....and continue to insist that it’s what I really meant all along...
{among other things}
I can only respond to what you post. I am not intentionally trying to take things out of context. I am trying to pin down what you think a paladin is allowed to do with specific situations.
As far as what exactly the paladin would do to keep her honor intact against an unworthy foe or in an unfair fight where she has an extreme advantage? That’s really up to her and dependent on the situation. She may do all or none of those things. To clarify ‘extreme’ advantage… think of the difference between a company that has a monopoly and one that has a competitive advantage.
That was a good answer, and it answered a lot of my questions so I had to erase a wall of text, which is a good thing.
From what I understand of our belief is that a paladin can have an advantage, but it must not be gained by trickery/deceipt/guile/etc of any sort. Would that be correct?
Wow, take it easy there Maris_Thistledown i only meant to state that a feint in game mechanics could be seen as lying since its based in the Bluff skill.
No...actually you stated as fact that...
As for a Paladin using Feint its not allowed by RAW.(I don't care about real life fighting and how it works either.) By the rules Feint is fooling your opponent, it is using the skill Bluff, and using Bluff is using a lie. Thus by the code of conduct no Feint, no Bluff, no lies.
None of this is fact. None of this is stated, as you have, in the RAW. When you make such statements like this, you are not saying "could be seen as..." you are saying emphatically "...Feint is fooling your opponent, it is using the skill Bluff, and using Bluff is using a lie." PERIOD. At no point did you say, "this is my opinion or this is how I interpret the rules."
I mean great job taking a valid argument for something and taking it out of proportion.
You made a blanket statement of fact in your post and that is what I had issue with. Making subjective declarations of fact is NEVER a valid argument.
I understand how a feint works in real life, but i speak of the game rules, since that is what is being discussed.
The game rules are written simply and are subject to interpretation. That is what I have been defending all along. It is not a black and white rule.
I mean really, a Paladin is lying if he tries to avoid a sword swing?
I know, absolutely ridiculous right? Just as ridiculous as saying there is only ONE way to feint and it is lying and therefore dishonorable. Bluffing is not JUST telling a lie. Avoiding a sword swing is no different than a Football player "jukeing" to avoid being tackled. IT IS FEINTING!!!! THAT IS WHAT FEINTING IS ABOUT! Making your opponent think you are going one way instead of another. There is NOTHING dishonorable about that. My example also shows that "Fighting Defensively" involves feinting as well... So now Paladins cannot fight defensively? See my point?
Bluff is a GENERAL skill that is utilized/roleplayed differently for different characters/classes, just like the Heal skill I made a previous example of.
I only offered my point of view on feint, i didn't say if you allow it in your game its dumb. I didn't say anyone else was wrong about their opinion, since well its their opinion.
You actually said NONE of these things in your post. Next time, try telling us this is ONLY your point of view from the beginning and avoid anyone thinking otherwise.
I understand that you are saying it now, so no hard feelings.
Honestly, your post leads me to think your "special" or something.
I AM special. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
From what I understand of our belief is that a paladin can have an advantage, but it must not be gained by trickery/deceipt/guile/etc of any sort. Would that be correct?
Yeah, that’s it.
I’d go on to add… If the paladin has an ‘extreme advantage’ just by pure luck or something out of her control, then she’d likely not use that advantage to the fullest or try would try to mitigate it somehow out of a sense of honor.
Bluff is a GENERAL skill that is utilized/roleplayed differently for different characters/classes
Bluff, from what the skill description says, is used for one purpose to deceive. What other things do you use it for in your games?
Closely related is the sense motive skill. It (again, according to the book’s description) is used to detect deceit and discern the truth the deceiver is trying to deny or mask somehow through lies or other deceptions such as feinting or hidden messages. What else do you use it for in your games?
I can respect the opposing viewpoint that feint is okay for paladins, but it seems that to get there, you need to say something similar to the thread’s title ‘a lie is not a lie’. To feint, you by your actions make the opponent believe you are going to do something that you know is not and never was your intention to do. That’s a deception. If it wasn’t it would not work and there would be no point in doing it.
So if you want to say paladins can feint because that type of lie is okay in your mind, that’s fine. Why not just say that? Why say paladins can use it because it is not a lie? It just seems unnecessary to put forward a viewpoint that a quick perusal of the rule book and a dictionary invalidates.
