If your GM doesn't emphasize perception checks for initiative and traps, players wont focus on it. But in a game layden with hidden traps and ambushes everyone will likely keep it maxed.
This isn't true. Perception is a hugely varied skill that can come in handy whether your DM likes it or not. Rolling to see who notices who before initiative is in the rules. Unless your DM is a cheat, he doesn't get to ignore that. If someone is hiding, attempting a sleight of hand, when searching through a pile of junk, when keeping an eye out at night during your watch, or when looking for hidden doors, you get a perception check.
The only way a DM could possibly make perception a skill that isn't inherently useful is to cheat.
If your GM doesn't use water hazards your players are unlikely to invest in swim. Center the game on a boat though, and aftert the first few levels everyone will have at least a small investment in it.
The DM will not need to PUT water in front of you. His world will already have water in it. And every time you encounter water you will have the option to swim, without the need for new rules and strange accommodations. You can choose to use this skill to your advantage however YOU see fit. And if you are playing in a setting that doesn't have much water, such as a desert planet, then you shouldn't have been given the option in the first place.
If your GM doesn't make you keep track of food or orientation in the wilderness, you wont have much invested in survival. But in a game where you can harvest crafting materials off of enemies you can bet someone will invest in it.
If your DM doesn't make you track orientation he isn't playing by the rules so it doesn't mater.
If your GM doesn't make you roll for what you know about monsters, most knowledge skills are much weaker. But in a game where you spend more time in libraries than hunting monsters, people will likely have high ranks.
Why do all of your examples involve DM's who play fast and loose with the rules? That only serves to further highlight my previous point that by playing in a manner where the DM is forced to validate skills by way of sleight of hand only serves to diminish the weight of each of your choices. Why not just play mother may I?
If your GM gives you face value on things you find, appraise is practically worthless. But when you give your players time limits on looting, suddenly it becomes valuable and investment worthy.
See previous response above.
In the end, it is the player's responcibility to come up with uses for their abilities, and the GM's job to set realistic limits on them.
Why then are you trying to defend the exact opposite possition? A position that let's players choose whatever they want without responsibility and forces the DM to come up with uses (or to haggle with players for them) and set UN-realistic limits on them?
Im my games, craft(torture)...
I'm assuming you're crafting torture devices such as racks? Otherwise this make no sense to me.
...and proffession(sailor) have had major impacts,despite them not having much to do with the campaign...
The only profession I've ever seen make ANY impact. There should just be a skill called sailing.
...because the players realized they could apply them to situations to get an advantage.
No they couldn't. A player can apply acrobatics or stealth to gain an advantage because the rules for how to use them are clear. The DM provides a challenge and the players use the rules to overcome the challenge. Using Craft (torture) to overcome a challenge or to gain an advantage isn't possible because the advantage is being provided by the DM and not by the skill itself. Anytime the DM is making special allowances for an obscure skill he is creating a false sense of usefulness because that skills usefulness is not dependent upon itself but upon DM discretion. And leniency is not an advantage except in the most superficial of definitions.
Similarly, I have seen Proffession(baker) and Knowledge(Chocolate) completely throw the GM through a loop for their creative use.
Which isn't useful in game terms and, quite frankly, is kind of disingenuous. The GM is the arbiter of the rules and the players shouldn't be trying to trick him or throw him for a loop. Its fine to be creative and the DM is certainly called upon to make decisions for rules that aren't covered, but there is a huge difference between finding a new way to use an established skill with well thought out rules and having to wing it because a player thought it would be cool if his characters vast knowledge and experiences with chocolate could give him a tangible benefit.
2) Killing someone just because they are an inconvenience is evil. It's the very essence of evil. In fact, if you look up evil in the book, as defined in the rules, it says a cavalier regard for life.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.Sounds like your description of a party above, people who kill without qualm if it's more convenient. You show no regard for killing city guard, and say it's ok if you're not lawful. It's ok if you're evil. Because it's more convenient than being arrested on suspicion (and yes, I did put that in up above, that they were arresting you for acting suspicious, most groups of PCs I have ever run have done suspicious things at times). I would say that coming across 4 or 5 guys, standing over corpses, as one of them chants and raises them into undead skeletons counts as 'suspicious'. In fact, I would bet $10 that if you came across that scene described by the GM, you would just slaughter them out of hand without finding out what was going on.
3) If you resist arrest and kill the guards because you don't feel like being arrested, then you are EVIL. See quote above about Evil. Evil kills out of convenience.
1. Aaaaaah... now I see where we are going!
EVERY reason out of which you kill someone is an 'inconvenience'.
Someone has a sword at your throat? How inconvenient! You killed him! BAD YOU
2. There we go!
You are one of those EVIL OVERRIDES EVERYTHING uber Roleplayers.
Good Action and Evil Action? EVIL
Lawful Action and Evil Action? EVIL
Chaotic Action and Evil Action? EVIL
EVIL ACTION AND EVIL ACTION? UBER VILE ACTION.
Sometimes I ask myself why there are more than Good and Evil as alignments if you can't use them. Because its either a good action or a bad action. No matter whether you do it out of lawful or out of chaotic reasons...
lol
I love these DMs. They always find something EVIL in your actions and then you are EVIL and EVIL IS BAAAAAAD
Acts :
LG : Destroying an evil black dragon that has a royal bounty on his head.
NG : Destroying an evil black dragon that has been attacking the countryside.
CG : Killing an evil Devil that has diplomatic immunity from the king.
LN : Hunting down and killing/bringing in bandits with a bounty on their head.
NN : Killing neutral bandits that try to kill/rob you.
CN : Blowing up a cliff face to bury the bandits trying to kill you, blocking off the town's main way of getting to the capital city.
LE : Killing only those who accept a fair fight, and challenging everyone regardless of their power level.
NE : Killing city guards who try to arrest you for raising undead.
CE : Killing city guards who happen to walk down the street you are on.
