Help me vs. a meta-playing paladin


Advice

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In my pbp game, my players are interacting with an npc.

Spoiler:
We are playing the Jade Regent. It is still early in the campaign, so it is the first potentially adversarial interaction. The problem is that Walthus is not really Walthus, and thus fishy things are going on right before the PCs' eyes. So, I prompt them for Perception and Sense Motive rolls, because I view these skills as passive or second nature. The problem arises when the group's paladin rolls poorly and immediately follows up with Detect Evil.

I feel I have obviously mishandled this encounter, but I was wondering how you would recommend handling similar encounters in the future. On the one hand, since it is a pbp, I do not want to use up time and tempo by continuously asking for these rolls in every single encounter. At the same time, I want to reward players who take ranks in these skills (especially the social interaction skills). On the other hand, I do not want to continue tipping my hand when something might be afoot.


It seems to me the obvious answer for passive uses is to roll them yourself and only inform the players when they make the roll.


Did he have 5 HD..? I know he wasn't a cleric... Detect Evil may not have even been able to work.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would imagine that for paladins Hi hello how are you lovely weather we're DETECT EVIL having here isn't it? How are the crops? Is pretty much normal social interaction. they're going to spam it, just let it happen.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Spoiler:
Yup, a faceless stalker has 5 HD. I think I will have to make those rolls in the future.


Skills like perception, stealth, send motive, and disguise, are perfectly fine for a DM to be rolling for their players. especially in pbp actually, where it wont slow anything down, or limit anything.

Inform your players that you are doing that to prevent metagaming, and go right ahead. you have all their character sheets, its a great solution.

its less fun in a home game where the players feel robbed of die rolls a bit, but pbp is a great place for it. I even play some online pfs where we use maptools, which has a built in feature like that. all perception rolls go to the DM, we cant ever see what we get.


In my PBP game, I roll perception and similar skills for the players in spoiler-tags in those types of situations, and tell them what they saw if anyone noticed something. It speeds up the game considerably, as it avoids halting the entire game for up to a day for relatively minor things. Of course, you still have to trust the players to either not read the spoilers or to not metagame if they do.

In either case, there's little to help you in the specific case you have, since the creature has 5 HD and thus can be detected.

Also, it could very well be that the Paladin would have detected evil regardless of if he knew the result of the perception roll or not. Some players would use the ability reflexively any time they interact with someone the party doesn't know (and even someone they do know, if they act strangely). In other words, roll with it :)

Shadow Lodge

At my table, 'soft' skills like Perception and Sense Motive are roleplaying opportunities. When the Paladin fails his roll, he should never, ever, ever play as though he got a binary result. That's meta, and in a very mild way, cheating. I'll try to explain:

PC encounters a shady-looking character who is attempting to deceive him, DC of 20.

Dice are rolled and the total result is 9. GM says, "He seems honest enough to you."

Meta-gaming: Player immediately results to magical means to 'double check'.

Roleplaying: Player says, "Hmm, okay. I guess I was wrong about him."

...until the next opportunity to roll comes up, anyway.

I guess my view of it has always been that the PCs believe they're right about their intuitions, and aren't aware of what the dice say. They should be roleplayed accordingly.

Now, this isn't for or against using Detect Evil. I'm specifically calling out using Detect Evil AFTER Sense Motive.


mcbobbo wrote:

At my table, 'soft' skills like Perception and Sense Motive are roleplaying opportunities. When the Paladin fails his roll, he should never, ever, ever play as though he got a binary result. That's meta, and in a very mild way, cheating. I'll try to explain:

PC encounters a shady-looking character who is attempting to deceive him, DC of 20.

Dice are rolled and the total result is 9. GM says, "He seems honest enough to you."

Meta-gaming: Player immediately results to magical means to 'double check'.

Roleplaying: Player says, "Hmm, okay. I guess I was wrong about him."

...until the next opportunity to roll comes up, anyway.

I guess my view of it has always been that the PCs believe they're right about their intuitions, and aren't aware of what the dice say. They should be roleplayed accordingly.

Now, this isn't for or against using Detect Evil. I'm specifically calling out using Detect Evil AFTER Sense Motive.

Even if the DM rolled the sense motive behind a table (so I could have rolled a 20, and he could be fine), I'd still double check with detect evil. Pallys can fall for associating with evil; better safe than fally.

