Wicked Woodpecker of the West's page

In any case, Thaumaturge is not an official title in any church, but simply a common word in Greek used to describe some people who perform miracles.

In the same way it could be argued since this example was brought down that phylactery is common word in Greek for talisman, or amulet.

Like PF2 is not really my schtick, and aside of lore aspects and adventures I do not really delve into it's mechanics and stuff, I'm stuck with PF1, so I cannot say if Thaumaturge is working as class. Definitely it's cool concept - and I really liked occultist from 1e, so it's definitely something that should be in a game.

But... why call it Thaumaturge? Like it sounds guys like you took 20 random unused fantasy names and just roll 20 to pick one.

In real world Thaumaturge is title used by Greek Orthodox Church for some of their saints, equivalent of those called in old English Christianity - Wonderworkers. In fact Thaumaturge means precisely - Wonderworker/Mircaleworker. It if anything cleric equivalent I'd say for lack of better suitable terms. (Which makes old Tome of Horrors demonic-worshippers kinda iffy).

It has nothing to do with classic characters that fits supernatural hunter archetype neither occultists proper like Constantine, not hunter like Van Helsing, or Geralt... no one here was called thaumaturge... because well it has nothing to do with concept of thaumaturgy and miracles.

I mean occultist was also bit off, but at least somehow connected by archetype of Occult Detective (pity we're not doing two word class names).

Like literally I heard thaumaturge I think mighty spells, not opposite of that. That's kinda jarring. Maybe consider finding more suitable, archetypical name to suit it.

As someone whose group plays PF because it isnt 4e, I would very much hate this.

But difference is as I pointed out - that Golarion would still be source of flavour to this elements. It's just it will be flavour sort of independent from mechanics and easy to ignored.

Now I honestly hope there will be no banned arrays in PF2.

An option where breaking the code might be the easier method is one thing, no win situations are another, thats the kind of jerk gm behavior that contributes to issues people have with the 1e paladin class.

I'd say situation when you cannot I don't know save someone without breaking Code is one thing. I'd go for it. It's add to drama and heaviness of Code.

Get Rid of Good-Evil Law-Chaos Alignment in favour of Warcraft - Order-Chaos, Life-Death, Holy-Void alignment!!!

1. absolute lawful good

2. neutral good lawful
3. neutral good
4. absolute good chaotic
5. chaotic good neutral
6. neutral (absolute) chaos (entropy)
7. chaotic evil neutral
8. absolute chaotic evil
9. evil chaotic neutral
10. absolute (neutral) evil
11. lawful evil neutral
12. absolute lawful evil
13. absolute (neutral) lawful
14. neutral good lawful

I've got lost...

That's a pretty good idea, though I would swap the positions of anarchic and chaotic. Jumping from nine to twenty-five alignments would take some getting used to though.

Oh, most definitely not my friend.

TBH on level of GE I'd simmilarly push differently with

EXALTED - GOOD - NEUTRAL - CORRUPTED - EVIL.

Break the symmetry. Crush estabilished notions! Dogs and cats living together!

A Paladin can lie if he has to. If it will save people’s lives, if it is for the greater good, he can look you straight in the eye and lie. And it’s awesome.

Now TBH it sounds that rather to get us various Champion variants to mirror eternal balance and eternal struggle of Cosmic Forces, we will get dilluted LG paladin.... which is blah...

Don't ask the members of your gaming group how many of them have been raped. Not only will they not like the question, but chances are very good you will not like the answer.

But before campaign GM can just ask player are there any sensitive aspects they would like to ommit in game.

Then you will House Rule it bro. Good Night.

TBH I'd probably most preferably went with cloistered cleric - priest class with weak fighting skills and let's say Five Divine Spheres building their spellbook, and Templar Warpriests with two domains.

I'd give oracles greater variety - some revelation/mystery powers but other than that - choose themselves.

Cleric have more known spells but more limitations on them - based on Spheres, oracle know less spells, cast more spells, but except few spells, rest are freely chosen from ALL DIVINE SPELLS.

That could be make in different way.
Cleric can pray about anything that is within God's powers (no more common cleric list - only Domain specific!!!) - but it takes time.
But he can pray in advance - and sort of hold them.

