So a Player Character from a rural community who fails that check has no clue what a cow is?
A cow is a common CR1 creature , that makes it a DC6 knowledge check. Knowledge checks under DC10 can be made untrained. With 3 d20 the highest result is going to be a 15 on average, safe to assume someone is going to make it.Anyhow, my work here is done, we reach 1000...
If your previously stated character background includes a creature, you'd usually get to know what it is. If you've grown up on a farm you're going to know what a cow is, if you were an eskimoe you might not. The thing is that nowhere does the OP state that the paladin was from such a background, like a "wyverns ate my parents" or whatever, so it's safe to assume they were not.
If there is something that you disagree on, you can always invoke rule 0.
If I as a GM think that wyverns are commonplace in this region, then I call that everyone can identify one by sight.
If I think that monsters that always are portrayed as evil and consistently act in a manner that would be considered evil for another sentient being SHOULD be evil, then I can make them evil in my campaigns. And argue endlessly that circumstance should overrule base alignment in extreme cases. Hmm, what could I possibly use as an example? Maybe something like... wyverns, whose base alignment is neutral, living next to an infamous dread lich necromancer's lair, and serving him by impeding, and possibly killing, heroes that would do good. Sure, every OTHER wyvern might not be evil despite acting much like their CE brethren, but wyverns working with the most heinous and vile force of evil in the region on the other hand...
Rule 0. It's even RAW.
just because you asked this to be answered so often, i'll try.stuff
Yeah, I use circumstance modifiers a lot like this. They are meant for handling the special circumstances making the exception that proves the rule.
I typically use them as bonuses to skill checks, but in the case of knowledge checks specifically, you make a great argument for using circumstance modifiers to lower the DC. Lower the DC enough and people can make the check untrained.
If there is something that you disagree on, you can always invoke rule 0.
If I as a GM think that wyverns are commonplace in this region, then I call that everyone can identify one by sight.
And argue endlessly that circumstance should overrule base alignment in extreme cases. Hmm, what could I possibly use as an example? Something like...wyverns, living next to an infamous dread lich necromancer's lair, and serving him by possibly killing, "heroes" that would pillage a tomb. Sure, every OTHER wyvern might not be evil despite acting much like the Paladin, but wyverns working with the most heinous and vile force of evil in the region on the other hand.
Rule 0. It's even RAW.
Were you the DM?
Did you found evidence of the wyverns killing heroes?A pay stub indicating that they work for the "evil Lich"?
So a party of "heroes" murder the guards of a tomb and then ransack the grave of a dead man and you think the Wyverns are evil?
Do you read what you post?
My god..why can't I stop reading this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If there is something that you disagree on, you can always invoke rule 0.
If I as a GM think that wyverns are commonplace in this region, then I call that everyone can identify one by sight.
And argue endlessly that circumstance should overrule base alignment in extreme cases. Hmm, what could I possibly use as an example? Something like...wyverns, living next to an infamous dread lich necromancer's lair, and serving him by possibly killing, "heroes" that would pillage a tomb. Sure, every OTHER wyvern might not be evil despite acting much like the Paladin, but wyverns working with the most heinous and vile force of evil in the region on the other hand.
Rule 0. It's even RAW.
Were you the DM?
Did you found evidence of the wyverns killing heroes?
A pay stub indicating that they work for the "evil Lich"?So a party of "heroes" murder the guards of a tomb and then ransack the grave of a dead man and you think the Wyverns are evil?
Do you read what you post?
Pathfinder Adventure Path #33: The Varnhold Vanishing (Kingmaker 3 of 6) <- This is what the OP was playing, where the scenario takes place exactly like I have been saying the entire time. But I guess it bears recitation: Wyverns have killed people, you find proof in their nest, they know the lich is there, what he has done, and that previous heroes have failed. The wyverns are allowed to live where they do by the lich since they serve him well enough as guards, he doesn't PAY them except for letting them keep whatever they take off the dead knights and adventurers that come, plus their lives. And before someone even asks: Yes, the lich definitely knows about them, as he has a scrying artifact BESIDE his immense magical powers, and is well aware of all that goes on for several dozen miles around his lair.
And yes, I have GM'ed this one. My players are finishing up part 4; Blood for Blood soon.
But sure, we could for the sake of debate say that the OP _could_ have re-made the entire AP, and made the lich a magical sentient cake, the wyverns his narcoleptic side-kicks, and the players cast of a traveling troupe performing "The Death of Civilized Debate - The Abridged Version for Shoggoths" what do I know? I mean, it is not like he came back some hundred posts back and said he was running the AP more or less faithfully...
OH WAIT, HE DID! We even discussed the adventure path, our parties and how we each ran the kingdoms and whatnot.
Oh wow, how embarrassing...
*smurfs a new page*
kudos for teh pagesmurfing
Pathfinder Adventure Path #33: The Varnhold Vanishing (Kingmaker 3 of 6) <- This is what the OP was playing, where the scenario takes place exactly like I have been saying the entire time. But I guess it bears recitation: Wyverns have killed people, you find proof in their nest,
Do you read what you post?
The Nest that requires a perception DC 30+ check to see?
They know the lich is there, what he has done, and that previous heroes have failed. The wyverns are allowed to live where they do by the lich since they serve him well enough as guards, he doesn't PAY them except for letting them keep whatever they take off the dead knights and adventurers that come, plus their lives.
And before someone even asks: Yes, the lich definitely knows about them, as he has a scrying artifact BESIDE his immense magical powers, and is well aware of all that goes on for several dozen miles around his lair.[/b]
Does the paladin have a scrying artifact too?
And yes, I have GM'ed this one.
So you known that the paladin could not known about the bones in the nest. The wyverns were attacked by bows so the party was not in the nest until after the attack.
Also was the encounter presented as a AP or as a stand alone scenario in which a paladin acted without cause. Mr. Fishy does not remember the AP being mentioned until YOU brought it up.
In the context of an AP the scenario may be different than presented. However the paladin acted in a way unbecoming a Paladin and was punished.
Spit, curse, moan, the fact remains the paladin acted against a sleeping opponent and the DM taged him for it. Mr. Fishy wasn't there and neither were you.