WANTED
Murderous Hobos
for
Killing five guardsmen
Sinking of The Coral Star
Creating UndeadREWARD
300 gpLast seen on The Maiden of Chelix
LOL
If your GM doesn't emphasize perception checks for initiative and traps, players wont focus on it. But in a game layden with hidden traps and ambushes everyone will likely keep it maxed.This isn't true. Perception is a hugely varied skill that can come in handy whether your DM likes it or not. Rolling to see who notices who before initiative is in the rules. Unless your DM is a cheat, he doesn't get to ignore that. If someone is hiding, attempting a sleight of hand, when searching through a pile of junk, when keeping an eye out at night during your watch, or when looking for hidden doors, you get a perception check.
The only way a DM could possibly make perception a skill that isn't inherently useful is to cheat.
Or he is a GM that isn't trying to hide anything from you. I am in a game now where I have rolled perception fewer times than any other skill I am trained in. I don't really need to search rooms because I'm not looking for hidden things. People aren't trying to ambush me, so I don't really care about opposed perception checks. While the things you describe are common, they are not in every game. Perception only has as much influence as the GM places on it through what he adds to the game. And if the players don't invest in it, they might miss something, and that is OK. The campaign will go on.
The DM will not need to PUT water in front of you. His world will already have water in it. And every time you encounter water you will have the option to swim, without the need for new rules and strange accommodations. You can choose to use this skill to your advantage however YOU see fit. And if you are playing in a setting that doesn't have much water, such as a desert planet, then you shouldn't have been given the option in the first place.
If your GM doesn't use water hazards your players are unlikely to invest in swim. Center the game on a boat though, and aftert the first few levels everyone will have at least a small investment in it.
Actually, it is entirely up to the GM to put water into the game. The GM adds things to the world. The world does not simply exist. The GM decides where encounters happen, using inputs for what the players are trying to do. You could have a setting centered in the River Kingdoms without the players ever having to meaningfully deal with a river or water. Or navigating arround them could be something the players have to deal with on a regular basis. Its almost entirely up to the GM, until a player decideds to make a river important somehow.
If your GM doesn't make you keep track of food or orientation in the wilderness, you wont have much invested in survival. But in a game where you can harvest crafting materials off of enemies you can bet someone will invest in it.If your DM doesn't make you track orientation he isn't playing by the rules so it doesn't mater.
Or you aren't getting lost out in the woods. I've played in a game that never left its starting city going from levels 1-20. Survival was useless, but you can bet knowledge local came in handy, as did sense motive and diplomacy.
If your GM doesn't make you roll for what you know about monsters, most knowledge skills are much weaker. But in a game where you spend more time in libraries than hunting monsters, people will likely have highWhy do all of your examples involve DM's who play fast and loose with the rules? That only serves to further highlight my previous point that by playing in a manner where the DM is forced to validate skills by way of sleight of hand only serves to diminish the weight of each of your choices. Why not just play mother may I?
...
WHy is the GM playing fast and loose with the rules? 95% of monsters can be killed without caring about their weaknesses or abilities. Some campaigns feature almost entirely humanoid opponents where knowledge skills don't matter. These skills only have as much influence as the players put on them, and my point is that that is just as true as with any craft or proffession check.
Acts :
LG : Destroying an evil black dragon that has a royal bounty on his head.
NG : Destroying an evil black dragon that has been attacking the countryside.
CG : Killing an evil Devil that has diplomatic immunity from the king.
LN : Hunting down and killing/bringing in bandits with a bounty on their head.
NN : Killing neutral bandits that try to kill/rob you.
CN : Blowing up a cliff face to bury the bandits trying to kill you, blocking off the town's main way of getting to the capital city.
LE : Killing only those who accept a fair fight, and challenging everyone regardless of their power level.
NE : Killing city guards who try to arrest you for raising undead.
CE : Killing city guards who happen to walk down the street you are on.
So I was right. Lawful and Chaotic are mere flavours of good and evil and not alignments by themselves!
I especially like the NN example... killing bandits that want to rob you is really a true act of neutrality :D
You should get your glasses checked AF, or work on your reading comprehension? CN and LN acts are Lawful and Chaotic acts. Not good or evil ones.
And I never said that killing bandits trying to kill you was evil. I said slaughtering everyone and never giving quarter was a bad idea. I also said that killing anyone who was going to make your life inconvenient was EVIL. I stand by both of those. If you are going to kill the town guards who see you raising skeletons (which is, you know, illegal and also evil, see the spell), then yes, you are committing acts that are evil, and you will soon be evil (aka murderous hobos). End of story, period, finis, the end.
You should get your glasses checked AF, or work on your reading comprehension? CN and LN acts are Lawful and Chaotic acts. Not good or evil ones.
And I never said that killing bandits trying to kill you was evil. I said slaughtering everyone and never giving quarter was a bad idea. I also said that killing anyone who was going to make your life inconvenient was EVIL. I stand by both of those. If you are going to kill the town guards who see you raising skeletons (which is, you know, illegal and also evil, see the spell), then yes, you are committing acts that are evil, and you will soon be evil (aka murderous hobos). End of story, period, finis, the end.
I think you should think about the terminus INCONVENIENT.
By your logic someone having a pistol at my head could be also an inconvenience to me and thus if I MURDER him I would be evil.I guess by your definition no elven empire would ever be chaotic good. Because they kill everyone out of inconveniences. You log our trees? We kill you! (usual elven empire attitude) and what is having someone log a few trees in a 1000km^2 forest other than an inconvenience.
Or Unicorns. They kill evil creatures that are merely trespassing their forest. And what harm do they have from that? None. They kill them out of an inconvenience. Unicorns are EEEEEVIIIL.
I doubt fleeing enemies count as an 'inconvenience'. Retreating forces have to be broken or they will reform and counterattack. Look at military history. Just because forces are retreating it doesn't mean you should stop attacking them.
You kill retreating forces not out of 'inconvenience' but out of tactical and strategic sense.
Gorb. Dis iz turnink into vun of dose plans... Hyu know de kind vere ve keel everybody dot notices dot ve's killin' people?
It is?
Uh huh. And how do dose alvays end?
De dirigible iz in flames, everyboddyz dead an' I've lost my hat.
