Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Mogloth wrote:


Hmmmm, question. If I follow a CE deity, and I cast Detect Evil, does it ping on Evil things or would it ping on Good? If the Detect spells are granted by the deities, then wouldn't the total opposite of your gods' alignment be considered evil?

Not trying to be obtuse, the thought just crept into my mind.

No the same things for a follower of good and evil ping as good or evil. The characters themselves just have a different opinion, an evil person would consider evil beneficial to the world, or be too selfish to care what harm he is doing to the world.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mogloth wrote:
Hmmmm, question. If I follow a CE deity, and I cast Detect Evil, does it ping on Evil things or would it ping on Good?

Of course not. Because in Pathfinder, good and evil are not relative. They're definitive. Evil simply IS evil. It's a constant, not a variable.

How much more clear life must be in Pathfinder. If you do evil or are evil, you can't rationalize it away or delude yourself. You, and your acts, can be tested and their alignment made known.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Evil clerics have detect good.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Evil clerics have detect good.

Actually all clerics have access to detect evil + good + law + chaos. Only paladins and antipaladins are limited to detecting the opposite of themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Mogloth wrote:
Hmmmm, question. If I follow a CE deity, and I cast Detect Evil, does it ping on Evil things or would it ping on Good?

Of course not. Because in Pathfinder, good and evil are not relative. They're definitive. Evil simply IS evil. It's a constant, not a variable.

How much more clear life must be in Pathfinder. If you do evil or are evil, you can't rationalize it away or delude yourself. You, and your acts, can be tested and their alignment made known.

RyanD

I wasn't trying to find loopholes or anything. The thought just popped into my head as I was responding in my previous post.

I agree totally that evil is evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Arguing the philosophical implications of "good and evil" being open to interpretation isn't really effective in a game scenario. Countless others have said it, no game engine is anywhere close to being about to grasp the concept of interpretation. Good and evil have to be defined.

All we can do is asked that they are both defined thoroughly and equally. Just because evil are "the bad guys" doesn't mean they should be put at a disadvantage.

I also think a lot of emphasis on what is considered griefing and what is considered readily accepted evil behavior will go a long way.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:

All we can do is asked that they are both defined thoroughly and equally. Just because evil are "the bad guys" doesn't mean they should be put at a disadvantage.

I also think a lot of emphasis on what is considered griefing and what is considered readily accepted evil behavior will go a long way.

Well, I would expect 'evil' to be put at a disadvantage in a 'good' city. Just as I would expect an 'evil' city to treat 'good' with contempt.

I also look forward to more and more blogs fleshing out many of the ideas and topics brought up by this community.

We only want to help bring about the brilliant world in PFO - even if some of us can't code a lick.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

What about contracts to have shipments ambushed? The banditry contract in question would link to the shipment contract, and would be an evil act.
(Mechanically this would be similar to the guard contract, be at this place at this time, AND return with the contents of the shipment)

If such a contract were to be created, would putting that type of contract on a shipment you yourself organized be considered griefing?

Is it not feasible to have an evil PC want to steal from his own company (without his company knowing about it) by putting up a contract to transport company goods, while at the same time putting up a contract to have it robbed?

Is that really 'griefing' or is that simply an in game manifestation of something that evil PC's might actually do? (Think virtual embezzlement - It would be considered both evil and a criminal by the game engine.)

If this type of contract never makes it into the game, the point is moot, but if it were to exist could it not expand upon the evil, underhanded things players can do without throwing the door wide open to griefers?

Goblin Squad Member

Just to weigh in on Blaeringr's point, I think that some people seem to be misconstruing his point somewhat.

He isn't suggesting that an assassination have no impact to your alignment/criminal status, but rather that the contract isn't the instigator for that impact.

As an example: Player A & Player B hate one another but don't wish to be too overt (perhaps they are from an alliance but have previous beef with one another). Player A places a contract for Player B's assassination. Player C, an assassin, accepts the contract.

Player C locates Player B and kills him. This act is what should have the alignment/criminal status ramifications. Player C then completes the contract, receives payment and goes on his merry way. No further alignment shift/criminal status changes should occur from the actual act of completing the contract.

