That depends on the war. Wars between moral forces are not just about winning militarily, they are about hearts and minds. You win those battles not by fighting dirtier and nastier than the other guy (what does that prove other than that you are a dirtier, nastier person?), but by showing yourself to be morally superior to the other guy, and if that means fighting with one hand tied, you do it because even if you lose in the short term it will secure victory in the long run. The people see that your side is much more beneficial to them to be running things than the other guy, and you gain support and he loses it.
Only if you fight with one hand behind your back and still win.
In which case, most of those that defect to your side are doing so because you have proved yourself the stronger, not out of admiration for your morals.swift action to heal yourself, 1/2 your level + cha times per day, for 1/2 your level*1d6, oh, and also remove 1 negative condition/3 levels.
Oh, for a capstone, thats maximized(but neglectable).Or weapon bond?
Depending on target, how about a keen brilliant energy weapon? Or rather a holy speed weapon?Paladins were given tools to ensure they CAN fight with one hand behind their back _AND STILL WIN_(because that hand heals a 10th level paladin for 5d6 HP/round for about 8-9 consecutive roudns in that battle...thats fast healing 17.5 for those 8 rounds, oh, it also removes fatigue/staggered/exhausted condition...and oh, and his weapon just became keen flaming in addition to it's regular properties.)
Not every soldier is going to be a paladin, and the war would be more realistic, not so much following the game's abstractions. As an example an acid splash killed a high level wizard in a novel. Drizzt was almost killed by a fireshield spell IIRC. He also almost had his life ended by magic missle. That is what what would happen. In the game acid splash is laughable by 3rd level.
honor
Even in medieval times people used ranged attacks. I guess that is why I am failing to see where the concept of "not melee=dishonor". The cavalier from the early 80's was the only class that disdained use of a bow.
The problem with sniping is mostly that you are concealed yourself, and you shot to kill. So if you are doing it right, he'll never have a chance. The basic prospect of a "honorable" battle is that it should be decided by skill, and wits.
I was smart enough, and fast enough to survey the battlefield, get good position, and stay out of danger. If the goal of a war is to see who is better in hand to hand combat then sure sniping is not honorable, since it would be cheating, but the goal is to outsmart the enemy as well as outfight them.
It takes skill to use a bow, just like it takes skill to use a sword. You may have missed it upthread, but these principles of honor really existed to stop knights from being "beaten up" by commoners. Honor had nothing to do with it. If honor was the issue then the paladin would not be allowed to use a bow except against flying creatures.
Edit: I missed the Wyvern part. They were neutral in 3.5 also, and their nature has not changed. They still read as strike first, talk last. Pathfinder just put more words in the box.
|
Had to look up the encounter in question. Makes me wonder how the party spotted the wyverns in the first place, and how the adventure came up with 35 for the DC. From the center island the wyverns cave is 900 feet away. That's DC 90. If I understand the OP correctly, the party made this check from the other side of the river.
Barbarian: *sees an elf child, attacks, kills it and start eating the corpse*
Paladin: "BY ALL THE GOOD GODS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Barbarian: *munch* "I was hungry, and the elf child looked weaker than me."
Paladin: "I cannot abide such evil! I must kill you to save the other elven children!" *draws his sword, smites the barbarian, but deals normal damage*
Barbarian: "Naw, it's cool, I got Int7, see? So I am neutral. After all, I AM hunting for food, just don't need to care about if what I am eating is a sentient being, and get to act like a stereotypical demon through a loophole now."
Paladin: "Oh... f**#." *falls for dishonorably attacking a neutral sentient creature out of convenience since it MIGHT attack other elven children later*
Do you know what a wyvern is? It's a dragon. It's not a humanoid creature. The barbarian is a humanoid, the elven child he ate is also humanoid. There is a difference. A huge one. To a wyvern a human looks like another animal.
Wyverns don't use tools and are 7 INT so a wyvern may honestly not see a human as an intellgent prey. To a wyvern a human is just another animal or a nest raiding monster.
