. I can not think of any setting that does not have something to fit your criteria to be honest. I vote go Kytons just to be different.

Why are we trying to kill Colossus? :(

...oh.

I like that this isn't the first time Baba Yaga and Rasputin have been connected. Heck, Mr. Scarier-Beard-Than-Alan-Moore might even be some sort of Eternal Champion figure for her. Like each world touched by Baba Yaga has a Rasputin....

Maybe Rasputin is her Winter Knight.

Some prices could be:

Your sight- easy enough

Your memories-(maybe a -1 or 2 to int or the lose of a skill)

Your experiences-lose of xp

To Dance with Fate- Draw from The Deck of Many Things (this one could easily backfire on you though)

Your innocence- with an alignment shift from good to neutral

A valuable secret-the PC might have to do some work to find something out.

First born son

Something where they have to randomly roll next level to see what class they gain a level in.

The sound of silence- Now they constantly here noice in the background an make -2 to hearing based perception tests.

Your courage- make them gain a random phobia

I do not own Kingmaker, but it also seems like a great way to foreshadow upcoming events.

If someone does not have a climb speed then they move at either quarter (regular check) or half (-5 check) of their speed. If a creature does have a climb speed then it can move at that speed with a regular check or double that speed up to its land speed at a -5 check. Also a creature with a climb speed gets a +8 bonus.

For example Jack and Jill are racing up a tree to get away from a bear (a very stressful situation). Jack is a monkey with a land speed of 30 and a climb speed of 20. Jill is a soon to be eaten human with no climb speed and a land speed of 40 (makes math easier).

The DC of the Tree is 10. Since it is a stressful situation no one can take 10 on the check. Since Jack has a climb speed, he is exempt from that, and is in fact allowed to take 10.

As a move action Jack can choose to climb at his climb speed at a DC 10, a success moving him up 20 feet, or an accelerated speed at a DC 10 with a minus 5 penalty and move up to 30 feet(his land speed). Since Jack gets +8 in addition to anything else he might as well just move up 30 feet with no role.

As a move action Jill can choose to move up 10 feet (1/4th her speed) at a DC 10 or 20 feet with the -5. Jill can not take 10 on this roll.

Undead Mastermind: I will give you the codes to the bomb in that orphanage if you just let me go.

Cleric of Pharasma: I would like to save those children but you are undead so I am going to have to kill you instead.

People in the real world have to make hard choices and do things and work with people they don't like all the time. Police work with criminals (and even let them slide on petty stuff) in order to get to bigger important fish. The US funded terrorists to get at the Russians. We keep people in power in order to keep stability. Sometimes life just sucks.

If Clerics of Pharasma had to drop everything they are doing to destroy undead, I feel like there should be a giant crusade by the Gallow Spires,in Geb (or Nex don't remember which one is Undead), in Nidal, and all the other places Undead seem to be in abundance. But there aren't because when push comes to shove, you just gotta live your life. In the AP you are not really working for the vampires, you are coming to a mutual understanding. You are allowed to be logical, and under no circumstance should a PCs faith make them suicidal. Does ever Paladin that hears of a lich have to run straight for it, and go all kami kazi on it for no gain or real good reason? The AP just assumes that the PCs will no go attacking everything insight like rabid animals. I think you should be allowed to play a paladin or cleric and not have to play them like an insane zealot.

Y'know, devils are getting a lot of bad press, here. Of all the fiends, devils are the most likely to parley, the most likely to bargain, the most likely to keep their word. Because lawfulness is hardwired into 'em.

It is entirely possible that a devil would enforce adherence to a bargain made in its presence, preventing the BBEG from reneging, provided the devil was treated with the requisite deference by the party. Not gonna happen with a paladin, no, but let's not keep treating devils like demons. They really aren't the same thing.

It was a devil worshiping gnoll not a devil itself that was in charge, so there is less hard wiring. Also if it was a demon it probably would have just eaten the children in front of their parents or something and not been so calculating.

I sort of like how a lot of people assume he would keep his word because he is Lawful. I just think it is ironic, because there are no laws about lying (I know there is a difference between Law and law), but I am sure there is a law about kidnapping, and he did not seem to take issue with that. So clearly this guy is not the strictest adherer to Law. Most of the time LE people work within the frame work of the law because it is the easiest way for them to get what they want and keep it, not due to some compulsion, and if this guy wanted to kill the PCs or get them out of the way then the kids become trivial, and I would assume it would just be easier to throw them off the bridge once he got what he wanted.