OK, Rule #1: ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR
No.
The entire idea of being a paladin is that you do NOT need to compromise your principles in order to win the war. You don't need to lie, fight dirty, cheat, in order to fight evil. You can fight evil, you can do it honestly, and you will win.
Yes.
A paladin's code:
I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed—and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty's answer to them.
I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.
Where there does it say that you have to fight honestly? It says fighting is to be avoided, that peace is preferable, that loss of life is regrettable ... It says (to me) that you avoid the fight as much as possible, that you end it as soon as possible. It doesn't say how you fight, but presumably from the rest of the text you get the fight over with as fast as you can and as effectively as you can with the minimum possible loss of life. If that means tricking the enemy, you do it because that's the fastest way to end things with the least loss of life.
"War is cruelty, sir, and one cannot refine it."
Further more, 'honourable tactics' are dependent on culture, but by and large deceiving your foe into making a mistake or (best of all) not fighting at all is not dishonourable; dishonourable is what people agree it is - it's doing something everyone agrees is a tactic you shouldn't do, ever, not just if you are a paladin but any commander in battle. Generals expect other generals to fight with any tactic and stratagem that they can to achieve victory, so any such tactic is 'honourable.' If such commanders consider taking prisoners of those who surrender and not killing them to be normal, then killing prisoners is dishonourable. Duping them into surrendering? that's not dishonourable, that's their fault for being duped.
Further, Good > Honour for the paladin. The paladin has a duty of care to the innocent, and to those in his service. To sacrifice these lives needlessly is an Evil act of omission, in my view, hence the paladin is required to fight as effectively as possible, even if it means being dishonourable as long as it can be justified by the greater good, resulting in the least loss of innocent/good life.
Bluff, from what the skill description says, is used for one purpose to deceive. What other things do you use it for in your games?
Why is it so hard to understand that deception is not always an evil, malicious, dirty or otherwise reprehensible act? Why is it you focus on only one portion of the definition and ignore all others?
Closely related is the sense motive skill. It (again, according to the book’s description) is used to detect deceit and discern the truth the deceiver is trying to deny or mask somehow through lies or other deceptions such as feinting or hidden messages. What else do you use it for in your games?
You said it yourself. The skill encompasses many different uses and could be used for many more limited only by ones imagination. Why do you force a limit on the Bluff skill to ONE and only ONE use while other skills are broadly based?
To feint, you by your actions make the opponent believe you are going to do something that you know is not and never was your intention to do. That’s a deception. If it wasn’t it would not work and there would be no point in doing it.
*sigh* see my post about dodging a sword to the head. It exactly describes what you just said. So now Paladins cannot fight defensively nor move away from an attack as that is deception and therefore a "lie" based on your narrow-minded opinion on what constitutes feinting and lying.
So if you want to say paladins can feint because that type of lie is okay in your mind, that’s fine. Why not just say that? Why say paladins can use it because it is not a lie? It just seems unnecessary to put forward a viewpoint that a quick perusal of the rule book and a dictionary invalidates.
Mostly because you have no concept of what feinting in combat ACTUALLY encompasses. Nor do you grasp the spirit of chivalry, honor, knightly virtues and how the Paladin's Code is intended to function in a fantasy setting. So, there ya go, that's why I am compelled to write on this subject.
I think it is dishonorable to let people die so you can feel good at the end of the day because you did not violate some principle you have.
Not doing your duty is dishonorable, and your duty as a paladin to protect those who can not protect themselves*. Not every part of the paladin's code is equal and you must choose which one is greater.
As an example I expect a paladin to follow a nation's laws, but if the law is evil then the paladin must choose between being lawful or being good. Being lawful is the lesser of two evils in this case.
*That does not mean you can use people as an excuse to break any vows/principles you have, but if it comes down to a "do or else" situation I think your deity can overlook a transgression that leads to people not suffering or dying.
Where there does it say that you have to fight honestly?
Well… the Code of Conduct says you can’t lie or cheat. I personal take that to mean you can’t actively deceive the foe you are fighting.