Dot's right. Und any plan vere you lose you hat iz?
A bad plan?
Right again!
LOL
ALL HAIL LADY HETRODYNE!
No they couldn't. A player can apply acrobatics or stealth to gain an advantage because the rules for how to use them are clear. The DM provides a challenge and the players use the rules to overcome the challenge. Using Craft (torture) to overcome a challenge or to gain an advantage isn't possible because the advantage is being provided by the DM and not by the skill itself. Anytime the DM is making special allowances for an obscure skill he is creating a false sense of usefulness because that skills usefulness is not dependent upon itself but upon DM discretion. And leniency is not an advantage except in the most superficial of definitions.
Right, so what you are saying here is that every skill without explicit dirrections on how it is used is useless. You do realize that every skill falls under this category, right? The areas with explicit rules are the exception, and half of those get thrown out by most GMs. I have never seen a GM run Diplomacy as is, and even then all the benefits are up to the GM as "friendly" is vague at best. Every knowledge skill is 100% GM discretion. Most DCs are left up to the GM to decide at his whim.
Right, so what you are saying here is that every skill without explicit dirrections on how it is used is useless. You do realize that every skill falls under this category, right? The areas with explicit rules are the exception, and half of those get thrown out by most GMs. I have never seen a GM run Diplomacy as is, and even then all the benefits are up to the GM as "friendly" is vague at best. Every knowledge skill is 100% GM discretion. Most DCs are left up to the GM to decide at his whim.
Maybe in your games, but I've played under a variety of GMs as well, many on OpenRPG or other online hubs and such, and honestly the rules are rarely touched outside of pre-established house rules. Only bad GMs ignore the rules when it is convenient for them.
Also, in regards to the mdt and Alienfreak discussion of the alignments, Alienfreak is right. There is only killing for convenience. Merely different levels of convenience. Thus all of those acts mdt has described are evil by the definition of the rules.
If a Paladin kills an orc in the heat of battle, it was generally because it was more convenient to kill him with a sword than it was to parry his blows, beat him into submission with nonlethal damage, and then bind him up and bring him to the proper authorities who will either A) kill him because it's more convenient than jailing him, or B) find some way to remove him as a threat, such as by jailing or some form of imprisonment, which is less convenient but keeps him alive.
This is why black and white alignment doesn't work. In a world with absolute alignments, everyone will be evil, especially if they are adventurers. It's just impossible not to be. Evil is Evil, and if you aren't allowed to temper it through intent and result, then you will always end up with Evil; and thus Paladins are impossible, and you really only have different shades of evil (as in adventurer A is less evil than adventurer B).
Now if intent balances it out, then the Paladin's intent to protect himself from the orc balances it out (self defense). Or the Paladin fighting to protect someone. Or even waging battle against a tribe of orc raiders who have been enslaving people from a local homestead. While he is committing a clearly evil act (killing things out of convenience), this evil act is tempered by his good intent combined with results, and that makes it more of a Neutral act.
This is one of the reasons I hated a lot of the alignment revisions made in 3.5 that didn't exist in 3.0. In 3.0 (hereafter referred to as 3E), alignment worked. In 3.5, it was broken, and it remains broken today.
Or he is a GM that isn't trying to hide anything from you. I am in a game now where I have rolled perception fewer times than any other skill I am trained in. I don't really need to search rooms because I'm not looking for hidden things. People aren't trying to ambush me, so I don't really care about opposed perception checks. While the things you describe are common, they are not in every game. Perception only has as much influence as the GM places on it through what he adds to the game. And if the players don't invest in it, they might miss something, and that is OK. The campaign will go on.
DM's don't need to be hiding things for you to be able to make constant use of this skill. It isn't called 'notice secrets' it is called 'perception'. If you AREN'T using this skill then it is because you have opted out. That's perfectly fine but it has nothing to do with my point.
Actually, it is entirely up to the GM to put water into the game. The GM adds things to the world. The world does not simply exist. The GM decides where encounters happen, using inputs for what the players are trying to do. You could have a setting centered in the River Kingdoms without the players ever having to meaningfully deal with a river or water. Or navigating arround them could be something the players have to deal with on a regular basis. Its almost entirely up to the GM, until a player decideds to make a river important somehow.
Of course it is entirely up to the DM. But you missed my point. Any standard setting has water. There are coastal towns, harbors, bays, oceans, rivers, canals, lakes, etc. It is up to you whether or not you would like to go to these places. The DM doesn't need to just drop a river in front of you so that way you can make use of swim. The DM likely knows where the major bodies of water are (and might have an idea where the smaller ones are). For example, in my campaign there is a lake called the Silversong Lake. It's right there on the map, but the players haven't been there yet. But you can be sure that when (and if) they do finally arrive that the water will still be there.
Now it's perfectly okay to create a setting where there aren't that many major bodies of water. But it isn't okay to create a desert planet with no rivers, lakes, or oceans and then let the players take swim as a skill. That makes you a bad DM.
Or you aren't getting lost out in the woods. I've played in a game that never left its starting city going from levels 1-20. Survival was useless, but you can bet knowledge local came in handy, as did sense motive and diplomacy.
If you aren't ever going to be in the woods then it doesn't matter anyway. So what's the point? If you aren't planning on leaving the city you don't invest in survival and then there is no problem. What you don't do is invest in survival anyway, knowing you will be in the city all the time, and then expect the DM to validate your investment for you. Which is exactly what players expect out of the DM with profession skills.
WHy is the GM playing fast and loose with the rules? 95% of monsters can be killed without caring about their weaknesses or abilities.
Whether or not monsters can be killed easily is no excuse for him to cheat.
Right, so what you are saying here is that every skill without explicit dirrections on how it is used is useless. You do realize that every skill falls under this category, right? The areas with explicit rules are the exception, and half of those get thrown out by most GMs. I have never seen a GM run Diplomacy as is, and even then all the benefits are up to the GM as "friendly" is vague at best. Every knowledge skill is 100% GM discretion. Most DCs are left up to the GM to decide at his whim.
