Whitestar19's page

Wow, great discussion guys. Thanks for all the awesome feedback. It's helped me to hear what others think. I can see it going both ways. I get the sense many of you thinks it depends on the god, and it's Abadar in this case, and by definition of Abadar, they're not going around pushing their religion on people, or are fanatical about it. Even if they were fanatical about Abadar.. they would just want lots of.. banks? And laws? And civilization..?

I was specifically talking about Kingmaker, and Abadar, but I was also talking about non-evil religions in general for any campaign. In a previous Kingmaker campaign, I played a Cleric of Iomodae and once again the DM thought if I was Ruler I would establish a theocracy and push my religion over all others, making Iomodae's version of Sharia Law or something. (is there even one for her?).

I did say I wanted my god to be the patron god of the city, but I wouldn't exclude anyone. I wanted to look good in the eyes of my church to move up the ranks so I wanted to grow a following in our new kingdom. If we needed someone to build a bridge and I was part of Joe's Construction Company, I would suggest them since I work for them. Just like how a cleric of Iomedae would suggest his god. It doesn't make him a zealot, does it?

Hello! There's at least 2 people in my party, 1 being the DM, that are treating clerics and paladins as religious zealots. We're playing Kingmaker and they didn't vote in a LG Paladin of Abadar as Ruler because they feel his religion would have clouded his judgement. In play, he hasn't RPed a zealot or pushed his religion on anyone.

I tried saying it's not fair to compare our Earth religions to Pathfinder's and that electing a paladin of Abadar as Ruler is not the same as electing a Catholic Bishop to Ruler. The DM said "When a man of a god rules....it tends to be gods who truly rule....not men. (The Paladin has not exhibited zealotry, but since he is part of an order of zealots.....its difficult to let prejudice stand aside" and "Paladins are far more devout than anything in our world. They have so much devotion to the powers of law and good that these belief systems actually give them power, actually manifest in the physical world. They believe so strongly....magic manifests. Its like voting in an ultra pope......one that can actually talk to angels for advice......you're right its not the same....its far far far more severe. Its more like voting Jesus Christ as ruler." --- is it?

Another player said "Electing a member of the church of Abadar to a leadership role, is the equivalent of electing a priest to be president. "

Is that fair? Am I wrong in my view of clerics and paladins? Yes, RP comes into play of course but is it fair bias or stereotype to have against clerics and paladins, especially those of Abadar?

Thanks for your feedback.

Thanks guys. You've all been helpful! One of the players does have 1 level of oracle so that's how he has the charisma to knowledge checks, though he said a feat.

Hello! I'm posting this here because you guys probably know if this feat is legal or not, and if it's not, reasons why it's not so I can try to ban them in my game.

What are the feats called that use an ability score to modify skills that normally wouldn't? Such as using your Charisma Modifier for Knowledge checks, or Intelligence modifier for Diplomacy, or what have you. Those kinds of feats. If they're banned, why are they?

Thank you.

Thanks for the feedback so far! We don't have a Kingdom yet and are only 3 games in so it's just a party adventuring and exploring hexes. Our only "base" is Oleg's so we can't have a trial yet. What's been happening is after a little battle, we often have a prisoner we try to question and get info from, so what should we do to him after if we're supposedly good characters?

Harark and another friend of mine did bring up a good point that a paladin could act as judge and executioner. I guess I didn't really see it that way.... The way I see it is if Batman, Hercules from the TV show, Superman, and Robin hood were adventuring, they wouldn't kill bandit captives, but it's different in a lawless fantasy land with no judge or jail nearby --and we're not superheroes.

Thanks again.

Hello. This is my first post. Please don't kill me. This may be more of a general discussion, but we are playing Kingmaker and we're not agreeing with how to deal with bandits in book 1 when it comes to character alignment. Let me explain.

The charter states "... The carrier of this charter should also strive against banditry and other unlawful behavior to be encountered. The punishment for unrepentant banditry remains, as always, execution by sword or rope."

Some people in the party think if a bandit is captured alive, then it's ok to kill them because it's in the charter. Is it? Is this a good or evil act? Would LG, NG, CG or even TN characters kill unarmed and tied up bandits because it's in the charter and therefore they're just following the "law"? Are good aligned characters supposed to go into the forest and slaughter every bandit they see even if they surrender in KM? Can Paladins kill bandit prisoners since they would be following the law of the charter?

If killing bandit prisoners is an evil act (which I believe it to be), how are good characters supposed to follow the charter if they don't kill all the bandits in combat? Send them back to Oleg's for prisoner transport back to a major city? Take all their weapons and armor and let them go? If you played in a good party, how did you deal with bandit prisoners?

Thanks for your help on this.