The Code is silent about ending the fight quickly. It does say however that you must punish those who harm or threaten innocents, so I can see a situation coming up where a nice clean death is not quite enough of a punishment. Though I’d never tell a player the level of punishment they were delivering was not enough to keep with their code. I just bring it up as a counter point to the ‘you must end the fight as quickly as possible’ interpretation of the code.
Further more, 'honourable tactics' are dependent on culture, but by and large deceiving your foe into making a mistake or (best of all) not fighting at all is not dishonourable; dishonourable is what people agree it is - it's doing something everyone agrees is a tactic you shouldn't do, ever, not just if you are a paladin but any commander in battle. Generals expect other generals to fight with any tactic and stratagem that they can to achieve victory, so any such tactic is 'honourable.' If such commanders consider taking prisoners of those who surrender and not killing them to be normal, then killing prisoners is dishonourable. Duping them into surrendering? that's not dishonourable, that's their fault for being duped.
I’m trying to see how this view of honorable allows for any standards for behavior whatsoever. It sounds like what you’re saying is for something to be considered dishonorable, everyone involved has to agree (which will never happen, plus if we can agree on such fundamental morals and mores we probably aren’t fighting to the death in the first place) and furthermore everyone agrees that anything that may achieve victory is fine anyways (so literally nothing is dishonorable making the whole concept moot).
Further, Good > Honour for the paladin. The paladin has a duty of care to the innocent, and to those in his service. To sacrifice these lives needlessly is an Evil act of omission, in my view, hence the paladin is required to fight as effectively as possible, even if it means being dishonourable as long as it can be justified by the greater good, resulting in the least loss of innocent/good life.
This just doesn’t work for me as put forth here. Paladins have to be good, lawful and honorable. While I agree, innocents cannot be sacrificed needlessly, to a paladin upholding her honor is something she must do to retain her paladinhood. It’s in essence a pact of faith made with her deity. A paladin doesn’t see following the Code as needless. She and her deity view it as essential – it’s what makes the paladin worthy of her awesomeness and probably the main reason so many folks want to follow her in the first place. When she leads people she makes a kind of pact with them also, but I don’t think the pact is ‘I will do anything to protect you’, because ‘anything’ includes all manner of chaotic, evil and dishonorable actions.
The idea that to not use the most efficient, pragmatic or utilitarian tactic regardless of how evil or deceitful it is when innocents are at stake is evil doesn’t hold water for me. You know what would keep them all safer? Keeping them locked up in a padded room for their whole lives. It’s just so much more efficient to guard them that way you know. Freedom shmeedom, their involuntary incarceration is for the greater good. Innocents can’t just be allowed to runaround in this dangerous world unprotected if we can stop it - that would make us evil!
I’m not saying the ‘do evil for the greater good’ argument is always invalid – it’s just not going to work for a paladin because she must A) follow the Code and B) never make an evil action (whereas other classes can cross that line without penalty or even an alignment shift). So, in my opinion, she must do what she can to defend good and innocents while always staying within the bounds of her alignment and the Code. If she falters, she will need an atonement. Though surprisingly to some people on these boards, it’s not needed hardly ever. We like playing paladins within their alignment and code for both fluff and party balance reasons.
Why is it so hard to understand that deception is not always an evil, malicious, dirty or otherwise reprehensible act? Why is it you focus on only one portion of the definition and ignore all others?
I’m not saying deception is necessarily evil, but that it is dishonorable.
The skill encompasses many different uses and could be used for many more limited only by ones imagination. Why do you force a limit on the Bluff skill to ONE and only ONE use while other skills are broadly based?
Yes, there are many types of deception. Some are not even covered by the bluff skill, like sleight of hand for example. That does not change the fact that the uses for the bluff skill as varied as they may be all involve deception which for me counts as lying and dishonorable.
*sigh* see my post about dodging a sword to the head. It exactly describes what you just said. So now Paladins cannot fight defensively nor move away from an attack as that is deception and therefore a "lie" based on your narrow-minded opinion on what constitutes feinting and lying.
Wait. How is dodging or moving deception? You think me say, standing in the middle of the room, is somehow a non-verbal statement that I will never move from that spot ever?
Mostly because you have no concept of what feinting in combat ACTUALLY encompasses. Nor do you grasp the spirit of chivalry, honor, knightly virtues and how the Paladin's Code is intended to function in a fantasy setting. So, there ya go, that's why I am compelled to write on this subject.