Why would you even include kidnapped princess orcish bastard in a game that is meant to avoid sexual violence?

Just skip it altogether and that's all.

You're getting hung up on the idea that a game system not having alignment mechanics means morality is subjective in that system.

In a way it is, at least on epistemic level.

But obviously other theories are concievable.

Because you know it's dualistic... in fact double dualistic system, when you choose sides of eternal conflict. There is no RIGHT WAY. There is eternal struggle that shall never end. It's not like Good is Default and Evil is just fallen Good like in Catholicism, it's not like one side really hold World's fate in hands, and other not.

Those forces are equal.

SO if inflicting pain is evil, all should be evil but aren't. This means there must be a subjective reason to have one evil and the others not and the whole thing isn't absolute/objective.

Not necessarily even in objective morality. That's why temperance is a virtue in classic philosophy - sometimes inflicting some pain can be good, but over some level it can be vile torture.

Get that alignment nonsense out of the game! If I never have to endure a "you can't do that because my interpretation of your alignment says so" debate, there will be many more sunny days in my future.

Just ban it on your table?

Just like I am all for CG variant of Paladin, and TN Pharasma paladin (yeah they can be named differenly doesn't care - names are just words, and all words are empty lies), I also prefer for AL rules to be in a game.

Because it's easier to cut them off game, than to add them.
Just like it's easier for HWalsh to ban Pharasma undead hunter paladin variant than for me to make it myself.

I don't like "Subjective Morality" and I really don't like how so many people (incorrectly) consider morality a subjective topic when that is a theory and by no means any kind of law.

Not necessarily. Look, I'm a Catholic, I'm quite far into Objective Morality. But why I prefer in my RPG have things murkier. For various reasons. First of all Good and Evil are RL terms of certain weight.

And I'm quite sure lot of proponents of in game Subjective Morality are not Subjective Moralists, they just do not want to you know cope with old, quite clunky, philosophicaly let's say kindergarten system. Because when player in RL hears good and evil, they can have their own assumption. Not necessarily in line with Pathfinder, or worse written such way it's hard to say.

That is a very complicated situation... Objective morality says otherwise...

Objective morality:

Saving a child = Good.
Using Infernal Healing = Bad.

The two actions are not directly related. Chances are, such a thing wouldn't cause an alignment shift, though would still make a Paladin fall... If the Paladin somehow had access to Infernal Healing.

In fact by RAW rare usage of opposite alignment spells and magical abilities should not call Alignment Change.

So let us say that in the kingdom of Alamat (a place I just made up) slavery is legal. There are many ways to become a slave in Alamat. The first is to sell yourself into slavery for a period of service in order to pay off a debt. The second is to be convicted of a crime such as theft. It is illegal in Alamat to force someone not convicted of a crime into slavery.

So - I have set up the city of Alamat above, and we have the rules... Is the city of Alamat evil?

Under objective morality probably not - Slavery is a form of legal punishment (we do this in modern day countries all the time by making inmates perform labor) or a legal status that someone enters into willingly.

Under subjective morality it is absolutely evil - Why? Well the prisoners who were convicted of crimes and are being enslaved because of it don't want to do the labor. Thus, from their perspective, it is being forced on them and thus, since it negatively impacts them, it is evil.

Eeeee... no?

Now TBH in Faerun there were LG-LN country with slaves owned by churches namely Mulhorand, but I'm not really sure if in Pathfinder slavery wasn't moved under totally evil. Would have to check or ask James Jacobs.

In fact there is no good or evil possible under subjective morality.

Sure but... you cannot also choose individualism over collectivism and fight against this slavery if you go full subjectivism. Full subjectivism leads to moral agnosticism.

If you claim it's good or evil, either way - you are some kind of objetivist.

A serial killer who murders women who have red hair because red hair reminds him of his mother. His mother used to beat him and as such he believes that all red haired women are evil and a threat to society and everyone around them. He is protecting others from these evil people.

Is the serial killer evil?

Under objective morality he is absolutely evil.

Under subjective morality he is not evil, at least not to him, because he has justified his behavior. He may be incorrect in his assumption that red hair on a woman marks them as evil, but he is genuinely acting out of a belief that he is protecting people. Thus under subjective morality he is not an evil person.