Lots of posters like to disclaim an arguement with "Our modern views of X". Well that sword has two edges, Humans can not know the mind of an alien species and should not judge them on the same basis as a human on human crime. A "Barbarian" that eats another human is a cannibal. A wyvern that eats a human is a monster maybe but not a cannibal.
See "DIFFFERENCE"
Barbarian: *sees an young wyvern, attacks, kills it and starts roasting the corpse on an open fire*
Paladin: "BY ALL THE GOOD GODS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Barbarian: *munch* "I was hungry, and the wyvern child looked tasty."
Paladin: "I cannot abide such evil! I must kill you to save the other wyvern children!" *draws his sword, smites the barbarian, but deals normal damage*
Barbarian: "Naw, it's cool, I got Int7, see? So I am neutral. After all, I AM hunting for food, just don't need to care about if what I am eating is a sentient being, and get to act like a stereotypical demon through a loophole now."
Paladin: "Oh... f**#." *falls for dishonorably attacking a neutral sentient creature out of convenience since it MIGHT attack other wyvern children later*
lol... I don't actually see why a human paladin would have a problem with that. Unless of course it was a wyvern paladin, then by all rights, he should slay this beast that is eating the children of his kind.
I came here for help/advice as I was unsure about something with regards to something that I volunteer my time into doing for my friends... because guess what I am not a phisophy major like apparently many people on these furoms are, and I was unsure about my ruling.
And what do I get for my troubles,
I get called an idiot, and insulted/flamed at. I get told that I should probably stop dming because I apparently don't hold up to some high standard of dming that some people have here even though I also have other priorities in my life. Some people made some comment that I don't have any wisdom/intelligence, and if something like this ever happened to them they would quit my game. I'm am truly surprised with how much hate has been thrown in my direction as if I have done something criminal or something that morally wrong. Jeez guys not even the paladin in question has said something to me that has been remotely hateful, and we both came up with a reasonable solution that we are both somewhat content with.
When I said the paladin was metagaming, that's exactly what it was as he said "These wyverns are going to attack us when we come back, as that always happens when we play dnd" -He was generalizing all the games his played in (including the ones where I was a player or was not present at), and made a decision based on that. The paladin player is always very paranoid about everything and always assumes the worst will happen. He makes decision based on being paranoid as a player and not based on his experiences with the game that he is currently playing or based on the experiences based on the character. After that he then began to whine as to how the game is designed to punish them even though he lacked any knowledge as to what was currently surrounding him or what he was getting into.
TO: sir_shajir
Repeat after Mr. Fishy...TIER FISHY >flipin' the fin<
That should sting those bastards.
I came here for help/advice as I was unsure about something with regards to something that I volunteer my time into doing for my friends... because guess what I am not a phisophy major like apparently many people on these furoms are, and I was unsure about my ruling.
And what do I get for my troubles,
I get called an idiot, and insulted/flamed at. I get told that I should probably stop dming because I apparently don't hold up to some high standard of dming that some people have here even though I also have other priorities in my life. Some people made some comment that I don't have any wisdom/intelligence, and if something like this ever happened to them they would quit my game. I'm am truly surprised with how much hate has been thrown in my direction as if I have done something criminal or something that morally wrong. Jeez guys not even the paladin in question has said something to me that has been remotely hateful, and we both came up with a reasonable solution that we are both somewhat content with.When I said the paladin was metagaming, that's exactly what it was as he said "These wyverns are going to attack us when we come back, as that always happens when we play dnd" -He was generalizing all the games his played in (including the ones where I was a player or was not present at), and made a decision based on that. The paladin player is always very paranoid about everything and always assumes the worst will happen. He makes decision based on being paranoid as a player and not based on his experiences with the game that he is currently playing or based on the experiences based on the character. After that he then began to whine as to how the game is designed to punish them even though he lacked any knowledge as to what was currently surrounding him or what he was getting into.