The Exchange

Just keep a record of your PCs' Fort, Will, Sense Motive and Perception checks - also disguise ability, if one of your players is likely to try to use 'em. Those are the five lead offenders for meta-game rolling, so you'll have to roll 'em yourself. Announce the ruling but allow previous actions to stand.

Dark Archive

Everyone has the right on this one. Rolling your own dice on perception / sense motive is a privilege; if you are meta-ing, this privilege is revoked. Talk to him with a stern, one-time warning first. If he continues, take over rolling any opposed dice.


Alternatively, have the players roll a sense motive and perception at the beginning of all scenes, this becomes their passive result, except when actively trying to discern something.

Liberty's Edge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Even if the DM rolled the sense motive behind a table (so I could have rolled a 20, and he could be fine), I'd still double check with detect evil. Pallys can fall for associating with evil; better safe than fally.

This. I fall into the camp that says it's never metagaming for paladins to Detect Evil. Is it a little shady to do so after a perception check? Sure. metagaming? Ehhhhh....


Starbuck_II wrote:
mcbobbo wrote:

At my table, 'soft' skills like Perception and Sense Motive are roleplaying opportunities. When the Paladin fails his roll, he should never, ever, ever play as though he got a binary result. That's meta, and in a very mild way, cheating. I'll try to explain:

PC encounters a shady-looking character who is attempting to deceive him, DC of 20.

Dice are rolled and the total result is 9. GM says, "He seems honest enough to you."

Meta-gaming: Player immediately results to magical means to 'double check'.

Roleplaying: Player says, "Hmm, okay. I guess I was wrong about him."

...until the next opportunity to roll comes up, anyway.

I guess my view of it has always been that the PCs believe they're right about their intuitions, and aren't aware of what the dice say. They should be roleplayed accordingly.

Now, this isn't for or against using Detect Evil. I'm specifically calling out using Detect Evil AFTER Sense Motive.

Even if the DM rolled the sense motive behind a table (so I could have rolled a 20, and he could be fine), I'd still double check with detect evil. Pallys can fall for associating with evil; better safe than fally.

For one thing if I were playing a Paladin and encounter a "shady looking character" I would be detecting evil right away. Sometimes that is good role playing. Bad role playing would be you encounter a sinister looking person wearing black robes with red trim and a holy symbol you do not recognize, but he seems ok.

Unless of course the Paladin had dumped both INT and WIS.


Ideally in the future he should state that he is using detect evil with his roll so that it's clear he is doing so regardless of the roll and not in reaction to a known failed roll.

Other than that, you can house rule that the result of detect evil take 24 hours to come to light when the person/creature in question is not inherently evil or doing an evil act.

Plus what many others said about rolling checks yourself. Some players don't like this, but as a player I actually prefer it. It really helps with emersion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that for paladins Hi hello how are you lovely weather we're DETECT EVIL having here isn't it? How are the crops? Is pretty much normal social interaction. they're going to spam it, just let it happen.

A paladin's detect evil is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities require a standard action to cast, and provoke an attack of opportunity if cast in a threatened square. Since using the ability provokes an AOO, I've ruled that using detect evil is just as obvious as spellcasting to anyone observing.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Liberty's Edge

There is where I like to use the idea of passive perception, passive sense motive, etc. If its outside of combat assume they take 10. You don't even have to roll, just narrate what happens.

EDIT: I have my players write down their passive perception long before I ever have to use it. I just look at what their values are and start narrating. They are non-the-wiser.

Dark Archive

Haladir wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that for paladins Hi hello how are you lovely weather we're DETECT EVIL having here isn't it? How are the crops? Is pretty much normal social interaction. they're going to spam it, just let it happen.

A paladin's detect evil is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities require a standard action to cast, and provoke an attack of opportunity if cast in a threatened square. Since using the ability provokes an AOO, I've ruled that using detect evil is just as obvious as spellcasting to anyone observing.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds.

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus.

so not as obvious as casting. no moving, no mumbling, it just happens

note the "as a move action" thing never mentions "once detect evil is active". they can just "ping" 1 target to check them out as a move action or do the standard action cone effect


The problem is if you as DM ask the player to make a sense motive roll.....

Doesn't that mean the player has the same reason (general unease) to be suspicious without meta-gaming, and use other information sources....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Its a move action. Its more like a silent stilled no focus no material component spell. It probably does give a look in someones eyes like they're doing math in their head or just realized they forgot to take the iron off their best shirt before leaving home, but its not nearly as obvious as someone chanting latin.


