Book 5: Discussion on Iomedae [SPOILERS AHOY!]

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Chuckg wrote:

Well, if they're necessary mission equipment then the woman should be loaning them to us for free, and it would be incredibly childish and spiteful of her to send us down to the Abyss without them even if she didn't like our attitudes.

Even the encounter as written, in all of its terribad glory, still acknowledges the concept 'Iomedae is aware that sending you out and not getting you back will be a worse outcome than simply not sending you at all.' Going with that line of reasoning a little further, she has every reason to load you up with a couple of booster packs pro bono. It would not be a plot hole to have this happen.

I mean, come on Iomedae, do you want your Herald rescued or not? Kee-ripes, not even the Johnsons in freaking Shadowrun usually dicked around like this. If equipment was actually mission-critical and not reasonably part of a shadowrunner's gear loadout already, they gave it to us. Or at least loaned it to us. Or at worst, let us have the chance to purchase it at wholesale prices plus discount. When Iomedae's employment package is looking like a worse deal than running for gorram Saeder-Krupp, something is direly wrong with the writing.

I'm going overlong. The short version is, however you slice it there is no reason the PCs have to "earn" anything here. Either you can just say that the artifacts are added to our paycheck for this run alongside everything else we're already getting, or else you can say that 'Iomedae is loaning you these things because if you're going to go into the Abyss itself on her behalf then she's going to give you as much help as she can get away with before the Prime Directive starts making frowny faces at her'.

So, no trials necessary, and no need to write any.

Well, if she decides to send then, then yeah she should give them the items. And they are both pretty damn good items, nectar of the gods once per day is amazing, and frankly I don’t think it is the intention to allow the players to decant the nectar in a potion bottle.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Tangent101 wrote:

This. Oh so very much this. (Also, I find it odd that requesting aid from a Demon Lord against Baphomet is an act that immediately turns your soul chaotic evil. But then it seems like this entire AP is built with "traps" to drive players CE left and right. Players should build a Staff of Atonement and use it twice a week, I swear...)

I can understand the concept of Trials to "earn" those Artifacts. But I've no idea what form they should take that would actually be reasonable and intelligent. And would keep the players interested.

Yeah, Iomedae appearing and giving these items to the players could be a bit untypical:

“Hello heroes, are are some my most powerful artefacts, while you have been fighting for my crusade for quite some time, I have finally decided to give them to you. At this point I am pretty sure that you can won’t lose them in the sandbox.
Now get up you have a play date with that horny kid that just moved here, your cousin is apparently already there”

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Liam Warner, that show would still beat most of the shows on tv^^

[GâtFromKI]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

GâtFromKI wrote:

She has seen what the PCs have accomplished and knows if they are worthy of her blessing.

Why does she need to test them?

Fantasy conventions most likely.

I though the fantasy convention were that mortals test the protagonists, while deities just say something cryptic about the future accomplishment of the protagonists and then dismiss them.

...

Well, maybe Iomedae is Crom.
"I have to go before him, and he will ask me "What is the riddle of steel?" And if I don't know it he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me!"
Does the laugh of Crom deals sonic damages?

[The_Hanged_Man]

I admit that I did not like how this was set up either. It is enough punishment to deny the group the goddess's favor in the form of aid, and it seems crass and petty for her to effectively torture the group for not giving her the answers she wants to hear.

I think the trumpet blasts even fail to teach humility since they have a DC attached to them. Once you attach numbers to gods they just become another monster to kill for some groups, and this is bad form IMO. Sure, the DC is pretty high but at this level with mythic surges the saves are completely within realm of possibility to make, and the group might think they could take her at that point. IMO, a true god should be several magnitudes of power greater than any mortal and should be able to smite them down for their hubris with but a thought if they so choose.

[Brain in a Jar]

The_Hanged_Man wrote:

I admit that I did not like how this was set up either. It is enough punishment to deny the group the goddess's favor in the form of aid, and it seems crass and petty for her to effectively torture the group for not giving her the answers she wants to hear.

I think the trumpet blasts even fail to teach humility since they have a DC attached to them. Once you attach numbers to gods they just become another monster to kill for some groups, and this is bad form IMO. Sure, the DC is pretty high but at this level with mythic surges the saves are completely within realm of possibility to make, and the group might think they could take her at that point. IMO, a true god should be several magnitudes of power greater than any mortal and should be able to smite them down for their hubris with but a thought if they so choose.

The PCs are not hit with sonic damage for wrong answers. They are hit with sonic damage for being crass, rude, or bickering with each other.

A group of PCs who attempt to answer the questions and fail them all are entirely unharmed.

