| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got into metaphysics later in life.I get it now but back to my stubborn young ages I'd try to give a scientific explanation to everything. It doesn't work, it only ruins the fun.Never tried using applied metaphysics, have you? A scientific explanation is derived from known laws about the universe, regardless of which laws and which universe.
Everyone gets into metaphysics at the end of their life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Because it's funny" is pretty much the best reason to approve anything the players suggest.
I'm the one who elevated the discussion to the next logical subject, "Can vampires poop?"Sounds like a right fair question tah me, since the question of whether skeletons poop has been asked a'fore.
I've never understood where all the blood that vampires consume goes.
When I was new to RPGs V:tM was my first game and I had a hard time figuring out how it worked. They don't poop. They don't vomit the blood they have consumed. They take the life power to sustain themselves from the blood, but they don't physichally evaporate it, or do they? That's what I thought and I took me too much time taking "supernatural or magic unexplained system" as a suitable explanation.
Did you also wonder how Protean could allow a loss of mass without devastating explosions of energy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Protean is far from the worst offender since scientific laws explicitly work in the World of Darkness until they don't (darned Mages). How does Vicissitude do...well, anything? Or worse, Obtenebration lvl 5 which turns you into a shadow that can either have no mass or negative mass (since it allows you to 'fall' in an upwards direction).
"Because, magic, that's why" is an excuse used in just about every fantasy game ever. Which I'd be fine with if two things were true:
1) the rules for "magic" were given.
2) people weren't worried about how physics applies to anything that is not explicitly magic.
Which brings me to the worst argument of all time. "It's not realistic".
"Well it's not realistic that a character can fall 100 feet and not be reduced to a pile of broken bones AT BEST...oh Feather Fall? Sure, that's legit..."
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've largely moved from "strange arguments" to "rules people don't understand." But I'll throw in one more in the original spirit.
(From a GM who hates reroll powers)
"The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you also wonder how Protean could allow a loss of mass without devastating explosions of energy?I'm the one who elevated the discussion to the next logical subject, "Can vampires poop?"Sounds like a right fair question tah me, since the question of whether skeletons poop has been asked a'fore.
I've never understood where all the blood that vampires consume goes.
When I was new to RPGs V:tM was my first game and I had a hard time figuring out how it worked. They don't poop. They don't vomit the blood they have consumed. They take the life power to sustain themselves from the blood, but they don't physichally evaporate it, or do they? That's what I thought and I took me too much time taking "supernatural or magic unexplained system" as a suitable explanation.
I go with the Dresden Files explanation, that the extra mass if drawn from/shunted off to an alternate plane of existence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've largely moved from "strange arguments" to "rules people don't understand." But I'll throw in one more in the original spirit.
(From a GM who hates reroll powers)
"The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him."
That is just terrible.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've largely moved from "strange arguments" to "rules people don't understand." But I'll throw in one more in the original spirit.
(From a GM who hates reroll powers)
"The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him."
I can only think of one appropriate response to this...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not the strangest argument, but definitely my favorite:
"Can you fit your ally's corpse in a Type I Saddlebag of Holding? Yes, because it's funny."
With a sufficiently high Craft (origami) roll, I don't see any issue here...
You can't charge through a swarm because it's a square that contains a creature.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't charge through a swarm because it's a square that contains a creature.You can charge through a swarm?
*runs outside. Kicks beehive. Runs back*
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've largely moved from "strange arguments" to "rules people don't understand." But I'll throw in one more in the original spirit.
(From a GM who hates reroll powers)
"The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him."
Now this one is just evil
I mean, if theoretically there was an object that was just a blob of flesh I don't see why you couldn't flesh to stone it. There just aren't any like that in PF. Checks out imo, so long as the undead actually has flesh as opposed to like. A skeleton.
I once saw someone argue that flesh to stone worked on undead creatures. Their argument for this was, to paraphrase:
"Undead are immune to any effect that requires a Fort save, but only if that effect doesn't work on objects. Flesh to stone says that it turns the affected creature and their gear to stone, which means that it works on objects, and so affects undead creatures."
Honestly, it doesn't seem strange to me. It's basically the same principle Disintegrate works on, but more evenly applied (why does Disintegrate destroy nonliving matter when you aim it directly at it, but destroy living matter and leave nonliving matter entirely untouched when you aim it at living things?).
Flesh to Stone is limited to TARGETING creatures, but it also clearly AFFECTS objects too, otherwise someone hit by Flesh to Stone would be a statue draped in normal cloth-y clothing.
It may or may not be correct, but there's a pretty simple and clear logical flow to that.
I mean, if theoretically there was an object that was just a blob of flesh I don't see why you couldn't flesh to stone it. There just aren't any like that in PF. Checks out imo, so long as the undead actually has flesh as opposed to like. A skeleton.
