Windjammer's page

Narxiso wrote:

I don't see what the problem with current shields are.

Flavor it however you want, what it comes down to in actual play at actual tables is:

GM: "Okay, the troll hits you for 20 damage."
Player: "If I block now I could stay standing, but my brand new awesome shield I just bought will be gone forever."
Party: "Don't bother, we'll just heal you back up.".

Yes, once healing and resurrection become cheap resources, while magic gear remains a harder resource to replace, this is the result. Always and not just for shields. It’s so much ingrained in D&D that Knights of the Dinner Table had a name and a slogan for it:

"The revolving door of death: death is transitory but treasure is forever“

As for this not simulating fiction: depends. Fictional characters are willing to break their one valuable shield in the BBEG fight (Eowyn, shield maiden of Rohan), and are willing to break cheaper shields when they are dispensable as in this battle:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lM5FTQjMYpg

By the way, if you look at the art for Eric Mona‘s Viking barbarian in the last AP volume to 1E, you see that it’s modeled on that fighter in that very scene. Having your shield broken at the right time seems a lot more nuanced than the binary discussion you sometimes see in roleplaying context (where KodDT sums up the prevailing mentality).

No offense to anyone involved, but this product contains some of the laziest work I've seen in a long time in RPG products.

Remember when Pegasus Spiele's Call of Cthulhu books lifted entire texts on certain real-world locales or historic personalities from Wikipedia? One "Find and Replace" later, and those texts could be paraded as RPG-specific content in pricy hardcovers.

Well, say hello, because we've reached that rock-bottom in Pathfinder 2. Case in point, see page 11. The author copy-pasted an existing services agreements template, word by word, from here: https://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/offline/professional-services-agreement.as px And then simply inserted "infernal party" and "mortal party". See e.g. the severance clause.

Look, if that's how you generate content, you may as well write a 3-line sentence in a book, direct us to the template, and instruct us to do "Find+Replace" in Word. Any GM can do that. Takes me 3 minutes.

But don't fill entire pages in your books with content that I can self-generate in a sec., and then charge premium hardcover dollars on things that didn't take any effort to write-up. I mean geez, at least you'd think diabolic contracts on Golarion have at least SOME differences to real-world professional services contracts of the variety that Paizo gives its freelancers.

Sorry, I'm a long time fan but I find this is not the conduct of a company I've long admired for its creative content.

We've done "PCs as circus troupe" twice before, so the idea wasn't novel; but it's a good, flavorful idea. However, we felt that the AP sets it up and then mostly abandons it after episode 3. It's hard to avoid this in a 1-20 advancement scenario, but I felt that the AP would run a big risk of the player going "I know I have to deal with the xulgath plot but I don't want to; doing so will force me to abandon the circus plot which I'm more invested in." (Like the problem many people had with Second Darkness: running the inn is more fun than going on with the main plot.)

Like you, I saw Second Darkness written all over this. What you describe is the AP's central structural weakness.

In AP 1, the line editor says they want to have two strands running in parallel so that groups could focus on either circus or xulgaths and have a good time either way. Then they write the entire second half of the AP in a way that writes the circus so much out of the equation that you're not only strapped to the xulgath strand, but have zero incentive to concomitantly follow the circus strand.

Not only was this perfectly foreseeable, it's also easy to mitigate. Just intertwine the incentives for the two strands such that achievements the PCs unlock in one strand unlock achievement caps in the other--and vice versa.

That's what I tried with the hedonism/theoria write-up (see GM thread for #5). As written, however, the AP seems to fall apart for groups who're not hell bent on the xulgath track.

I think there's 2 ways to read OP, and they may cause different reactions.

One is empowering: "You can do at your game table what you want and stream it, but understand that this has consequences. As long as you are willing to take those consequences, you're fine to move on."

The other take is censorious: "If you elect to live-stream a certain kind of campaign (namely, AoEW+comedy) expect a well-earned backlash from people who're rightly outraged at your lack of taste and tact--don't do it."

There's now a separate debate in this thread as to whether the AoEW+comedy take would garner the results OP predicts. I have no idea why this should turn on % of beliefs in the real world at large.

The negative backlash OP predicts turns on what's true of an extremely small, non-sampled demographic: people following live-streams of Paizo podcasts and willing to comment on them publicly. Because we lack reliable info on how this niche demographics maps onto polled ones, all discussion of where public opinion stands is largely irrelevant. By engaging that discussion, you tacitly adhere to the verifiably false baseline assumption that the RPG community fairly represents all members of the larger demographics at equal proportion, allowing an isomorphic mapping between the two demographics. It's been a pet peeve on this forum for years that the RPG community doesn't adequately and fairly represent that larger demographic, so it's probably unwise to drag this back in via a backdoor premise.

OP's question is much simpler. Is it foreseeable that some actors among the stated niche demographic could voice backlash? Absolutely. The question is what you do with that information. That's where the empowering vs. censorious readings come in. I think it's a good question to raise, but I also hope Paizo's forums aren't moving towards censoring how other groups play, regardless of groups' choices to live-stream and thus publicize their home play.

"Race" is the debunked 17th century idea that humans belong to five distinct "racial groups" (aka subspecies) and was BS science used to justify why certain people were inferior and could be used as slaves.

Race is imaginary and does not exist. It is a societal construct and there is no significant biological difference between different types of humans.

Ancestry and DNA testing tracks ethnicity. Which is different as it's tracing the origin of your ancestors through very, very minor differences in DNA. Countries and regions of origin.
Kinda.
Because there's a lot of bunk in those tests and they're not entirely reliable as people have been travelling and trading and intermarrying for most of human history.

Indeed, race is an incredibly fluid concept because, as a political and legal category, it's unfailingly defined by the dominant group in a given society.

A person who's 20% black qualifies as black in the US for employment etc. purposes, but is white in post-apartheid South Africa for the same reasons. Trevor Noah's granny had to protect him from the black kids in Soweto township. Why? Because to them he was a white person. Now that he's in the US, if he ever wanted to obtain another graduate degree, there's no doubt what box he'd tick on his application form--it certainly ain't "Caucasian."