Mr. Fishy is sorry that you are embrassed.
Ring Ring
Ring Ring
Are you never going to give me up? Are you never going to let me down? Are you never going to run around and desert me?
Are you never going to give me up? Are you never going to let me down? Are you never going to run around and desert me?Ring Ring
Not really my style..
Also was the encounter presented as a AP or as a stand alone scenario in which a paladin acted without cause. Mr. Fishy does not remember the AP being mentioned until YOU brought it up.
In the context of an AP the scenario may be different than presented. However the paladin acted in a way unbecoming a Paladin and was punished.
Spit, curse, moan, the fact remains the paladin acted against a sleeping opponent and the DM taged him for it. Mr. Fishy wasn't there and neither were you.
By the gods! That has been the WHOLE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT from the beginning! I am NOT sifting through over a thousand posts to find it again, but damn... do you really think me so backwards that I argue the aspects of same scenario over and over, across gods know how many pages of posts, if it were not relevant?
IF the scenario was taken in a vacuum, where the paladin came across two completely unrelated wyverns, and had nothing riding on a decision to kill them in order to succeed in a quest of exceptional important, I WOULD ALSO SMACK THE PALADINS WRIST!
But the CONTEXT changes things, and the wyverns in THAT CONTEXT were cruel man-eating monsters willingly providing a service for an evil lich necromancer that just abducted half a village, devoted to the paladin's deity, and killed the rest.
G!#~@@n. Tell me you're trolling me or something.
Also was the encounter presented as a AP or as a stand alone scenario in which a paladin acted without cause. Mr. Fishy does not remember the AP being mentioned until YOU brought it up.
In the context of an AP the scenario may be different than presented. However the paladin acted in a way unbecoming a Paladin and was punished.
Spit, curse, moan, the fact remains the paladin acted against a sleeping opponent and the DM taged him for it. Mr. Fishy wasn't there and neither were you.By the gods! That has been the WHOLE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT from the beginning! I am NOT sifting through over a thousand posts to find it again, but damn... do you really think me so backwards that I argue the aspects of same scenario over and over, across gods know how many pages of posts, if it were not relevant?
IF the scenario was taken in a vacuum, where the paladin came across two completely unrelated wyverns, and had nothing riding on a decision to kill them in order to succeed in a quest of exceptional important, I WOULD ALSO SMACK THE PALADINS WRIST!
But the CONTEXT changes things, and the wyverns in THAT CONTEXT were cruel man-eating monsters willingly providing a service for an evil lich necromancer that just abducted half a village, devoted to the paladin's deity, and killed the rest.
G~*+#~n. Tell me you're trolling me or something.
I think his point was, that the Paladin had no way of knowing that. He hadn't checked the nest, hadn't heard stories of the wyvern's attacking anyone. Nobody had entered the nest or found it yet. So, to the best of the Paladin's in character knowledge, the wyvern's were not an immediate threat, but the player metagamed (possibly having read the module ahead of time, another reason I don't use aps) and decided to kill them without any in character reason to.
Actions have to be looked at based on what the character knew at the time, not what the situation actually was.
Also was the encounter presented as a AP or as a stand alone scenario in which a paladin acted without cause. Mr. Fishy does not remember the AP being mentioned until YOU brought it up.
In the context of an AP the scenario may be different than presented. However the paladin acted in a way unbecoming a Paladin and was punished.
Spit, curse, moan, the fact remains the paladin acted against a sleeping opponent and the DM taged him for it. Mr. Fishy wasn't there and neither were you.By the gods! That has been the WHOLE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT from the beginning! I am NOT sifting through over a thousand posts to find it again, but damn... do you really think me so backwards that I argue the aspects of same scenario over and over, across gods know how many pages of posts, if it were not relevant?
IF the scenario was taken in a vacuum, where the paladin came across two completely unrelated wyverns, and had nothing riding on a decision to kill them in order to succeed in a quest of exceptional important, I WOULD ALSO SMACK THE PALADINS WRIST!
But the CONTEXT changes things, and the wyverns in THAT CONTEXT were cruel man-eating monsters willingly providing a service for an evil lich necromancer that just abducted half a village, devoted to the paladin's deity, and killed the rest.
G$@*$$n. Tell me you're trolling me or something.
I think his point was, that the Paladin had no way of knowing that. He hadn't checked the nest, hadn't heard stories of the wyvern's attacking anyone. Nobody had entered the nest or found it yet. So, to the best of the Paladin's in character knowledge, the wyvern's were not an immediate threat, but the player metagamed (possibly having read the module ahead of time, another reason I don't use aps) and decided to kill them without any in character reason to.
Actions have to be looked at based on what the character knew at the time, not what the situation actually was.
I stated in an earlier post that the players can hardly get here before they discover the fate of the village, puzzle together the context, learn of the lich and the terror he brings, and then find themselves in a situation where a wyvern-attack spells doom rather swiftly.
But yes, extract that, insert a pair of sleeping non-evil sentient beings that present neither threat nor obvious connection to an overwhelming evil, and you have a different scenario. And THEN I agree; the paladin is stepping out of bounds, and doing what cooks down to a breach of the code.
But the paladin in the OP's case, being part of this particular AP, did NOT do wrong as long as OP played the AP as written. The argument was "metagame" and that was not good enough to me. I am used to players hiveminding and having full knowledge of the spellcasters' abilities, down to the spells they have prepared. But yes, pot-ey-to/pot-AH-to.
Knowledge (Int; Trained Only)You are educated in one field of study and are capable of answering both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of unrelated skills. Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.
The Knowledge skill represents a study of some sort of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline, it does not represent the knowledge inherent to a person, gained through day-to-day life, communication, and what he picks up from various people and places as Common Knowledge.
Check
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
I see this but seriously does any DM require his or her PC's to roll the appropriate Knowledge check each time they encounter something as common as a dwarf or a goblin, for the first time in the game, to identify it?
If you are going to answer, no, because it is assumed that they already knows what a dwarf og a goblin is because they have seen it before, then you are only supporting a point I have been trying to get across. I would even make the assumption that children in fantasy worlds plays with wooden toys that depict various monsters, and books at that time were rich with illustrations. You could argue that only monks read books, well are monks the same thing in Golarion as in Medieval Europe. No. That was another one of my points.