I mean, you can cast Flesh to Stone on an inanimate (i.e. not undead) corpse right? And that's definitely more "object" than "creature" at this point, isn't it?
I once saw someone argue that flesh to stone worked on undead creatures. Their argument for this was, to paraphrase:
"Undead are immune to any effect that requires a Fort save, but only if that effect doesn't work on objects. Flesh to stone says that it turns the affected creature and their gear to stone, which means that it works on objects, and so affects undead creatures."
Should work on zombies.
Skeletons not so much
I have seen parties use this on bodies to hide them in plain sight.
"wow, that staue looks JUST like Lord Agrippa. my compliments to the stonemason. Say, he's late for the party... "
Did you also wonder how Protean could allow a loss of mass without devastating explosions of energy?I'm the one who elevated the discussion to the next logical subject, "Can vampires poop?"Sounds like a right fair question tah me, since the question of whether skeletons poop has been asked a'fore.
I've never understood where all the blood that vampires consume goes.
When I was new to RPGs V:tM was my first game and I had a hard time figuring out how it worked. They don't poop. They don't vomit the blood they have consumed. They take the life power to sustain themselves from the blood, but they don't physichally evaporate it, or do they? That's what I thought and I took me too much time taking "supernatural or magic unexplained system" as a suitable explanation.
Actually I've already mentioned my worries about that issue in a former post. Great minds bleed alike.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we go into Mage: the Ascension, my favourite is: "It works because most of the human race believes it works".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we go into Mage: the Ascension, my favourite is: "It works because most of the human race believes it works".
There's always the Toon Principle. "It works because you didn't realize it shouldn't work."
Meep meep.
If we go into Mage: the Ascension, my favourite is: "It works because most of the human race believes it works".There's always the Toon Principle. "It works because you didn't realize it shouldn't work."
Meep meep.
More like the 'it's been six years since I read the grapple rules and damned if I'm digging out my core rule book from beneath the pile of stuff on top of it' principle, amiright??
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we go into Mage: the Ascension, my favourite is: "It works because most of the human race believes it works".
I guess in some Mage Campaigns cars just explode left and right, because why would movies lie to us?
Clearly it was a gas leak.
I think corpses follow the "Tastes Great/Less Filling" standard (alternatively "wave/particle duality") for whether they're creatures or objects.
If the effect you're using targets creatures, you can use it on a corpse. If the effect you're using targets objects, you can use it on a corpse.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
NORMALLY THIS AM PART WHERE BARBARIAN STAB CORPSE TO DEATH INSIDE BOX, THEN SAY STATE AM COLLAPSED. THAT NOT SEEM TO WORK HERE.
...BARBARIAN NEVER HAVE THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. WHAT AM HAPPEN TO FORUM WHILE BARBARIAN OUT?
I think corpses follow the "Tastes Great/Less Filling" standard...
You can say that again!
I think corpses follow the "Tastes Great/Less Filling" standard...You can say that again!
Reminds me of using Stone to Flesh to eat one's way out of a cell.
I think we've largely moved from "strange arguments" to "rules people don't understand." But I'll throw in one more in the original spirit.
(From a GM who hates reroll powers)
"The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him."
OK, I had a DM that would tell us the AC and DC (sometimes after the first hit).
Which according to the obnoxio Rules Lawyer (who was really a lawyer) : that mean no reroll powers would function, as you have to declare it before you know the result.
I finally got my DM to agree with me.
I think we've largely moved from "strange arguments" to "rules people don't understand." But I'll throw in one more in the original spirit.
(From a GM who hates reroll powers)
"The Misfortune Revelation says 'you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made' but he didn't roll a d20, he swung a sword at you, so you can't use that power on him now. You could use it if you were gambling with him."OK, I had a DM that would tell us the AC and DC (sometimes after the first hit).
Which according to the obnoxio Rules Lawyer (who was really a lawyer) : that mean no reroll powers would function, as you have to declare it before you know the result.
I finally got my DM to agree with me.
technically its before the dm ANNOUNCES the result.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I agree that this sounds like a douche GM, you know, nonlethal damage is a thing. If you want to arrest someone, their cooperation isn't mandatory.This. It always makes me laugh when people who are the pro-murder paladin group always boil the argument down to "the paladin either brutally slaughters the enemy or lets him get away with anything cause he says sorry"
Paladins have a ton of options for dealing with people who fake surrenders. In the case of these goblins, why isnt the paladin grappling them? Why isnt he knocking them out? Why is he letting them untie their allies, or is he just leaving all the goblins strewn about in random parts of the room instead of tying them all together in one area he can guard?
Not to mention the fact that hes justified in ignoring their surrender if its obvious theyre not really surrendering. Im pretty sure after the 2nd or third time they pull this obvious trick, hes getting pretty substantial bonuses to his sense motive.