Also, for those people who are playing the 'freedom fighter' card, then that goes one of two ways. Either a) the dominant party is involved in carelessly murdering PCs to establish their dominance in which case you can place a bounty contract on them or b) you're trying to overthrow an otherwise stable environment in which case you are the transgressor and deserve a criminal status shift.

Bear in mind that this is a game, and not real life. Yes, there will be politics but we're not going to be on the magnitude of order of the world stage. People come and go, and I don't think there needs to be any major depth to this kind of system. Let it do what it needs to do, and let's avoid too much machination, as that's how the system will get abused.

Goblin Squad Member

For an assassination contract, both the creating, and carrying out of the contract should be an evil act. Player A is still killing Player B, but Player A is using coin and a proxy instead of a weapon/poison. And Player C is killing a player so they are also committing an evil act.

There should always be an evil shift, but the more evil the target of the contract is, the less the shift is, in the case an evil character does not have a bounty opportunity.

Goblin Squad Member

So then my next question... logically, what is the counter balance?

What action must I do if I still want to conduct business with those who are good? In my heart of hearts, I'm neutral...leaning towards chaos but not yet there. But if my "profession" is an assassin, I'll eventually become evil, even if I am assassinating evil characters.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Goblin Squad Member

@Obakararuir - you want to murder people for hire. How does it not make sense that you're going to become evil if you keep doing it?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Obakararuir - you want to murder people for hire. How does it not make sense that you're going to become evil if you keep doing it?

Because he specified he is only working with good aligned people and taking contracts against evil aligned people. So his contracts aren't "Bob the baker is a good for nothing layabout and his wife wants him dead." It's "King Zakthor is a vicious tyrant who imprisons and executes innocent people in his madness. He must be stopped!" or "Lord Meldriin is spreading false information about our neighbors in the Exalted Woods in order to start a war in which thousands will die. Purely because is heavily invested in the production of siege weapons. Kill him and stop this war."

He may be doing it for hire but if he only accepts those kind of contracts that is clearly neutral action in my opinion. It would be good if not for the fact hes accepting pay.

I think the main thing you have to consider is do you want actions themselves or motivations to be the main determining factor of an alignment shift. I think motivations are more important not only from the real life example that a murderer and a war hero do the same thing for different reasons. But from an actual example within the D&D alignment system.

Paladins, and greyguards. Same motivations, different actions, same alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

@Ryan D- Andius hit it right on the head. If I were doing it in the for the sake of "Good", then an alignment shift to evil doesn't make sense. Chaotic I understand. Please don't think this is an attempt to argue "relative vs defined", I'm with you on that. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of how assassination will be portrayed and interpreted in PFO.

To me, logic could be used to say that any character accepting a contract or issuing a contract is subject to an alignment shift towards lawful evil as contracts are a strong aspect of Asmodeus's portfolio.

Is the evil alignment shift because of the fact that an evil god holds death, more specifically assassination, in his portfolio? Which would lead me to my point above. If this isn't the case, the what is condition that is met to trigger the alignment shifting to evil?

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

As it's always been in the pathfinder good/evil lawful/chaotic axes, an assassin being picky about who their targets are just makes you lawful, not good.

You're still murdering people for money. That is evil.

You are following a code about 'who is acceptable to kill', that is lawful.

To quote from the Pathfinder Assassin prestige class alignment section:
"Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment."

So basically, the creative directors of Paizo already determined that it's not possible to be a neutral assassin in the pen and paper game, why is it so important it exist in PFO?

There are ways of being LIKE a lawful neutral assassin but then you wouldn't actually be an assassin.

Example: An inquisitor of Pharasma who hunts down and executes necromancers who raise undead.

Even if how much the inquisitor is paid is based on how many necromancers he stops, the people he's killing aren't 'innocents', their heretics and his religion demands their death.

Nostrus wrote:

Just to weigh in on Blaeringr's point, I think that some people seem to be misconstruing his point somewhat.

He isn't suggesting that an assassination have no impact to your alignment/criminal status, but rather that the contract isn't the instigator for that impact.

I may be wrong here but I completely disagree with your interpretation of Blaeringr's position.