You make an assumption that Asmodeus would be opposed to loosing Rovagug. The whole thing was just his manipulation of the other gods to get them to provide him with a superweapon. The fools actually fell for it and think Asmodeus is doing them a favor. If it suits his needs and fits into a loophole in his agreement, he might be all for letting the Beast romp a bit, especially if he gains more from it than he loses.

Wow, you really struck a nerve for some reason with this post. I have to admit I was shocked when people started ripping you for it. Especially since it was one of the more helpful of the posts.

I understand the importance of canon on this board in particular, and I will admit that I have not read a whole lot of the different setting/campaign books, but I do not know why this might not be true. Paizo seems to be pretty intentionally vague when it comes to stuff like this, so they tend to let GMs take what they wrote and run with it. If anyone has anything that would disprove that Asmodeus would not let out Rovagug if it was in Asmodeus's best interest or that he did not have additional motives in helping (in all honesty he does not seem like he is all that altruistic, but he does seem rather cunning), then feel free to prove the possibility wrong.

That being said, since the the setting is both fictitious and a living work, and even beyond that, one that is interpreted and manipulated by multiple third parties, it seems reasonable to get as many diverging view points as possible. Obviously something like sacrifice 30 sheep in his name is not going to work, or be all that helpful, what HappyDaze says seems like it could at least add to the game. "You can't, give up and just move on" does not really add to fun of anything in my opinion.

So to the OP, it would seem you have three options (all of which fall on an epic scale, and will most likely fail) but might be fun to try none the less.

1) Become a God and commit genocide upon all the other Gods. Which if you can do that, you are just sort of adding a step by freeing Rovagug, since you are more bad ass then he was anyhow.

2) Learn the existence of, and then destroy the Star Towers, all the while fending off the Gods and any other high level being that would hate to see existence end. Speaking as a GM, this would be the method I would use if it was a CE campaign and all the PCs had the same goals.

3) Alternative ending: Kill Asmodeus, trick someone else into killing him, or just convince him to let Rovagug out. This one seems like the easiest of the three, but also has the highest percentage to not work at all. If you are going at it alone, this seems like the most likely option to give a shot.

So it's your opinion that the GM should cheat? Changing the rules to suit him, doing things that the players could never hope to do (of which the OP is one example)?

I say sure they can. Not really cheating though, since the GM is sort of the rule maker/enforcer.

That being said, the GM is also the one that is responsible for the people in his group having fun. On of my players is always trying to beat me when I GM. He does not realize that he can't beat me, I have all the power. The problem is if I play his game, things could get out of hand real quick. Luckily I don't play his game. I try to design interesting, tough but winnable encounters, that my players find fun, interesting, and unique. If I succeed at that then I think everyone ends up a winner. So my question would be more: Why did your GM do it? If he does something to challenge the group every now and then, get them to change tactics on a fly, come up with creative solutions, enhance their game play, then I would not be too worried. I guess the other question is: As a player, how did it make you (and your party feel)? If it seemed frustrating and unfair then it probably was not the best call. It should never be exploited though. My group has a high armor class, so occasionally I through them up against Shadows or something similar to keep them on their toes. If I did this all the time then it would sort of be unfair them. As a GM you want to give the players what they want, which should be similar to what you want. Most often that means making them feel like heroes (In Pathfinder any how). Which sort of needs them to kick @ss sometimes and overcome adversity other times.

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

I don't allow detect evil, though. Never have. It's way too easy in adventures where I want moral ambiguity.

You can't have moral ambiguity in a world of absolute morality. It's not possible. A lack of ambiguity is the entire point of alignments.

Why do you disallow Detect Evil, but allow Protection from Evil? That means there's still no ambiguity, they just have to use context clues instead of a direct spell that tells them.

I don't understand--if you want ambiguity, why use alignment at all?

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

He does kill good witches, because he believes that there is no such thing as a good witch.

You can't believe that in a world where absolute good and absolute evil exist. There's no room for that unless you're insane. Even if he can't cast Detect Evil (I hope you compensate him somehow), he can use Protection from Evil and realize when he gets no bonus against witches. He can use a Holy weapon and realize it doesn't hurt them. There are dozens of things that might commonly happen that will point to the fact that not all witches are evil.