Okay then. It's obvious I wasted my time. I cannot argue about rules if you haven't played under a DM that respects them. And I certainly can't argue against mother-may-I. However, I didn't see this until after I wrote everything else so I'll just post anyway.
Requiring a profession blacksmith for.. well, anything, is just a double penalty. taking a craft is already bad enough, but you're going to split the practical and theoretical applications of that craft into separate skills? A fighter needs BOTH his skill points into figuring out his way around a blacksmith shop?
Requiring a profession blacksmith for.. well, anything, is just a double penalty. taking a craft is already bad enough, but you're going to split the practical and theoretical applications of that craft into separate skills? A fighter needs BOTH his skill points into figuring out his way around a blacksmith shop?
While I don't plan on doing this (i.e. requiring profession and craft blacksmith)it might be a good idea to consider how long it takes a blacksmith to learn his way around the smithy...
Close Arioreo,
but slightly off. You can't use Profession(Blacksmith) to make armor, there's a craft(armor) as a skill. What Profession(Blacksmith) is good for is :
Shoeing horses in the field
Forging cutlery, plates, pots, kitchen supplies
Making hinges
Fixing wagons/carriages
Making MW tools for other purposes
Note that all of this can be done with a rank or two at most, since it's a class skill for everyone. This means that, in general, you can dump a single skill point into it, and cover most minor creations that you need. Even the MW tools, DC 20, can be handled relatively easily on a take 10 with MW tools and a helper or two.
Please go read the Craft skill again. It specifically lists Craft(Armor) as being needed to make Armor and Shields.
Now, technically, you are correct, you could require someone to take a craft for each of those.
We've always treated Profession(Blacksmith) as the answer to 'Varies' in the craft table. You could probably put Craft(Blacksmith) in as well for all those 'varies' things. Same effect.
However, you can't use Profession(Blacksmith) to make Armor, since the craft skill specifically lists a specific craft skill to do it.
You can use professions to make magic items, like profession brewer for potions that come with a little extra kick :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3) If you resist arrest and kill the guards because you don't feel like being arrested, then you are EVIL. See quote above about Evil. Evil kills out of convenience.
Just a quick question:
Scenery:
You are arriving on Baator in a big city and suddenly the guards want to arrest you on charges of being mortal and the punishment for that is being executed and converted into a Larva.
Does this make my Chaotic Good character evil if I resist?
I mean they are guards and resisting arrest by guards is clearly evil as you pointed out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a PC want to be less than he is? Around lv10, any given PC is in super-hero area, and can take on an average army of normal people.
At 13+, they can SINGLEHANDEDLY wipe out an army.
Why would they want to be PART of something less than themselves? They are like master Jedi; one alone is enough to turn the tide of a war.
Stop thinking "Game of Thrones" or "Rome" and when the system quite clearly is intended for "Immortals" or "God of War"
Level 10 is indeed quite far above average. The character woud be able to down a score of individuals of the average army but they would get over-whelmed. Level 13+ is indeed scary but it comes down to what army you're fighting. Elite horse archers? Elite skirmishers? The list goes on. Even for jedi-masters, if there are enough blaster bolts coming at them, the jedi master cannot block/dodge them all. Other methods could be heavy repeater which shoots a ball of pure energy or the sniper rifle. Catch them while their guard down is down etc. I've seen this sort of thing happen in the crimson throne campaign. One character drunk on his power tried to take on an army. It didn't end well.
Necromancers taken out by a team of stealthy ranged scouts.
Cavalry impaling barbarians.
Small group of swordsman killed by more pikemen.
So... killing off all the party, because they got caught? Sometimes it is just the right thing to do.
Hahahah, play up the scene, describe it, give them a chance for some cool end words. "Sin leads to destruction, but it sure was fun."
The poor poor maiden of Cheliax. :'(
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The classic example of this problem in one of my games was bodies of water. The character party was so well combat optimized they would charge into the most fearsome dens of evil without concern, invade enemy kingdoms without bothering to plan beyond packing a lunch, take on whole armies for fun... but if they ran into a river too big to wade across they'd stand on the bank looking forlorn and trepidatious. None of them could swim or use a boat worth a damn and they didn't have any 'traveling' (e.g. teleportation, flying) magic. Time and again rivers and lakes proved to be the most dangerous things in the world. One of the characters eventually became a vampire and commented, 'Heck, none of us can cross bodies of water anyway - so that's no drawback.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...DM's don't need to be hiding things for you to be able to make constant use of this skill. It isn't called 'notice secrets' it is called 'perception'. If you AREN'T using this skill then it is because you have opted out. That's perfectly fine but it has nothing to do with my point.
And right here you proved my point. Proffession(Baker) has as much use as the player puts it to, just like perception. The player not realizing its usefulness is his fault. It is a powerful skill when used right and in the correct situations.
Of course it is entirely up to the DM. But you missed my point. Any standard setting has water. There are coastal towns, harbors, bays, oceans, rivers, canals, lakes, etc. It is up to you whether or not you would like to go to these places. The DM doesn't need to just drop a river in front of you so that way you can make use of swim. The DM likely knows where the major bodies of water are (and might have an idea where the smaller ones are). For example, in my campaign there is a lake called the Silversong Lake. It's right there on the map,...
Actually, it is entirely up to the GM to put water into the game. The GM adds things to the world. The world does not simply exist. The GM decides where encounters happen, using inputs for what the players are trying to do. You could have a setting centered in the River Kingdoms without the players ever having to meaningfully deal with a river or water. Or navigating arround them could be something the players have to deal with on a regular basis. Its almost entirely up to the GM, until a player decideds to make a river important somehow.
Actually, it is always been that the GM decides when the players need to cross a river in my games. Its always the GM that decides there is an underground river in this cave. Or that the monster makes his lair on the bank of the river. Rarely, it is the players deciding they want to travel the easiest way and to do that is to follow the river, but then it is the GM who throws any hazards at them that would require them to swim, like archers on the other bank.