_______________________________________________________________________
What makes you think that gods don't speak to mortals in our world? MAybe he just doesn't speak to you. Maybe he does, but you don't know how to listen. The crazy part is that you cannot prove that my god doesn't talk to me in our world.The gods of Golaron don't speak to everyone. Clerics and other divine casters are fairly rare. So for the common people, I suspect religion and church are not all that much different from the way they are here.
One of my friends actually DM a world just like that where the majority of clergy were tricksters who used slight of hand, arcane magic, and technology to fake religion. The average commoner couldn't tell the difference between that and an actual divine magic user.
Clerics are the warrior-priests of Golarion. They seek to spread their faith through conviction, words, and in some cases, war. Unlike the normal practitioners of religion, even regular priests, the cleric is actually connected to their deity through prayer and practice. They receive training in the basics of war at the same time they learn to channel the influence of their deity.Religion is everywhere and likewise are the clerics. From the lowliest hamlet to the largest metropolis, all creatures maintain shrines and temples and have some modicum of faith. Where there is faith there is a cleric to maintain and spread that faith.
Only the most dedicated of clerics spread their religion beyond their home region. The call of adventure is a good way to spread word of ones faith, but is also a quick path to the grave. Most adventuring clerics are of good or neutral deities, seeking to combat evil or maliciousness wherever it arises. Evil clerics are more rare - a church founded on evil is rarely united, and chaotic evil churches even less so. Nonetheless, evil clerics are particularly feared throughout Golarion, if only as portends of the actions of much greater evil.
And about what you said about I don't know if your god speaks directly to you, I am pretty sure I do. I'm pretty sure it's just your big ego, if you think your god speaks directly to you.
_______________________________________________________________________
this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:I did not say co-existed in peace...
If they are near each other, they will fight until one side is dead. For them to have co-existed for that long implies they don't exactly live next door to each other. Which implies that wyvern sighting probably are not exactly a common occurance.
Because if there were some wyverns living in the area, and they were preying on livestock, how long until the town pools its money together and pays some adventurers to get rid of them? Or insist that their leige do something about this scourge upon their land?
If wyvern attacks are a common occurance, then eventually, someone is going to kill the wyverns. At that point, the wyverns become just a memory. Another story told around the campfire to scare the kids. "Oh look grandpa's drunk again and telling stories about how he helped kill this dragon thing called a wyvern, someone really should keep him out of the firewater"
It is clear to me you like low-fantasy. In a standard fantasy world I would assume that monsters and civilization are relative close to each other, especially because of the various Encounter Tables for various fantasy world regions I have seen over the years.
In another post you said:
this guy ate my previous avatar wrote:
Since a fantasy world is so much more than just medieval Europe, wouldn't the people inhabiting it know so much more than the people who inhabited medieval Europe?Sure, but it doesn't make much of a difference. It is the technology level that sets the average ignorance level.
Unless you are building a fantasy world where magic is common enough to the point where instand communication is considered normal, and people have magical picture frames in their homes(and thus don't have to rely on verbal descriptions), etc.
If you have a high enough technogy(or magic) level, then mass education becomes feasable. Barring something like that, I don't see how the world of pathfinder would be that different from earth 500-1000 years ago. Hell, 500 years on earth people were sitting around the fire telling stories about unicorns, dragons, etc. That alone sould tell you how reliable the common lore was.
It seems you have a hard time imagining f.
Actually human intelligence has been the same for many centuries, regardless of technology, and in a standard fantasy world I feel it safe to fairly assume that magic is pretty common, especially in Golarion:
Magic is force utilized by many of Golarion's inhabitants. It is practiced in many different forms and shapes, with different ends and abilities, but it is all characterised, usually by the use of words of power, and the extra-caster production of some super natural effect, be it arcane or divine in nature. Magic allows the caster to cast a spell.
I don't see how they (the people of a community in your case scenario) would be able to kill off a whole race of creatures (in the case scenario you put up), especially not flying ones, without magical means.
Another point I must make here is There Needs To Be Balance. If there are dragons, monsters, evil mages and all that stuff, there needs to be their equals in power in humanoid communities, or monsters would rule and none-evil humanoids would be non-existent.
And about what you said about I don't know if your god speaks directly to you, I am pretty sure I do. I'm pretty sure it's just your big ego, if you think your god speaks directly to you.
Wow, you have been holding out on me big time....
You have irrefutable proof about the existance(or lack there of) of a divine being and you haven't been sharing?
Check Wikipedia, roughly 11% of the worlds population is Atheist. This includes the sects of certain religions that believe there are no gods. That means roughly 89% of the worlds population is either a believer or agnostic. Agnostic allows for the existence of the divine, while believers are just that they believe that the divine exists. So 5.3 billion people believe in some form of diety or at the very least think that they may exist.
This is a world where the gods of the world speak directly to and through the mortals am I wrong?
Unless I am off the mark, your implication is that this doesn't happen in our world? So you are right and 5.3 billion people are are wrong, and I am the one with a big ego?
What would you say if I told you I think God talks to everyone, but most people, myself included, really don't want to listen?
Charender, what you are right about is the fact that he can't prove that your god doesn't talk to you, but you can't prove that there is a god talking to everybody either. You and this guy ate my previous avatar are both stupid for having a religion argument. Of course, I guess it's not too surprising based on all the silly turns this thread has been through. -_-
It is clear to me you like low-fantasy. In a standard fantasy world I would assume that monsters and civilization are relative close to each other, especially because of the various Encounter Tables for various fantasy world regions I have seen over the years.
Not at all. I prefer a variety. I also play in lots of different settings.
I get the feeling you are not a big fan of dark fantasy settings.
It seems you have a hard time imagining f.