Doesn't that mean the player has the same reason (general unease) to be suspicious without meta-gaming, and use other information sources....

No. Because if you loose the roll vs your bluff you have nothing to be suspicious of. Friendly peasant number 5 seems like a friendly peasant.

Actually that brings up one way to hide things from players: Red herrings. If the player rolls high, tell them the jig is up. If the player rolls low hint something about the turnips the peasant is trying to sell them being no good.


What if I learn to never trust my instincts and put no ranks into sense motive and instead default to detect evil all the time?

as everyone knows...
"A kind visage may hide a black heart."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I use an excel spreadsheet (or rather Open Office Calc) to handle passive rolls. I've listed all the relevant PC skills and saves on the sheet. Beneath each stat there is a ROLL button. If you press that button it will roll a die for each character and show the result near their name. This makes it very easy and painless to handle things like bluffing and sense motive.

Liberty's Edge

KenderKin wrote:

The problem is if you as DM ask the player to make a sense motive roll.....

Doesn't that mean the player has the same reason (general unease) to be suspicious without meta-gaming, and use other information sources....

Not necessarily. If the paladin failed his roll his character would probably have no reason to be suspicious.


My first question would be,did the paladin ever use detect evil on any other people before this encounter? When he met other NPC did he check for evil? Was he asked for perception rolls in those encounters?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You need to note that you are spoiling Jade Regent OUTSIDE the spoiler box. Otherwise it kind of misses the point, because people won't know why you're spoiler-tagging it (some people just spoiler-tag long posts to reduce the wall-of-text effect).


Throw in an evil baby human. His head will explode trying to figure out the moral dilema.

the catch:

The baby had infernal healing cast on it. It's only temporarily going to exude evil. It can have it's aura altered in other ways, but that's the cheapest easiest thing to come to mind.

If they pally doesn't roleplay an ethical breakdown then shift his allignment towards evil, thus removing his pally abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:

The problem is if you as DM ask the player to make a sense motive roll.....

Doesn't that mean the player has the same reason (general unease) to be suspicious without meta-gaming, and use other information sources....

This really only becomes a problem with the mentality where the player has to "win".

Take a common scenario in a movie: an early or opening chase scene. If the protagonist is chasing, whoever the target is usually gets away. This gives us a cool action scene and we know that whatever it was, it's important and it got away. Now we want to know more about this thing!

In a game as a DM, it's hard to have an opening scene like this. You usually have to give some advantage that makes it impossible to catch them. Players don't want to "lose" the scene, because its not the mentality we often have in roleplaying games.

Players often see "failure" as something bad and to be avoided. If you teach them that "failure" instead means something interesting happens in the story, then you don't find as much negative metagaming in this regard.

One of my favorite ways I've seen this done though is to tell the players "okay, the bad guy is going to get away in this scene. Describe to me how that happens." You don't want to do this very often, but it lets the players have fun with the scene, describing how their characters do something cool or funny and get to act "frustrated" that he got away, but it's not so bad, because you know the DM is just setting the table for a confrontation later.

Shadow Lodge

Mysterious Stranger wrote:


For one thing if I were playing a Paladin and encounter a "shady looking character" I would be detecting evil right away. Sometimes that is good role playing. Bad role playing would be you encounter a sinister looking person wearing black robes with red trim and a holy symbol you do not recognize, but he seems ok.

Unless of course the Paladin had dumped both INT and WIS.

Again, Detect Evil right away is totally legit. Detect Evil only when you fail Sense Motive is not.

Shadow Lodge

Jade Regent should have already began so I could just breeze through these accidental spoilages. Oh well, at least I know what to expect now.

*adds Sense Motive to skill list*


Haladir wrote:


A paladin's detect evil is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities require a standard action to cast, and provoke an attack of opportunity if cast in a threatened square. Since using the ability provokes an AOO, I've ruled that using detect evil is just as obvious as spellcasting to anyone observing.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Couldn't it just as easily be that detecting evil simply requires enough of the Paladin's concentration that she leaves herself open to an attack of opportunity?

If anything, I'd imagine it just looks like she's giving the room or an individual a particularly-intense and searching look.

The description of the ability in the Paladin section of the CRB doesn't say anything about having to use a verbal or somatic component to use it.