Alignment and paladins are a contentious issue, I'm afraid. Your call was a grey area, really. Technically, the paladin hadn't done anything to lose out on his powers, ll things considered, but adding together all his past actions I could see that it was only a matter of time.
His bad was metagaming and not bothering to make sure he was doing the 'right' thing. Yours was not talking to him before hand and asking him exactly what kind of paladin he was playing and telling him your take on paladin code of conduct.
Your DMing is good other than that, so don't get disheartened (I've been called worse on the internet, and you soon learn not to let it get to you), learn from it and bounce back with more schemes.
I came here for help/advice as I was unsure about something with regards to something that I volunteer my time into doing for my friends... because guess what I am not a phisophy major like apparently many people on these furoms are, and I was unsure about my ruling.
And what do I get for my troubles,
I get called an idiot, and insulted/flamed at. I get told that I should probably stop dming because I apparently don't hold up to some high standard of dming that some people have here even though I also have other priorities in my life. Some people made some comment that I don't have any wisdom/intelligence, and if something like this ever happened to them they would quit my game. I'm am truly surprised with how much hate has been thrown in my direction as if I have done something criminal or something that morally wrong. Jeez guys not even the paladin in question has said something to me that has been remotely hateful, and we both came up with a reasonable solution that we are both somewhat content with.When I said the paladin was metagaming, that's exactly what it was as he said "These wyverns are going to attack us when we come back, as that always happens when we play dnd" -He was generalizing all the games his played in (including the ones where I was a player or was not present at), and made a decision based on that. The paladin player is always very paranoid about everything and always assumes the worst will happen. He makes decision based on being paranoid as a player and not based on his experiences with the game that he is currently playing or based on the experiences based on the character. After that he then began to whine as to how the game is designed to punish them even though he lacked any knowledge as to what was currently surrounding him or what he was getting into.
I'm sorry sir_shajir. Considering the whole story, what you've done is actually quite reasonable and probably the best choice. EVERYONE was making assumptions. There are strongly opinionated people when it comes to Paladins because of the Paladin's code and Paladins get a lot of hate no matter how they're played.
Though I might suggest you give the particular character some tips on roleplaying, such as giving in-game reasons even if he actually has out of game reasons for doing it, things would include for this particular situation, "Look a foul beast! We should remove the threat or it might attack us later on"
|
|
Your call was a grey area, really. Technically, the paladin hadn't done anything to lose out on his powers
I disagree. The DM had specifically told the player that attacking sleeping creatures is against his paladin code, before this encounter. The paladin choose to break his code, thus he should fall.
Heh, 666th post in the thread calls for the paladin to fall. Classic.
Edit: Link for reference.
Your call was a grey area, really. Technically, the paladin hadn't done anything to lose out on his powersI disagree. The DM had specifically told the player that attacking sleeping creatures is against his paladin code, before this encounter. The paladin choose to break his code, thus he should fall.
Heh, 666th post in the thread calls for the paladin to fall. Classic.
I stand corrected by the 666th post of the thread.
Alignment and paladins are a contentious issue, I'm afraid. Your call was a grey area, really. Technically, the paladin hadn't done anything to lose out on his powers, ll things...I came here for help/advice as I was unsure about something with regards to something that I volunteer my time into doing for my friends... because guess what I am not a phisophy major like apparently many people on these furoms are, and I was unsure about my ruling.
And what do I get for my troubles,
I get called an idiot, and insulted/flamed at. I get told that I should probably stop dming because I apparently don't hold up to some high standard of dming that some people have here even though I also have other priorities in my life. Some people made some comment that I don't have any wisdom/intelligence, and if something like this ever happened to them they would quit my game. I'm am truly surprised with how much hate has been thrown in my direction as if I have done something criminal or something that morally wrong. Jeez guys not even the paladin in question has said something to me that has been remotely hateful, and we both came up with a reasonable solution that we are both somewhat content with.When I said the paladin was metagaming, that's exactly what it was as he said "These wyverns are going to attack us when we come back, as that always happens when we play dnd" -He was generalizing all the games his played in (including the ones where I was a player or was not present at), and made a decision based on that. The paladin player is always very paranoid about everything and always assumes the worst will happen. He makes decision based on being paranoid as a player and not based on his experiences with the game that he is currently playing or based on the experiences based on the character. After that he then began to whine as to how the game is designed to punish them even though he lacked any knowledge as to what was currently surrounding him or what he was getting into.