My perhaps favorite historical example is the Pocahontas Exception. What sounds like a Disney joke was actually enshrined under that very moniker in American law at one point - to establish that Pocahontas and her heirs are white. Why? So that the "first family of Virginia" would be pure white too, and all those incredibly proud Virginians could go around for centuries claiming how superior they were on account of their whiteness.

It's really incredible the lengths to which people go to define inclusion in this or that race. And yet it all makes perfect sense if you answer two questions: who's in power, and what do they stand to gain from this fabrication?

]I think there's a difference between the "been-to's" you describe and what Raven Black was thinking. Going to study abroad and returning to fight for your home is one thing. Living abroad for extended times - even a generation or more as implied in my original post on Jade Regent, may be a different matter.

Seen more as people from abroad than returning locals

Fair enough! It's certainly not easy to make the distinction. Some people who go abroad to take a degree stay behind considerably longer than others (e.g., in the US, obtaining a work visa, then marrying etc.). But your point is well taken. Thank you.

Trying to restore a secret heir to the throne in Ameiko, but Ameiko is more culturally Varisian than Minkaian. She’s three generations removed from Minkai, and culture is more than blood.

Another excellent point, though again I'd be careful to jump to conclusions based on the number of generations removed. I've met Jewish merchants in Amsterdam whose ancestors moved there centuries ago, and let me tell you, they cultivate their belongings more deeply than a great number of secular citizens of Israel. That's no knock on either of them, but a cautionary example of how 'number of generations removed' is no indicator here.

The in-game example you picked is a particularly poignant example. In Burnt Offerings, Paizo gave us two families who were split on that exact issue--that is, how members within the same nuclear family disagree on whether culture does, let alone should, run "deeper than blood" (to use your words). One is Ameiko's own family, as per the falling-out between father and son, and the other is Sheriff Hemlock's falling out with his brother. Hemlock adopted a Varisian name and left behind his native culture. A propos the former, the module says how the father and his "family are newcomers to Varisia, the survivors of an exiled family from Minkai sent over the crown of the world a half century ago for unknown crimes. Lonjiku was born in Magnimar and has never visited his motherland, but he carries memories of its wonders in the form of stories told to him by his now deceased parents." This is a powerful reminder that when people leave their country behind, their bond to their home culture occasionally actually deepens. The correlation of territory to culture is then inaccurate at the level of lived human experience.

Paizo's own modules display an inspiring diversity in how people respond to an inherited as well as an adopted culture; how such a choice is not binary (an either/or); how it's often not even principled but responsive to life's vagaries and vicissitudes; and how that decision can change many times over a person's lifetime.
In doing so, they set a wonderful inspiration for players to emulate. I agree with you that such emulation is often fraught with difficulty. But I'd rather see it attempted than not done at all, and hope Paizo's adventures remain inspiring source material along those lines.

I can assure you that locals do not relish being saved by expatriates coming back either. It still tells the tale of not being able to save themselves on their own.

Are you making this assertion based on history or personal principle?

The history of Africa's liberation is steeped in the history of Africans who went abroad, got a law degree, came back and kicked a$$. Chinua Achebe even had a term for them, the "been-to's" (as in, been to Oxford, been to Cambridge, etc.). There's nothing more satisfying than learning the oppressor's system from the inside and then dismantle its ugly configuration back home. Gandhi is another famous example. Called to the bar in London, then went to South Africa etc. You know the rest, you watched the movie or read the book.

So while I'm sure the oppressed locals would have preferred to rise up to the challenge without the been-to's, your allegation of how these people feel doesn't resonate with the people I spoke to who lived through this experience. (Was in South Africa in the 1990s.)

Without singling out your post, but in discussions like these, I'm always amazed by the claims that are asserted on behalf of an oppressed people. For one, oppressed people are not a homogenous mass, they are highly diverse in their experience, desires, and reactions to situations like the one you describe. For another, precisely because such people were oppressed for so long, we should strongly prefer to hear those people talk to their own experience, be it in our personal exchanges with them--especially if they lived through it last century--or from histories written by them. I'm not saying you do neither, but I would advise to steer free of categorical assertion.

Jester David wrote:

It's standard cultural appropriation rules. Other cultures are not the costumes of people from colonialist countries. (Read: majority cultures.)

Which cultures are majority? Which countries were colonial? Spain was colonized by the Moors and the Ottoman empire was pretty big in colonizing, the Quechuas and Aztecs were colonizers and let's not forget the Zulu empire. The whole world was playing Risk, or do you mean the ones who look similar to the ones who were winning when the industrial revolution card was draw[n]?

An excellent point and one that I'm sure will go unnoticed in this thread. It's a striking feature of humanity that the urge and ability to colonize others is hardly unique to the Indo-German tribes who ended up in Europe (incidentally, colonizing Europe).

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is an eminently reasonable ask, and I do agree that it comes from a position of concern rather than entitlement. While it's fair to ask for additional clarification, I'd also hope we can extend good faith to the company based on what's already in the blog post. Concretely, Eric Mona's blog post helped to put two things in perspective.

1. Staff objections to the AP were not over the material as such--presumably because little, if any, had been written yet. Rather, objections seemed to have been over the "theme" of the AP as such. Those objections could have been very broad and principled, and it's entirely reasonable for a publisher to say "We hear you and we'll work with those reservations in mind--we just don't see fit to the kill the AP out of the gate." I'd be more worried if it turns out the reservations were pinpointed, articulate, and the execution of the actual AP runs entirely counter to them. But we actually don't know, so we don't know how much was ignored at the time. Personally, I'd give Paizo the benefit of doubt on this one.

2. The blog post mentions several steps that Paizo have already implemented, such as working with "sensitivity readers." Last I checked, it was a complaint on this board that this doesn't happen, or not happen nearly enough. He also indicated that changes were made to the directions given at, and actions taken by, AP line editors. Thirdly, the whole notion of a revised Player's Guide and potential other additional material speaks clearly to changes that are being made.