As for the rewards she has to offer she only wants to give powers/artifacts to those she thinks will actually survive not wanting to give Baphomet the Chalice of Ozem if the PCs take it and fail. Thus the test questions.

Either way she will task them with going.

[Chuckg]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

The PCs are not hit with sonic damage for wrong answers. They are hit with sonic damage for being crass, rude, or bickering with each other.

A group of PCs who attempt to answer the questions and fail them all are entirely unharmed.

You're still wrong.

From page 10 of "Ivory Labyrinth":

Quote:

If the question is not answered correctly and at least one PC doesn't present himself as humble or confident, Iomedae frowns and shakes her head. She nods to the unseen choir, saying "We must wake them up, these sleeping children. Where are my bold heroes of the Fifth Crusade?" A moment later, the sound of the choir blasts out from all directions, causing each PC to shudder and shake in divinely inspired awe, and dealing 5d6 points of sonic damage to each PC (Fortitude DC 25 half).

Nothing in here about 'crass, rude, or bickering'. The only thing it takes to get blasted is to a) not know the answer and b) not show the emotions Iomedae wants to see. There is a wide range of possible responses that could trigger being blasted in the face here that are neither 'crass, rude, nor bickering'...

... such as asking 'Wait, how does this question in any way relate to the mission at hand?', which was the first thing that came to my mind when I read this encounter, and quite a few other peoples'.

And that's just the first question. The failure condition for the second question is simply 'not hesitating about your answer'... which can get PCs whacked with sonic damage even if they're being entirely earnest about trying to answer Iomedae's question. In fact, especially if they're trying to be earnest about it. And the failure condition for the third question is a simple 'hesitating about your answer'... so, again, perfectly polite PCs can still walk straight into this with their faces if they a) come up with the mistaken assumption that because being too quick to answer got them blasted on the last question, they'd better not rush to answer this question either or b) show any hesitation at the idea of jumping a demon lord, even if they are still ultimately willing to go.(*)

(*) This is also particularly insulting because courage is not the absence of fear, courage is the willingness to do the right thing despite being full of fear. So having the freaking goddess of honor and justice herself smack you just for showing fear at all is, pardon my french, bullshit. Lady, I thought it was Gorum who wanted overconfident berserkers. There is entirely a role in stories for the humble hero who freely admits that he's scared witless by the whole thing but is still willing to risk it anyway, but apparently there's no place in Iomedae's heart for such. And let me tell you, any alleged job interview for heroes that Samwise Gamgee couldn't pass is a useless fricking job interview.

tldr; There is a myriad of possible ways, none of them involving rudeness to Iomedae, that PCs can still fail the questions and still get blasted. You have, yet still, tried to say things about the encounter that are simply not true. Dude, you have the right to your own opinions, but asking for the right to your own parallel reality is a bit much.

[Brain in a Jar]

Quote:

If the question is not answered correctly and at least one PC doesn't present himself as humble or confident, Iomedae frowns and shakes her head. She nods to the unseen choir, saying "We must wake them up, these sleeping children. Where are my bold heroes of the Fifth Crusade?" A moment later, the sound of the choir blasts out from all directions, causing each PC to shudder and shake in divinely inspired awe, and dealing 5d6 points of sonic damage to each PC (Fortitude DC 25 half).

Nothing in here about 'crass, rude, or bickering'. The only thing it takes to get blasted is to a) not know the answer and b) not show the emotions Iomedae wants to see. There is a wide range of possible responses that could trigger being blasted in the face here that are neither 'crass, rude, nor bickering'...

... such as asking 'Wait, how does this question in any way relate to the mission at hand?', which was the first thing that came to my mind when I read this encounter, and quite a few other peoples'.

And that's just the first question. The failure condition for the second question is simply 'not hesitating about your answer'... which can get PCs whacked with sonic damage even if they're being entirely earnest about trying to answer Iomedae's question. In fact, especially if they're trying to be earnest about it. And the failure condition for the third question is a simple 'hesitating about your answer'... so, again, perfectly polite PCs can still walk straight into this with their faces if they a) come up with the mistaken assumption that because being too quick to answer got them blasted on the last question, they'd better not rush...

My apologies i didn't realize i couldn't just use generalizations like others have.

1:

If the question is not answered correctly and
at least one PC doesn't present himself as humble or
confident, Iomedae frowns and shakes her head.

As for Question 1 getting the answer wrong does not bring about any punishment. Not being humble (meaning being arrogant is being very crass/rude) or not being confident can bring about a punishment. Even then only as long as not a single PC in the group is humble and or confident.