Under objective morality this man is True Neutral, and innocent because he is clearly criminally insane, and lacking possibility to use powers of will and reason as healthy individual.

A slaver may believe that enslaving others is not wrong, because those others are not him, but he will believe being enslaved himself is wrong because it negatively affects him.

Thus the theory of subjective morality hinges on the concept that morality is not a thing.

Yeah, sort of yes. But it isn't why it's problem in game.

A slaver may believe that enslaving others is not wrong, because those others are not him, but he will believe being enslaved himself is wrong because it negatively affects him.

Thus the theory of subjective morality hinges on the concept that morality is not a thing.

In truth I belive - no, they aren't.

I think something like Jainism could work that way.

This is also why, in Golarion, it is so welcoming to people of every gender and orientation.

In real life the social contract humanity had once believed that homosexuality was evil at worst, and at best a psychological problem... One that could be fixed by a lobotomy...

That is because we had no way to measure, in real life, if homosexuality was evil or not. In Golarion, you call your local Paladin, or local Cleric, and say, "Hey. Is this evil?" On augury later and the issue is put to bed. No fuss, no muss, no years of abuse and horrible treatment until the social contract changed... We have an authority that we appeal to who can give us a clear and correct answer.

And still you can disagree with it.

The reason why so many people want subjective morality in their games is because, truly, they do some things that, by the game world's definition, is evil. They don't like the idea of being evil, and they truly see no issue with the behavior, so they feel a compulsion to try to justify that in the game. The easiest way to do this is to remove morality from the game. The game can't call them evil if the game no longer has a definition for evil after all.

Quite possible. If players disagree that something game call evil is really evil - like making non-sentient zombies from willing corpses... then surely they would not like to have it called evil deed.

And that's because Evil and Good are Real World words that for almost every human being hold some often dear and sensitive notions on.
Ergo it's annoying on subconciouss level.

I, personally, prefer objective morality. I also don't believe in the theory of subjective morality and feel it is a load of bunk.

Sure but what would you do if your RL objective morality clash with Golarion's objective morality?

could do this within reason, namely all must have smite evil for all good alignments and immunity to fear.... and disease..

I'd say Desnan paladin could get freedom of movement instead of those immunities. More in a core.

Also Torag dwarf-only stonelords paladins should definitely smite Chaos instead Evil, while Erastil Holly Hunter should give double holy damage if target is unmarried.

Evil being still act evil even if you removed the evil label.

If you want to remove alignment on the basis that you want all entities to show all possible behaviors, you have to remove all personality they might have.

"Angels are good" is compression of their personality. "Angels are self-sacrificial and like to help others" is what translates out of the alignment system if you unpack it. You see, we can remove alignment and get "Angels are humanoids with wings", but what do you have at that point? Stat block? No alignment also means no set behavior.

So you would have to implement some other behavior system to the game in the end anyway. And that might get in your way just as much.

Nope, alignment is not personality, thou they influence each other. Alignment is basically - which eternal unfantomable cosmic force you support in your actions, and it's based on assumption this have mechanical implications because those forces work in lifes of mortal.

If it was just personality it would affect social play and actions - but no more smite evil, detect chaos, axiomatic weapons and so on

>Golarion lore
>consistent
>worth fighting for it's orthodoxy and orthopraxy

pick neither

But in such situation really paladin would have to be prestige class - to add various paladin elements to base class.

because such railing at this stage absolutely will not affect the rules' outcome one bit.

But... it's not about it Henry!

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light." ;)

Nevertheless - conviction option allow for non LG paladins.
Now those can be easily joined - most of paladins will fight for their divine patron cause because they think it is right...

This is why I tend to favor the 'four corners' model. To me, being a Paladin is about extreme beliefs.

I don't really see why mixed cosmic forces are more extreme than PURE LAW or PURE EVIL.

How are devils more extreme than daemons? Azatas more extreme than protean?

I agree. Deities champions are much more flavourful than those vague, philosophicaly obnoxious alignments

also because that leads to merging all classes into one CLASS and therefore creating mythical monster TRULY UNCHAINED PATHFINDER

"Act according to your whims" could be in a code of conduct and its not going to make someone a lawful person.