Actually human intelligence has been the same for many centuries, regardless of technology, and in a standard fantasy world I feel it safe to fairly assume that magic is pretty common, especially in
No, I am just more cynical that you. We have the internet. A massive information hose. With a little time and effort, you can learn about anything your heart desires. What do most people do with this amazing piece of technology? The number one internet destination is *drumroll* porn. (Disclaimer: I do it too, so please don't think I am saying I am better than anyone else)
If magic were suddenly available in our world, my bet is that the first spell cast would be charm person to get a piece of tail. The drive to procreate is one of the stronger desires of the human psyche. You can take the man out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the man.
To me what makes the hero heroic is that they rise above those baser human instincts. The put their life on the line for their fellow man when most people just look the other way or assume someone else will handle the problem. YMMV.
I don't see how they (the people of a community in your case scenario) would be able to kill off a whole race of creatures (in the case scenario you put up), especially not flying ones, without magical means.
A. you don't have to kill off the entire race, just the ones that are encroaching on your settlement. Wyverns are not stupid, after a while they will learn that the wyverns that hunt in certain area dissappear or end up dead. That is exactly how they know to avoid the dragons as well. I am sure that like wolves and other predators, wyverns know that a large groups of humans is trouble. The ones that aren't that smart end up dead.
B. Lure the flying creature into a trap, like a canyon, then ambush it for one. I have no doubt that when their lives and livelyhood are on the line, people get very creative.
Another point I must make here is There Needs To Be Balance. If there are dragons, monsters, evil mages and all that stuff, there needs to be their equals in power in humanoid communities, or monsters would rule and non-evil humanoids would be non-existent.
Those are balance and game mechanics considerations. Those are important, but when traveling through a fantasy world, if you come across something that is there for blatantly balance or rules reasons it kills the suspension of disbelief.
I try really hard to make my world as organic as possible. That means I weave my group's beliefs about the nature of mankind while trying to be a consistant about the rules as possible. That is the job of a DM. It is not just about telling a story. You have to tell a story that your group actually wants to hear.
And about what you said about I don't know if your god speaks directly to you, I am pretty sure I do. I'm pretty sure it's just your big ego, if you think your god speaks directly to you.
Wow, you have been holding out on me big time....
You have irrefutable proof about the existance(or lack there of) of a divine being and you haven't been sharing?
Check Wikipedia, roughly 11% of the worlds population is Atheist. This includes the sects of certain religions that believe there are no gods. That means roughly 89% of the worlds population is either a believer or agnostic. Agnostic allows for the existence of the divine, while believers are just that they believe that the divine exists. So 5.3 billion people believe in some form of diety or at the very least think that they may exist.
This is a world where the gods of the world speak directly to and through the mortals am I wrong?
Unless I am off the mark, your implication is that this doesn't happen in our world? So you are right and 5.3 billion people are are wrong, and I am the one with a big ego?
What would you say if I told you I think God talks to everyone, but most people, myself included, really don't want to listen?
I must hand it to you, you are very good at wriggling, when you are beaten in an argument.
If you want to debate real world religion take it to that thread. I try to stay away from that thread, as I don't like heated religious discussions. Religious people tend to hold faith over facts. But if you really want to go there, I suppose we could.
Be prepared that I was raised as an atheist but encouraged to learn about a variety of religions. Religions are easy to defend with "that is what I believe and you cannot make me change that" when arguments show their weak points.
Charender, what you are right about is the fact that he can't prove that your god doesn't talk to you, but you can't prove that there is a god talking to everybody either. You and this guy ate my previous avatar are both stupid for having a religion argument. Of course, I guess it's not too surprising based on all the silly turns this thread has been through. -_-
Meh, if the threadjack keeps us off the original topic, the ends justify the means no?
It is clear to me you like low-fantasy. In a standard fantasy world I would assume that monsters and civilization are relative close to each other, especially because of the various Encounter Tables for various fantasy world regions I have seen over the years.
Not at all. I prefer a variety. I also play in lots of different settings.
I get the feeling you are not a big fan of dark fantasy settings.
[/QOUTE]Since when did dark fantasy mean that everyone but the adventurers are ignorant?
Maybe it is because you think everyone around you are ignorant compared to you, and you transfer that belief into your game world. I don't know. Just a guess.
It seems you have a hard time imagining f.
Actually human intelligence has been the same for many centuries, regardless of technology, and in a standard fantasy world I feel it safe to fairly assume that magic is pretty common, especially in
No, I am just more cynical that you. We have the internet. A massive information hose. With a little time and effort, you can learn about anything your heart desires. What do most people do with this amazing piece of technology? The number one internet destination is *drumroll* porn. (Disclaimer: I do it too, so please don't think I am saying I am better than anyone else)
If magic were suddenly available in our world, my bet is that the first spell cast would be charm person to get a piece of tail. The drive to procreate is one of the stronger desires of the human psyche. You can take the man out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the man.
To me what makes the hero heroic is that they rise above those baser human instincts. The put their life on the line for their fellow man when most people just look the other way or assume someone else will handle the problem. YMMV.
Ok. I feel indifferent about you feeling more cynical than me.
What there is to know is what knowledge that is available about the relevant world. What is to stop someone who wants to know alot and spread that knowledge in a fantasy world that has magic?
I don't disagree with the thing about porn, castin charm person and heroes, but it is avoiding/wriggling away from the points I made. Compare the words in bold in the Pathfinder quotes with the words in bold in the Charender quotes.
I don't see how they (the people of a community in your case scenario) would be able to kill off a whole race of creatures (in the case scenario you put up), especially not flying ones, without magical means.
A. you don't have to kill off the entire race, just the ones that are encroaching on your settlement. Wyverns are not stupid, after a while they will learn that the wyverns that hunt in certain area dissappear or end up dead. That is exactly how they know to avoid the dragons as well. I am sure that like wolves and other predators, wyverns know that a large groups of humans is trouble. The ones that aren't that smart end up dead.
B. Lure the flying creature into a trap, like a canyon, then ambush it for one. I have no doubt that when their lives and livelyhood are on the line, people get very creative.
Oh, but you did say that if they co-existed the humans would have killed them off and then they would be memory, and some more about a grandpa and a child.
Quote:Another point I must make here is There Needs To Be Balance. If there are dragons, monsters, evil mages and all that stuff, there needs to be their equals in power in humanoid communities, or monsters would rule and non-evil humanoids would be non-existent.
