A list of things that Ultimate Intrigue clarified for me in the first 10 minutes of reading


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I will chime in that this also makes me more interested in this book than just another batch of archetypes and feats. I tend to be more excited about GM related books, especially things like the Blank Adventures series, which has a good balance of both player and GM material.


Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scavion wrote:
Something I did not want clarified: Failing a Will Save and being forced to perform an action that breaks your code/goes against your deities' wishes does in fact make you lose your powers.

So houserule it the other way in your games, simple enough. They also clarify that such actions that cause the loss of class features would likely count as "self-destructive" for the purpose of spells like dominate person, so forcing someone to do something like that would likely be difficult to pull off to begin with (I don't have the full spell list memorized, but I think the general-purpose compulsions have similar exclusions in them).


Uh no they would not.
Vanpire dominates you, says attack your allies. Rip powers, evil act to attack friends and innocents AND aiding undead.
It only prevents physical self harm, not meta self harm


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pinkycatcher wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Something I did not want clarified: Failing a Will Save and being forced to perform an action that breaks your code/goes against your deities' wishes does in fact make you lose your powers.

I dont believe the Absolution spell should have been printed. Even further it has limited usefulness in combat(It also breaks enchantments) because of the casting time of a round.

How does that first bit make any sense?

Wizard compels cleric of shelyn to murder a child or deface a painting. Cleric loses their powers despite not having control of themselves.

Add depowering Clerics/Paladins to the list of what Will Saves can do.


I like deities being uncaring to the why or how in general, so I don't mind the ruling. However, in practice the DM needs to have an Atonement hot and ready to go so it's more of a "debuff" and less of a "story arc". It's just crippling to the entire party - not just the cleric or paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CWheezy wrote:

Uh no they would not.

Vanpire dominates you, says attack your allies. Rip powers, evil act to attack friends and innocents AND aiding undead.
It only prevents physical self harm, not meta self harm

See page 162 for the discussion on dominate person, it is not limited to physical self-harm (the example they give in that section is dominating a king to announce something that will irreparably destroy his reputation and tear his kingdom apart would count).

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

Something I did not want clarified: Failing a Will Save and being forced to perform an action that breaks your code/goes against your deities' wishes does in fact make you lose your powers.

I dont believe the Absolution spell should have been printed. Even further it has limited usefulness in combat(It also breaks enchantments) because of the casting time of a round.

This isn't anything new. From atonement: " If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. "


4 people marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:
I like deities being uncaring to the why or how in general, so I don't mind the ruling.

*Firmly plants tongue in cheek*

If I wanted to run around in a world where the gods dont give a damn about their followers, I'd just go outside.

I freakin love Divinity in RPGs because they care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Something I did not want clarified: Failing a Will Save and being forced to perform an action that breaks your code/goes against your deities' wishes does in fact make you lose your powers.

I dont believe the Absolution spell should have been printed. Even further it has limited usefulness in combat(It also breaks enchantments) because of the casting time of a round.

This isn't anything new. From atonement: " If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. "

My counterpoint would be that Atonement does not explicitly state that is what occurs unlike Absolution.

Atonement says it works for free if you were compelled. It does not say that compelled actions cause you to lose powers like Absolution does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well crap, there goes $45. Thanks a lot RD.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have favorited a post from RD praising a Paizo book 0_0. Truly the end is near. Good thing that we got info on Groetus in that other book :-)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

My counterpoint would be that Atonement does not explicitly state that is what occurs unlike Absolution.

Atonement says it works for free if you were compelled. It does not say that compelled actions cause you to lose powers like Absolution does.

To me, this concept actually reinforces an idea that I'd had a long time ago: that failing a Will save only happens because of a weakness in the person doing the failing. It's not a case of "I just wasn't 7'9" with a STR of 29, so I couldn't lift the boulder." but rather, "Deep down, secreted away, in every heart, lies the potential for wickedness; this, willingly or not, coaxes that out and into action."

This is a far more effective and far creepier thing than even "meat puppet" versions of the same.