Conclusion: You can get the question wrong. Just don't be arrogant(being a jerk) while answering.

2:

As long
as at least one character seems conflicted about answering
this question, yet in the end answers either yes or no with
conviction, Iomedae is pleased. If the characters fall into a
long, bickering argument (and thus fail to work as a team) or
ifthey all immediately answer "yes" or "no" without seeming
to think through the repercussions ofthe answer, they fail.

Question Two. Now i agree with you a little on this one. This one could have a better failure condidtion for punishment. But even with that fault its still incredibly hard to get punished. The only way you get punished is if the PCs bicker with one another or if every single one of them answers with an immediate answer with out seeming to think upon it. (That means after Iomadae finishes the question each PC has to answer yes/no within a second or two; no waiting at all.)

Conclusion: You can answer the question however you want. There is no correct answer. Just avoid bickering with each other. Now the immediate answer thing is not the best and is a part i don't truly enjoy.

3:

As long as at least one
PC seems confident about the quest, presenting an air of
resolve that it's better to die attempting such a task than to
avoid it out of fear, Iomedae is pleased.

Question Three: Is the easiest question. This one has no wrong answer as long as the PC responds with something that isn't despair or cowering in the face of danger. It has nothing to do with and never mentions "hesistation".

Conclusion: This one is as easy as at least one single PC saying "We can save the herald and win." So as long as one person responds with something that says we can save the herald, we can kill the demon lord, we can triumph. They get it.

[Dracovar]

Chuckg wrote:

Iomedae is supposed to be the paladin of paladins --

Just had to snip this part out...

Given how many PC's, DMPC's and NPC Paladins are played as Lawful Stupid asshats (to use another posters phrase), does it not stand to reason that Iomedae should be the Paragon of Lawful Stupid asshats?

So, if seen in this light, Iomedae is acting, as written, exactly as one would expect. She really is the "paladin of paladins".

<smirk>

[Chuckg]

OK, Brain In A Jar, seeing as how you've characterized quoting directly from the book as 'generalization', flat-out said that things printed directly on the page and bold-texted for your convenience don't exist, and tried to twist the meaning of everything I said, I really can't find a way to keep discussing this with you until and unless you return to taking this seriously.

For the record, folks, here are the (edit) full failure conditions of questions #2 and #3 as direct quotes from the text, as opposed to the (edit) partially transcribed bits without full context that Brain In A Jar just tried to sell you.

Question #2:

Quote:

Iomedae is not looking for a specific answer to this question; rather she's seeking hesitancy and conflict. Blindly adhering to any rule may be lawful, but is not always good-a truly lawful good person will temper rules with judgment. A paladin should never be so bound to his pursuit of the law that he loses sight of what it is to be good. As long as at least one character seems conflicted about answering this question, yet in the end answers either yes or no with conviction, Iomedae is pleased. If the characters fall into a long, bickering argument (and thus fail to work as a team) or if they all immediately answer "yes" or "no" without seeming to think through the repercussions of the answer, they fail.

So, its exactly what I and everyone else has said all along. Even if there is no rudeness and no bickering, if the PCs are simply too eager to answer question #2, they're still gonna trigger the failure punishment.

Which means that any and all contrary arguments of the form 'you just want PCs to get away with being rude' and suchlike are straw men, because that's not how the encounter is actually written. Even perfectly polite and well-meaning PCs can still get failuresmacked here, if they just commit the offense of failing to read the DM's mind.

Question #3:

Quote:

As with previous questions, it is not the answer so much as the method of answering that Iomedae is interested in. Here, she hopes to see conviction and bravery-evidence that even in light of such a dangerous task these true heroes do not shirk. As long as at least one

PC seems confident about the quest, presenting an air of resolve that it's better to die attempting such a task than to avoid it out of fear, Iomedae is pleased.

The only thing necessary to fail this encounter is for the PCs to not be gung-ho.

You know who would be failing this test? Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. Or Luke frickin' Skywalker. Batman, Superman, and Captain America. Even fecking Optimus Prime. I've seen all of these fictional characters in at least one scene where they're taking one look at the impossible odds ahead of them and openly admit 'Oh shit, this is gonna suck.' Y'know, right before they suit up and go in anyway, but they don't go in all eager and confident -- they go in sweating bullets. But they still go in, because they're heroes.

But Iomedae's definition of hero apparently doesn't fit this kind of hero. To her, its worth 5d6 sonic damage to smack PCs if they don't 'seem confident about the quest'. Apparently having the honesty to openly confess your doubts rather then cover them with bravado, which is something you'd think a true paladin goddess would appreciate, is something Iomedae thinks is worthy of punishment. Even if not a single thing else was wrong about the writing in this encounter, it would still be a vast and gaping disappointment to see that neither the goddess of honor & justice & valor herself or the author writing her seems to grasp the difference between true courage and mere bravado.