Those are balance and game mechanics considerations. Those are important, but when traveling through a fantasy world, if you come across something that is there for blatantly balance or rules reasons it kills the suspension of disbelief.
I try really hard to make my world as organic as possible. That means I weave my group's beliefs about the nature of mankind while trying to be a consistant about the rules as possible. That is the job of a DM. It is not just about telling a story. You have to tell a story that your group actually wants to hear.
Previous to this statement it seemed to me that you were more the balance and game mechanics kind of guy and not the suspension of disbelief type of guy.
About you making your world as organic as possible, admirable.
Telling me what the job of a DM is, unnescesary.
Since when did dark fantasy mean that everyone but the adventurers are ignorant?
Maybe it is because you think everyone around you are ignorant compared to you, and you transfer that belief into your game world. I don't know. Just a guess.
And you project you religious beliefs into your game world.
I believe in the existance of gods here, and thus our world wouldn't be all that different from a fantasy world with a diverse pantheon.
You believe that god doesn't exist here and thus a fantasy world with gods would be very different from our world.
Your point is that we all have biases? I never claimed otherwise.
My only claim is that my view on in game knowledge is pretty well supported by the pathfinder RAW. You know things your character has had first hand experience with. Anything else requires a knowledge check. The average commoner isn't going to know about wyverns without either ranks in knowledge(arcana) or a large amount of circumstance bonuses(enough to lower the 16 DC to a 10 or less). You seems to believe that there is this big pool of common knowledge that everyone knows. That is fine and great, but it isn't supported by the RAW.
Ok. I feel indifferent about you feeling more cynical than me.What there is to know is what knowledge that is available about the relevant world. What is to stop someone who wants to know alot and spread that knowledge in a fantasy world that has magic?
I don't disagree with the thing about porn, castin charm person and heroes, but it is avoiding/wriggling away from the points I made. Compare the words in bold in the Pathfinder quotes with the words in bold in the Charender quotes.
It is not so much wiggling as acknowleding fundamental differences in our world views. I take those same pathfinder quotes you mention, I combine them with my fundamental perspective on humanity, and I get a fantasy world where religious charalatians abound just like our world. Yes, there are true clerics that wield the power of the gods, but they are a minority. The guy with a holy symbol is just as likely to be hedge wizard faking miracles with his magic or a rogue using slight of hand and heal potions to swindle people as he is to be an actual cleric. How exactly would a commoner know the difference between a cleric casting cure light wounds, and a rogue using a magic item that duplicates the effect? Spellcraft check?
In my worlds, the guy running around spreading the knowledges will be met with skepticism and indifference. Many people won't care. "A wyvern is some kind of dragon, ok nice, what does that have to do with the price of tea on the open market?" Some people will be skeptical or even cling to their incorrect beliefs. "Well my uncle Jed told me a Wyvern has 6 heads and if you kill one more grow back, and I think my Uncle Jed is smarter than you." That is the kind of world me and my players enjoy, because it falls more in line with our views of humanity. You and your players obviously view humanity differently, and thus you end up with a very different fantasy world.
I believe a lot of people are willfully ignorant and selfish. They don't know much, they don't want to learn, and they are too lazy to get around to helping others. That is a fundamental part of my world view, and that belief about humanity gets projected into my gaming worlds.
If I want a happy, feel good gaming world, I make the average person less ignorant, selfish, and lazy. If I want a grim and dark gaming world, I make them even more so. The major difference is that my default setting is several steps lower on the grim and dark settings that yours. As I said, it seems like I have less faith in humanity than you do.
Previous to this statement it seemed to me that you were more the balance and game mechanics kind of guy and not the suspension of disbelief type of guy.About you making your world as organic as possible, admirable.
Telling me what the job of a DM is, unnescesary.
It can't be both? My players want rules and world consistancy quite possible more than anything else. Changing the rules on the fly doesn't sit well with them because it reminds them that it is a game with subjective rules, unlike our world when the laws of physics and such are not subject to change. Thus, I have to know the rules, and make sure that any slight of hand that I might be doing to keep the game moving stays hidden from the players. Since several of my players also know the rules very well, the best way to accomplish this is by adhereing as close to the letter of the rules rules as I can and using the grey areas of the rules to hide my slight of hand.
As for telling you about DMing. That is what I believe DMing is about. I put it out there for comparative purposes. It sounds like you mostly agree. I have been in groups that are more interested in tactical fights than roleplaying and combat. That requires a very different philosophy on DMing.
I wonder how the heck a fantasy world with less wyverns is more grim and dark...
But that is just a sidenote. What I really want to ask you now is, on what exactly do you base the assumption that your gaming world is more grim and dark than mine?..
From my perspective, a world where the average person is ignorant, selfish and greedy, is just less character driven, since it really limits interaction with NPCs.
You say that I project my religious beliefs into your game world. Nope. I don't. One thing I think that's great about fantasy game world pantheons, is that they are often way more appealing to me than the real world religions.
An being raised as an atheist, does not nescesarily mean that I don't believe in god. Might be I just don't believe in the religions.
My only claim is the average person must know some things about the world that they live in without a Knowledge skill, since a Knowledge skill stated in RAW represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.
G~%@~+n. Tell me you're trolling me or something.
Mr. Fishy was not trolling you. You were trolling you.
Mr. Fishy was argueing a point with composure and passion,. It was never Mr. Fishy intent to "troll" you. However Mr. Fishy is very good at pushing buttons. Mr. Fishy apoligizes if he upset you. Mr. Fishy was merely post a counter point to yours.
A piece of advice, Never someone make you angry. Every thing that Mr. Fishy post is from Mr. Fishy and everything that you post back is to Mr. Fishy. So no insult real or perceived is directed at the man behind the fishy.
For what it's worth Mr. Fishy understood your point. He didn't agree but he admits it did have value.
>To a worthy opponent Mr. Fishy salutes you.<
TIER FISHY!
Mr. Fishy is the only reason to ever look at threads with more than three pages.