Where you're right is to say: what changes are made to help such issues proactively, as opposed to fix them under an umbrella of damage control? That's a fair question. Given the huge resonance the AP's theme had this month even before, and certainly after, the blog post went live, I'm quite confident that Paizo will do all they can to never have to go through this again. Staff had just come out of PaizoCon being online--a huge endeavor that likely consumed tons of staff hours--, customer service is behind several hundreds of emails, and the company is totally under weather from multiple pressure points (not to mention the larger economic situation with Covid). Because it takes so much more effort to repair a situation retroactively--eating further into unscheduled staff time etc.--,, I'm 100% confident Paizo will implement a huge range of measures going forward. Given all the factors I've just mentioned, I'd support them to do this slowly and carefully, and not pressurize them into announcing ad-hoc measures asap. We're better off in the long run if they do this carefully.

My larger worry is to hear that Lisa Stevens is phasing out as CEO. I obviously trust her appointment of a successor, but I regret that her personal degree of involvement, oversight, and moral leadership is waning at a time when the company has faced an unexpected turning point.

"Let me introduce you to your new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher .... me."

I applaud the statement and am glad Paizo made it.

I'm also glad that there's re-thinking at the level of design to stop penalizing players who want to use subdued damage. When I voiced my desire to have this promoted in Extinction Curse, I got laughed at for forgetting that players incur a -2 penalty on to-hit rolls and how this factors into TPK risk etc. This certainly seems a good moment to reflect how game mechanics incentivize player behavior and how the game can be improved.

On the other hand, I must confess that the story-specific asides in Erik Mona's announcement left me confused. A poster on Enworld put the matter quite aptly...

I guess that the problem with police forces is that they are deemed [inherently] violent... and that Paizo failed its intended goal (we conceived of the adventures as a pseudo-Victorian crime drama in which a party of Sherlock Holmeses would bring a cult of sinister murderers to justice). I am in no way a Sherlock Holmes expert, but I don't think they involved killing culprits.

If they feel they made a good adventure for LEO, there should be very few fight to the death, and the crux of the conflict would be to arrest and subdue violent criminals to allow the judicial process to run its course, with NO harm to innocent (not minimal collateral damage... it's the fun of urban adventure fight, where you have to neutralize the bad guy trying to create an undead tyrannosaurus without harming the group of schoolchildren visiting the museum).
The preemptive apology makes me think that the violent option was either the intended path or at least a path they think the player will take often enough for this to be a problem.

I too am confused by the notion that Sherlock Holmes would be an inspiration for this AP. Neither Holmes nor Watson ever bore badges, as far as I recall. Both abhor physical violence and exercise considerable self-restraint towards killing others (way too crude for Holmes). More critically, their exploits are happening against the backdrop of hapless detectives who DO wear badges, sc. LeStrad and company. If the point was to model Edgewatch on Holmes, I fail to see where the badges came in in the first place.

Fascinating discussion. Thanks to all, and on both sides.

For those GMs who see their PCs miss AC too often, have you adjusted monster ACs behind the screen? If so, by how much? And does that penalty differ at different level bands?

Thank you.

we define ourselves as civilized and beautiful, and we consider them to be barbaric and ugly; our actions are therefore justified. This lets us define ourselves as Lawful and Good, while we consider them to be Chaotic and Evil.

I'm not sure what the intent of this post was - let alone, what, if anything, it was written in response to.

Even when posts tend towards the aggressive or unsympathetic on this forum, it's usually not difficult to see there they are coming from. This one here, on the other hand, is just straight-up bizarre.

What I firmly can say is that this post tells us a great deal more about their author's take on fantasy, than about fantasy as a genre.

I've been troubled by the vast injustice of Aroden's actions all through, and if I were to run it I'd have to find the PCs some way to make things right. ... an LG human might well feel that Aroden was the god of humankind, he did a terrible thing here and people are still suffering for it, this *has* to be put right if it possibly can.

I noticed the same thing and have thought of ways to rewrite it.

Once we're in area (b), you are also free to expand/rethink what the orbs do. As written, they strike me initially like duracel batteries - they sorta provide the electricity to human settlements, and help them cultivate nature and thrive on the land. Like a power source.

I'd like to amplify that a bit. Aroden is the god of human civilization, and human civilization thrives on - what Sarah Broadie in her commentary on Aristotle's ethics - calls "theoria," a unique joy that's brought about by audiences wrapped up in glorious spectacles and performances. (The way contemporary sports fans are drawn in when looking at a football game, she adds.)

The orbs represent this positive kind of energy and spirit, but they do need humans to draw forth their power and kindle a flame of civilization, kindness, and joy that's found in shared entertainment. Aroden did not simply found a civilization, he founded a shared nation, an ethos, that of the res publica (the shared, public space where we jointly celebrate, engage in culture, and so forth). Without the orbs, and human entertainers and engineers bringing out their warm glow, human civilization on Kortos Island would not thrive - it would degenerate into a sort of sullen gloom, a darkness of heart, spirit, and ambition. This is why the orbs are so important.

The PCs form a circus and across the AP they experience the orbs as enhancing their power - and they experience their own feats in the circus, as they entertain audiences and display spectacles, to bring out the power of the orbs, and cause joy based in shared, communal life of beneficence.

The xulgaths, on the other hand, never experienced theoria, have no inkling of it, and only understand an emotional range that is based on joy grounded in the suffering of others. That's why their rituals are so sadistic and thrive on the infliction of pain in others. While the orbs help escalate those rituals, the orbs' true spirit suffers under it. Aroden saw not only the wanton infliction on suffering in the underdark, he also saw the xulgaths corrupt the orbs' massively benign power for good. In fact, Aroden's vision when first experiencing the orbs gave him his founding vision of what mankind could be - a community founded in mutual, shared joy, the kind of joy one shares and participates in in culture and entertainment.

I haven't gotten my head around the circus mini-game in the AP, but I'm thinking that its key parameters like Anticipation and associated rewards will be intertwined with the orbs' powers. The PCs' abilities and talents as entertainers are needed to locate the orbs and bring them into the light of humanity. And their abilities and talents will grow with every new orb discovered. The circus itself is the ideal vehicle for discovering the orbs' hidden power, and an ideal vessel to bring that power and energy to others.