I'd originally effectively given up on this idea in old 3.X - after all, gods have stats - but now, it does kind of make sense.

The idea that, on some level, the person who is being compelled isn't a meat-puppet, but rather a normal, (im)mortal being with secret compartments of <good/evil/law/chaos; select one> actually makes a fair amount of sense. It explains why paladins are immune to charm and compulsion effects, for example, and gods lose their stats - they no longer have the weakness or limitations of mortal frame, literally shedding the essence of being a person for the assumption of their own divinity.

I could also see it making sense to ensure that the god's servant didn't continue to use their powers for the forces of the enemy - kind of an automated "NOPE" switch, as it were - a safety feature.

Buuu~uuuuut I can also see the problem with it - unintentional consequences and all that. My point here wasn't to refute the "I don't like it." (as, heaven knows, there are plenty of things I differ on from Paizo's official stances), but rather, "Here's an alternate interpretation that might make the things make sense."

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Scavion wrote:

Something I did not want clarified: Failing a Will Save and being forced to perform an action that breaks your code/goes against your deities' wishes does in fact make you lose your powers.

I dont believe the Absolution spell should have been printed. Even further it has limited usefulness in combat(It also breaks enchantments) because of the casting time of a round.

This isn't anything new. From atonement: " If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. "

My counterpoint would be that Atonement does not explicitly state that is what occurs unlike Absolution.

Atonement says it works for free if you were compelled. It does not say that compelled actions cause you to lose powers like Absolution does.

Fair enough. You can see from that why we would be operating under the assumption that it does, though, and thus making a lower-level and faster spell to prevent it would be an assistance to the situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Scavion wrote:

My counterpoint would be that Atonement does not explicitly state that is what occurs unlike Absolution.

Atonement says it works for free if you were compelled. It does not say that compelled actions cause you to lose powers like Absolution does.

To me, this concept actually reinforces an idea that I'd had a long time ago: that failing a Will save only happens because of a weakness in the person doing the failing. It's not a case of "I just wasn't 7'9" with a STR of 29, so I couldn't lift the boulder." but rather, "Deep down, secreted away, in every heart, lies the potential for wickedness; this, willingly or not, coaxes that out and into action."

This is a far more effective and far creepier thing than even "meat puppet" versions of the same.

I'd originally effectively given up on this idea in old 3.X - after all, gods have stats - but now, it does kind of make sense.

The idea that, on some level, the person who is being compelled isn't a meat-puppet, but rather a normal, (im)mortal being with secret compartments of <good/evil/law/chaos; select one> actually makes a fair amount of sense. It explains why paladins are immune to charm and compulsion effects, for example, and gods lose their stats - they no longer have the weakness or limitations of mortal frame, literally shedding the essence of being a person for the assumption of their own divinity.

I could also see it making sense to ensure that the god's servant didn't continue to use their powers for the forces of the enemy - kind of an automated "NOPE" switch, as it were - a safety feature.

Buuu~uuuuut I can also see the problem with it - unintentional consequences and all that. My point here wasn't to refute the "I don't like it." (as, heaven knows, there are plenty of things I differ on from Paizo's official stances), but rather, "Here's an alternate interpretation that might make the things make sense."

Wouldn't that mean that any action taken under a compulsion is in fact technically be an act of free will? As they always wanted to take that action the compulsion merely coaxed it out of them?

Although I do like the interpretation it has some very unfortunate implications.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't much like that interpretation because of the way it undermines basically any character who just isn't immune to those spells.

As for the primary topic of the thread. On the one hand I think these make UI a lot more interesting because I've been curious about how the developers think a lot of these spells and options should be used.

On the other hand I'm not sure I'm a fan of what looks like putting rules clarifications in a splatbook, especially when many of those rulings and opinions have to do with core spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not sure a 256 page hardcover counts as a "splatbook". More a "thudbook", but YMMV.

Also, since it'll be put up on the PRD, it'll form part of the base game rules, too. Which is just going to nuke 90% of rule arguments,

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
On the other hand I'm not sure I'm a fan of what looks like putting rules clarifications in a splatbook, especially when many of those rulings and opinions have to do with core spells.