Check Wikipedia, roughly 11% of the worlds population is Atheist. This includes the sects of certain religions that believe there are no gods. That means roughly 89% of the worlds population is either a believer or agnostic. Agnostic allows for the existence of the divine, while believers are just that they believe that the divine exists. So 5.3 billion people believe in some form of diety or at the very least think that they may exist.
Sorry for going off-topic for a short moment, but since the thread doesn't go anywhere I don't think there's much harm in it.
Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism/theism in itself. It's not that you're either theist, atheist or agnostic, because they are stances on different things.
Atheism/theism are stances towards the belief in one or more gods. The question is "Do you believe in a god?". If you answer yes to this, you are theist. If you don't, you're you're an atheist.
Agnosticism is a stance on the knowledge of god. The question is "Is it possible to know if god(s) exist?".
So an agnostic is either a theist (I don't know if god(s) exists, but I believe he/they do) or an atheist (We can't know if god(s) exists, and since I have no way of knowing, there is no god which I believe in).
There's a common misunderstanding that atheism is the stance of "there is no god", but it's rather the stance of "there is no god in which I believe". EDIT: A quote (probably somewhat inaccurate) from someone with higher INT than me: "The only difference between an atheist and a christian is the belief in a single god out of thousands both lack belief in"
I also don't know how accurate that wiki article is, since I'm a swede and know in a study some years ago, 8% where believing christians, 1% believing muslims, and about 1% total on other major religions, so I think 90% would be atheistic in sweden (or close to; at least I don't think 5% believe in a god that isn't part of the major religions).
EDIT: I'm not trying to start a debate on religion/faith here, I'm just trying to explain the terminology.
Every village has some manner of shrine, and every shrine have some manner of priest. Makes perfect sense in a world where the gods are not only REAL, but govern the aspects of day-to-day life. Point me out a farming community that does NOT have at least a shrine to Erastil, the patron god of hunters, farmers and rural life in general. The farmers NEED one to ask for a good harvest, make their offerings, get their sick tended and whatnot. And a cleric of Erastil is, by dogmatic law, required to guide and assist his flock, and should thus learn of local dangers, so his community might better deal with them (IE: Relevant knowledge ranks, as the cleric has most of them, and Erastil offers domains that allow you to get Nature as well)
In the real world, the gods do jack and poop, and STILL nearly every community have a place of worship. Arguing that there would not be one in a fantasy setting where the gods ACTUALLY listen to your prayers and decide important aspects of your life, and their holy men can magically cure your ailments... is quite breathtakingly silly in my book.
inb4: "YOUR OPINIONS!"
<@><@> blinks
Ok, not touching this.
PS. Just watch dumb show about Kracken's... Can a paladin even get to the bottom of the ocean (cold, pressure), to kill a kracken in its sleep.
Maybe i should become a kracken.... might be saver than being a wyvern :D
I wonder how the heck a fantasy world with less wyverns is more grim and dark...
But that is just a sidenote. What I really want to ask you now is, on what exactly do you base the assumption that your gaming world is more grim and dark than mine?..
I never said my world had more or less wyverns. I just said that the average person is more greedy, ignorant, and self-centered. Meaning that no one knows about wyverns. It is darker because there is more mystery to the players. Creatures don't seem as dangerous when you can put a name to them. If my level 5 players came across a dragon-like creature, they would be wary, but the moment they knew it was a wyvern they would change their tune to "Oh, hey, this is a wyvern, a level appropiate encounter, we can handle this".
From my perspective, a world where the average person is ignorant, selfish and greedy, is just less character driven, since it really limits interaction with NPCs.
So you have run a world like that and know what it is like? or are you just imagining what it would be like?
I find it creates more interesting NPC, because everyone has ulterior motives for helping the players, and the player can't always be sure they are being told the unvarnished truth. The Sense Motive skill gets a hell of a workout.
You say that I project my religious beliefs into your game world. Nope. I don't. One thing I think that's great about fantasy game world pantheons, is that they are often way more appealing to me than the real world religions.
Whatever you want to believe.
An being raised as an atheist, does not nescesarily mean that I don't believe in god. Might be I just don't believe in the religions.
So you admit that the divine may exist in our world? My work here is done.
For the record, I can't stand organized religion or rigid dogma.
My only claim is the average person must know some things about the world that they live in without a Knowledge skill, since a Knowledge skill stated in RAW represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.
Yes and if you have 0 ranks in knowledge(nature) then you have never spent any significant amount of time studying that specific field of knowledge. That is why you are considered to be untrained in that field.
Most of the other skills are either trained or untrained usage, but the knowledge skill lets you make a certain subset of checks untrained for just this reason. You don't have to have specifically studied plants and animals to make a DC10 knowledge(nature) check, because the rules spell out that anyone can make that check even if you have no training whatsoever.
The DC to identify a common plant like say a oak tree is DC 5. Even if you have never studied nature at all, the RAW assumes you can do that. There is nothing in the knowledge skill that says you cannot take a 10, so in my games I assumes that the players are all taking a 10 if taking a 10 would allow them to make the check. But if I had a player who came from the desert(where trees are rare, give them a +10 circumstance penalty to their DC to identify any tree), they wouldn't be able to ID an oak tree unless they had ranks in knowledge(nature). After they had traveled a while and seen the world, the circumstance penalty would decrease. This is all compatible with the RAW.
Great. The forums ate my post. Lovely. Wanted to point out that I am not spending more time arguing someone who refuses to take my honesty and comprehension of an AP at face value, and demand I reprint the entire thing, and might not even THEN be satisfied. And offer victory pie for pigheadedness.
Bulletin points:
- Religion stuff, example of exception: Exception. Just like how Numeria have LAZORS, Alkenstar have flintlocks, while the rest of the world still use bows and swords. Every other pre-generated town or village I have ever seen in Golarion have a place of worship.
- Need to roll perception to spot something you know is there? Yes, hidden wyverns and assassins both require a successful perception check, regardless of your knowledge that they indeed are there.
- Wyverns are scripted Page 37 Varnhold Vanishing; Vordekai's Tomb Area W3 - Wyverns Bluff (CR 8)
- Paladin not stating that wyverns are in league with lich? Bad RP on players side. My players often go <insert pop-reference> or <insert cartoon or movie quote>.