From all the things I've seen him say in various posts, I think he has absolutely no problem with assassination, assassination contracts, or anything involved in that, shifting the alignment towards evil. What he has expressed repeated problems with is the fulfilling of an assassination contract be inherently a criminal activity.

He has said, and I don't know where or I'd quote, that as long as the assassin carries out his contract in a place where the law has no presence, he should not automatically be flagged as a criminal JUST for finishing the contract.
Being flagged as a criminal for finishing a contract should only occur if they did it in the middle of, or too close to, a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Obakararuir - you want to murder people for hire. How does it not make sense that you're going to become evil if you keep doing it?

We've given explanations already, so I'm going to try a different approach. Ryan Dancey, meet Ryan Dancey. He wants to explain something to you.

Quote from the blog:
Quote:
Some chartered companies will become world renowned. They may be mercenaries called in to tip the balance of a fight, or a guild of assassins that strikes fear into any who are marked for death. They may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.

And as per your very own definition of the word "murder" as will pertain to PFO, not all assassins will want to do their killing inside lawful settlements, even if you do make it possible to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

Murder isn't defined as "killing someone when in a Settlement". It's killing someone without a right to do so(*). Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.

So I don't exactly get why you're quoting me saying Assassins make people fearful in response to my question about why assassinating people doesn't make you evil. Doing fearful things is pretty much the root of doing evil things.

(*) Like "in self defense" or "as an act of war"

Goblin Squad Member

I just hope Companies/kingdoms are able to use assassination contracts internally to allow members with the talents to target leaders of companies/kingdoms they might be at legitimate war with...making the assassination a valid military target, and not shifting alignment. If this shifts alignment then any and all PvP should do so.

But, I agree, non-military assassinations should be inherently evil and should affect both the contract maker and the fulfiller. Remember, it is the gods who are "shifting our alignment" and it is much harder to hide stuff from them.

Although, I do not think killing evil is an inherently "good" thing. The demons and devils have been at war and killing each other since the beginning of time and none of them are "good".

Alternately, I think the 36 of so gods should have "never-ending" missions such as kill those of faction x that if completed change your alignment. These missions would not even be apparent or explicit to a non-follower. Kill a random character (NPC or PC) that happens to be of a given faction and the opposing god "likes" you more...shifting you toward them. Many gods will not have opposing factions and their missions might be different non-combat related.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
They may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.

That was referring to assassins. If you're focusing on the making people fearful part, then you're rightly confused. Read forward a little more.

(*)also like in punishing evildoers.

Goblin Squad Member

@Forencith Ryan seems to be implying that assassination contracts can only be used for evil purposes. If it shifts the assassin's alignment, it should shift the customer's as well. Maybe not as much, but it should definitely shift it in the same direction as the assassin's alignment shifts. Whatever that shift may be.

But apparently evil is evil. Not a variable. And assassination is not just a tool that can be used for good or evil, but evil itself. Even when, as Ryan said, being used to punish evildoers and keep order among the griefers, it is still only possible for it to be evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Murder isn't defined as "killing someone when in a Settlement". It's killing someone without a right to do so(*). Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.

(*) Like "in self defense" or "as an act of war"

So if a group of evil raiders are approaching my good aligned city, we can't strike first? I couldn't be contracted to go and assassinate three key leaders that are orchestrating the assault of my city? That would be considered evil, even though it is in my best interest and protecting a "good" region from "evil" and could fall in the realm of defense?

I'm just trying to understand the in-game logic used to designate which actions incur shifts in alignment regardless the direction. Is it based off of the deities, the river freedoms, or just what the Dev Team decides? It doesn't pay us to debate something if we are looking at it from the wrong direction.

Kinda like how the Iraqis couldn't comprehend map reading and land navigation. Once we aligned it in regard to Mecca, everything made sense to them. East is their North.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Quote:
They may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.

That was referring to assassins. If you're focusing on the making people fearful part, then you're rightly confused. Read forward a little more.

(*)also like in punishing evildoers.

He was referring to Guilds/Charters... not assassins.