You know what? If I can take a broad selection of classic uber-hero characters from fiction and point out moments of their canon where they'd fail Iomedae's standards, then Iomedae's standards are by definition unreasonable. Any hero test that Captain America fails is not a hero test, its an idiot test.

Actually, let's run with this. I'm going to take Steven Rogers from the Avengers and Captain America movies we all know and run him through the test.

Quote:

Iomedae: "You are bold to look on me and I favor boldness. When facing demonic foes, one must be bold , as I was when I faced one of my most dangerous enemies. Tell me, then, which undead lord did I slay while leading my knights of Ozem into the Three Sorrows, and why do I think you might be worthy to carry the legacy of that knighthood into the depths of the Abyss?"

Cap: "Um, what? I'm sorry, ma'am, but I haven't studied your history and I don't see how that question even relates to the mis-"

*5d6 Sonic Damage* (He's not answering the question and he's being neither humble nor confident; just confused.)

Iomedae: "You have a hero's bravery. You have p roven that You can survive the horrors of the Abyss, and this mark your courageousness as surely as any feat. But also you have learned that not all those in the Abyss are your enemies. Some are creatures whose nature can be used as a tool to defeat greater evils. So tell me, when evil assumes a fair form, and when weak villains beg for their lives, are they due mercy. Or are the wages of their villainy always death and oblivion?"

Cap: (without hesitating) "At least two of my teammates (Chuckg's note: Hulk and the Black Widow) used to be villains, and they're some of the finest people I know. And killing people who are trying to surrender to you is just plain wrong, and while I can and have killed in combat before I don't much like killing people, especially outside of war. Whenever possible they should be arrested and taken for a fair tria-"

*10d6 Sonic Damage* (Not only didn't he hesitate to answer it -- because of course he wouldn't, he's Captain America -- but he stated his ethical principle as an 'always wrong', something the entry specifically notes Iomedae doesn't believe applies to this issue. And before you go 'Cap has a code vs. killing so he'd fail this test as its geared towards medieval heroes', that's exactly why I used the movie version, who we saw on multiple points picking up a gun and shooting bad guys with it. He clearly has no prohibitions against taking life so long as its during a legitimate wartime situation, so, close enough!)

(Personally I don't think we'd even reach the third question because after the second smack Cap's going to think he's been taken by some crazy supervillainess and start throwing his shield -- after all, he hates bullies, wherever they're from -- but we'll do it anyway.)

Iomedae: "Honor is my soul and life, justice is the passion that stirs me to war, and yet the cause of the true and righteous is beset on all sides by evil. Tell me, how does one outwit and defeat a demon lord in his own domain? For let us not pretend, this is what I ask you to do."

Cap: "I'm sorry, ma'am, I don't know anything about demon lords or their capabilities. I'll ask my friend Thor to see if-"

*20d6 Sonic Damage* (Of course Cap is still entirely willing to try it; he's just saying what seems sensible to him, which is 'I have no idea, so I'll go ask the nearest expert to help me plan it'. But that doesn't sound confident and gung-ho enough, and so, boom.)

So there you have it. Iomedae's hero test is so idiotically written that Steve Rogers, Lawful Good true-blue hero if anybody ever Lawful Good true-blue hero'ed, would very likely score a zero out of three.

Add: Also, the whole 'paladins are lawful stupid asshats' is exactly why we hate this encounter. It is the very root of our hatred. Because, yes, Iomedae's behavior in this encounter is a huge official precedent in favor of that interpretation... and speaking as someone who watched the meme 'Hurr durr Lawful Good is dumb and brutish' eventually ruin his enjoyment in three separate major d20 game lines, I am epically un-thrilled at even the faintest suspicion that such a thing might come to Golarion as well.

I was the happiest guy on Earth when I saw Champions of Purity being written as a testament to un-cynical, un-brutal-and-narrow-minded interpretations of the Good alignments. I cheered when Sarenrae's expanded deity writeup contained an explicit mention of the illegal orders doctrine as first codified at the Nuremberg Tribunals. (That is, an acknowledgement of the ethical principle that 'I was just following orders' or 'I was just obeying the rules' can justify outright evil acts, and it is your duty to refuse illegal orders). I fist-pumped when Milani's expanded deity entry had someone as hardcore as the Chaotic Good goddess of guerrilla fighters still going 'The important thing is to remember that you are ultimately fighting for peace; never take the war to the point where you are destroying the village to save it'.