So feinting does not encompass actively fooling the opponent? Feel free to educate me. There are some pretty detailed threads from self-proclaimed experts in melee combat. The gist I got was A) you cannot win a fight without feinting ever, which while probably mostly true IRL, is not true in the game. I’ve seen feint used a few times, but battles can be won just fine without it. B) feinting is all about actively fooling your opponent into thinking you are going to do one thing when you are actually going to do another – deception.
This just in, paladins no longer able to hold surprise birthday parties, due to deceit involved in the practice! :)
Yea, ain’t it a shame. Though to be fair, “I can’t tell you why you have to come to the temple right now or why I have this cake with me.” is always an option. Though simply having someone else bring the cake would be acceptable to me. :)
I think it is dishonorable to let people die so you can feel good at the end of the day because you did not violate some principle you have.
I doubt the paldin would feel good about it. The Code of Conduct that is required by your deity is not something I would describe as ‘some principle you have’.
Not doing your duty is dishonorable, and your duty as a paladin to protect those who can not protect themselves*. Not every part of the paladin's code is equal and you must choose which one is greater.
Following your Code is your duty. That Code demands you protect innocents. It does not demand you protect them by any means including chotic evil or dishonorable ones. It even says you don’t have to help people who would in turn use your help towards chaotic/evil ends. It doesn’t make sense to me that a paladin doesn’t have to help others that would use the help to commit chaotic/evil actions, but a paladin must commit chaotic/evil actions to help others.
As an example I expect a paladin to follow a nation's laws, but if the law is evil then the paladin must choose between being lawful or being good. Being lawful is the lesser of two evils in this case.*That does not mean you can use people as an excuse to break any vows/principles you have, but if it comes down to a "do or else" situation I think your deity can overlook a transgression that leads to people not suffering or dying.
Well… with the caveat of those laws being dictated by a legitimate authority (which to me means more than ‘able to rule’), then yes I’d expect the same. However, I think I and others that play by the Code would see a lot more options open to us in such a situation than those used to the more relative, if-I’ve-got-a-good-enough-excuse style that would allow us to stay within our alignment and Code. For example, we’ve had PCs set up and fund organizations that buy slaves and free them. Lawful? Check. Good? Check. Honorable? Check. Protecting innocents? Check.
That said, if such a catch-22 situation did arise, in our games it wouldn’t take much to achieve atonement. We do house rule atonements so that lesser breaches of conduct may require less than the atonement spell to get forgiveness. Though it’s only come up once (which is what prompted the houserule) in the years I’ve been playing and that was as much to make up for the GM’s screw-up as the PCs. The misconduct was due to some serious miscommunication so we said a night of fasting and prayer did the trick. Every other time paladins fell in our games (about 3 that I can think of) it was deliberate.
Regarding the code, I always considered paladins to have something like the three laws of robotics. First, you must do no evil act, or via inaction allow evil to be done. Second, you must adhere to the code, inasmuch as this does not violate the first rule. Third, you life your life as best you can, inasmuch as this doesn't violate the first two rules. Both the good component (protecting the innocents, fighting evil, etc) and the lawful component (following the code) define the character's ideal reaction, but the good component trumps the lawful one if they should clash.
If the paladin can find no better way to protect innocents or stop an evil act than to play it loose with the code (a minor chaotic act), the worst they should face is minor penance. It should be more of a matter of conscience than dogma.
First, you must do no evil act, or via inaction allow evil to be done.
Eh, I can see that being used against a pally. Overwhelming force X is going to stomp innocent town Y, trying to stop them is suicide but if you don't you'll "fall".
Not saying this is your intent but someone out there would use it to shaft a paladin.
First, you must do no evil act, or via inaction allow evil to be done.Eh, I can see that being used against a pally. Overwhelming force X is going to stomp innocent town Y, trying to stop them is suicide but if you don't you'll "fall".
Not saying this is your intent but someone out there would use it to shaft a paladin.
Well, since it is paladins and not robots we are talking about here, it is basically a guideline. Obviously a paladin won't engage an evil force directly when there is no chance of success, but s/he should do something about it. In the above case s/he would need to contact the authorities so they bring in the army, parlay with the Force X to protect the town or if necessary organize the evacuation of the town.