- Prove stuff: No. Part 2 and 3, which spans almost a dozen pages, is about gathering information, foreshadowing the lich, fighting the minions he sends after you, and finding out where his lair is hidden.
This is where I surrender my pie, because even if I reprint the entire AP, you can probably twist the thing to serve your ends, and that is getting to be such a ridiculous time-wasting tier that I don't think I am prepared to waste the required time just to increase the size of my internet penis.
Great. The forums ate my post. Lovely. Wanted to point out that I am not spending more time arguing someone who refuses to take my honesty and comprehension of an AP at face value, and demand I reprint the entire thing, and might not even THEN be satisfied. And offer victory pie for pigheadedness.
This is where I surrender my pie, because even if I reprint the entire AP, you can probably twist the thing to serve your ends, and that is getting to be such a ridiculous time-wasting tier that I don't think I am prepared to waste the required time just to increase the size of my internet penis.
Mr. Fishy was merely posting a counter point to yours. For what it's worth Mr. Fishy understood your point. He didn't agree but he admits it did have value.
Again Mr. Fishy apologizes if he upset you.
And offer victory pie for pigheadedness.
When did Mr. Fishy offer you pie?
Look at Mr. Fishy's other post and FIND ONE where Mr. Fishy apologizes for anything. Mr. Fishy was willing to call this duel a draw. We both had valid points and could not agree. Again Mr. Fishy salutes his opponent.
"Fight with honor, it pisses off your opponent." Mr. Fishy
Great. The forums ate my post. Lovely. Wanted to point out that I am not spending more time arguing someone who refuses to take my honesty and comprehension of an AP at face value, and demand I reprint the entire thing, and might not even THEN be satisfied. And offer victory pie for pigheadedness.
This is where I surrender my pie, because even if I reprint the entire AP, you can probably twist the thing to serve your ends, and that is getting to be such a ridiculous time-wasting tier that I don't think I am prepared to waste the required time just to increase the size of my internet penis.
Mr. Fishy was merely posting a counter point to yours. For what it's worth Mr. Fishy understood your point. He didn't agree but he admits it did have value.
Again Mr. Fishy apologizes if he upset you.
And offer victory pie for pigheadedness.When did Mr. Fishy offer you pie?
Look at Mr. Fishy's other post and FIND ONE where Mr. Fishy apologizes for anything. Mr. Fishy was willing to call this duel a draw. We both had valid points and could not agree. Again Mr. Fishy salutes his opponent.
"Fight with honor, it pisses off your opponent." Mr. Fishy
Ah, was directed at MordredofFairy. When he demands I reproduce the bulk of an AP in order to "prove" something, I realize that even the AP's author himself would not be able to get through THAT cocoon. There is only so many attempts I care to make on a brick wall before I realize that there is no hidden passage, and I would only hurt my head trying to get through.
So no worries, I am not upset, and I guess the abridged version of a huge post that only I have seen before the forums ate it, makes little sense to others :P
Go to The Cleaves in Homebrew.
For the Paladin...
Teddy Paladin
This adorable teddy bear in shining armor is also a phylactery of faithfulness. When the holder considers something the GM might punish them for, he delivers a small shock (1D4 subdual) and says in his cute little voice, “Oh no, don’t coup de grass sleeping monsters, that’s not nice.”
For Mr Fishy...
The Cake
Is a lie. First, it's actually a flan with frosting. Second, the sugar is a sugar like drug that causes delusions. 10 minutes per bite. Everything they spot and search is wrong. They misidentify monsters. They should start meta gaming badly, calling PCs by their player names. Seeing things in the room the gamers are playing in. Everyone who does not eat the cake should start telling them to shut up or something.
Hook: They will start claiming that the Cleaves actually exist in the world they come from and the only way to get out is to cross the great rift. The rift is just part of the space maze that is the Cleaves. Their constant being wrong is like a reverse augury.
I wonder how the heck a fantasy world with less wyverns is more grim and dark...
But that is just a sidenote. What I really want to ask you now is, on what exactly do you base the assumption that your gaming world is more grim and dark than mine?..
I never said my world had more or less wyverns. I just said that the average person is more greedy, ignorant, and self-centered. Meaning that no one knows about wyverns. It is darker because there is more mystery to the players. Creatures don't seem as dangerous when you can put a name to them. If my level 5 players came across a dragon-like creature, they would be wary, but the moment they knew it was a wyvern they would change their tune to "Oh, hey, this is a wyvern, a level appropiate encounter, we can handle this".
On what then, do you base your assumption that your world is more grim and dark than mine? The soul idea that your non-player characters outside cities are more interesting because they are dumbest dumb stereotypical Medieval ages european farmer, even though Golarion is more than the plague, the lord at the castle and the dirty farmers.
Why does creatures seem less dangerous when you can name them. Faceless stalker sounds pretty horrifying for example. A boar coming at you full speed in the woods is just as weird and terrifying, even though you know it is a boar. If they changed their tune to "Oh, hey this is a wyvern, a level appropriate encounter, we handle this" after identifying it as a wyvern that's so meta-gaming, and I would throw an advanced.
From my perspective, a world where the average person is ignorant, selfish and greedy, is just less character driven, since it really limits interaction with NPCs.
So you have run a world like that and know what it is like? or are you just imagining what it would be like?
I find it creates more interesting NPC, because everyone has ulterior motives for helping the players, and the player can't always be sure t
they are being told the unvarnished truth. The Sense Motive skill gets a hell of a workout.
Oh so the NPC's are more interested in ripping off the PCs than in them helping them save their community? From what you have said in earlier posts, if they don't have the appropriate Knowledge skill they wouldn't know what a sword is, if they haven't seen one before. They must have some pretty silly utlerior motives. But hey, good for you. I am not going to argue the finer points here.
You say that I project my religious beliefs into your game world. Nope. I don't. One thing I think that's great about fantasy game world pantheons, is that they are often way more appealing to me than the real world religions.
Whatever you want to believe.
Oh, so now I believe in Fantasy gods. I get it. I'm a clown that you can smirk at gnag gnag gnag.