If you aren't ever going to be in the woods then it doesn't matter anyway. So what's the point? If you aren't planning on leaving the city you don't invest in survival and then there is no problem. What you don't do is invest in survival anyway, knowing you will be in the city all the time, and then expect the DM to validate your investment for you. Which is exactly what players expect out of the DM with profession skills.
No, players expect the GM to make profession skills do what they are supposed to do when they are relevant. They are not expecting the GM to make them relevant. There is a huge difference. And in my experience, they are more relevant than not, its just the player not being creative.
Whether or not monsters can be killed easily is no excuse for him to cheat.
Would really love to know how the players not bothering to make skill checks is the GM's fault for cheating.
Good question. Better one would be why did you walk in there openly in the first place?
3) If you resist arrest and kill the guards because you don't feel like being arrested, then you are EVIL. See quote above about Evil. Evil kills out of convenience.Just a quick question:
Scenery:
You are arriving on Baator in a big city and suddenly the guards want to arrest you on charges of being mortal and the punishment for that is being executed and converted into a Larva.
Does this make my Chaotic Good character evil if I resist?
I mean they are guards and resisting arrest by guards is clearly evil as you pointed out...
1. So its the characters fault... how convenient ;)
2. Why should one not walk openly into Baator?3. You assume they did walk openly. What if they tried to hide but got caught while trying to sneak around to meet someone?
People tend to confuse the good and evil axis with the lawful and chaotic axis quite often.
If a person did something clearly evil that leads to the arrest it is evil (obviously). And that he tries to resist will neither make it good nor evil.
If a person did nothing wrong and gets arrested he did nothing wrong so its not evil here. Then it comes to the point whether he believes in the justice system (lawful) or not (chaotic) to prove him innocent (as he is). So resisting an (from his point of view) unjust arrest is chaotic and not evil.
We get into a real problem here when we have a lawful good paladin that gets arrested on Baator due to charges of being a Paladin. Now he did nothing evil but only good and is purely lawful but can he resist the arrest by the devils or not? If he can't it is a good tactic for the devils to just walk up to Paladins and tell them they are arrested under some law and if they resist its an evil act and they instantly lose all their abilities. It would even be a good tactic for anyone to use against a paladin. Get some law outlawing his very person and arrest him on those charges. He either fights you and loses his abilities or he gets arrested and lawfully executed. Problem solved!
3) If you resist arrest and kill the guards because you don't feel like being arrested, then you are EVIL. See quote above about Evil. Evil kills out of convenience.Just a quick question:
Scenery:
You are arriving on Baator in a big city and suddenly the guards want to arrest you on charges of being mortal and the punishment for that is being executed and converted into a Larva.
Does this make my Chaotic Good character evil if I resist?
I mean they are guards and resisting arrest by guards is clearly evil as you pointed out...
No clue, since I don't know who/what Baator is.
Why are you going some place where it's illegal to be Mortal? Are you stupid, or just ignorant?
If you're stupid, and you knew it was illegal to be mortal, and you went anyway, then you're invading. That means you're an invader in their realm. This could be a Good, Neutral, or Evil act, depending on your alignment and their alignment. It could be a Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic act depending on why you're declaring war on a realm by yourself. It's pretty much a stupid act to declare war on a city/realm/country by yourself.
If you're ignorant? Well, I'd say attacking the guards would be a chaotic neutral act. Selfish in other words, you don't want to die. You were dumb to go somewhere without checking up on the local laws.
You know, going somewhere where it's illegal to be mortal is pretty much stupid all around. So I'd probably rule it a chaotic stupid act at a minimum.
1. So its the characters fault... how convenient ;)
It usually is.
2. Why should one not walk openly into Baator?
If one is mortal, and it's illegal to be mortal there, then one shouldn't walk openly into Baator because it's stupid. If you don't know it's illegal, then you're stupid for not finding out before going there.
3. You assume they did walk openly. What if they tried to hide but got caught while trying to sneak around to meet someone?
Then you tried to do something stupid, and got caught at it. Hmmm, yeah, no sympathy there.
People tend to confuse the good and evil axis with the lawful and chaotic axis quite often.
No, people like to take a scenario that is fairly well understood to be you raising undead in a non-demonic city (Baator is a devil/demon city I take it from your post), and being evil for killing the guards who try to arrest them (this was the scenario I outlined above, which you are trying to twist around with this scenario), and then pointing out strawmen 'Oh, well what if the guards are eeevil?!' arguments to justify your ability to slaughter innocent townsfolk who aren't evil. In other words, it's self serving justification for acting like murderous hobos, since if I killed evil guards it would be good, then killing good or neutral guards must also be good. That's your logic, and it's flawed (or borderline psychotic).
If a person did something clearly evil that leads to the arrest it is evil (obviously). And that he tries to resist will neither make it good nor evil.
Nope, it's chaotic though, so it would be chaotic evil. You really didn't bother paying attention did you?
If a person did nothing wrong and gets arrested he did nothing wrong so its not evil here. Then it comes to the point whether he believes in the justice system (lawful) or not (chaotic) to prove him innocent (as he is). So resisting an (from his point of view) unjust arrest is chaotic and not evil.
Which would be situation dependent. Let's look at the scenario, which you are ignoring and twisting.
Neutral town guards walking down a street see your group of murderous hobos standing over the bodies of evil assassins. Your cleric is casting create dead on the corpses. This is pretty much universally illegal in most non-evil realms. It's also an evil act (the spell has an [Evil] subtag). Neutral town guards go to arrest you. You kill them. Evil act? Yes. Chaotic act? Yes. So Chaotic Evil act. In other words, you are murderous hobos. An act can be both Evil and Chaotic.
We get into a real problem here when we have a lawful good paladin that gets arrested on Baator due to charges of being a Paladin. Now he did nothing evil but only good and is purely lawful but can he resist the arrest by the devils or not? If he can't it is a good tactic for the devils to just walk up to Paladins and tell them they are arrested under some law and if they resist its an evil act and they instantly lose all their abilities. It would even be a good tactic for anyone to use against a paladin. Get some law outlawing his very person and arrest him on those charges. He either fights you and loses his abilities or he gets arrested and lawfully executed. Problem solved!