What is NOT going to cut it is just saying "Eh, I can't help it" and doing nothing.
That is where I drew the inspiration from, obviously :) . It is quite similar, putting good (well, another's), obedience, and self-preservation, in this order. However, I think that as long as the first two are concerned, self-preservation includes the right to a life the way the paladin wants it.
IFact is that some players have an "Old School" and a "Strict" interpretation of Paladinhood... whether this is based on expectations raised in 1st/2nd Edition or the Complete Book of the Paladin etc is neither here nor there.
Actually, I think it's the opposite. The impression I've gotten is that the people on this thread taking the hardest line on paladin codes are those who are looking specifically at the wording in Pathfinder's rules and rules-lawyeriing it to a logical, if ridiculous conclusion. They are likely doing so without the benefit of years of experience GMing paladins in various different editions of PF/D&D. Usually, with those years of experience comes a depth of perspective that tends to move away from extreme interpretations. I could be wrong, though, and there are always exceptions.
Maris_Thistledown wrote:
Mostly because you have no concept of what feinting in combat ACTUALLY encompasses. Nor do you grasp the spirit of chivalry, honor, knightly virtues and how the Paladin's Code is intended to function in a fantasy setting. So, there ya go, that's why I am compelled to write on this subject.
So feinting does not encompass actively fooling the opponent? Feel free to educate me. There are some pretty detailed threads from self-proclaimed experts in melee combat. The gist I got was A) you cannot win a fight without feinting ever, which while probably mostly true IRL, is not true in the game. I’ve seen feint used a few times, but battles can be won just fine without it. B) feinting is all about actively fooling your opponent into thinking you are going to do one thing when you are actually going to do another – deception....
Purely for clarification purposes - this is a feint:
@ Kenderkin - I think it is interpreted as an extension of the "act honorably" commandment, which is somewhat open-ended in its "and so forth" definition. That is why I preferred the D&D 3.5 approach of making paladins only fall for gross violations - minor violations of the code were effectively minor chaotic act, and would not carry an immediate threat of loss of powers until you found an atonement-casting cleric.
To help with this debate, I bring in Webster!
Lie:
1) to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive
2) to create a false or misleading impression
Cheat:
1) the act or instance of fraudulently deceiving
2) the obtaining of property from another by an intentional active distortion of the truth
Actually, I think it's the opposite. The impression I've gotten is that the people on this thread taking the hardest line on paladin codes are those who are looking specifically at the wording in Pathfinder's rules and rules-lawyeriing it to a logical, if ridiculous conclusion. They are likely doing so without the benefit of years of experience GMing paladins in various different editions of PF/D&D. Usually, with those years of experience comes a depth of perspective that tends to move away from extreme interpretations. I could be wrong, though, and there are always exceptions.IFact is that some players have an "Old School" and a "Strict" interpretation of Paladinhood... whether this is based on expectations raised in 1st/2nd Edition or the Complete Book of the Paladin etc is neither here nor there.
FYI: I have been playing this way with one and or two separate groups (sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both – I’ve been in a few other groups too, but it never came up) for ~7 years. I’ve GM’d for some, but was usually the player. Some of the others in these groups have been playing for 10-20+ years, though not necessarily DnD. I have played one paladin and have seen maybe a couple dozen others played. Before that (and also during) we played campaigns in about 5 other RPGs that did not have alignment systems.
I find your assumption that someone with views similar to mine is likely inexperienced and just does not have the depth of perspective to have found the one true way insulting. Accusing the other side of having a lack of perspective is just attacking the other side, not their viewpoint. Implying (more than implying really) that if they just had the proper perspective, they would see how and why they’ve really been playing wrong and come around to the correct way. Which, by golly, just happens to be your way! Who would have thought, right?
Nice attempt at a save with the ‘I really don’t have any base for this assumption other than my own bias’ bit at the end though. I honestly respect the attempt even though it failed. Even a lame try is better than nothing. It shows that you know what you are doing. That is unless it’s just a ‘you’re baby if you take the insult as an insult because I put that last bit in there’ preemptive shield. – Not saying that’s what’s going on, just that if it is I have even less respect for someone who pulls that BS than someone who doesn’t even realize or care about how condescending and disingenuous they are being.