The main thing you lose in this rewrite is the ecological angle. Theoria as glossed here is an inherently social energy, that need not - as such - rely on natural energies, forces, or ecological harmony. That means that parts of the AP, like the suffering lands in AP 4, would need to be rewritten. Instead of the village in AP 4 suffering from ecological disaster - barren earth, inadequate agriculture - I'm intending to make their gloomness the direct result of the orbs' dwindling power. The depression, lack of joy, and sheer starvation for solid entertainment, in AP 4 is owed to the orbs' absence. It's a bit like Frodo's vision of hobbit oppression when he looks into the Mirror of Galadriel. Experiencing the orbs' marked absence in human society should help the PCs understand what they are fighting for - and why it's good to preserve the orbs in the sphere of humanity.

Three APs in a row on/around the Isle of Kortos. That's... interesting.

It's definitely not encouraging for GMs insufficiently enticed to run Kortos as an adventure site, portability of mega-dungeons aside.

On the other hand, between Extinction Curse, Beginner's Box, the Vault mini-AP, and Erik Mona's mega-dungeon, you have a TON of site-based adventure material, all focused on a 50-200 mile perimeter that could take up a campaign for 2-5 years.

My goal is to collect and index it all and put it all on one huge.... hex-map for Kortos.

Something similar happened last decade with Rappan Athuk, which began with a mega-dungeon. Then other books came out, adding nearby overland adventures above the dungeon, and Matt Finch added 2 books of underdark advenures below the mega-dungeon. You had several books of adventuring material, all working extremely well with each other. Most significantly, the sheer volume gave players a level of freedom (of movement, picking patrons, missions, factions, alignments) that they don't usually enjoy if you run a single module, let alone an adventure path. Heck, I think this is more freedom than Kingmaker offers, because it's only horizontal freedom across a static plane. This, on the other hand, is freedom of travel in three dimensions.

Personally, I think it's brilliant.

What you are missing is all the people who don't care for the monster lore, they just want stats.

And that's fine. I said out of the gate that this book is self-contained IF all you expect from it is to help you run mechanically interesting encounters. I was just wondering if that's the target audience for the book, or if there's more going on and I'm missing some obvious lore references.

many people use Pathfinder to run their homebrew setting

And those GMs don't want or need any monster lore? If so, that's a questionable assumption. When I run homebrew, I don't need to learn that goblins venerate Lamashtu. I'd still want to learn that goblins love explosives and riding wargs. Those things help me build interesting encounters and funny adventure scenes.

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere. Because by that logic, you aren't allowed to create new monsters.

You're missing a premise here. It's totally fine to introduce new creatures with little traction in monster manuals. The issue is not if you do it, but how.

One way is 2nd edition AD&D. Monstrous Compendiums have fewer creatures per book, but a fuller write-up for each creature. Smaller font, smaller stat block, and often smaller art.

Another way is 2nd edition Pathfinder. Large stat block, large art, little lore. Like D&D 4th, this makes for a great table reference. Also like D&D 4th, this follows the business model of asking customers to buy multiple books to get all the related content on one creature. A bit like splitting Inner World Guide, previously a 320-page book, into three books of 128 pages each.

Both approaches have strengths, and I'm ok with both when I know which one it is. Hence my question.

I'll also say that I'm a LOT more ok with the second approach when I already own the books that contain the related lore. I'm less enthusiastic buying a book that asks me to go and buy another one.

I saw that happen with The Dark Eye RPG (in Germany published by the exact same company as Pathfinder) and it sank that product line really fast. There too, a publisher took a traditional RPG and split content of formerly self-contained 300-page books into multiple 128-page hardcover purchases. The deeper you get into an edition of such a RPG, the more you split the customer base into those who want their 13th purchase to amplify and justify the prior 12 purchases (aka buyer's remorse) and entry-level or casual buyers who are bewildered by intra-product dependency (the classic case being ASL).

I *have* considered tweaking the approach of Chapter 4:

Against the Celestial Menagerie.

But that has nothing to do with vigilantism or misguided real world comparisons - my Golarion is a violent place, and adventure paths are little more than glorified stretches of hack and slash anyway: getting distraught over legal and moral implications is simply not applicable to a pretend game with heroes slaughtering hundreds of creatures on their path from zero to hero.

It has to do with avoiding the cliche of ungrateful/unhelpful NPCs.

It simply bugs me to feature Constable Paldreen as someone who asks the heroes to risk their lives while she herself puts zero skin in the game.

And yes, it makes no sense to me that she would not find the time to oversee the operation herself. Not because she's concerned the vigilante heroes might kill people getting in the way (that part is assumed), but because the module details her political ambitions - she even mentions she's up for reelection.

Killing off most of the city's very popular circus is one thing; but off-handedly allowing a bunch of nobodies to do it on their own?!?

Mistress Dusklight is level 11 for crissakes! To me that means she's not some bit player in the city's vice district. She's likely one of the most powerful (influential, rich, etc) kingpins of the Escadarian underworld!

Nailing her would likely be a major accomplishment with political reverberations in Escadaran society (not that we get any details).

I've had some time to reflect on this and I love it. I agree that your take on Andera Paldreen as a cold-blooded careerist opens up fascinating vistas that this module otherwise plays down.

You see, when I first read the module, I was put off by how it portrayed a powerful NPC as this ultimate 'holier than though, avenge corruption at all costs to self' person on pages 86-87, treating her as a shining beacon of law and order whose only worry is that she's ousted in the next elections by someone who's more ready to placate the criminal elements in town. Combine that with her attitude to treat the PCs as her lackeys from start to finish (bad flashbacks to Second Darkness), being at her beck and all, having to culture her grace and approval to get a circus license - from level 5 heroes no less. All this made me dislike this module quite a lot even before we get to her whole 'go and kill them' thing in Part 4 that licensed an entirely needless killing for reasons put forward as legally and morally kosher. Atrocious.

Your write up, on the other hand, changes the tune and we're a lot closer to L.A. Confidential. So much that I'm considering making her lawful evil, prioritizing her career over all else. Or, as you so aptly put it, ready to walk over corpses if it elevates her political career. LE in short.