Wrong. You get a Paladin who's performing a chaotic neutral act (disobeying a law). Fortunately, Paladin's don't fail for committing a few chaotic acts. This assumes that he is just going to the city to get into a fight. If he's going to Defeat Evil and Save The Innocent, then he's declaring war on the evil empire. This invokes a bunch of different rules, basically being at war against the Evil Empire means the local laws no longer apply, since you are an invader here to do battle. Then the rules of war apply. There are laws to how you invade (especially if you are a Paladin). Paladin's don't rape, murder or pillage in war. They kill enemy soldiers, ensure innocent civilians have a chance to escape, maintain order and discipline on their own troops, and a bunch of other disgustingly honorable things.
The classic example of this problem in one of my games was bodies of water. The character party was so well combat optimized they would charge into the most fearsome dens of evil without concern, invade enemy kingdoms without bothering to plan beyond packing a lunch, take on whole armies for fun... but if they ran into a river too big to wade across they'd stand on the bank looking forlorn and trepidatious. None of them could swim or use a boat worth a damn and they didn't have any 'traveling' (e.g. teleportation, flying) magic. Time and again rivers and lakes proved to be the most dangerous things in the world. One of the characters eventually became a vampire and commented, 'Heck, none of us can cross bodies of water anyway - so that's no drawback.'
Hahahahahahah, that is pretty damn funny.
With all due respect Mdt, Alienfreak is probably referring to a party of at best, chaotic neutral characters. Animating the corpses of slain foes is not necessarily illegal if it happened in some country or community which is heavy on necromancy. I admit that the line between alignments is not always so crystal clear. There are some grey areas. Alot of players argue using the "its all relative" approach to justify their actions being not necessarily evil. The problem is that you stretch that sort of argument too far and things like blowing up a meeting of innocent local sages with the exception of one or two evil ones is justified. DnD can entertain some of the relative arguments but there is a limit on how far it can be stretched deoending on the GM. I would say the party which killed every single potential foe is chaotic neutral for the moment unless they are all suffering from intense paranoia. Depending on the GM, some would let their alignments stay CN, some others atsome point will say "right, you are now neutral evil."
Neutral town guards walking down a street see your group of murderous hobos standing over the bodies of evil assassins. Your cleric is casting create dead on the corpses. This is pretty much universally illegal in most non-evil realms. It's also an evil act (the spell has an [Evil] subtag). Neutral town guards go to arrest you. You kill them. Evil act? Yes. Chaotic act? Yes. So Chaotic Evil act. In other words, you are murderous hobos. An act can be both Evil and Chaotic.
Animate Dead is forbidden in most realms? You got any source to that?
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
I cannot see anything inherently EVIL in that. I conjure a Baatezu/Tana'Ri to save children from a burning home because he can do that since he has a fire immunity.
Drawing upon evil powers != being evil!
And you know that. All you can is toss around a quote from the beta times in which Jacobs expressed his personal opinion on the matter and said that the spells 'are evil'.
Would guards arrest a cleric that gets attacked by well known enemy assassins (they have the symbols of the enemy of the city all over them) and he uses his channel negative energy (as he is a cleric of a neutral nature deity) to finish them off. Or better his buddies are good aligned undead heroes saving the city from evildoers and they see the cleric healing the party with a channel negative energy... totally evil (specifically pointed out in the description of channel energy).
.
.
.
Not to mention that not all evil actions are forbidden in non evil realms.
I really have no idea where you came up with the idea that comitting an evil act is outlawed in most countries. Those legal system would be really... INTERESTING.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect Mdt, Alienfreak is probably referring to a party of at best, chaotic neutral characters. Animating the corpses of slain foes is not necessarily illegal if it happened in some country or community which is heavy on necromancy. I admit that the line between alignments is not always so crystal clear. There are some grey areas. Alot of players argue using the "its all relative" approach to justify their actions being not necessarily evil. The problem is that you stretch that sort of argument too far and things like blowing up a meeting of innocent local sages with the exception of one or two evil ones is justified. DnD can entertain some of the relative arguments but there is a limit on how far it can be stretched deoending on the GM. I would say the party which killed every single potential foe is chaotic neutral for the moment unless they are all suffering from intense paranoia. Depending on the GM, some would let their alignments stay CN, some others atsome point will say "right, you are now neutral evil."
I understand what he's referring to. In my experience a bunch of CN adventurer's who go around raising undead are called murderous hobos, and are usually slipping into CE.
First off, just raising undead is Evil.
Create Undead
School necromancy [evil]; Level cleric 6, sorcerer/wizard 6
Unless you house rule the spell as not being evil, then it's evil to cast it. He advocates that his CN chums cast it on every corpse they kill to avoid having the corpse raised, reincarnated, or spoken dead to.
This does two things, it leaves a trail of uncontrolled undead behind them, to kill innocent bystanders, and it means they are constantly committing evil acts to raise them in the first place.
Eventually, non-evil people (like a Paladin) are going to try to arrest them for all these random chaotic evil acts (leaving undead behind you wherever you go is pretty much a staple of what people usually go after BBEGs for). As soon as his murderous hobos start killing the soldiers/guards/paladins sent to arrest them as evil miscreants, they are going to become evil.
Murderous undead raising hobos are the new villains of the game I am running. They will be evil, and wanted by the authorities.
It would all depend on the world and the region in question and its laws regarding it's legality.
In my world, where the characters are currently, most magic is viewed suspiciously at best, and necromancy and daemon summoning are outlawed, punishable by death.
What this means that in my world, animating the dead, or summoning demons, is illegal, so performing such an act would be chaotic. However, in your world it may not be illegal, in which case casting the spell in and of itself would have no alignment (it would only be chaotic if it was breaking laws)
Casting necromancy spells that have the [evil] tag associated with them would also be evil in my book, so in my world, animating the dead would be a chaotic act as it breaks the law, and an evil act as the spell is tagged with the [evil] subtype.