We agreed to disagree, and understood that alignment is a big headache and that it is mostly based on opinion/interpretation. I gave him a "slap on the hand" instead of stripping him of all his powers and took his spells away until he atoned, but he kepted his lay on hands ability and his smite for the rest of the day until he atones, he said that it was more fair in his view as he did not want to be severly crippled while finishing the end of chapter in an AdventurePath. (I also know that stripping him of his powers completely will most likely get the party TPK'd which is not my goal). He also stated that he will be getting a phylactory of faithfulness and thus the onus is on me to remind him of anything if it comes up. I also gave him a list things not to do after the 2nd session that we started playing our current campaign of Kingmaker many months ago. I feel that he chose to ignore the part where it said "Not to attack helpless foes". I understand that these are general guidelines and I have been leniant with the paladin on multiple occasions in the past, where he almost started a war with a neighboring tribe AGAINST the parties' wishes.
He commited genocide on the whole world. Humans were the only race on the do not kill on sight list. Humans had to worship the Kingpriest or they were add to the list. Also the Gods destroyed Ishtar the home of the Kingpriest, the children on men turned away from the gods for centuries before the return of the gods.
The dragonlance alignment system was more strict. The world was build on the idea of balance. Heroes rising and then receding into the history books.
sir_shajir
You made the call you though was right. No DM can do more than that. One more thing never take anything these airbreathers say to heart, seriously they're airbreathers no home training.
sir_shajir
You made the call you though was right. No DM can do more than that. One more thing never take anything these airbreathers say to heart, seriously they're airbreathers no home training.
Thank you, I appreciate you kind words Mr.Fishy.
I think I would have a small uprising, get kidnapped and wake up in a room full of my dnd stuff and a table with my players if I told them the game was over cause of what people on the paizo furoms said. Funny story was that one of the players (my sister) was very salty over the fact that her animal companion (Tony the Tiger - Druid Companion Tiger) almost died and when the players said she gets a new one in 24 hours, she said it's not the same tony the tiger that she spent 3-4 levels raising since it was a cub.
Easy there with the kind words talk. Mr. Fishy is not kind, Mr. Fishy is a fish hole. Damn airbreathers!
Barbarian: *sees an elf child, attacks, kills it and start eating the corpse*
Paladin: "BY ALL THE GOOD GODS! WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?"
Barbarian: *munch* "I was hungry, and the elf child looked weaker than me."
Paladin: "I cannot abide such evil! I must kill you to save the other elven children!" *draws his sword, smites the barbarian, but deals normal damage*
Barbarian: "Naw, it's cool, I got Int7, see? So I am neutral. After all, I AM hunting for food, just don't need to care about if what I am eating is a sentient being, and get to act like a stereotypical demon through a loophole now."
Paladin: "Oh... f**#." *falls for dishonorably attacking a neutral sentient creature out of convenience since it MIGHT attack other elven children later*
Do you know what a wyvern is? It's a dragon. It's not a humanoid creature. The barbarian is a humanoid, the elven child he ate is also humanoid. There is a difference. A huge one. To a wyvern a human looks like another animal.
Wyverns don't use tools and are 7 INT so a wyvern may honestly not see a human as an intellgent prey. To a wyvern a human is just another animal or a nest raiding monster.
Lots of posters like to disclaim an arguement with "Our modern views of X". Well that sword has two edges, Humans can not know the mind of an alien species and should not judge them on the same basis as a human on human crime. A "Barbarian" that eats another human is a cannibal. A wyvern that eats a human is a monster maybe but not a cannibal.