Goblin Squad Member

@Blaeringr, the definitions you are suggesting Ryan is confused about, I do not interpret them the way you are reading them. He said, some charters will be world renouned...end of statement. Among those charters (referring to those mentioned in the initial statement) will be the nonexclusive options of being mercs and assassins...end of statement. "They" - again the charters mentioned in the first line referenced in the generic sense, so not specifically referencing any subgroup, may do things such as enforce the law, track down criminals, etc.

Also, no where in his statement did he say these acts will not have other consequences.

Assassins by definition violate laws...even in the "lawless" areas the River Kingdom laws rule and everyone holds their life...therefore taking it from them is a violation. Your ability to do so if you have the strength is also inherent to the system, but there is no denying you remove what is mine if you kill me.

And Ryan said two things, killing (which includes assassination) is evil in all cases except for self-defense and act of war. I simply asked for a subgroup of assassination contracts to be allowed within the domain of act of war...but I am not asking for any loop holes to be able to kill anyone but those who my charter/kingdom are exclusively at war with, and only offering the contract to company-mates who are by extension also already at war with the target...and therefore the act is an act of war.

Goblin Squad Member

By your explanation Forencith, murder is any killing, because murder is unlawfully killing someone. No matter what they've done, even if you are pursuing a lawful bounty, killing them is still murder because, as you say, the murderer has what he holds - his life. How then, by what you just explained, can you take that without becoming a murderer, and thus evil?

Goblin Squad Member

His reference wasn't just to any guilds. He wasn't talking about lone assassins, sure, but he was talking about companies of mercenaries and assassins. And surely he can't mean punishing evildoers with a stern talking-to?

Notice also that he said punishing "evildoers", not lawbreakers. Clearly not referring to the bounty system, but to self directed violence.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

"A chaotic good character will keep his word to those who are not evil and will lie only to evil-doers. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure, but he may "rough up" someone to get information. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A chaotic good character will never use poison. He will help those in need and he prefers to work alone, as he values his freedom. He does not respond well to higher authority, is distrustful of organizations, and will disregard the law in his fight against evil. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend. Chaotic good characters do not respect the concepts of self-discipline and honor, because they believe such concepts limit freedom to act."
-Parlagreco, Carl. "Another View of the Nine-Point Alignment Scheme." The Dragon (#26). June 1979: 23

While not something published by Paizo, this representation of chaotic good is still relevant to the discussion at hand.

A Chaotic Good character would have no qualms about attacking first if they believed it would result in less death than waiting for their opponent to act.

Similarly, the fact that a Chaotic Good would not use poison is intrinsically tied to the fact that a chaotic good character would not assassinate someone.

For this reason, I believe a Chaotic Good Fighter would have no issue walking up to a tyrant and running him through with a sword... He just wouldn't sneak around in the shadows and stab him in the back in the middle of the night.

I think this is decent grounds for making the case that contracting the assassination of an evil character might not be an evil act (even if it's still evil to kill them), but contracting the assassination of a good character might be.

In this case, hiring the assassins to kill the three evil leaders attacking your good settlement might simply be 'chaotic good', but actually assassinating them would still be 'lawful evil'.

Goblin Squad Member

I get both sides of the argument but I think that for the purposes of a video game where we deal in absolutes, that the shifts in alignment and criminal status are needed to prevent abuse of the system. I don't like the idea of assassination contracts providing anonymity for the contracting party though. Although it makes sense from a logical point of view, as the contracting party doesn't want their involvement known, it could leave the system open to abuse by the mega-rich who could contract assassins to take out key members of an enemy company.

Goblin Squad Member

In war it is often a fight over something else, and both sides are usually claiming self defense...as such, you are allowed to defend what you hold. This makes war the loophole that will allow valid PvP of anytime (hopefully, for the form does not change the function).

This is why charters with ideals and RP reasons for PvP make more sense than charters with PvP reasons to RP. They can insure a reason to be at war...providing their members with valid rationales to PvP without negative alignment busts.

But, no one is saying PvP as a reason to RP is not a valid playstyle too, just takes more careful coordination and consideration...and perhaps limited locales.

Goblin Squad Member

Nostrus wrote:
it could leave the system open to abuse by the mega-rich who could contract assassins to take out key members of an enemy company.