But in fact almost none chaotic power support acting on a whim.

Acting on a whim is sign of weak Will save throw not chaotic tendencies.

simultaneously Slapping a code that permits any form of alignment doesn't provide a justifiable restriction on the power boost a paladin gets compared to other martials.

But PF paladin is not... really boosted?

There's already archetypes for Paladins of Torag (Stonelord) and Paladin of Abadar (dunno name but it's in the new book, Merchant's Manifest). So it's cool to see them already getting different abilities depending on faith.

Abadar one gets "Detect Forgery" for example.

Oh, love it. Still in my Golarions pallys of Old Abe has to be LN, because you know - they cannot Smite Chaos without being paid for it, which LG pally would not accept. :3

So if I play a fighter who is "unimpeachably good an honorable" does he get Paladin powers? If not, where do the powers come from?

From unique combination of unnecessary broadened and convoluted and ill executed variant of Lankhmar setting cosmological powers :3

I'll also second a cry to those screaming about wanting a full Bab holy warrior who isn't lawful good...

Sentinel.

Full BAB, Divine powers, there ya go.

Sure, just make him Base Class, and pally prestige :3

Nature champions of Gozreh (protecting the wilds and wilderness creatures and people who make their living by the wilds) and arcane champions of Nethys (promoting and defending arcane magic and arcanists) seem as viable.

For the first I'd rather see variant of 4e Warden class, for a second sure... maybe with magus choice of spells rather than usual pally.

I don't personally view Paladins as "Holy Warriors" so much as "unimpeachably good and honorable people". Nothing about the Paladin intrinsically says to me "you follow a deity and fight for them." I believe that latter thing should be a different class entirely.

names, names those are just names

In fact I now think in my next Golarion game paladins will be only Champions of Iomedae, named after hell twelve valiant companions, while other gods have other champions will other quirks - Holly Hunter for Erastil, Stalwart Defender for Torag, Dawnflower Dervish for Sarenrae, Rainbow Guard for Shelyn, and so on, so on, so one.

No more those pesky capitalistic paladins of Abadar, ai yoy!

And, much like in 3.X, where the Blackguard was a Prestige Class was a rare honor that one had to earn, and Paladin was a base class that any schmoe could take (suggesting that evil had standards, and good did not), in Golarion, the Hellknight is a Prestige Class, only available to those who prove their worth to champion the cause, while Paladins are no more 'prestigious' or special than Rogues or Fighters (or Commoners or Experts).

I think some system of... class levels - with base classes / prestige classes / exalted classes would be neat.

you can start as a fighter or magic dabler... but to become paladin or wizard... oh boi it won't be easy.

While I can always do that at my home table - That becomes harder and harder to do the more watered down the core is.

Why? I mean why is it hard to restrict options on your home table to make less watered version. Ban CG paladins, ban half-elves and half-orcs and kitsune, ban arcanists and all archetypes with names starting on M.

Who will stop you?

In a worst - for you - situation - there will be new variants of paladin for different things - just like basically antipaladin is, and all bound by severe code (there is reason why demon clerics can pretend to be law-abiding nobles in Taldor, while antipaladin would lost his powers quickly). Those new variants... you can just ignore in your games. Even in PFS, chances are high of you meeting such people... rarely especially since you have numerous friendly group on PFS.

I do not know specific rules of PFS, but I suppose you're not forcibly randomly attributed to tables?

It affects me because I have to interact with them. That is how it effects me. It effects me when I encounter them as it DOES affect my enjoyment of the game and lore. It makes the Paladin less special and unique.

I'd say based on all AP's I've read... paladins are quite common thing around... and they are usually just seen as a militant arm of some churches - mostly Iomedae, Abadar and Sarenrae.

Their power set unlike in old D&D is not really so... powerful...? So they are not really special mechanically that much. There is not - power for conduct stuff from old times.