To push that story, I'd change a couple of things. In Part 1, page 7, Paldreen knows that Darricus is getting paid by Mistress Dusklight. She also knows that Dusklight's ultimate plan is to have Darricus oust her, Paldreen, at the next elections. She's all too keenly aware that there's a fair chance that Darricus might win those elections, unless something drastic happens and intervenes. But Darricus winning is terrible: it would catapult Dusklight's hold on the police force even more, advance Darricus's political career (who's, if anything, just as career-driven as herself), and end her own. Note that so far, we're firmly within the write-up of pp. 86-87.

Now comes the Lawful Evil part along LA Confidential. Paldreen's goal is to eliminate Darricus from the next election, and to eliminate Dusklight as a presence. When the PCs arrive in town, she sees her chance: here are powerful individuals replete with sword, might, and magic, who might be manipulated into killing both folks at once - if only they can be manipulated into thinking they are just executing a just, lawful killing. Again, entirely within the write-up of pp. 44-45. It certainly helps that the PCs seem like the usual troupe of murder hobos who roam Golarion for coin and fame.

To go about her scheme, Paldreen puts in place a couple of things.

First, she sets up a series of tasks engineered to test the PC's supplication, their willingness to be treated as lackeys. The opening tasks - 'go, clear out this ditch' and 'go, kill those creatures' - test the limits of that, and will be repeated in Part 2 and 3 where Paldreen keeps asking the PCs to kill things on her behalf ("go down into the temple: kill all you see"). She's already offering to justify their killings ex ante, only to probe if the PCs are corruptible.

Second, across all tasks, Paldreen makes sure to ingratiate herself with the PCs, by giving them the feeling that all their actions are in the service of the law, help the betterment of town ('let's cleanse this den of thieves'), and that the PCs deserve to be showered with accolades, citizens' honor, and police badges. On that note, Paldreen takes the PCs on a drink, and tells them about the Juniper Winzel affair (p. 86) and how much it meant to her. So, when the PCs find Winzel's diary (p. 11), and bring it back to Paldreen, you have that ingratiating scene that the module scripts on page 21 (it had me throw up a little, it's done so well). At this point, Paldreen will start handing out favors and quasi-official privileges to the PCs that render them quasi-sheriffs. "I’m going to give your names to my staff; you’ll be able to reach me without an appointment any time you’d like.” (p.21)

By the time we hit Chapter 4, Paldreen's manipulations should be in full swing. She's the one who actually asks Darricus to be present at the Circus when the PCs go on their killing spree. And she's the one who actively incentivizes the PCs to go on that killing spree, giving them carte blanche to do so as the town's newly deputized sheriffs carrying out citizens arrests and killings.

Instead of being a morally and legally repugnant tale where a champion of law (if Lawful Neutral) tries to keep a town together, the module now climaxes in a moral challenge. Will the PCs be willing to just carry out an execution order on Paldreen's behalf? Will they be happy to be unwitting alleys and pawns as the town's political masterminds have their ultimate show-down in the Circus?

You wrote that you don't like the idea of an NPC having the PCs do all the dirty work without any 'skin in the game' to herself. I can hardly concur more. I think that's exactly how the module scripts things, from start ('obtain this circus license') to finish ('go kill those people for me'). This kind of manipulation should ring alarm bells among PCs who are either morally concerned or simply don't like being pushed around to do someone else's dirty work over, and over, and over. Yet that's how the module is scripted. Pretty appalling.

So, the module needs a couple of clues to give the PCs a chance to wisen up that Paldreen is not the "shining beacon of law" she proclaims to be, and that Darricus is caught in the middle of two very powerful individuals fighting for control over Escadar. If the PCs are thoroughly corrupted by Paldreen, there should be a chance for them to learn about this in due course. And there should be a chance to get a reckoning for being manipulated so heavily from start to finish.

Thanks, I appreciate that greatly, and all the civility throughout.

I also believe that, disagreements on the module text aside, you and I will likely run this module pretty much alike. It's become pretty obvious that neither of us thinks the module's iterated emphasis on trespass is all that useful, and is best ignored.

In light of our exchanges, I'll rewrite Part 3 so that the PCs have hard evidence of multiple murders by MD, not just second-hand, and not just abductions (for subsequent killings by other parties outside MD's direct control or agency).

I think obtaining a writ to expressly detain a murderer is a spectacular device for the PCs to have on hand as they head to MD's circus. Instead of going into the circus to kill everyone in plain view, the PCs can now go into the circus tent and heckle MD's circus show mid-stream. This is their big payback for Part 1 (all the more satisfying since they suffered similar disruptions to their own show in the previous adventure as well - they know the drill, and can pull out a couple of tricks). "Everybody cool, we have an arrest for the murders of [name abducted citizens]." Can you imagine the gasp of the crowd? Followed by a very public arrest? If there's a show-down now between the PCs and MD's crew, it's a spectacle, under the public limelight of resistance to an arrest.

So that's one thing I'd change. Also, and this is key: Andera insists on PCs using non-lethal force, and she insists that MD must be detained to get her to a trial at all cost. The arrest warrant/writ is not a license to kill. Big rewrite from the module, and gets rid of my biggest gripe 100%. (Also, and just pure aside to your post: an arrest warrant for murder does not amount to kill order. The crime for which you arrest does not license you to reciprocate that crime.)

Following the public arrest, the PCs get to participate as core witnesses in MD's high-publicity trial in town. The PCs get to present all their hard-won evidence, a quasit eye witness, and more - and can bring their circus performance skills to bear full weight at a showtime trial. If the players have little taste for that, this can be skipped or reduced to a quick narrative scene. But the sheer fact of having a trial gives the PCs a sense that their investigative work is paying off, big time, and makes them feel that they really brought a villain to justice under the law.

How are the town's villagers gonna react, before and after the interrupted circus show? The PCs are gonna get a lot of limelight in town, which helps drive up Anticipation for their own show. The PCs might recruit MD's past performers to help them with a couple of new circus acts, such as re-enacting "The Arrest of Mistress Murderess," or "A liberation from abuse," where two hill giant clowns transform before the audience's eyes from subdued victims into jocular jugglers. All thanks to the PCs.

Now that's a storyline I'd be happy to see unfold at my gaming table. Not that pre-meditated killing incident to (a dubiously) lawful arrest, on grounds that self-defense rendered lethal force necessary.