In what universe is the Core RPG line considered a "splatbook"??


So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits an evil act" in there.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits and evil act" in there.

Scavion is talking about a spell in the spell section, not the spells of intrigue section on advice for running spells in an intrigue game. Absolution doesn't make anything new force a loss of powers or adjust your code of conduct, it just says it prevents you from losing your powers if a compulsion would otherwise break your code of conduct. For example, a druid could be compelled to wear metal armor. If your code mentions "willingly" then you didn't violate it in the first place.


Sundakan wrote:
So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits and evil act" in there.

To be fair it was always easy to do this to a paladin - just make them tell a lie. There is nothing in the code about willingly there.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits and evil act" in there.
Scavion is talking about a spell in the spell section, not the spells of intrigue section on advice for running spells in an intrigue game. Absolution doesn't make anything new force a loss of powers or adjust your code of conduct, it just says it prevents you from losing your powers if a compulsion would otherwise break your code of conduct. For example, a druid could be compelled to wear metal armor. If your code mentions "willingly" then you didn't violate it in the first place.

I see.

Not as bad as I thought, but I still really don't like this change (clarification?). Charm and Dominate and the like were already almost too good, they didn't really need a buff. I'd never been at a table where that was implied before, I hope that doesn't change.

Scarab Sages

Ckorik wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits and evil act" in there.
To be fair it was always easy to do this to a paladin - just make them tell a lie. There is nothing in the code about willingly there.

Yes. There is.

Quote:

Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.


What he's saying is the "willingly commits evil" clause and "can't lie" clause are in separate sentences, disconnected.

Paizo Employee Designer

Sundakan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
So does this outright errata the paladin's Code to be even MORE strict? Because it straight up says "WILLINGLY commits and evil act" in there.
Scavion is talking about a spell in the spell section, not the spells of intrigue section on advice for running spells in an intrigue game. Absolution doesn't make anything new force a loss of powers or adjust your code of conduct, it just says it prevents you from losing your powers if a compulsion would otherwise break your code of conduct. For example, a druid could be compelled to wear metal armor. If your code mentions "willingly" then you didn't violate it in the first place.

I see.

Not as bad as I thought, but I still really don't like this change (clarification?). Charm and Dominate and the like were already almost too good, they didn't really need a buff. I'd never been at a table where that was implied before, I hope that doesn't change.

It's not a change or a clarification, it's just spell text, same as atonement. Atonement has always said that it's free if you were compelled and you pay for if it was willing, so another spell that works like the free atonement is unlikely to change the way a group plays if they've been ignoring that part of atonement.

The clarification section for charm and dominate actually might limit them compared to how they roll right now at your table, but I think they definitely won't be making them stronger in any case.


Wait, if all it does is just work like a small part of another spell and doesn't introduce anything new, why does it exist?

Is it lower level?

Maybe I should just leave this thread until the 30th. =/

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

Wait, if all it does is just work like a small part of another spell and doesn't introduce anything new, why does it exist?

Is it lower level?

Maybe I should just leave this thread until the 30th. =/

It's lower level, it's much faster to cast, and it does something else too ;)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:
What he's saying is the "willingly commits evil" clause and "can't lie" clause are in separate sentences, disconnected.

'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.

Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
What he's saying is the "willingly commits evil" clause and "can't lie" clause are in separate sentences, disconnected.

'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.

Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.

Ha! You are braver than I am - I wouldn't dare to dream about suggesting that anything the paladin does or doesn't do in a game doesn't cause his immediate fall and transition to anti-paladin status on the forums.... ;)

The truth is the forums made me realise I wouldn't play a paladin at most people's tables. But to each their own!

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
What he's saying is the "willingly commits evil" clause and "can't lie" clause are in separate sentences, disconnected.

'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.

Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.

Ha! You are braver than I am - I wouldn't dare to dream about suggesting that anything the paladin does or doesn't do in a game doesn't cause his immediate fall and transition to anti-paladin status on the forums.... ;)

The truth is the forums made me realise I wouldn't play a paladin at most people's tables. But to each their own!