So yeah. Paladin is different basically mostly because of how he is seen eventually assuming common folk will distinguish between LG paladin of Iomedae, LG warpriest of Iomedae, LG cleric of Iomedae, LG cavalier worshipping Iomedae...

and with that - you still have code of conduct, and even if there will be new codes, the basic code of Valor will certainly remain around... so... you can still play paladin of Iomedae, that will be seen by Golarion folk just like he was, shining beacon of Law and Good, not as uncommon as he thinks... while there will be some other champions that will be seen... well totally different way, because they will be something else.

Or, to quote Syndrome, "When everyone is super, nobody is."

The problem is no paladin abilities even those unique in PF does not make him super - compared to some other classes.

As evidenced by the people of these forums, a lot of people are under the impression that they can't play a LG character without something exploding, and those people need to be taught otherwise by being forced to do it. Giving people the option to play a CG paladin will mean people have one fewer reason to face their fear of LG characters and learn that everything is going to be okay, so that attitude will become even more widespread than it already is.

I don't see much of such reasoning. Mostly I see something else: quite logical question why ony Law and Good combination can divinely empower champions, oh, and Law and Evil, and Chaos and Evil...

Now for me it's most - in my homebrew but also in my Faerun and Golarion paladins are god appointed champions, not G/E/L/C because GELC powers are too transcendent to directly react with mortal without him exploding (Positive Plane Energy is closest to reachable manifestation of Good ;) ).

So I'd like mechanical support to create Tyrannical Champion of Asmodeus, Defender of Relics of Nethys, Undead Hunter of Pharasma or Wandering Sentinel of Desna, based on skeleton of Paladin of Iomedae as this most militant, least magical clergy members.

Myself I favor all 9 or 8 of 9 (I can see a reasonable argument to exclude True Neutral

Depends on deity - I can clearly see Pharasma could have undead hunter champions.

I have heard of anti-paladins. My understanding is that they start out as paladins, fall, do not seek redemption and turn to evil.

"Antipaladins become the antithesis of their former selves." PFSRD

At their core they are still being defined by their lawful good roots. Despite their (possibly deep) unstable and evil veneer. That's why characters like Darth Vader still have the potential for redemption.

I do not remember any antipaladin villains in various stories that would be fallen paladins.

Does anyone else see chaotic characters with a strict code as an oxymoron? Let's have a game with some logical consistency.

No... w don't. We have quite lot of devotion and discipline on Chaotic Side.

Simple as that. I'll find another game. There were games before Pathfinder, there will be games after Pathfinder. You're the one asking to change something to suit you, I'm only asking things to be kept as they are.

But really why?

Not really - Mine isn't a psychological issue, it is simply an issue of the following:

You said it would make you physiologically sick.

I can name at least 20 players who would disagree with you, whom love when I show up, and who's characters are only still around due to my Paladin. So... I'm sure they would miss me terribly.

I'm sure they will refuse to play non-LG paladins when playing with you if they like you so much.

A character who was chaotic good would be able to choose to tolerate societies evils whenever it struck them as expedient for the greater good

Or maybe... not.

But LG paladin will get smack.
But then LG paladin can tolerate LN, or LE laws to extent, there are paladins in Cheliax, that does not work against house of Thrune.
There are Paladin Hellknights, dammit.

So make CG paladin life harder.
Take chaotic really strong.
You cannot tolerate evil.
You need to smite it.
Even if it's protected by Law.
ESPECIALLY when it's protected by bloody Law.

Now playing CE antipaladin is no easy task, because his chaotic part does not allow him at all to put his evil in a closet when it's convenient. That why antipaladins rarely works well as undercover demon cult leaders.

Also: paladins of Desna should get a ban on staying in one place longer than month, and paladins of CC ban on fighting not-drunk, except usual - ATTACK EVIL ON SIGHT.

As a GM it makes my job harder, as it is easier for a home GM to remove a restriction than to put one back in place. There is less push back from players in the former than in the latter. As a player it makes my job harder in home games because it is part of the new core set, and in PFS it is impossible as there is literally nothing I can do.

I disagree.

And in my own home campaign, where i'm not bound by tyranny of PAIZO to allow everything they will allow in their games, and ban evil characters, even though Pathfinder Lodge is true neutral, and it's perfect place for evils ;)

I'd much prefer to negotiate with my players to reinstate more limitations, than to have to remove existing ones - because that means more technical work. If PAIZO won't give me mechanics for CG paladin of Desna I have to engineer it alone.