Midnightoker wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

This is a fairly even-handed comparison of D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e, even if I don't 100% agree with the reviewer.

Just saw this the other day and was about to link it. I think it’s a really well done video and even though I don’t agree everywhere he does make a lot of solid points.

Right. Even if I don't agree with him, I see where he's coming from. I just value some things differently. And that's the best kind of review – where the reviewer doesn't just say "This is good" or "This is bad", but explains why they think something is good or bad. And if the reviewer says "I liked X because it works like Y", and you go "But I don't like Y", then you can judge for yourself that you probably won't like X.

Thirded. I especially appreciate that the reviewer's assessment is based on how a mechanic works in play. E.g., he says PF2 rules on death and dying are a bloated mess in the rulebook but work wonderfully at the table. That's the kind of feedback/insight I was hoping to get in the OP and it's a great example.

Thank you also to the other person who linked the podcasts. That's another great review format, by all means.

One reason I'm slightly reluctant to pull the purchase trigger yet is that the PF1 core rulebook went through... six? seven? more? iterations of errata. I'd love to get my hands on the PF2 deluxe version but anticipate that it (like its PF1 counterpart) will be out of date before long. Did the deluxe print run even integrate the first round of errata from 2019? Thanks!

The obvious place would be EN World. With a little bit of digging I found 2 reviews: One from Morrus himself, and one from dedicated Paizo reporter LongGoneWriter.

I would also recommend checking out the official SRD at Archives of Nethys. Nearly everything that's been published up to now is available there, including a lot of information on the official setting. If you want to read the Core Rulebook in the order it is printed, look at the "Rules" section on that site.

Thank you! Those are great links to begin with.

The Archive of Nethys is pure gold, thanks so much for alerting me of that.

Excellent posts by Ice and Summon Monster.

And here, gentlemen, do we hit upon a mystery that's plagued adventure paths for several years now:

Here are my favorite books (in no particular order) and why:

Haunting of Harrowstone - We're not done playing it yet, but so far it's been great. I really like all of the investigating and mystery.
Shadow in the Sky - Working for Saul Vancaskerkin and getting screwed over by him and stuff was fun. I liked that there were casino games at the beginning for us to play too while the PCs met each other. Leaving Riddleport and never coming back after this book was disappointing though.
The Sixfold Trial - The play was awesome. I absolutely loved getting to act it out.
Souls for Smuggler's Shiv - We had a lot of fun exploring the island. We felt very Indiana Jones.
Edge of Anarchy - My favorite part was crashing the execution. It felt very dramatic and we put a lot if planning into it. I also liked that somebody we met in the first book turned out to be the BBEG instead of us meeting them for the first time in the last book. Most of the rest of the AP was very cool too, though I know my DM changed some things to make the weaker parts of the AP more fun.

Price Question: what do these - uniformly excellent - modules have in common?

They are all the OPENING modules of adventure paths. (Ok, Sixfold Trial is #2, but it's still early on.)

And this brings up something I've observed over the years (as has this gentlemen whose reviews have been spot on over the years).

I don't know why, but most adventure paths seem to fall apart when module #3 or #4 kicks in. Loss of focus has been mentioned before. But that's only one thing. They come across as lacklustre when compared with the high promise - and excellent execution - of the kick off modules. (What's especially bizarre, and that's my key point, is that the uniformly awesome campaign outlines in the closing pages of each of the #1s is never lived up to. Why is that?)

This is what happened to Council of Thieves. It brought low Serpent Skull. And reading the reviews of Carrion Crown #3 on these boards, it seems the thing falls apart again, though that adventure path had arguably the strongest start ever.

In fact, going back in time, this is how lots of people felt about Rise of the Runelords, which went into pedestrian after #3. Or Second Darkness, when with the arise of #3 - surprise, surprise! - the adventure path took to elfland and abandoned all that was cool about it.

I've come to realize that the best, money wise but also in terms of time investment, is to purchase the first two modules of an adventure path, and then write the rest of the thing myself. I'd like the thing to live up to the expectations of it, in a manner that the in house authors for one reason or another consistently fail to live up to. And I don't have the slightest idea why. Maybe they need more story line direction from above. Maybe there needs to be a different sort of quality control. Maybe they need more time. I have no idea.

Even if you disagree with the conclusions drawn here, I think the discrepancy in early to mid and (certainly) late modules in nearly each adventure path is a datum that needs to be explained badly and fixed soon. Let's dispell the bane of the #3s!

First of all, thanks for this thread. There are already a number of seriously helpful posts on padding out Second Darkness on these forums – e.g. I love the one which talks about the Winter Council and the final battle in volume 17 – and as someone who is quite disappointed with 2D as well, these are incredibly helpful to me. With the purely personal negativity out of the way, here some of my comments.

You asked to identify the weak spots, i.e. the very points I as a DM would alter. Here they come. Spoilers beware – players should read no further!

First, general points of weakness.

The whole adventure path progression nullifies most player input; where it doesn’t do so, it reduces player input to combat achievements. To explain.

A lot of the seriously crucial information (i.e. information of the sort that propels the events in the adventure path) isn’t in fact obtained by the player characters but by their NPC allies. Kuawa and the Shin’tora get “news”; Shalelu does the scouting for the PCs, etc. A lot of this information – e.g., scouting of Mierani forest – could in principle be obtained by the PC. Those are the spots I re-plan when running second darkness (I’m mightily behind in schedule – still running Rise of the Runelords!).
Why should the PC obtain this information, you may ask. Well, first, player input is the most crucial element to a good RPG session. If player input is continually nullified or reduced in central spots where it need not be (even within the constraints of an adventure path) my players don’t want to come back to the table. So if they constantly have to act on information provided by other people, the players will feel like side kicks. What’s worse – and that’s my next point, really – is that if players don’t get crucial information they can’t make crucial decisions (where, again, crucial means: central for the adventure path’s progression). For instance, how come that an elven mage has to research the ritual to transform the PC into drow in volume 16? Why can’t a wizard PC obtain that information? Why not have the PC find notes by a drow wizard the PC defeated who’s been trying to create a similar ritual if to opposite effect – transform drow into elves so as to infiltrate elven society (the classic Trojan horse we get in #16) – with a daunting final line in the journal (“I hope the elves never backfire this plan onto us!”). Add more info and clues, and sooner or later the PC will find some of the drow corpses they’ve gathered in Celwynvian come in handy….