See "DIFFFERENCE"
First: See word in bold in my original quote. Barbarian is not elf, but eats an elf. Thus, not "cannibal", just monstrously disregarding the elf as sentient life.
Just dumb enough to disregard morals and ethics, but still smart enough to make a paladin fall due to the whole "sentient life" huh?
Then, by that argument, why should any humanoid culture, or gods thereof (and thus the codes of conduct commanding their champions), care about wyverns? They are after all animals and town raiding monsters.
Either you are non-sentient and act according to instincts and primal urges, and remain neutral, like animals, golems and whatnot. OR, you are self-aware beyond an animal, and face the metaphysical consequences of your actions. Giving someone a free pass should ALSO disqualify it from being "innocent" and taken into the equation of what a paladin needs to respect, because then it is never evil, but also never good. Hardly anything worthwhile is lost if a wyvern dies; the ring-wraiths have to go on foot or use their creepy horses, is all.
Making paladin-traps like this is a piss-poor way to GM, and everyone in here knows it. If you require the paladin to jump through an endless series of contrived hoops in order to satisfy your twisted image of what a paladin is, then don't USE it, or at least warn your players that your views are "narrow", so they might make multiclass fighter/clerics instead.
And for all the "might be" scenarios: I am not even gonna dignify that with more than the post I made to ridicule it back in page 8 or so. The lich MIGHT be a polymorphed princess that has been controlled by an artifact, but seriously, if someone played that on me as a GM... I would light my character sheet on fire and snort the glowing embers to try to induce memory loss so I might save what is left of my mind from knowing such retardation.
The Barbarian was not give a race neither was the paladin, only the child was noted to be an elf.
Mr. Fishy's point was that a wyvern could legitimatly mistake a humanoid for a food animal. The barbarian was a humanoid of some measure?
The value of a wyvern's life is not in question the validity of your arguement however is.
Retardation? NICE!
This server does not allow me to respond to posts 2 pages ago.
Goth Guru, Thursday, 08:11 PM
The paladin should have stated he was making an offering to his diety. The paladin should have allowed one shot each so the wyverns would have been awake but not dead so there would be a valid hunt. I like tea and cofee, but I don't mess with the wacky tobaccee. Find the favorite plant of a god of peace and make some tea from that.
Maybe take away the paladin's powers for that one day to teach them a lesson and have a minor servant of their diety visit their dreams to explain.
TriOmegaZero (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber), Thursday, 08:16 PM
Goth Guru wrote:
Maybe take away the paladin's powers for that one day to teach them a lesson and have a minor servant of their diety visit their dreams to explain.
Curious. What lesson would be taught by that?
That they should not wait till later to justify their actions. It does not reflect well on their deity. Promising to find and let their friends sell the young wyverns to someone who would train them for riding, without keeping any of the money themselves, would end the penalty as a valid penance.
I came here for help/advice as I was unsure about something with regards to something that I volunteer my time into doing for my friends... because guess what I am not a phisophy major like apparently many people on these furoms are, and I was unsure about my ruling.
And what do I get for my troubles,
I get called an idiot, and insulted/flamed at. I get told that I should probably stop dming because I apparently don't hold up to some high standard of dming that some people have here even though I also have other priorities in my life. Some people made some comment that I don't have any wisdom/intelligence, and if something like this ever happened to them they would quit my game. I'm am truly surprised with how much hate has been thrown in my direction as if I have done something criminal or something that morally wrong. Jeez guys not even the paladin in question has said something to me that has been remotely hateful, and we both came up with a reasonable solution that we are both somewhat content with.When I said the paladin was metagaming, that's exactly what it was as he said "These wyverns are going to attack us when we come back, as that always happens when we play dnd" -He was generalizing all the games his played in (including the ones where I was a player or was not present at), and made a decision based on that. The paladin player is always very paranoid about everything and always assumes the worst will happen. He makes decision based on being paranoid as a player and not based on his experiences with the game that he is currently playing or based on the experiences based on the character. After that he then began to whine as to how the game is designed to punish them even though he lacked any knowledge as to what was currently surrounding him or what he was getting into.