If I do not want paladins of Desna in my game, I just propose players - let's play with only old school paladins. And that's all.

Example:

If there are 10 things Narrative Gamers care about in PF1, and in PF2 they lose 5 things, and the Agency Gamers get 5 things changed that they want. That only leaves 5 things for the Narrative Gamers.

If then PF3 comes out, and there are only 5 things left for the Narrative Gamers, and they lose half, keeping 2 things while the Agency Gamers get 3. Then there are only 2 things left for the Narrative Gamer.

Then, in PF4, they have only one thing remaining. By PF5 they are extinct.

It does not work that way.

Take what's neat, band what's naughty.
It's D&D variant not some indie game, let's leave mechanics as setting free as possible, and put restrictions on setting level.

Like with godless clerics in PF, but not on Golarion.

As long as you can find like-minded people, you can always play the game you want. PFS, of course, becomes a very tricky issue and this leaves you with doing what I did: raise my own crop of players with the narrative style.

now it's your time to feel your local Guild with inherent hate for church of Desna and it's paladins ;)

Also we'll be talking about Forlorn elves and the Bleaching in the elf and gnome descriptions, for example, but we won't be going into detail on affairs in Kyonin or explain what's up with why the gnome god Thamir Gixx has the same last name as the Lord Mayor of Absalom.

But you should at least explain why Thamir Gixx became GNOME god ;)

And if we're being pedantic, call them the Dakota.

Unless we're Ojibwa loyalists ;)

Pleas DO change the dying rules. Negative hit points make no sense and are an unnecessary complexity.

just count it as Constitution damage

and Ruins of Azlant is in Not!America.

More like not!Atlantida

And TBH Varisia in some ways is more like California than Western Europe, and Shoanti has some Amerindian vibe to them despite being half-Romani, half-Cro-Magnon, half-Viking people.

If the player has to pre-prepare the stat block, it becomes just another vector for min/maxing rather than any kind of flavorful chaotic randomness.

Option: summoning spells are not random. Every spell is bound to specific planar being and summon only astral projection of this one being, not a whatever. Ergo wizard can have 5 summon II prepared each with different being.

And you need to get info to make spell for specific being.

So once you have this summon lillend bard 2 spell, you need to craft another one to summon her cousin bloodrager 3

If it's always automatic addition of Level rather than freely chosen ranks I'll be rather against such system.

I'd gladly see Proficency as more like - class skill bonus - rather than just +3 on the beginning - additional bonuses every few levels to class skills, separated from freely chosen ranks.
This way we will both have natural advancement of skills connected with class - and large system of customization.

Those bonuses + ranks could unlock together various fun perks for those.

But as automatic for everybody... eh nah.

And if that didn’t beat all, the European army – how the hell was that a thing? – led by Germany, had invaded Poland for some reason I was still having trouble understanding.

Damn. So I brought this doom by my own wish.

Currently in the game there are two classes - Cleric and Oracle. One is has class mechanics tied to alignment. The other does not. What - currently - happens if that Oracle drinks from the pool? Now pretend the pool swaps your alignment. What - currently - happens if they *both* drink from the pool. One of them looses powers.

Simple. Ban it. Ban any compulsory alignment changes. Curses doing it. Alignment is a function of your free will. Paladin dominated to kill innocent kid shall not fall. Fault is on mindbender hand and gods and cosmos see it.

Therefore cleric is bound still by devotion to god and can lose powers only if god wants him to loose them, while oracle is made by independent agent - at worse if deities that took part in creation are angry for her they can.

So even without alignment - cleric can still fall.
Because he is agent of power beyond him.

The Helm of Opposite alignment has been in the game from AD&D 1st.

Time to euthanise poor old fellow and forget his name afterward.

BTW will there be Epilogue or should I read Miss O'Mallory Winter diary to get it from background, cose I'm bit divided - whether to stary reading it before end of AWiG.

This was absolutely magnificent and fun.
If PAIZO won't pay you to publish it as a novel, that means they are soulless beings ;)

Cannot wait for Epilogue.