That's not abuse of the system, that's abuse of wealth. It's evil, sure, but not an issue of a broken system.

It also begs the question: what on golarion do you think assassins will be doing if not playing politics?!! If they're just taking random contracts and killing people on all sides evenly, then they're going to become bigger targets than they can handle. Any assassin with a lick of sense will try to encourage as much business from customers who are a circle of friends. The goal is to become a shameful drug that the community can't live without - not a cancer which the community certainly can do without. Repeat poor customers on one side are much better than rich customers on all sides of the conflict.

Intelligence is an important stat for assassins. Assassins who would rather play with gold as a primary stat will quickly earn themselves a Darwin award.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

His reference wasn't just to any guilds. He wasn't talking about lone assassins, sure, but he was talking about companies of mercenaries and assassins. And surely he can't mean punishing evildoers with a stern talking-to?

Notice also that he said punishing "evildoers", not lawbreakers. Clearly not referring to the bounty system, but to self directed violence.

I realize this is how you are reading it...I read it differently, I still read both supporting lines referring back to the topic sentence. He has already contradicted your reading. Are you really going to try to convince him he meant something else?

Were it written how you are interpreting it, it would need to be something like:

They may be mercenaries called in to tip the balance of a fight, or a guild of assassins that strikes fear into any who are marked for death, who enforce the law, track down criminals and bring swift justice to the evildoers.

...and just so you know, so it can annoy you from now on when you see it used incorrectly, "begs the question" is a philosophical fallacy meaning you are assuming the conclusion of an argument is true when building your supporting arguments. x is true as a logical conclusion of y and z, (this rest is not part of your formal argument) but y and/or z is only true if x is true. Using it as you did (and many others do, makes no sense...I think you mean, "This forces us to ask..."

...and I take all this back, I just looked it up to insure the semantics had not broadened and it appears it has...evidently along the lines of aint and wanna it has been codified into our language as used incorrectly. As seen here. Interestingly they have the correct definition, then the wrong one...including a statement that it is wrong, and then offer four more extensions of the incorrect one. Go figure. Sorry for the tirade, just a pet peeve I evidently need to get over.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
In war it is often a fight over something else, and both sides are usually claiming self defense...as such, you are allowed to defend what you hold.

I think this is actually a very important thing to be considered.

If a large group of evil PC's are about to lay waste to a 'good' settlement, are they at war? or are they all about to become criminals?

If they are at war they to address the concerns of "self defense" the good aligned settlement WOULD in fact be allowed to attack first, as killing during war is allowed.

Assassinating someone who is in the middle of a war?

If you are contracted by a company at war with another company, you should get the benefits of your employer - Namely that you can kill those you're at war with 'legally'.

In that situation, an assassin killing a leader in a war would be neither criminal, nor necessarily evil.

For example, if killing an evil dictator in the middle of a war was still an evil act, a true netural assassin would simply carry out his assassination without the use of the in-game contract system. He would legally be allowed to kill his target, and would not suffer an alignment shift because of it.

If the assassination contract system is intended to actually be used, assassinating a war-target cannot be an inherently evil act, or else the assassination contract system will not be used for those targets.

Goblin Squad Member

In the blog, he says murder is killing someone unprovoked in a lawful area. He was making very clearly defined statements that he is now contradicting it. He can change his mind, sure everyone can. Or maybe he didn't mean what he said the first time. Or maybe the plan changed as things progressed. Whatever it be, I'm really just badgering him for clarity.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Murder isn't defined as "killing someone when in a Settlement". It's killing someone without a right to do so(*). Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.

So I don't exactly get why you're quoting me saying Assassins make people fearful in response to my question about why assassinating people doesn't make you evil. Doing fearful things is pretty much the root of doing evil things.

(*) Like "in self defense" or "as an act of war"

I wouldn't agree with that at all. A huge goal of mine is to make people fearful of griefing in this game because of the consequences we will bring down on them.

A lawful good church discourages evil by making people FEAR that if they do them it will send out it's paladins to bring them to justice.

Often the idea behind law is to make people FEAR that if they murder, rob, or do other things counter-productive to a functional society they will be punished.