Shadow Lodge

Trainwreck wrote:
Haladir wrote:


A paladin's detect evil is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities require a standard action to cast, and provoke an attack of opportunity if cast in a threatened square. Since using the ability provokes an AOO, I've ruled that using detect evil is just as obvious as spellcasting to anyone observing.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Couldn't it just as easily be that detecting evil simply requires enough of the Paladin's concentration that she leaves herself open to an attack of opportunity?

If anything, I'd imagine it just looks like she's giving the room or an individual a particularly-intense and searching look.

The description of the ability in the Paladin section of the CRB doesn't say anything about having to use a verbal or somatic component to use it.

Flip it around. If it was a player whose attack of opportunity was being provoked, would you likewise rule that they didn't know why?

I wouldn't. Especially in a world where Paladins have been around, detecting evil on everyone, forever. In fact, I'd imagine that any non-good person in the presence of a Paladin would take offense to any long looks from them. They'd suspect the use of the spell, because this isn't Earth where Paladins don't actually exist. They're normal. Like grocery store clerks...


Haladir wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that for paladins Hi hello how are you lovely weather we're DETECT EVIL having here isn't it? How are the crops? Is pretty much normal social interaction. they're going to spam it, just let it happen.

A paladin's detect evil is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities require a standard action to cast, and provoke an attack of opportunity if cast in a threatened square. Since using the ability provokes an AOO, I've ruled that using detect evil is just as obvious as spellcasting to anyone observing.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Since it has no limit per day, a Paladin's Detect Evil is a constant Spell-Like Ability. Constant SLA's take only a swift action, and like swift action spells, don't provoke.

Also, concentrating on a spell like Detect Evil never provokes.


Quantum Steve wrote:

Since it has no limit per day, a Paladin's Detect Evil is a constant Spell-Like Ability. Constant SLA's take only a swift action, and like swift action spells, don't provoke.

There is a difference between a constant ability and an "at will" ability.

The paladin-ability specifically says "At will, a Paladin can use detect evil, as the spell". If Paizo meant for the ability to be constantly on, they'd say so.


It's appropriate imo to treat paladins' detect evil the same as state police's radar speed guns. No reason a paladin would consider an individual's evil to be protected by privacy rights. The gods give them the power to detect evil at will because they expect them to use it at will. That it might mess up a plot is the GM's problem - solved by having the evil NPC use countermeasures, or letting the character get the benefit of the class feature they paid for, and letting the chips fall.

All that's a little off topic, though. This seems to be more about the old OOTS gag of "feeling like you missed a spot check". I think with that, you just have to have a talk with the players and encourage them to be honest in RPing what their character knows as opposed to what the player knows.

If they failed a sense motive check, for example, that means, by definition, the character does not suspect anything's wrong, and the player needs to RP them like that, regardless what they might know as a player. If they insist on meta-shenanigans, you can even just tell them flat out - 'yea you guessed it, this guy is lying you into a trap, but you missed the check, you have to play your character as though he doesn't suspect anything, because he doesn't'.


KenderKin wrote:
The problem is if you as DM ask the player to make a sense motive roll.....

Maybe its me, but I make my players ASK to roll sense motive. As in, I roleplay in a manner which conveys I'm shifty, or has inconsistencies, etc., and they ask to sense motive.

So, I suppose the difference really is that I see it more as an active skill (say like using perception to search at a dead end wall because I think there there must be something there)


Are wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:

Since it has no limit per day, a Paladin's Detect Evil is a constant Spell-Like Ability. Constant SLA's take only a swift action, and like swift action spells, don't provoke.

There is a difference between a constant ability and an "at will" ability.

The paladin-ability specifically says "At will, a Paladin can use detect evil, as the spell". If Paizo meant for the ability to be constantly on, they'd say so.

It would seem I misread the rules:

"A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit..."

I read that to be an equivocation of constant SLA's and at-will SLAs rather than meaning that both have no use limit.

Dark Archive

Quantum Steve wrote:
Haladir wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I would imagine that for paladins Hi hello how are you lovely weather we're DETECT EVIL having here isn't it? How are the crops? Is pretty much normal social interaction. they're going to spam it, just let it happen.

A paladin's detect evil is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities require a standard action to cast, and provoke an attack of opportunity if cast in a threatened square. Since using the ability provokes an AOO, I've ruled that using detect evil is just as obvious as spellcasting to anyone observing.