Oh paladins, they can derail any thread, can't they?

So, uhh...heh...Any other thoughts about spells of intrigue or skills in conflict?

Let's move any paladin debate about acting with honor into another thread.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

They have Smite Thread as an at-will ability

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Firewarrior44 wrote:
They have Smite Thread as an at-will ability

I should have given paladins a +2 bonus in verbal duels for using the red herring tactic (where you derail an exchange into something else, handy if you were in danger of losing it).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:
They have Smite Thread as an at-will ability
I should have given paladins a +2 bonus in verbal duels for using the red herring tactic (where you derail an exchange into something else, handy if you were in danger of losing it).

Which tactic would be most useful for morphing the exchange into something about a succubus in a grapple?


On topic (and even still about the spell being discussed) I'm pleased mostly because I actually believe that the atonement mechanic is something that is supposed to be part of the game and that most people seem to think is a punishment or ignore.

I never saw it that way (and to be fair in my games if you mess up unless it was out of your way deliberate you get the feeling you need to atone rather than poof you are a bad fighter, ignoring that feeling for too long may lead to complications...)

I'm interested in the spell in question.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:
They have Smite Thread as an at-will ability
I should have given paladins a +2 bonus in verbal duels for using the red herring tactic (where you derail an exchange into something else, handy if you were in danger of losing it).
Which tactic would be most useful for morphing the exchange into something about a succubus in a grapple?

That's be either red herring or an *erhem* "emotional" appeal. But this is starting to move to verbal duels now, also not the topic. Whoops! :o


Mark Seifter wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:
They have Smite Thread as an at-will ability
I should have given paladins a +2 bonus in verbal duels for using the red herring tactic (where you derail an exchange into something else, handy if you were in danger of losing it).
Which tactic would be most useful for morphing the exchange into something about a succubus in a grapple?
That's be either red herring or an *erhem* "emotional" appeal. But this is starting to move to verbal duels now, also not the topic. Whoops! :o

Your attempt to tease about the verbal duels beat my DC - so feel free to elaborate more....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:

My counterpoint would be that Atonement does not explicitly state that is what occurs unlike Absolution.

Atonement says it works for free if you were compelled. It does not say that compelled actions cause you to lose powers like Absolution does.

Tacticslion wrote:

To me, this concept actually reinforces an idea that I'd had a long time ago: that failing a Will save only happens because of a weakness in the person doing the failing. It's not a case of "I just wasn't 7'9" with a STR of 29, so I couldn't lift the boulder." but rather, "Deep down, secreted away, in every heart, lies the potential for wickedness; this, willingly or not, coaxes that out and into action."

This is a far more effective and far creepier thing than even "meat puppet" versions of the same.

I'd originally effectively given up on this idea in old 3.X - after all, gods have stats - but now, it does kind of make sense.

The idea that, on some level, the person who is being compelled isn't a meat-puppet, but rather a normal, (im)mortal being with secret compartments of <good/evil/law/chaos; select one> actually makes a fair amount of sense. It explains why paladins are immune to charm and compulsion effects, for example, and gods lose their stats - they no longer have the weakness or limitations of mortal frame, literally shedding the essence of being a person for the assumption of their own divinity.

I could also see it making sense to ensure that the god's servant didn't continue to use their powers for the forces of the enemy - kind of an automated "NOPE" switch, as it were - a safety feature.

Buuu~uuuuut I can also see the problem with it - unintentional consequences and all that. My point here wasn't to refute the "I don't like it." (as, heaven knows, there are plenty of things I differ on from Paizo's official stances), but rather, "Here's an alternate interpretation that might make the things make sense."

Firewarrior44 wrote:

Wouldn't that mean that any action taken under a compulsion is in fact technically be an act of free will? As they always wanted to take that action the compulsion merely coaxed it out of them?

Although I do like the interpretation it has some very unfortunate implications.