After years and years of slogging through game supplement after game supplement that was all 90s ironic post-modern cynical about the idea that genuinely heroic characters could exist without intolerance, without fanaticism, without self-righteous brutality, Golarion finally came along and said 'Hey, you know what? We're going to create a world where Good is actually Good, Evil is actually Evil, and there's gray area in the middle, so it'll genuinely be for all types. None of this is 'Evil is awesome, grey area is everywhere, and Good is never un-tarnished' 90s stuff' that tells all the fans of the old school to go away, there's no place for them. Because to quote Agent Coulson, "people might just need a little old-fashioned."

So if Golarion is really going to abandon that idea and go back to the worst excesses of the Realms re: 'hurr durr dick paladins' and Eberron re: 'hurr durr even the shiny supposedly Lawful Good religion has a secret core of brutality and self-righteous witchburning at its heart, nothing is pure, nothing is sacred', then Jane, stop this crazy thing, I wanna get off.

Which is why I'm really hoping that Ivory Labyrinth will turn out to be a one-off aberration and future Pathfinder supps will never go near this kind of thing again. They've got an entire roster of evil and neutral gods to act like narrow-minded self-righteous bullying asshats if need be; leave the genuinely good ones to still be some genuinely good, thank you.

[Liam Warner]

No offense brain in a jar but you seem to be grabbing parts of a paragraph and then saying they support you while ignoring the fact that what you cut out is what happens in response to what you quoted.

That said as I and others have pointed out this is book FIVE of an adventure path that from the get go has been about redemption, good, evil and the choices we make. If by this stage my players DON'T have a quick yes/no answer to whether someone can be redeemed I'd be very surprised. Which means almost every party that doesn't have a priest/worshiper of a god who's whole focus IS that everyone can be redeemed is going to fail and get hit with a large amount of sonic damage after which things are going to go downhill very quickly.

[Brain in a Jar]

In my above post i quoted word for word the failure condition for each Question. Then i gave my opinion about it.

Also i agreed about Question 2 and stated its not entirely fair at least the part about the immediate answers.

At least read my post before picking it apart and being rude.

[Chuckg]

Read it. You were still playing games with selective quoting and context, as my own quotes (longer and with more supporting text than yours) from the same paragraphs will show to anybody who reads both versions.

Also, Iomedae's hero test is so idiotically written that Captain America himself would be lucky to pass one question out of three, and would more likely score zero. Read my prior post for details.

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

Read it. You were still playing games with selective quoting and context, as my own quotes (longer and with more supporting text than yours) from the same paragraphs will show to anybody who reads both versions.

But i was only talking about the failure conditions for each question.

I posted those conditions, gave my opinion of them, and thats it.

I didn't selective quote anything. I quoted the section i was speaking about.

Also in that post i agree about question two could have been alot better. Because in my opinion Questions 1 and 3 are easy. But 2 gives problems even to Good people who are nice.

Also you added the hesistation part to question 3.

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

Also, Iomedae's hero test is so idiotically written that Captain America himself would be lucky to pass one question out of three, and would more likely score zero. Read my prior post for details.

You mean Chuckg playing the role of Captain America taking a test.

In which you want to showcase why its a stupid test and answer it like that.

[Chuckg]

Hesitation being the opposite of "conviction and bravery" and "confident about the quest", that being what Iomedae is specifically stated to be looking for, my statement is still entirely truthful and accurate. If you hesitate to answer, obviously you're not being confident.

PS: [changed my mind, let's not even go there]

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

Hesitation being the opposite of "conviction and bravery" and "confident about the quest", that being what Iomedae is specifically stated to be looking for, my statement is still entirely truthful and accurate. If you hesitate to answer, obviously you're not being confident.

So the page never says "hesitation" = sonic damage.

You added that. Making it your opinion.

The exact thing i did.

P.s. I never said to ignore the Chuckg roleplaying. You claimed it was Captain America taking the test. I just clarified that it was Chuckg playing Cpatain America taking a test.

[Chuckg]

Actually, no, its not "my opinion" -- it's the dictionary definitions of the words 'hesitation' and 'confidence'. The two of them are antonyms of each other. That means that they have opposite meanings. It's like "wet" and "dry", or "day" and "night". If you're in the one, then you are automatically not in the other.

So if you are showing hesitation, then you are not being confident. Since 'not being confident', by itself, can trigger 20d6 sonic worth of failsmack on this question, then showing hesitation in your answer -- by definition -- will get you failsmacked. In direct contradiction to the last question, where not showing hesitation was the automatic failsmack. Seriously, psychologists designing mazes for lab rats don't get this unfair and arbitrary about it. Not even the mazes that have electric shocks.