I am totally serious when I say that this concept makes no sense in the context of Pathfinder's alignment system. However, I am also totally serious when I say that removing alignment completely won't hurt the game in any way whatsoever and will allow for moral ambiguity that actually makes sense. I've never used alignment in any rpg I've ever run or played, and I've never felt like I missed out on anything.

I am not sure if you can be on the message boards and actually believe this. Yes there are some things that are at the ends of the spectrum, but look at any alignment thread and you will find ambiguity. In Kelsey's other "what is my alignment thread" people picked like 5 or 6 of the 9 alignments and they were all using the same clues and descriptions.

Also I would like to point out that a LN Cleric of Asmodeous will con evil under the Detect Evil spell even if said Cleric is not actually evil. So that right their is some ambiguity, right within the game system.

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

Original thread.

That last action, where I kicked down the guards' door in the middle of the night, challenged them to explain themselves, killed them, and dumped the castrated bodies on the steps of the guard station as a warning, is beginning to make me think that the character I want to play is absolutely not a paladin. I love playing paladins, but a different class would work better here. I talked to my GM about it, and he says that I can switch out my paladin levels for inquisitor levels on a one on one basis. So now I'm a 3rd level inquisitor instead of a 3rd level paladin.

This character hates corruption, and believes that for the law to be effective it needs to be purged of such elements as the guards in the thread linked to above. Somebody needs to keep the guards in line, and it may as well be her. That said, she believes that the rule of law is essential for any civilization in order for it's people to have good lives, and for the law to be upheld. She isn't chaotic by any means, she just feels it necessary to purge those elements of the law that are corrupting it so that it can function for the good of all. Her favored method is to show up in the middle of the night when her prey is sleeping and give them one chance to justify their actions, knowing full well they can't do it. They she administers justice.

So, should I put her alignment as lawful good or neutral good? She's an inquisitor now, so she can be either alignment.

Lawful Good Paladin of Abadar, one of his paladin oaths is specifically to only obey good laws, and to stamp out corruption when the law has been twisted.

The law that says you can not just kick down someones door and murder them where they stand seems like it might fall under the GOOD category. Just because you think someone is corrupt or the system is flawed does not mean you can go ahead and kill whom ever you want. At some point you could justify burning the whole town down. Clearly everyone there is evil if they are allowing such behavior and letting these evil people govern them, so kill everyone to teach the town down the road a lesson.

It seems like the people in this example were evil, but alignment is more about general terms then it is specific ones. If you answer "How does my character deal with obstacles?" is "Kill them all and let God sort it out", you have the religious zeal down, but you are not a paladin. Also the Paladin seems more concerned with the towns flesh then of its soul. If she really wanted to stamp out corruption she should have gotten the town behind her to demand justice for this woman. Then brought the culprits down, and the captain as well. Getting behind the law of the land is much better for the town then to encourage vigilantism.

I was playing around with the thought of doing an adventure set in the Pathfinder world setting. So it has to fit in "Core".

If I set it in my home game game I use Harn Goblins - their young are kind of like maggots, and are raised in decomposing organic matter (compost).

The adventure I have sketched out has a "tribe" of kobolds in ruins that the Society will be researching - so I guess re-settleing them might be possible. Or I can always do the Jonestown thing - have the kobold king kill them after his warriors are defeated (to prevent the characters from capturing them).

So that I am clear, the Kobolds have made the ruins their home, but The Society wants them for itself and sends the PCs in to clear them out. The PCs being overly moral thugs for hire have a "no kids" policy, and now you think there might be a moral dilemma? I am a little confused, if you are the DM why do you need advice? Present the problem as you see it, and then let them figure out what they want to do. The DM is the problem creator not the problem solver, that is the PCs job. Obviously you should not present problems with no solutions, but this problem has plenty of solutions.

I think your dilemma should go back event farther then the whole women and children thing, I think good PCs would have issue busting down someones door and killing them for no real reason. Personally if it was me, I would just start by saying "The Pathfinder would like to hire you to secure these ruins", then see what they do, maybe they will try to relocate all of the kobolds, maybe they will break in and smash the place up, and have to deal with those consequences, maybe they will tell the Pathfinder society no, and have to now protect the kobolds from the next set of adventures hired to do it.

Personally the games I play in are not descriptive enough determine if the orcs/kobolds/goblins we are fighting are male or female, and it is sort of assumed it does not matter. I also usually do not put children in the scenarios unless I specifically am testing to see what the PCs do. But then that is the point, to find out how the PCs are going to react, not worry about what they might do.