It would mean that, yes - effectively, it's reinterpreting what happens when you fail a will save.

The unfortunate implication is... dark, indeed.

More accurately, though, I'd run it as a fusion - effectively enchantment becomes a kind "dark whisper" effect, continuously quietly either stimulating or numbing the parts of you that would respond in a way opposed to the enchantment.

This, too, fits in with charm's ability to "get" you to do something you "wouldn't ordinarily" do with a simple charisma check: it's simply telling you that it's okay, and your will failed - i.e. it was a failure of your character, a surrender to temptation.

That said, it's not a pleasant picture: enchantment becomes no different, in that view, than alcohol or other mind-altering substances, as it messes with your mind, and gets you to change your personality. This is similar to intoxication degrading your inhibitions. It also fits with the "people are obviously charmed" bit.

In that case, the substance can't, of its own, force you to do anything, but it allows those things that you normally repress to come out and you can (depending on the person) behave in wildly different ways.

swoosh wrote:
I don't much like that interpretation because of the way it undermines basically any character who just isn't immune to those spells.

Just like alcohol or poisoning with mind-altering substances, yeah. It's pretty dark and sobering.

I'm not entirely sure I like it either, to be clear... but it does sync up with a lot of the other text and concepts in-game.

That said, I'm okay without it, and I certainly wouldn't enforce it on anyone. In fact, I may well not run it that way at my own tables... it's pretty terrifying in many ways. But it was an idea that does seem to work.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
Which tactic would be most useful for morphing the exchange into something about a succubus in a grapple?
Mark Seifter wrote:
That's be either red herring or an *erhem* "emotional" appeal. But this is starting to move to verbal duels now, also not the topic. Whoops! :o

Chemlak; Mark. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrk. Baby.

I got connections. I can get you what you need, guys.

I know a guy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is incredibly dark. It basically lends itself to the logical conclusion that any act you preform while charmed is preformed with willing consent.

Which is very different than the normal interpretation which is it is forcing you to take that action so you are still plausibly unwilling at your core.


Firewarrior44 wrote:

It is incredibly dark. It basically lends itself to the logical conclusion that any act you preform while charmed is preformed with willing consent.

Which is very different than the normal interpretation which is it is forcing you to take that action so you are still plausibly unwilling at your core.

Yeah. It's a creepy darkness... but weirdly, that can also be used against creatures of "pure" evil, too. It's... an interesting, weird, and strange thought, to be sure.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Firewarrior44 wrote:

It is incredibly dark. It basically lends itself to the logical conclusion that any act you preform while charmed is performed with willing consent.

Which is very different than the normal interpretation which is it is forcing you to take that action so you are still plausibly unwilling at your core.

Curious. Do you consider acts performed while drugged/drunk as willing consent?

It is an interesting interpretation, but I don't think it implies quite as much as you infer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Firewarrior44 wrote:

It is incredibly dark. It basically lends itself to the logical conclusion that any act you preform while charmed is preformed with willing consent.

Which is very different than the normal interpretation which is it is forcing you to take that action so you are still plausibly unwilling at your core.

Yeah. It's a creepy darkness... but weirdly, that can also be used against creatures of "pure" evil, too. It's... an interesting, weird, and strange thought, to be sure.

Eh, not really. Not unless Evil and Good are literally incapable of understanding each other (which is really not the case, because, y'know, Asmodeus).

If you take a being of pure good and turn off every important part of it's mind except the little bit that understands evil, the little bit that understands obedience, and the little bit that makes it determined, then is it really any surprise that the being of pure good would be so "willingly" determined to do the evil things you order it to? Those little bits, which do no harm at all under normal circumstances and actually help it in it's fight against evil, are literally all it has left. The "being of pure good" becomes a husk whose only mental comprehension is doggedly obeying your evil desires, because magic whisked everything else away.


Tacticslion wrote:
Just like alcohol or poisoning with mind-altering substances, yeah. It's pretty dark and sobering.

Well yeah, but there's usually some common personality trait and inhibition lowering drugs tend to just enhance those traits.