Making people afraid to do evil things can be very lawful-good.

Goblin Squad Member

They may be mercenaries.

They may be assassins.

Either may bring swift justice to evildoers.

But his newer statements contradict that.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Murder isn't defined as "killing someone when in a Settlement". It's killing someone without a right to do so(*). Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.

So I don't exactly get why you're quoting me saying Assassins make people fearful in response to my question about why assassinating people doesn't make you evil. Doing fearful things is pretty much the root of doing evil things.

(*) Like "in self defense" or "as an act of war"

I wouldn't agree with that at all. A huge goal of mine is to make people fearful of griefing in this game because of the consequences we will bring down on them.

A lawful good church discourages evil by making people FEAR that if they do them it will send out it's paladins to bring them to justice.

Often the idea behind law is to make people FEAR that if they murder, rob, or do other things counter-productive to a functional society they will be punished.

Making people afraid to do evil things can be very lawful-good.

I actually think using fear to cow people in any way is an evil act. It might be lawful and it might work...but the end does not justify the means.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:


I actually think using fear to cow people in any way is an evil act.

Can you think of a single government ever that hasn't done this? Any? Ever?

This is one of the fundamental principles learned in PoliSci 101. Governments use a fear of force to keep law. All governments. Ever.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

They may be mercenaries.

They may be assassins.

Either may bring swift justice to evildoers.

But his newer statements contradict that.

There are companies...

Some may be mercenaries.

Some may be assassins that strike fear into any who are marked for death.

Some may enforce the law.

Some may track down criminals.

Some may bring swift justice to the evildoers.

No where in here does it refer to exclusivity or necessary correlation between the "somes".

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Forencith wrote:


I actually think using fear to cow people in any way is an evil act.

Can you think of a single government ever that hasn't done this? Any? Ever?

This is one of the fundamental principles learned in PoliSci 101. Governments use a fear of force to keep law. All governments. Ever.

Are you really using this as a defense? There is a reason we have proverbs like "power corrupts".

Goblin Squad Member

Which companies? Companies of mercenaries, or of assassins, as examples. Not the only ones, but they are examples.

Are you seriously saying he meant everyone but mercenaries and assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers? I certainly wasn't saying they're the only ones, but among those he was talking about.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
No where in here does it refer to exclusivity or necessary correlation between the "somes".

Bolded part. This is where you are missing what I am saying. Assassins can. I'm not saying they're the only ones who can, just that they can. If I said something otherwise, please point out where.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Forencith wrote:
No where in here does it refer to exclusivity or necessary correlation between the "somes".
Bolded part. This is where you are missing what I am saying. Assassins can. I'm not saying they're the only ones who can, just that they can. If I said something otherwise, please point out where.

Well, then even you pointing it out, it still escapes me...I am going to just have let you interpret it how you want and admit fail on my part. Good luck convincing Ryan he meant something other than what he said.

Goblin Squad Member

He said what he said. Either he meant something else then, or he's changed his mind since. But there's no doubt he said assassins will be among those punishing evildoers. If that escapes you, that's ok.

Goblin Squad Member

I am thankful for your acceptance.

Goblin Squad Member

@Obaka, I don't think anyone knows for sure yet...probably not even the devs for 100% certainty.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
the previously named noun as the subject by default... in this case "companies" adjective "chartered".

Let's play replace the pronouns:

Some chartered companies will become world renowned. Some chartered companies may be mercenaries called in to tip the balance of a fight, or a guild of assassins that strikes fear into any who are marked for death. Some chartered companies may enforce the law, tracking down criminals and bringing swift justice to the evildoers.

Now for some logic fun:

"Some chartered companies will be guilds of assassins".
and
"Some chartered companies may bring swift justice to evildoers"
Therefore, via transitivity,
"Some guilds of assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers"
and
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

Now could you kindly explain to me how this:

Blaeringr wrote:

They may be mercenaries.

They may be assassins.

Either may bring swift justice to evildoers.

Is not exactly the same as the union of the two logical statements

"Some guilds of assassins may bring swift justice to evildoers"
and
"Some guilds of mercenaries may bring swift justice to evildoers"

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.