That was just an example – its details need to be worked out, of course (no minor feat), but I hope you get my drift. Just to repeat my main point: if the PC don’t obtain crucial information they can’t make crucial decisions based on that information. Second Darkness has, in my opinion, a DM-conservative information policy: withhold crucial info from the PCs so they can’t act on it the wrong way (or, not act on it at all). Because, if they do act the wrong way, the adventure path derails. Second Darkness goes to extremes to avoid derailment. In volume 15, Kaerishiel literally “leads” the PCs from one building in the camp to the other; the order of the buildings the PC capture is inessential (so sandbox play is purely delusional here, similar in volume 14) – and, to top it, in volume 16 the PC become slaves: all they do, they are expected to do at an NPC’s bidding. That’s the perfect image to what I think is overdone in 2nd Darkness: the PCs are on a tight leash, a leash held by the NPCs and (thus) the DM. That’s a serious issue which Paizo’s competent module designers may wish to rethink – I’m certainly out of depth to address the issue on a general level. Suffice it to say, that I was absolutely horrified by James Wyatt's entry on the "information imperative" in the 4th edition DMG - which basically said: spoonfeed your players all and any information required to propel a module - since the analogoue for combat (let the PC win any battle that's crucial for the module to go on) is insane, and since, most importantly, the whole issue this imperative seeks to redress can be solved more elegantly by a greater number of clues (eradicating the need for the PCs to find the ONE and ONLY clue to propel the event-based adventure).

Now for my other main beef. That’s to do with information dispense as well. Ever since Burnt Offerings I’ve held gripes for the shtick “the PC kill an NPC and obtain info from her journal – because, in Golarion, every NPC carries an (insert strings) unrealistically revealing diary TM”. The adventure path kicked off with, not one, but TWO drow who held such diaries. The PC were solely meant to kill the drow so as to hand over the diaries (i.e., the PC weren’t even expected to do something else with the diaries! – see above). That’s not what I want my players to do. I don’t want them to go around killing to obtain information. I want them to use clever stratagems, trying to bring minions over their side, etc., and thus get crucial information. No more baddies carrying diaries, please!

So there’s quite a need to address the information of how the DM dispenses crucial information to his players in this adventure path. Again, I haven’t found the holy grail here but started to look at other systems and modules – in particular, Call of Cthulhu, which itself cares a lot for players obtaining clues. A fairly new spin off, Trail of Cthulhu RPG, even developed its own system to make the obtaining of clues a more interesting and challenging experience. Paizo has neglected this aspect entirely ever since Richard Pett wrote a singularly helpful sidebar in Pathfinder 2 (Overhearing the Cultists). This, too, is an issue which, if addressed by Paizo’s module designers, would considerably improve the adventure paths and bring them more up to standard with e.g. the CoC module Masks of N. which James Jacobs reportedly (and rightly :) ) holds as the apex in module design.

Now for Second Darkness specifics. I’m considering running the modules not as a continuous adventure path because the modules are in my opinion so poorly connected. I think the individual modules are quite good once you strip them of the belaboured need to have this vast UBERPLOT (thanks for the phrase to Wes Schneider). Here some points of detail.

1. Volume 13. Get rid of the Kwuawa and the Shindira. They don’t add anything to the actual adventure focused on the casino. Replace the drow with Lil Lavender in the Pathfinder Companion. You’ll be surprised how well Lil’s backstory works with the module – she’s much better suited to manipulate the module’s main NPC the PC interact with. I almost suspect Greg originally wrote up Lil’s story as the BBEG for the module before Paizo decided to insert this module into the metaplot that is Second Darkness. I think #13 is one of the best modules ever, and it only gets better if DMed on its own terms.

2. Volume 14. Not much to say. Again, the drow at the end feels as an artificially inserted element which doesn’t sit smoothly with the rest of the adventure. Since I feel the main idea of the module – basically, Lovecraft’s “Colour out of Space” – requires a locale the PCs are at that point already familiar with, and #14 decided to locate that Lovecraft plot idea in a (for the PC) unfamiliar location, I’d much rather take that basic plot idea, reread Lovecraft’s story (which I’m in fact doing) and transport its elements into Riddleport itself. Complete with the bestiary of #14 (thanks for the cool aliens!) there’s plenty to haunt Riddleport’s flora and fauna (more on which you’ll find in #13). But the majority of #14 won’t see much use at my game table. That said, I think the island is pretty cool for another follow up to Riddle Port. Work out the idea of the sirene, add in more pirates, and we may get a decent pirate module. Also, the cypher mages may be a little more sinister and have not so noble plans on their own.

3. Volume 15. Ok, this is where the actual adventure path kicks off. The PC needed to obtain two diaries – all else is pretty much peripheral. That’s not a good intro to volume 15 in my opinion. I think the horselords at the beginning make for a much better intro – they have been experiencing problems with the elves and ask the PC to investigate. That means that once the PCs enter Mierani forest, there’s a lot of freedom for you as a DM. Personally, I’ll be running this in Greyhawk’s Celene forest – the story fits really well (Shin’tora = Celene’s elven knights who oppose their queen’s isolationist policy – a policy which rationalizes the claustrophobic Mierani feel really well). And, best of all, this means I can forego the railroad of #16 in favour of Erelhei-Cinlu (see Dragon magazine #298 or the 3.5 supplement Drow of the Underdark) for a seriously, seriously classic D&D experience. That said, on to #16.