You don't get to scream 'it's just your opinion, man!' when we're talking about the meaning of plain English words. Language is a tool for communication; words carry meaning; if the author intended to mean something else, then he should have used different words.

PS: Yesterday you were all like 'respect my opinions! can't you just respect other people's opinions?', but today you seem all like 'the opinion came from Chuckg, therefore it doesn't mean anything compared to mine!' I'm being reminded of Orwell's "Animal Farm" right now, and the pigs that were "more equal" than the other pigs.

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

Actually, no, its not "my opinion" -- it's the dictionary definitions of the words 'hesitation' and 'confidence'. The two of them are antonyms of each other. That means that they have opposite meanings. It's like "wet" and "dry", or "day" and "night". If you're in the one, then you are automatically not in the other.

So if you are showing hesitation, then you are not being confident. Since 'not being confident', by itself, can trigger 20d6 sonic worth of failsmack on this question, then showing hesitation in your answer -- by definition -- will get you failsmacked.

You don't get to scream 'it's just your opinion, man!' when we're talking about the meaning of plain English words. Language is a tool for communication; words carry meaning; if the author intended to mean something else, then he should have used different words.

You can interpret question three however you want. I can see how you could think that but hesistation isn't listed as a failure condition.

[Lochar]

Alright, back to your corners. We don't need another chunk of this thread deleted.

[Orthos]

Dracovar wrote:

Chuckg wrote:

Iomedae is supposed to be the paladin of paladins --

Just had to snip this part out...

Given how many PC's, DMPC's and NPC Paladins are played as Lawful Stupid asshats (to use another posters phrase), does it not stand to reason that Iomedae should be the Paragon of Lawful Stupid asshats?

So, if seen in this light, Iomedae is acting, as written, exactly as one would expect. She really is the "paladin of paladins".

<smirk>

And this. This really is my problem with the whole thing. This attitude.

There seems to be a great deal of antagonism and hostility against the Lawful Good alignment among the community, if not among the writers themselves - I've noted multiple times to my players and fellow GMs in my group that Paizo seems, on pretty much all occasions, to write with the expectation of a group that leans toward Chaotic Good, and that any variance from that - be it toward Evil or toward Order - requires more adaptation from the GM. WOTR is one of the few exceptions to this, in that it seems to expect a LG (or LG-leaning) party.

Couple that with this excessively-common mindset among players if these forums are any indication, mentioned multiple times in this very thread, that Lawful Good is as bad as Evil, using comments like Dracovar's saying that the exemplar of paladins should be an absolute jerk because of how many PC paladins are absolute jerks (when frankly anyone with a lick of sense who isn't immensely biased against paladins/Lawful Good characters in general should be able to see that such characters should NOT be considered the example and the norm for their kind!), and no wonder people want to defend a LG deity acting like this. Because clearly they don't have any experience with how Lawful Good is SUPPOSED to be played! Or can't get beyond their own biases against it!

Thank GOD my players don't play or treat paladins like this. That little "<smirk>" thrown on the end of that was almost enough to put me in tableflip mode. It pisses me off to no end the way people act and react about having a paladin in the party. I guess I can blame that on me personally seeing Lawful Good as an exemplar to aspire to, which apparently makes me a minority in this day and age of the game.

[magnuskn]

Dracovar wrote:

Chuckg wrote:

Iomedae is supposed to be the paladin of paladins --

Just had to snip this part out...

Given how many PC's, DMPC's and NPC Paladins are played as Lawful Stupid asshats (to use another posters phrase), does it not stand to reason that Iomedae should be the Paragon of Lawful Stupid asshats?

So, if seen in this light, Iomedae is acting, as written, exactly as one would expect. She really is the "paladin of paladins".

<smirk>

Yeah, only that this was not the intent of James.

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

PS: Yesterday you were all like 'respect my opinions! can't you just respect other people's opinions?', but today you seem all like 'the opinion came from Chuckg, therefore it doesn't mean anything compared to mine!' I'm being reminded of Orwell's "Animal Farm" right now, and the pigs that were "more equal" than the other pigs.

But you said this wasn't about opinions but hard fact. You changed the parameters of the discussion.

I would love for it to be that what we are both saying are opinions. Thats what i tried to say yesterday. BUt was told i am wrong.

This is a discussion of the encounter. Some people will interpret it one way and some another way.

Some people like it, some people are neutral, and other's don't like it.

This whole thread is based in opinion.

I respect you opinion and can see why you don't like the encounter.