An being raised as an atheist, does not nescesarily mean that I don't believe in god. Might be I just don't believe in the religions.
So you admit that the divine may exist in our world? My work here is done.
For the record, I can't stand organized religion or rigid dogma.
So your work is done here again... Nice. I hope you are going to hold it this time.
Admit? I never said I didn't beleive the divine exist in our world. Read Stingburka's reply to you about agnosticism and atheism/theism.
Quote:
My only claim is the average person must know some things about the world that they live in without a Knowledge skill, since a Knowledge skill stated in RAW represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.Yes and if you have 0 ranks in knowledge(nature) then you have never spent any significant amount of time studying that specific field of knowledge. That is why you are considered to be untrained in that field.
Most of the other skills are either trained or untrained usage, but the knowledge skill lets you make a certain subset of checks untrained for just this reason. You don't have to have specifically studied plants and animals to make a DC10 knowledge(nature) check, because the rules spell out that anyone can make that check even if you have no training whatsoever.
The DC to identify a common plant like say a oak tree is DC 5. Even if you have never studied nature at all, the RAW assumes you can do that. There is nothing in the knowledge skill that says you cannot take a 10, so in my games I assumes that the players are all taking a 10 if taking a 10 would allow them to make the check. But if I had a player who came from the desert(where trees are rare, give them a +10 circumstance penalty to their DC to identify any tree), they wouldn't be able to ID an oak tree unless they had ranks in knowledge(nature). After they had traveled a while and seen the world, the circumstance penalty would decrease. This is all compatible with the RAW.
You shouldn't even have to consider the rules before letting someone identify that an oak tree, a stream, or a dwarf, is what it is. It's stupid. If it was an alien tree with tentacles, that's another thing.
@ darkfire: There are certainly many ways to interpret things, and taken out of context, the paladin should indeed be punished if he were indeed attacking sleeping non-evil creatures at random.
My points all reside on the fact (if you believe me when I say so, as I have been pointed out to be an illiterate, bigot, racist, fascist that insist on "assuming" to the point of blatantly lying to serve my internet penis :rolleyes:) that the OP's case was a scripted encounter in a premade Adventure Path that I have run (again, if you believe that), where the wyverns in question serve as a death-trap, condoned by the evil lich necromancer, an evil that the players knows about, etc etc. Ultimate outcome: In this scenario, in MY opinion (very important), the paladin is correct in attacking them, before the lich-serving wyverns gain the inevitable and decisively devastating advantage, and kills one or more of his allies.
If you would believe I am not lying and/or pants on head retarded and reading the AP upside down and misunderstanding it. I mean, 17 years as a DM/GM aside.
Before anything, I guess I should write a disclaimer:
Ahem: "These lyrics are for fun, and not opinions. If you don't appreciate fun, then suck a bag of di*ks. That, on the other hand, is an opinion."
(Melody: Cypress Hill - Dr Greenthumb)
Hello my name is Kamelguru
If there's a sleeping wyvern, it's through
In the games the 'guru is calling from over the GM screens
The f***ing creeps are not puppies, kittens or human-bein's
Roll for initiative for maximum effect
Posters can't keep the guru in check
RAW, don't care if its over the top
Please god, dont make the killing stop
Paladin, ready to hit the wyvern
Before the wizard get to make the sky burn
But we gonna have big trouble, thats no sh*t
Cant be killin' em without your permit
But f**k that, I played it just like the AP
That way when they come they can suck my wee-wee
My game can go on, and I am not blue
Hello my name is Kamelguru
I had an idea for "I shot the wyvern" to the tune of Bob Marley/Eric Clapton's "I shot the sheriff" (dunno who had it originally, and I am too lazy to look it up, ironically), but it was a little obvious :P
MordredofFairy: Uhm, you do know that I have repeatedly said that if the scenario is different (IE not the OP and his paladin in the AP of which I am intimately familiar, as I have learned the hard way that one needs to re-read an AP about 3 times to find all the hidden goodies that the writers hide in walls of text, akin to the easter bunny and his eggs), then my argument is null and void, and any call is valid? Not like I am saying (or intending to say, if there is cause to believe otherwise) you are wrong if you step back from the case in question and observe the issue as stand-alone. If there is a paladin in my game and he goes "Look, sleeping monsters! Let's kill em even if they aren't evil or whatever!" he would get a stern look and a frowny-face sticker.
What is with the stickers?
What is with the stickers?
It might terrify you to learn this, but I work with children as a child care and welfare consultant. I work with teachers and advice families and stuff.
Yes, it is a messed up world :D
Show Mr. Fishy were the Paladin smote you.
only 18 new post since yesterday... looks like the thread if finally losing steam.
So, If a Paladin, a Wyvern, and a Kracken were to enter a bar, which one would have to buy the drinks for the other two ??
This one was really easy, so:
Creedence Clearwater Revival - Cotton Fields
When I was a little pretty baby
The wyvern would nab me from my cradle
In them old Varnhold Fields back home
It was down in southern Brevoy
Just about a mile from town o' Restov
In them old Varnhold fields back home
Oh when them wyverns go baby swiping
Then the paladins'll come a-smiting
In them old Varnhold fields back home
When I was a little pretty baby
The wyvern would nab me from my cradle
In them old Varnhold Fields back home
It was down in southern Brevoy
Just about a mile from town o' Restov
In them old Varnhold fields back home
Oh when them wyverns go baby swiping
Then the paladins'll come a-smiting
In them old Varnhold fields back home
|
When I see that thread title and a post count above 1000, my gut reaction is to assume the answer is yes and that the question referred to creating another alignment debate thread rather than an actual game question.
The last post of the thread, however, leaves me wondering if I'd have to read all 1000 posts to understand how CCR got involved.
When I see that thread title and a post count above 1000, my gut reaction is to assume the answer is yes and that the question referred to creating another alignment debate thread rather than an actual game question.
The last post of the thread, however, leaves me wondering if I'd have to read all 1000 posts to understand how CCR got involved.
I made this song to sum it up :P
Doesn't evil intent register in detect evil?
If the Wyverns are going to ambush when the adventurers are weaker, their evil should detect.
Since when is there a range for detect evil?