4. #16: I will forego all the contrived plot (I actually felt sorry the brilliant Wes Schneider had to showcase his considerable module design talents within such tight constraints). #16 is one huge skill challenge – how can the PC advance in a drow house? Most important: realize that it’s totally unimportant WHICH drow house the PC choose to join -Wes’ material translates into any drow house. So I get rid of the NPC who needs to “lead” the PC (again!) into the right spot, to the next NPC (slave mother) who instructs them for one whole module – get rid off all these NPCs and replace them by NPCs who are there when the PCs decide to approach, with more elbow room for the PC to do what they want, negotiate terms of settlement and so on. Most of all: since #16 is a skill challenge, you should communicate the goal and the terms of the skill challenge to the players. This was completely missed by Wes in #16 I feel. The PC never know in advance WHY they’re working day in, day out in this drow house. They have no clue that they advancing their station to meet a drow who can provide them with the information they need. So that needs to be made transparent as well. Also, they will receive advance intelligence of how (roughly) they can increase their station – i.e., what it means to pass from servitor tier 1 to 2 to 3. Again, I felt this was missed out in the information provided for the players. What’s more though, since I run #15 and #16 as a huge one-off module, there’s no need for the players to run away from the drow city so early. So that plot contrivement can go as well. Instead, the players stay there to obtain the information THEY think will help the elves of the Mierani/Celene forest. What’s more, since Erelhei-Cinlu, unlike Paizo’s Z. City, tolerates the presence of non-drow (another favour of not having to implement the Second Darkness UBERPLOT), I don’t need to have the PC transform into drow. They can still do so if they wish – see above: I’ll have the PC discover information which enables them to form such a decision SHOULD THEY WISH – but they won’t derail things.

So much for #13-16. I haven’t looked into #17 yet, but currently there’s plenty on my plate to work #13-16 to my tastes. While I’ve composed this post in a critical tone, here are two important provisos on my part in closing.

First, I seriously enjoyed #13-16. They provide TONS of brilliant campaign material to work with. Just because I think some of the parts therein – in particular, those which force the uberplot onto the individual modules – are poorly executed, doesn’t change the fact that a lot of material here outshines a considerable number of previous Paizo modules. #13 in particular is my all time favourite so far – but then I’m a Greg Vaughan fanboy, so that’s no surprise.

Second, this post is my personal, subjective opinion, and as such, won’t resonate with a lot of people. Nor do I expect so, or expect that this criticism is taken seriously on an objective level – it need not. Paizo has taken its own design decisions for the modules (see my general problem diagnosis above), but I suspect they are aware why they have chosen them. I don’t think Paizo has made bad decisions, I just wanted to say that I don’t see myself making those decisions at the game table. That’s all. Happy gaming to all!

Spoilers beware. You'd be an idiot to be a Burnt Offerings player reading this thread. Given the scarcity of idiots on this bord, I rest assured this won't happen.

How did you convey to your players the backstory behind Nualia's revenge.

I didn't. James Jacobs wrote it for the sole enjoyment of the DM. Burnt Offerings is a splendid read, don't you think? Unfortunately it's often not very much geared to the experience at the game table.

Now seriously. You target a key problem. The best solution in these cases (and there are loads of them in Runelords - new game: name a key NPC who's story DOES surface for the players) is to think: who could have known about Nualia's story? Well, who brought it about? Her father. Unfortunately he's dead (well done, James). So, who else? Her lover. Unfortunately he's run off and/or dead (well done, James). So I opted for Father Zantus, and made him a local of Sandpoint who was trained by Ezakien (Nualia's father) as a priest of Desna and lived along with him and Nualia in the house. This meant
1. Nualia befriended Zantus at a reasonably early age. Years later Nualia meets Delek. When she realizes she's pregnant she confides in Zantus, not least because she doesn't know how to break the news to Ezakien. That makes things hard for Zantus. Being Ezakien's apprentice, he now got split loyalties, since he's always felt protective about Nualia.
2. After she disclosed herself to her father, her father confides in Zantus as well. So Zantus now knows both sides, and in fact is less than happy about Ezakien's way of dealing with it.
3. When Nualia goes nuts, Zantus is not around (in fact, Nualia made sure he wasn't - which is hugely important later). So he survives. He presumes both Nualia and Ezakien dead. Also, he's less than relaxed with his sudden duties as Sandpoint's new chief cleric.
4. After the goblins raid Sandpoint and the PC discover that Ezakien's tomb has been defiled, all those feelings about their shared past flare up in Zantus. He's hugely upset but can't make sense of it. Enter the PCs. By talking to Zantus they can get his version about Nualia's story, which after all is Ezakien's, and like Zantus presume her dead. But they now know the aasimar background story. Which is key for the final tragic encounter. Make one of the PC play a cleric of Desna from outside Sandpoint (he can be an official envoy for the Swallowtail Festival). It's perhaps one of the harshest moments for him to be confronted with the failings of his kin (Ezakien) and means he'll experience Zantus' point of view first hand. Plus, when the PC return from Thistletop, having killed Nualia, and talk to Zantus you're up for an interesting confrontation. Depending on how respectfully they've dealt with Nualia's remains & the way they talk to Zantus about it, this will either bond the PC to Zantus for life or he'll hate them forever. Zantus learns that Nualia spared his life that one fatal night when she burned Ezakien.

Either way you've by now
A) brought Nualia's tragedy to the adventure's centre, which it rightfully deserves,
B) and spiced up the campaign for future modules. Strong feelings between PC and NPC are always better than complete lack thereof. They tie the PC into the campaign and its locations.

The secret diary is an obvious ploy but it has already been used for Tsuto.

I know, it's really lame. Again, go for NPC in Sandpoint who know about the family conflict. You MUST make sure it surfaces way before the PC are approached about the glassworks. Speaking of which - avoid the woman carrying (in effect) the next piece of paper (well done James, thrice now that a piece of paper reveals the adventure's actual background). Let the PC do some detective work instead. The wagon on the town square from which the goblins lept carries isolated pieces of stained glass. Your PC will head to the glass work in next to no time. If that's too soon for you, place the shards elsewhere.

I do not want to give the impression to my players that my big villains spend their time writing down their feelings on paper rather than try to raid Sandpoint

Uh-oh, all of the Runelord Campaign's villains keep diaries (watch out for Aldern in part II). How else would their backstory surface to the players? And, hurray, another tragic story and all the PC get to do is kill its protagonist and read his story afterwards. Very, very engaging, and very, very subtle.

Edit. I just realized I simply spelled out Reckless' idea. Which I hadn't read on composing this. There you go.