But that doesn't mean the encounter is wrong.

Just as i like the encounter but that doesn't make it right.

[Chuckg]

We are never going to agree on this issue, Brain. I cannot put it more simply than this, and I am not going to bother trying to repeat my arguments to you again(*) because you obviously are never going to agree with me, either.

(*) My apologies in advance to the rest of the thread if I backslide into temptation. It's a weakness I have.

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

We are never going to agree on this issue, Brain. I cannot put it more simply than this.

See that i can agree with.

In the end both are opinions are just as equal.

Neither is right or wrong.

[Skeld]

All this discussion is great! There are a number of thoughts about how people think this encounter would or should play out.

What I'm most interested in is what happens when GMs really run this encounter.

To keep the actual play experiences separate from the discussion, I've created another thread so that GMs that run this encounter can share their experiences, and their players' reactions, for other GMs to review. This might give us all much better insight into how this thing actually plays out versus how we think it might play out (since PCs likely don't know any of the specifics of the encounter text as written).

-Skeld

[Chuckg]

Just to clear up, that's also one of the things we're never going to agree on.

[Brain in a Jar]

Skeld wrote:

All this discussion is great! There are a number of thoughts about how people think this encounter would or should play out.

What I'm most interested in is what happens when GMs really run this encounter.

To keep the actual play experiences separate from the discussion, I've created another thread so that GMs that run this encounter can share their experiences, and their players' reactions, for other GMs to review. This might give us all much better insight into how this thing actually plays out versus how we think it might play out (since PCs likely don't know any of the specifics of the encounter text as written).

-Skeld

Nice. Good idea.

[Brain in a Jar]

Chuckg wrote:

Just to clear up, that's also one of the things we're never going to agree on.

Then i quess your opinons are more equal than mine?

[Chuckg]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Chuckg wrote:

Just to clear up, that's also one of the things we're never going to agree on.

Then i quess your opinons are more equal than mine?

No, the disagreement is your apparent contention that everything is just a matter of opinion. My opinion might not be 'more equal' than yours, but the actual factual record definitely is 'more equal' than any contrary opinion.

It's the difference between objective and subjective, a basic tenet of philosophy and/or logic. Feel free to research it on your own, I think the rest of the thread is getting bored with our competing lecture series.

[Dracovar]

Orthos wrote:

Dracovar wrote:

Chuckg wrote:

Iomedae is supposed to be the paladin of paladins --

Just had to snip this part out...

Given how many PC's, DMPC's and NPC Paladins are played as Lawful Stupid asshats (to use another posters phrase), does it not stand to reason that Iomedae should be the Paragon of Lawful Stupid asshats?

So, if seen in this light, Iomedae is acting, as written, exactly as one would expect. She really is the "paladin of paladins".

<smirk>

And this. This really is my problem with the whole thing. This attitude.

Thank GOD my players don't play or treat paladins like this. That little "<smirk>" thrown on the end of that was almost enough to put me into tableflip mode...

Tableflip mode. My work here is done. :-)

Ok, but seriously, I should have prefaced my post with <sarcasm /ON> and then <sarcasm /OFF>. I'm in total agreement with Orthos, Chuckg, and others of similar mindset.

LG can be nuanced. LG can be flawed. LG should not be monomanical "if you are evil, bonk goes my mace". This AP is about redeeming demons, shifting bad guys from the dark side to the good, etc. It's about exploring those shades of grey and realizing that the exemplars of Good, as characterized by the PC heroes of the AP, can stop and take a moment to really think about the consequences of their actions, that the bad guy may not just be another collection of HP and treasure - that maybe, just maybe, violence doesn't have to be the only solution.

The problem is that Iomedae fell into the sterotypical flaw that so many of us hate the most about how LG is often characterized - unyielding, unhumourous, no flexibility, rigidly bound to action that defies all logic, etc - the quintessential Lawful Stupid in my books.

[Orthos]

Quote:

Ok, but seriously, I should have prefaced my post with <sarcasm /ON> and then <sarcasm /OFF>. I'm in total agreement with Orthos, Chuckg, and others of similar mindset.

We really, really need a sarcasm font/symbol for text-based communications.

[selunatic2397]

I'd donate to the sarcasm font kickstarter fund if somenoe starts it!

[Chuckg]

Whoa yeah. Dracovar, my mental apologies for my thoughts of the past hour or so.

[Dracovar]

Chuckg wrote:

Whoa yeah. Dracovar, my mental apologies for my thoughts of the past hour or so.

My avatar is what it is for a reason, heheh.