I am the primary offending party, and from what I saw at the time: A Gm making a paladin _FALL_ (which was the original issue) in an AP I have played, on a check I know to be next to impossible. It looked like you set him up and screwed him over for good. Which is one of my absolutely reddest buttons. I have played with several bad GMs, but from what I saw, that looked downright spiteful. The Int/Wis thing was more general, I still stand by the notion that some people are just not meant to GM. There are tons of nightmare-stories out there, and most of us know just the kind of people I am talking about.
We agreed to disagree, and understood that alignment is a big headache and that it is mostly based on opinion/interpretation. I gave him a "slap on the hand" instead of stripping him of all his powers and took his spells away until he atoned, but he kepted his lay on hands ability and his smite for the rest of the day until he atones, he said that it was more fair in his view as he did not want to be severly crippled while finishing the end of chapter in an AdventurePath. (I also know that stripping him of his powers completely will most likely get the party TPK'd which is not my goal). He also stated that he will be getting a phylactory of faithfulness and thus the onus is on me to remind him of anything if it comes up. I also gave him a list things not to do after the 2nd session that we started playing our current campaign of Kingmaker many months ago. I feel that he chose to ignore the part where it said "Not to attack helpless foes". I understand that these are general guidelines and I have been leniant with the paladin on multiple occasions in the past, where he almost started a war with a neighboring tribe AGAINST the parties' wishes.
I see you do not fit my initial perception of you, and for that I am glad. I am sorry for the gravity of my verbal onslaught, and wish you and your players good luck with the remainder of Kingmaker. Part 6 is especially awesome. Oh, btw, is the paladin character the ruler?
sir_shajir: For what it's worth, I still think you made the right call. I am not a fanatic, and I can see why you would choose not to strip te paladin of his powers too. And if you do get kidnapped by the haters here, rest assured that I would come rescue you with serious firepower. After all, I know they find "removing a potential threat through lethal force" to be a good act - not even they could object to being shot dead in that situation. =)
Oh, and they're not philosophy majors. If they were, they would have a harder time accepting the current propaganda talk to justify stripping away all civil rights.
honorEven in medieval times people used ranged attacks. I guess that is why I am failing to see where the concept of "not melee=dishonor". The cavalier from the early 80's was the only class that disdained use of a bow.Yep, it was used in medieval times. It was also used in ancient times. Chariot archers 3000 BC in egypt, someone?
That does _NOT_ mean that anybody considered it honorable. As said, it's part of warfare, it's there. It's necessary, because if only one side takes advantage, well.
Also, ask Parthian Horse Archers whats more important, their life or their honor?
The efficiency and existance never were questioned. But it was never(except for the Japan example...and that was 1v1 duels, not full out warfare), to my knowledge, seen as an honorable form of combat.
There _IS_ little honor in war.
Much like shooting fish in a barrel.
The main problem, i think, was that you tried to "protect yourself" by staying out of the danger zone, while still trying to kill the less cowardly melee combatants. It's smart, it's efficient. But thats got nothing to do with being honorable.
When have armies not used ranged weapons(other than before they existed), and if everyone thinks they are dishonorable how hard is it to get everyone to agree not to do so. Are reach weapons also dishonorable? Is it dishonorable to use superior weapons such as steel vs bronze? Is it dishonorable to fight when you have someone outnumbered? I could go on, but you get the point.
As for no front line someone has to do it. The not being smart enough comment was me saying that many times one commander figured out the strategic advantage of holding a certain location before another did. It could have luck instead of being smart, but to give up an advantage does not make you more honorable.
Some of us barely passed in High school must less college. Mr. Fishy is a tradesmen.
Education is someone else telling you what to think. Learning is something you choose to do to be a better you. Never let the opinions of others determine your value.
Unless it's Mr. Fishy, he has a Fan Club...[shameless plug]
Damned it Smurfed! Damn it twice Smurfette!