So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Since it has no limit per day, a Paladin's Detect Evil is a constant Spell-Like Ability. Constant SLA's take only a swift action, and like swift action spells, don't provoke.

Also, concentrating on a spell like Detect Evil never provokes.

incorrect on many levels, as others have pointed out


Starbuck_II wrote:
mcbobbo wrote:

At my table, 'soft' skills like Perception and Sense Motive are roleplaying opportunities. When the Paladin fails his roll, he should never, ever, ever play as though he got a binary result. That's meta, and in a very mild way, cheating. I'll try to explain:

PC encounters a shady-looking character who is attempting to deceive him, DC of 20.

Dice are rolled and the total result is 9. GM says, "He seems honest enough to you."

Meta-gaming: Player immediately results to magical means to 'double check'.

Roleplaying: Player says, "Hmm, okay. I guess I was wrong about him."

...until the next opportunity to roll comes up, anyway.

I guess my view of it has always been that the PCs believe they're right about their intuitions, and aren't aware of what the dice say. They should be roleplayed accordingly.

Now, this isn't for or against using Detect Evil. I'm specifically calling out using Detect Evil AFTER Sense Motive.

Even if the DM rolled the sense motive behind a table (so I could have rolled a 20, and he could be fine), I'd still double check with detect evil. Pallys can fall for associating with evil; better safe than fally.

I agree with this, and I will also add that just because someone is evil that does not mean they are lying. It is also possible they are partially telling the truth depending on the circumstances.


one of the things i did like about 4e D&D was passive perception rolls.
in my opinion, i wouldn't roll each players perception and/or sense motives. If the players choose not to actively roll, then i sometimes will take a 10 as their passive rolls. much to the same effect that 4th edition does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not want to have to constantly describe every piece of furniture in a room so characters can describe what part of the chaise lounge the rogue is pointing the crossbow at in case it becomes animated.

I assume professional adventurers aren't idiots. They get sense motives when meeting someone, they are not surprised when they kick down a door and something on the other side is trying to kill them, they get spot rolls to see everything but traps and hidden doors, spellcasters are assumed to be spamming detect magic to the point that i simply consider it a 6th sense, and if the party isn't in a hurry i assume they're taking time to look for traps as they go.

You can prod the paladin to cast detect evil when he meets new people, or you can trick the player into thinking he rolled sense motive for something less innocuous on the dangers and more lethal on the innocuous encounters.


Green Eyed Liar wrote:

In my pbp game, my players are interacting with an npc.

** spoiler omitted **

Make up a small sheet for each character with their appropriate skills on it. Then roll a D20 50 times and write down each roll on the sheet in order.

Every time you need to make a passive skill check so as not to tip off your metagamers simply look at the top roll on that characters list, add in the appropriate modifer from their skill list and adjudicate he results from there. Then mark off that roll and use the next one down for their next secret check.

This prevents players from doing things based on your simply asking for certain rolls. And as a GM your well within your pervue to make some rolls on the players behalf for such situations.

OR have your players post 100 random D20 rolls to you in an email and use THEIR rolls, just don't tell them unless the skill checks would make it necessary that they learn new information. That way your still letting them roll for their skill checks.


I haven't played this adventure path so I don't know the background, but I think it's fine (generally) how it worked out. Geiger Paladins are a fact of Pathfinder life. If you're evil and a high enough level or the right class you will be found. A NPC that knows he's going interact with a Paladin would take certain precautions or just not care.

The way my DM runs things is that in our campaign evil people exist. We find them all the time. Do they all go out and murder villages? No. They're usually wealthy business people, politicians, clerics to evil churches set up in neutral cities etc. As long as you're not chaotically killing things evil can get along quite well within lawful society.

What I'm getting at is "Great, you know XXX is evil. But why does that make you think he's lying? He could be lawful evil." If he starts to abuse his Geiger, set it off all the time. So it becomes completely useless.

Liberty's Edge

I'm with most of the posters here: it's not metagaming for a Paladin to use Detect Evil, especially if they are talking to a guy who's acting suspiciously.

Actually, I suspect that the above term is the problem. "Acting suspiciously", at least for me, means "doing something to provoke a perception or sense motive check", not "making a successful perception or sense motive check". Passing the check means either your fears are confirmed or you find out there was nothing; failing the check means you always find out there was nothing.