I'm more a fan of nuanced Evil and hate the "black moustache twirling, AHAHAHAHA I'M EVIL, stereotypes". So, the LG corrolate of that, what many refer to as Lawful Stupid, grinds my gears too.

What I do like and appreciate is that James himself has been following this thread (at least part way, perhaps longer). His comments, at least how I read between the lines, is that perhaps Paizo realizes it might have goofed this one up. It takes a big person to admit, "ya, that wasn't what we intended, we probably could have done it better". I sense James is that kind of a guy.

You rarely see that from companies, much less their leadership. So, while I do like to stir the pot, I would obviously rewrite this to make Iomedae much more understanding, compassionate, sympathetic and likeable. Doesn't mean that you can't wrap those qualities up in a Fist of Iron. You can have those qualities and still be as tough as nails and unflinching in the face of evil. But writing to that requires a lot of skill, and perhaps more word count than the encounter really allowed for.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed some posts. Don't post images/scans of the pages of our books and leave personal insults out of the conversation. If it can't stop, this thread will be locked.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Ok I can’t discuss or read about this any more, I am out of this one ^^

[Tangent101]

I must admit I find this thread to have become a source of sick fascination. You don't often see flamewars erupt on these forums - or at least the Adventure Path part of it (I don't really go elsewhere on them except for an occasional foray into rules questions).

And it's pretty much come down to three groups: diehard protectors of the faith (or Paizo) who find the mere notion the scene depicts a LG Goddess poorly to be heretical, and the upstart heretics who believe in the Paizo product that showed Iomedae to be more lenient than portrayed in this scene. Oh, and a batch of lazy GMs (hi!) who would rather not be bothered having to rewrite the scene! ;)

If you feel the scene works, then fine. Use it as is. If you feel the scene doesn't work, then rework it or use one of the alternatives given on the forums by some rather innovative folk out there. It's pretty much as simple as that. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Why write a novel of flames on this topic?

[TriOmegaZero]

Tangent101 wrote:

Why write a novel of flames on this topic?

Why not? What other use of my time on this forum would be more worthy?

[Tangent101]

Write a story on one of your characters (or your group if you're a GM). Indulge in some creativity and imagination.

Create an encounter for one of the adventures out there.

You know, something constructive.

[captain yesterday]

I'm a lazy GM! i'm fine with it as written tho:)>

[Tangent101]

I got into the Adventure Paths because I was a lazy GM who was being urged by a player to start up a D&D game for him and his friend... and rather than cobble together old Dungeon Magazine adventures, picked up the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition and fell in love with the Adventure Paths. And then promptly switched my existing tabletop group from the beginning adventures from Night Below (which I was converting to Pathfinder) and a mishmash of Dungeon Magazine adventures over to Reign of Winter... and had no regrets (and the game perked up as a result!).

So laziness as a GM rules. ;) And earns Paizo money.

[Odraude]

Honestly, I just don't want them to repeat this mistake again in any future product. I mean, first we has a misogynistic Good deity, now we have a Lawful Stupid paladin that whisks the PCs to Guantanamo Bay Heaven to persuade them into saving her herald. As a GM, I'd rewrite this encounter (and it's not really hard to) and as a Player, I'd tell her to "cram the artifacts down your food hole. I'll save the herald without them or your rapping on the knuckles, Sister Jude."

Which is sad, because they were on a roll with the first four books of this adventure path when it came to portraying their NPCs. They finally had a paladin portrayed as likable without being stuffy, and then drop the ball like it's New year's Eve with Iomadae. Each one was likable, even the super rich jerk in the first one. Like, when that pompous nobleman that whines is more likable than a goddess of justice and honor, there's a problem here. Hell, when the demon lord of succubi is more cordial than the goddess of justice and honor, there's a problem here.

Last thing I want is another good deity falling prey to out-of-character stuff like punishing the players when simultaneously asking for their help.

[TOZ]

Tangent101 wrote:

You know, something constructive.

On a messageboard?

[Tangent101]

TOZ wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

You know, something constructive.

On a messageboard?

Yes. My fanficcing efforts on the CRfH forums helped refine my writing ability to the point I became a decent writer and wrote my own novel (which needs to be rewritten, I'll admit, and I've procrastinated on it for several years now). And I've seen some damn fine ideas posted on these forums for adventure hooks and the like - to the point that Paizo could easily keep watch on these and offer the most productive freelance jobs if they're smart (and they probably do this as they seem fairly smart in this regard).

I've seen fan-artists on forums craft some spectacular works. I've seen some move on and become webcartoonists and the like. Forums can be a most constructive venue, not only for getting one's work viewed, but also for honing one's abilities.