With the new information, thanks for posting OP, the pally is indeed wrong, but not for killing a sleeping wyvern, but for doing so without provocation(a good reason from a character PoV). I would still kill a sleeping enemy if I knew it to be a threat.
I am the primary offending party, and from what I saw at the time: A Gm making a paladin _FALL_ (which was the original issue) in an AP I have played, on a check I know to be next to impossible....
The Paladin is not the ruler, the party had a vote, and everyone vote for the Bard, as they felt the paladin would be too strict and impose his very strict LG views on the party. The bard on the other hand is CG and they felt that was more suited to the kind of Kingdom they would like to build. The composition of the party was mostly C and good with two CG members (a cleric of Cayden Cailen, and a bard) a druid (CN) and Paladin and LG Cavalier (he didn't want his brother the paladin to be incharge of him, so he voted for the bard out of spite).
I am of the belief that paladins are one of the "stronger" classes in the game, but it comes at a steep price of being honor bound and the paladin code, hence why I would not play a paladin myself.
I've seen really bad RP'er make horrible choices with paladin's and DM's taking thier powers away, it generally makes for bitter players, players leaving tables, or the best one i've seen is a player straight up changing thier character.
I am the primary offending party, and from what I saw at the time: A Gm making a paladin _FALL_ (which was the original issue) in an AP I have played, on a check I know to be next to impossible....The Paladin is not the ruler, the party had a vote, and everyone vote for the Bard, as they felt the paladin would be too strict and impose his very strict LG views on the party. The bard on the other hand is CG and they felt that was more suited to the kind of Kingdom they would like to build. The composition of the party was mostly C and good with two CG members (a cleric of Cayden Cailen, and a bard) a druid (CN) and Paladin and LG Cavalier (he didn't want his brother the paladin to be incharge of him, so he voted for the bard out of spite).
Cool. My game was (and still is) kinda artificial, since one of the players "designed his character for being the ruler", and there was hardly any real debate to it. Wish the council roles were written more into the individual APs though. My players are kinda annoyed that it hardly matter what office they have, beyond pure RP. No rules for spying as the spymaster, modifying city stats with the warden, affecting the establishment of an army for the general etc.
I am of the belief that paladins are one of the "stronger" classes in the game, but it comes at a steep price of being honor bound and the paladin code, hence why I would not play a paladin myself.
I've seen really bad RP'er make horrible choices with paladin's and DM's taking thier powers away, it generally makes for bitter players, players leaving tables, or the best one i've seen is a player straight up changing thier character.
Paladins being stronger? Hmm, I agree on some points. He is a good amalgam between solid magical defense and general combat ability, but not the best at any of the things he does (except getting through obscure DR, which is pretty great). He makes for a good "hero" though, I will give him that.
And yes, there are many bad RP'ers too... I probably have two "bad player" stories for every "bad DM" story >_>
Heh, kinda funny. If the first post was complete with all later knowledge, this thing could likely be 500 posts shorter.
|
I though James said he would never publish any non-evil drow. That does not affect home games of course, but for official purposes I thought all drow were evil.now about your drow statement: it is correct in part. Yes, they must all be killed. But no, there are none that don't deserve to die. in Golarion, when regular elves perform acts of evil that are so vile and irrevocable that they have no chance to ever find the Brightness, they turn into drow.Non-evil drow exist in Golarion canon, actually.