I'm not sure what summoning demons is on the axis of good or evil. I would lean towards evil as well, but if its not tagged with [evil] then it wouldn't be an evil act unto itself unless the application of the spell was evil.
Much like casting a fireball is not evil, but casting a fireball at an inn and setting it ablaze and cooking the people inside would be an evil act.
Casting an evil spell that breaks local laws to perform an action that is not evil would not make casting the spell any less chaotic or evil, however the application of the spell would not be evil.
That's how I view it anyway.
As to player characters slaying town guards to hide their doings which were unlawful and also evil; that would pretty much be the pinnacle of evil actions yes lol. That would be akin to murder in my book.
But then we can argue that war is murder. Slaying an enemy soldier is murder. The town guards became my enemy when they tried to stop me, so they were no longer innocent bystanders, they were now enemy combatants, etc...
Some people can justify any action and can argue any angle. They are called lawyers =)
Unless you house rule the spell as not being evil, then it's evil to cast it. He advocates that his CN chums cast it on every corpse they kill to avoid having the corpse raised, reincarnated, or spoken dead to.
This does two things, it leaves a trail of uncontrolled undead behind them, to kill innocent bystanders, and it means they are constantly committing evil acts to raise them in the first place.
Eventually, non-evil people (like a Paladin) are going to try to arrest them for all these random chaotic evil acts (leaving undead behind you wherever you go is pretty much a staple of what people usually go after...
Oh... so you are treating YOUR house rule as a core rule and everyone using core is using a house rule?
There is not a single sentence in the CRB under which it is stated that [evil] spells are not just [evil] because they draw upon 'evil' energies and thus someone who has no access to that (due to being a cleric) cannot use them but that [evil] spells are [evil] so the whole world knows you are evil once you cast them.
Baator is Baator... Lawful Evil doesn't preclude arbitrary rule enforcement, especially if they decide that the rules only apply to "Non-Vermin", all mortals being classified as vermin. Lawful Evil isn't neccessarily going to respect Lawful Good because they share one alignment component. Lawful Evil does not mean that they'll be "fair" or "honorable" or any of that crap. What to expect is that the rules to be enforced and twisted for the benefit of those who hold the power.
It's also pretty much a safe assumption that the guards themselves are throughly evil. So I don't think a Paladin is going to risk his class by attacking them or defending himself. You WILL of course be swamped down by numbers, but that's a different matter.
So the ultimate tactic against a Paladin is just to wave a scroll at his face everytime you meet him telling him that he is guilty under X law and will be arrested?
Good to know!| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animate Dead is forbidden in most realms? You got any source to that?
Yep, go read a dozen fantasy books. You'll find that necromancers are evil 9 times out of 10.
Or
As mentioned above... zombies and skeletons are evil. They're mindless, but the necromantic energies that create them compel them to destroy the living if they're not being used for other purposes. They have evil alignments as a result. And the concept of creating undead itself is viewed as evil by all civilized societies—and is supported by the fact that undead are not found on the good aligned outer planes, and are not used in good temples.
The ONLY kind of undead in the Pathfinder RPG that can be not evil at this point is the ghost—but they're somewhat unique in the way they form and what they do.
All other undead are evil. Including zombies and skeletons.
And as a result, all spells that create undead have the Evil descriptor.
Animating the dead is NOT the same as animating an object. You can use animate objects to animate a dead body; it has the stats for an animated object, though, NOT an undead skeleton or zombie, because the force that animates things with animate objects is unaligned magical energy; the force that animates undead is negative energy and evil spirit power. That distinction is something that is really interesting and unique, and someone who uses lots of animate object spells to create animated objects out of dead bodies would be a VERY interesting thing to explore in a book BECAUSE it's a way to make dead bodies do stuff without using evil magic.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.I cannot see anything inherently EVIL in that. I conjure a Baatezu/Tana'Ri to save children from a burning home because he can do that since he has a fire immunity.
Drawing upon evil powers != being evil!
Yes, it is. Dev's have ruled this repeatedly.
Pretty much once. PFS isn't about shades of gray, since it has to keep some pretty distinct boundaries in place. It doesn't really have a lot of the luxuries a home game has.Well then, how many times can I create undead before CG Necromancer becomes CE Necromancer?To everybody who says: "it's a minor thing, homerule it and be happy !" - yes, but what about PFS ?PFS uses the core rules. Animate dead is evil, and animating dead is evil, and undead are evil. They're more or less off limits for PCs to play with as a result.
Where did I make a *qualitative* judgement about the relative evil-ness of X vs. Y? I did not. I stated that the negative energy used to create undead is evil. I didn't say it was *more evil* than what an intelligent evil human could come up with... I just said it's *inherently* evil.
Undead are created by infusing corpses with energy from the Negative Energy Plane. The Negative Energy is the source of entropy and destruction. It is anti-life. There is no benign or creative use for anti-life. Unlike elemental fire, which can be used to harm or help, negative energy is universally destructive toward living things. It warps life, attacks life. Every act of "creation" with negative energy is just a mockery of true creation, an ugly, distorted parody of life. It is inherently more hateful and destructive than racism, murder, genocide, torture because it wants to destroy life simply because it exists, no matter that life's shape, form, needs, intent, or purpose.
That's evil.
And you know that. All you can is toss around a quote from the beta times in which Jacobs expressed his personal opinion on the matter and said that the spells 'are evil'.
No, I quote two of the developers, one of whom (Sean) is tasked with making rules decisions. And it's not from the beta times, it's from May 2010.
Would guards arrest a cleric that gets attacked by well known enemy assassins (they have the symbols of the enemy of the city all over them) and he uses his channel negative energy (as he is a cleric of a neutral nature deity) to finish them off. Or better his buddies are good aligned undead heroes saving the city from evildoers and they see the cleric healing the party with a channel negative energy... totally evil (specifically pointed out in the description of channel energy).
There are no good undead aligned heroes. Unless possibly if you're all ghosts. Not sure how ghosts are doing anything.
If you are killing known enemy assassins, then why are you resisting arrest? You get arrested, they then (when they have time to look), see they are assassins (ungodly stupid assassins, who wear badges saying 'I'm an assassin'), and then they release you and buy you a beer. So why are you killing them?