If you're really interested in an answer:
Why isn't he grappling them? Because grappling is an intensive feat investment. Grappling without that investment risks both the Paladin and his party's wellbeing (bros before Gobbos). Besides, what is he going to do with the goblins after he has restrained them?
Why isn't he knocking them out? In an indeterminate time, the unconscious evil marauding goblin will no longer be unconscious. Either the Paladin and his party will be around (in which case the goblin is again a danger to them) or they won't be around (and the party won't be able to stop the goblin from marauding, freezing, being eaten, etc). Alternately, the Paladin will hit him too hard and kill him. It should really be called, "less-than-lethal" damage instead of "nonlethal" damage.
Why doesn't he turn them over to the proper authorities? Who is the proper person to give goblins a fair trial? Is it (A)A Righteous warrior who has devoted his life to the pursuit and advancement of good and law, who is supported in his crusade of justice by a deity devoted to those ideals? Or is it (B) The guy at the nearest town's prison? Remember, if he hands the goblin over to the guy at (B), he is responsible for his fate even if he isn't the person actually heating the poker. At least with (A), the goblins will have a merciful death and have a chance to repent.
Why doesn't he tie them up? And do what with them? Carry them to town and wash his hands of them without casting a thought to what will happen to them afterwards? Leave them to escape? Leave them to die? Hold a trial at the end of the adventure where you execute them all?
TL;DR: It's not always appropriate to arrest an enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a difficult dilemma if you do a tiny bit of research into outlawry.
Bandits (which marauding goblins would be classified as) have no legal rights. They were forfeited when they started raping and pillaging the goods of travelers.
The penalty for banditry is death, to be carried out on the spot if necessary.
If they surrender, it is Lawful to execute them.
If they do not, it is Lawful to kill them in battle.
If they flee it is Lawful to cut them down.
Because their sentence has already been passed and chosen.
On the Good/Evil axis, killing them is overall Neutral, it has no inherent morality in itself.
There is no reason a Paladin will fall from killing surrendered bandits, brigands, highwaymen or similar outlaw enemies that make a living waylaying travelers and terrorizing villagers (which hostile goblins generally fall under).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Sundaken
wat.
outlaws have no legal rights?
so theres no courts. since by definition anyone who commits a crime is an outlaw, and thus you just kill them.
come on.
This is where the "tiny bit of research" thing comes in.
Let me give you the Cliff notes. Outlaws (in the classic sense) ARE NOT anyone who commits a crime. Being outlawed is a specific judgement the legal authority of your country or province places on you for your crimes, and (obviously) is does absent your presence. Some guy says "So and so has committed acts of banditry, he stole my sheep" and if enough people say so or a reliable witness says it, So and so is outlawed.
A petty thief is not an outlaw, he is a criminal.
A bandit is an outlaw. They are literally outside the law, having been essentially evicted from the society they have wronged. They have no civic responsibilities, but neither do they have civic RIGHTS and are not protected by law and do not even have the RIGHT to a trial.
If you capture a bandit and turn them over to the authorities, they will not get a trial. They will be held in a cell over night, and in the morning hung or beheaded in front of a cheering crowd.
And something being overall neutral means if the Paladin does it consistently he becomes neutral. A Paladin does good, not neutral.
Paladin eats breakfast, he falls.
Paladin puts on armor, he falls.
Paladin ties his shoes, he falls.
Paladin brushes his teeth, he falls.
You understand where I'm going with this I'm sure.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
outlaws have no legal rights?
Precisely. That's what the medieval meaning of Outlaw is.
Link"An outlaw was a man who had literally been put outside the protection of the law."
so theres no courts. since by definition anyone who commits a crime is an outlaw, and thus you just kill them.
No. Anyone who commits a crime is a CRIMINAL. That criminal may become an outlaw by the declaration of a court. See section two of the above link.
EDIT:Ninja'd
What? No, slanderous lies, I never did that.
Though I agree that this sounds like a douche GM, you know, nonlethal damage is a thing. If you want to arrest someone, their cooperation isn't mandatory.Paladins have a ton of options for dealing with people who fake surrenders. In the case of these goblins, why isnt the paladin grappling them? Why isnt he knocking them out? Why is he letting them untie their allies, or is he just leaving all the goblins strewn about in random parts of the room instead of tying them all together in one area he can guard?
Not to mention the fact that hes justified in ignoring their surrender if its obvious theyre not really surrendering. Im pretty sure after the 2nd or third time they pull this obvious trick, hes getting pretty substantial bonuses to his sense motive.
If you're really interested in an answer:
Why doesn't he turn them over to the proper authorities? Who is the proper person to give goblins a fair trial? Is it (A)A Righteous warrior who has...
Yes, in a medieval society, such a Knight is the "proper authority" with the right of High, Middle and Low Justice.