Second Darkness AP, Chapter 1 "Shadow in the Sky," Foreword, page 5:
"The drow of Golarion are not to be trusted. They worship
demons. They’re slavers and sadists. They perform hideous
experiments on innocent victims. The drow are back to
being evil, in other words."
|
|
You may have missed it upthread, but these principles of honor really existed to stop knights from being "beaten up" by commoners. Honor had nothing to do with it.
in a similar way, samurai were the only ones allowed to wear a sword, which resulted in the commoners developing martial arts / karate... so in Europe they passed a law forbidding bows 'cause farmers were a threat with bows; and in the orient they pretty much banned anything so the citizens turned to hand to hand combat to stand up for themselves...
imo the reason Europeans never developed hand to hand combat to the extent the Asians did was because they had the Catholic Church as a power to back them up / defend their rights against the various kings of Europe, but this is a can I don't wanna open on this thread... oops... too late? :P
The Catholic Church in a thread about evil acts? Seems appropriate. :)
*jumps onto THAT can of worms and keeps it closed*
By all that is holy, man! Bring religion into this one as well, and it will be over a 1000 posts long by next morning!
Cool. My game was (and still is) kinda artificial, since one of the players "designed his character for being the ruler", and there was hardly any real debate to it. Wish the council roles were written more into the individual APs though. My players are kinda annoyed that it hardly matter what office they have, beyond pure RP. No rules for spying as the spymaster, modifying city stats with the warden, affecting the establishment of an army for the general etc.
Paladins being stronger? Hmm, I agree on some points. He is a good amalgam between solid magical defense and general combat ability, but not the best at any of the things he does (except getting through obscure DR, which is pretty great). He makes for a good "hero" though, I will give him...
I did some RPing where the king with the assistance of the council, had to determine had to officiate some claims/dispute kind of like King Solomon. If you ever played Dragon Age: Awakening you could take some ideas from that.
The other thing is that the spymaster sometimes goes out to spy on the citizens or goes investigates certain events in Book 2 and does some intel on the loud guy and on the girls to figure out stuff about them.
I do understand what you mean though, but if they put in those rules into the books, it would mean that they would have to remove stuff to make space or charge us more for the content, like that story at the end of the book (the prodical son) is really good. There's also the various history lessons and blurbs on various deities which are fantastic reads.
Do we get to vote now? I vote that this thread is done.
Necromancy is SO misunderstood.
::pouts::
Do we get to vote now? I vote that this thread is done.
Yeah this tread is done.
/end thread???
|
|
Kerym has ranks in Knowledge History and I thank him for his clarifications, this is all great info! I have a few ranks in Knowledge Religion though and I would not be so quick in dismissing the effect of the Church throughout the last 2000 years (turn the other cheek and all that, don't fight back, pay your taxes like a good little boy and for God's sake don't get rich or you won't get into Heaven -- all these 'may' have had also something to do with why rulers passed their powers to their children uncontested and why European fighting techniques fell by the wayside...)
Both guns AND Christianity were exported later to Asia... which could explain why Asian traditions survived a bit longer...
It is amusing that the definition of "honor" some people have here would mean that many a recipient of the Medal of Honor was acting dishonorably.
Which is why each DM must determine what is honorable according to their own definition of honorable.
Or each player with honor restrictions should spell out what they consider honorable for the GM. The paladin code is pretty sketchy on honor (don't lie, don't cheat, don't use poison, "and so forth"). This is how I interpret it:
Don't Lie = I will keep my word. I will do as I say I will do. I will hold the truth in high regard.
Don't Cheat = I will participate in contests in a fair manner. I will be honest in my business dealings.
Don't Use Poison = I will not employ battle tactics that cause undue suffering and cruelty.
These are IMO reasonable interpretations of 'honorable' behavior. An honorable person can still lie or use deception if it is for higher purpose, though he would prefer not to. He won't rig contests unless he has clear proof the other side is doing so (that's leveling the playing field - the preferred tactic is to remove the enemy's unfair advantage). He won't use CON damaging poison, though an arrow that causes the target to fall asleep (aka tranquilizer dart) is warranted if capture is the desired result. The paladin might avoid things like Blinding or Sickening Critical, or Bleeding Attacks as well.
It's the "and so forth" that's going to cause the most trouble. Clearly defining what you consider to be "and so forth", both by the GM and the player, should be done before play starts.
Dammit, why aren't you in my gaming group? And don't use some flimsy excuse like 'geographical distances'. :P
Non-euclidean dimensions, unfortunately.