Using Detect Evil, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, etc is not metagaming. For me, at least, it's on the same level as asking to make a sense motive or perception check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Actually, I suspect that the above term is the problem. "Acting suspiciously", at least for me, means "doing something to provoke a perception or sense motive check"

That's kind of metagamey. If you fail your sense motive check as far as your character is concerned they're NOT acting suspiciously.

"Hello, would you like to buy some turnips?" when the person is.. trying to sell you turnips. No sense motive roll for the player, no suspicion.

"Hello, would you like to buy some turnips" when the person is trying to sell you turnips with a slow acting sleeping potion in them so his buddies can rob you later. A successful sense motive will tip your character off that SOMETHING is up, but not what. A failed sense motive roll gives the PLAYER the sense that something is up, but if they translate that knowledge to their character then there's no point to the skill at all... there's the same result win or loose.

If you fail your sense motive check Peasant 2 is supposed to look EXACTLY like peasant 1 as far as you're concerned.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Actually, I suspect that the above term is the problem. "Acting suspiciously", at least for me, means "doing something to provoke a perception or sense motive check"

That's kind of metagamey. If you fail your sense motive check as far as your character is concerned they're NOT acting suspiciously.

"Hello, would you like to buy some turnips?" when the person is.. trying to sell you turnips. No sense motive roll for the player, no suspicion.

"Hello, would you like to buy some turnips" when the person is trying to sell you turnips with a slow acting sleeping potion in them so his buddies can rob you later. A successful sense motive will tip your character off that SOMETHING is up, but not what. A failed sense motive roll gives the PLAYER the sense that something is up, but if they translate that knowledge to their character then there's no point to the skill at all... there's the same result win or loose.

If you fail your sense motive check Peasant 2 is supposed to look EXACTLY like peasant 1 as far as you're concerned.

Last time someone tried to sell me turnips*, I awoke from a nap lost my soul, and became the Ravager, almost bringing about the restoration of Bhall, god of murder.

So you'll excuse me if I trust turnips sellers very little.
(*Buldar Gate 2 reference)


Kill the paladin.
If he rerolls a paladin, kill that paladin as well.

Eventually, the paladins are broken and annoying and game ruiners message will catch on.


BobChuck wrote:

I'm with most of the posters here: it's not metagaming for a Paladin to use Detect Evil, especially if they are talking to a guy who's acting suspiciously.

Actually, I suspect that the above term is the problem. "Acting suspiciously", at least for me, means "doing something to provoke a perception or sense motive check", not "making a successful perception or sense motive check". Passing the check means either your fears are confirmed or you find out there was nothing; failing the check means you always find out there was nothing.

Using Detect Evil, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, etc is not metagaming. For me, at least, it's on the same level as asking to make a sense motive or perception check.

That's not how Sense Motive checks work. You have to succeed a sense motive check to get a sense that "something is up" or someone is "acting suspiciously." If you fail that check, then "everything's fine" and "that turnip seller is completely on the level."

Even if you make the check, it doesn't tell you if the turnip seller is "trying to sell you poisoned turnips" or "sleeping with your sister."

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:


So-- using detect evil in the middle of a conversation is totally giving away the fact that you're using a spell-like ability in the presence of somebody.

Its a move action. Its more like a silent stilled no focus no material component spell. It probably does give a look in someones eyes like they're doing math in their head or just realized they forgot to take the iron off their best shirt before leaving home, but its not nearly as obvious as someone chanting latin.

Or they look constipated for a few seconds.

GM: "A dark stranger approaches you in the corner of the inn."

Paladin: "Hey, guys, I think I need to go to the little boys' room... <Hnnng>...<Hmmmmm>....okay, no need, I'm good. How can we help you, dark stranger?"

Dark Stranger: "o_0? Errr...never mind."


You can just assume your players take 10 and just roll the npc's bluff check for passive checks, if it is an active check I would have the players roll and the npc take 10 usually.

Aside from that I do not particulary like metagaming, but not everyone is even aware they are metagaming in such situations. Just tell the character there is nothing really suspicous going on to warrant that action, I'd not forbid it's use though. I usually work with a mild payback mechanism in those cases, if the players metagame I might metagame as well, the players that roleplay are more likely to get a break when it makes sense and I am more likely to target them for roleplay oppertunity.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Help me vs. a meta-playing paladin All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.