Not to mention that not all evil actions are forbidden in non evil realms.
I really have no idea where you came up with the idea that comitting an evil act is outlawed in most countries. Those legal system would be really... INTERESTING.
Never said it was. I said raising undead was outlawed in most countries. Why don't you try not putting words in my mouth I didn't say? Hmmm, that would be interesting, if you could manage that. Not sure if you can.
And you are correct, not all evil acts are forbidden in non-evil realms. But every single one of them leads to you being Evil murderous hobos eventually. Interesting...
Unless you house rule the spell as not being evil, then it's evil to cast it. He advocates that his CN chums cast it on every corpse they kill to avoid having the corpse raised, reincarnated, or spoken dead to.
This does two things, it leaves a trail of uncontrolled undead behind them, to kill innocent bystanders, and it means they are constantly committing evil acts to raise them in the first place.
Eventually, non-evil people (like a Paladin) are going to try to arrest them for all these random chaotic evil acts (leaving undead behind you wherever you go is pretty much a staple of what people usually go after...
Oh... so you are treating YOUR house rule as a core rule and everyone using core is using a house rule?
There is not a single sentence in the CRB under which it is stated that [evil] spells are not just [evil] because they draw upon 'evil' energies and thus someone who has no access to that (due to being a cleric) cannot use them but that [evil] spells are [evil] so the whole world knows you are evil once you cast them.
Go read the thread I linked to. Your use is house-ruled. The Dev's didn't bother to write in that casting [Evil] spells was evil, because they assumed people were smart enough to figure that out from the Evil subtag (hahahaha, silly devs).
Well to be fair mdt... from a purely mechanical mindset the rules are not clear. I agree with you fully that using a spell tagged with [evil] is an evil act, but from the mindset of someone who is purely mechanical, unless it specifically states that it is, you cannot assume.
The devs of the game saying it is is telling. I also suspect most GMs will rule it that way as well.
I had a very mechanical-minded player a couple years ago who would argue something like this as well. You cannot run assumptions by them, it either states it is in the rulebook, or it is therefore not.
I play Games Workshop Warhammer and 40k, which can be a nightmare against mechanical-minded folk because the rules of those games are always fuzzy and notorious for not being black and white enough.
...
So lets see:
1. Jacobs does the old alignment nazi and says that doing something evil ONCE will make you INSTANTLY EVIL. That itself disqualifies it and is a good reason why his very personal opinion is not in the rulebooks ;).
All Unicorns would be Evil and not Good due to his ruling. And we know thats not meant to be and is untrue.
Not to mention that Jacobs says a lot if the day is really long.
2. SKRs excursion into philosophy is about as interesting as its wrong. Especially this one here:
Every act of "creation" with negative energy is just a mockery of true creation, an ugly, distorted parody of life. It is inherently more hateful and destructive than racism, murder, genocide, torture because it wants to destroy life simply because it exists, no matter that life's shape, form, needs, intent, or purpose.
.
..
So you have anything solid to come up with except some, to say the truth, troubling personal opinions?
.
.
.
Oh and we already left the point that resisting is EVVIL and make you like REALLY BEEEEEEEEVIL behind us and its only evil that we raise the enemies as undead to keep them out of the game?
The developers have repeatedly stated that you're to use common sense when reading the rules. Ergo doing an act specifically marked as "evil" is an evil act.
It is marked as being FUELED BY evil energies.
Unlike what most people think you can indeed fight fire with fire and quench it with it. Just because something is fueled by fire doesn't mean that it causes fire. It can even quench it.
So source and effect are not to be compared.
Common Sense for the win!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I meant the rules text where it says using an aligned magic item or an aligned spell is an evil act.Core Rulebook, Magic chapter:
According to the rules, an [evil] spell is "categorized as" evil.
Would you argue that an [acid] spell isn't acid? That an [earth] spell isn't earth? That a [fear] spell isn't fear? That a [mind-affecting] spell isn't mind-affecting? If not, why are you arguing that an [evil] spell isn't evil?
So lets see:1. Jacobs does the old alignment nazi and says that doing something evil ONCE will make you INSTANTLY EVIL. That itself disqualifies it and is a good reason why his very personal opinion is not in the rulebooks ;).
Pretty much once. PFS isn't about shades of gray, since it has to keep some pretty distinct boundaries in place. It doesn't really have a lot of the luxuries a home game has.
Note that the 'only once' is in regards to PFS play. You commit an evil act once, you're out of PFS. Due to the distinct boundaries there. Doesn't mean it's not an evil act. Just means you only get one evil act in PFS before you turn in your character sheet.
Nice way to dodge the issue with a strawman though.
The developers have repeatedly stated that you're to use common sense when reading the rules. Ergo doing an act specifically marked as "evil" is an evil act.
To me, yes absolutely. From the devil's advocate slot, no it does not. Because the rules don't specifically state it so and I can come up with a dozen arguments to support that casting an evil spell is not evil if I'm not using the spell's application for evil.
Again, I don't know any GMs personally who would side with that, but I read the internet forums enough and have GM'd players who have come from the purely mechanical side of things to know that it exists out there (I ran into something similar when running RPGA events a few years ago)
You have to understand that from a purely logical, mechanical viewpoint, that if the rulebook doesn't say it is, the only logical explanation and conclusion is that it is not.
Rules designers tend to fall into the more abstract mindset where they say use common sense. Abstract thinking (emotional thinking) vs logical thinking are two totally different universes.
For me, using evil spells would not be something that a good aligned character would ever do. A neutral character could indeed do it, however. As a GM if a good aligned character were to cast an evil spell, their alignment would fall to neutral.
This is why 90% of the characters I have ever come across are usually neutral of some sort. Because then they can do whatever they want and the mechanics of the game do not hamstring them.
Using spells that are outlawed by a region would be unlawful and therefore punishable.
Killing guards attempting to arrest you for breaking the law would be murder. It would not surprise most people if you become wanted for such acts.