Edit: Wanted to add, in all those games there literally never was a situation that a paladin had no option but to break the Code. Maybe we are just that lucky, but it’s yet to come up.
|
I think you said....
rule-lawyering to an absurd condition
then defending the absurd condition with, but that is the penalty for playing a paladin.
This is the entire code
** spoiler omitted **I see no prohibition against anything the OP mentioned....
Is anyone else seeing it?
It's pretty much the 'act with honor(not lying, not cheating' that gets people. It's very open ended and can be interpreted down to the examples given upthread. (Paladins can't play poker, can't throw surprise parties.) Hence why any player that wants to play a paladin in my games will explain exactly what his characters code requires so I can approve it and make sure we are all on the same page.
You know, I'm actually kind of glad for this thread. It's gotten me off my butt to work up Palidin codes for each of my gods in my homebrew world, so the players know what to expect.
eats popcorn....
yep thats about right, that gets them all the time.
which is why to me, that Piazo should have removed the lawful part...
what one seems as Honorable, another may not.
and ultimately its a game and a game should be fun, but sitting through an argument or even in earshot between the DM and paladin player, or in a three way between the DM and two players is by far no means fun. unless of course thats what your in to.
The lawful alignment itself varies from group to group. I think it means you hold strongly to your convictions, but it has also been interpreted as you follow the rules(even if they are rules you don't want to follow). I think how much leeway a paladin is given and be fun varies with a group. If a paladin were in the thread about the medusa that begged for mercy it would have been even more "interesting".
The lawful alignment itself varies from group to group. I think it means you hold strongly to your convictions, but it has also been interpreted as you follow the rules(even if they are rules you don't want to follow). I think how much leeway a paladin is given and be fun varies with a group. If a paladin were in the thread about the medusa that begged for mercy it would have been even more "interesting".Ooooooh - Threadcross over potential :)
<hangs head in shame> What have I done? </hangs head in shame>
<hangs head in shame> What have I done? </hangs head in shame>The lawful alignment itself varies from group to group. I think it means you hold strongly to your convictions, but it has also been interpreted as you follow the rules(even if they are rules you don't want to follow). I think how much leeway a paladin is given and be fun varies with a group. If a paladin were in the thread about the medusa that begged for mercy it would have been even more "interesting".Ooooooh - Threadcross over potential :)
Don’t feel bad wraithstrike. It was bound to happen eventually. :P
FYI: I have been playing this way with one and or two separate groups (sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both – I’ve been in a few other groups too, but it never came up) for ~7 years. I’ve GM’d for some, but was usually the player. Some of the others in these groups have been playing for 10-20+ years, though not necessarily DnD. I have played one paladin and have seen maybe a couple dozen others played. Before that (and also during) we played campaigns in about 5 other RPGs that did not have alignment systems.I find your assumption that someone with views similar to mine is likely inexperienced and just does not have the depth of perspective to have found the one true way insulting. Accusing the other side of having a lack of perspective is just attacking the other side, not their viewpoint. Implying (more than implying really) that if they just had the proper perspective, they would see how and why they’ve really been playing wrong and come around to the correct way. Which, by golly, just happens to be your way! Who would have thought, right?
Nice attempt at a save with the ‘I really don’t have any base for this...
No insult was intended. As you may have noted I neither mentioned you by name nor was I responding to a post you made. I was responding to Helaman's post implying that it was the old school GMs dating back to 1st or 2nd edition who were taking the strictest view of the paladin, and provided my own opinion, clearly indicated as such, to counter that.
That said, your response doesn't really refute my thesis. While with about 7 years of playing experience and a limited amount of GMing experience you certainly aren't a newbie, it does clearly place you in the generation of gamers who started with 3.0 or 3.5 and have continued into Pathfinder. I honor what you have learned during those seven years, but respectfully submit to you that perhaps my 34 years of experience both playing and GMing PF/D&D in every version after Chainmail gives me a different, and to risk being insulting, perhaps deeper, perspective. Not to say us old dogs are always right. We certainly aren't. But we have learned a few things over the years, if only from our own mistakes.
Edit - Whoops, I miscalculated how long I've been playing. It will be 33 years this fall, not 34 already. Damn that early Alzheimer's!
Necro thread rise from oblivion!!!! And smurf.