My paladin doesn't suddenly turn CE if she gets smashed at a tavern.

Also, alcohol. Sobering. hehe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Just like alcohol or poisoning with mind-altering substances, yeah. It's pretty dark and sobering.

Well yeah, but there's usually some common personality trait and inhibition lowering drugs tend to just enhance those traits.

My paladin doesn't suddenly turn CE if she gets smashed at a tavern.

Also, alcohol. Sobering. hehe.

No, but under the influence of a mind-altering effect like a charm spell, a psychedelic drug, alcohol, w/e... I'm sure their behavior could be influenced along either of those axes (not both at once, but drifting more towards LN or NG depending on the paladin). Charm spells aren't a Helm of Opposite Alignment.


I dunno. Probably wouldnt fly with most players I know. "Nah man that spell makes your character want to murder all those children."

Anyways thats my only real beef with the book. I hope I havent derailed things too hard.


Aratrok wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Yeah, I was probably going to get this for the crunch, but now I'm definitely getting it.
Well, most of this is crunch; it's replacing rules or adding new ones, like with simulacrum.

Without going into to much detail, what rules have been replaced and what new things have been added?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:

'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.

Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.

OK, might as well follow up on this here...

Similar to lying, I see people believe that any and all usage of Poison is banned...
But that ban is stated in exactly the way the ban on lying is, i.e. as an example of 'acting with honor'.
So would it be the case that likewise with lying, the Poison ban isn't actually an absolute, but conditional on 'dis-honor'?

Concretely, slipping some Poison in somebody's drink so they suffer without ever confronting you is clearly dishonorable.
Much less clearly dishonorable is using a CON damage poison on your Greatsword...
Or using Stinking Cloud spell/effect... Or using a Pseudodragon Familiar with Sleep Poison.

Thoughts?

EDIT: This and the No Lying issue are probably FAQ material, IMHO.


So, I'm missing where this book has much to say about simulacrum, one way or the other. My search of the PDF only turned up a little bit about low disguise DCs. Am I missing something?

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ian Bell wrote:
So, I'm missing where this book has much to say about simulacrum, one way or the other. My search of the PDF only turned up a little bit about low disguise DCs. Am I missing something?

You're not missing anything. That's why I mentioned upthread that it doesn't say very much about simulacrum.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
This has done more to sell me on Ultimate Intrigue than anything Paizo has put out about it.

We have mention of these two sections scheduled for two blogs from now (not tomorrow's but the one the week after). It's with the other subsystems, but if you guys on this thread think that spending more detail on these two sections is a really strong point of excitement, that tells me I should adjust that blog to give some more info on them.

Thanks Eliandra, RD, p-sto, Brew Bird, and others here; if you see more about this in that blog, you'll know it was thanks to you!

I couldn't even finish the thread before commenting on this. I looked at the vigilante playtest, decided it wasn't for me, and probably would never have looked twice at this book. Yall owe the OP money, because now I need to read this as a DM. This book just became important to me.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
What he's saying is the "willingly commits evil" clause and "can't lie" clause are in separate sentences, disconnected.

'Not lying' is an example given for 'act with honor' - It's a general shorthand for being deceitful or misleading, not an absolute. If there is a situation where lying is the honorable act (or where no one would actually be misled), the paladin can lie. Discretion being a part of valor and so forth.

Inversely, Paladins are barred from being misleading by selective truths, even though those are not actually lies.

Ha! You are braver than I am - I wouldn't dare to dream about suggesting that anything the paladin does or doesn't do in a game doesn't cause his immediate fall and transition to anti-paladin status on the forums.... ;)

The truth is the forums made me realise I wouldn't play a paladin at most people's tables. But to each their own!

Oh paladins, they can derail any thread, can't they?

So, uhh...heh...Any other thoughts about spells of intrigue or skills in conflict?

Let's move any paladin debate about acting with honor into another thread.

Paladins are like acrobats. People go to the show to see them both fall.

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / A list of things that Ultimate Intrigue clarified for me in the first 10 minutes of reading All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.