Am I Being Too Nitpicky?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Context: Running Wrath of the Righteous wherein there is a (shocker) paladin of Iomedae.

No spoilers here aside from mentioning mass combat.

At the end of the battle, the paladin wanted to 'run down the tieflings like the dogs they are', my words. I thought this was a little bit overkill and told them that Iomedae was raising an eyebrow at them for wanting to cut down a fleeing opponent who'd clearly given up the fight.

Everything else they've done so far I've been fine with, aside from splitting off from the group during the same combat to fight more enemies on their own, which also earned a slight raise of the brow.


Opuk0 wrote:
At the end of the battle, the paladin wanted to 'run down the tieflings like the dogs they are', my words. I thought this was a little bit overkill and told them that Iomedae was raising an eyebrow at them for wanting to cut down a fleeing opponent who'd clearly given up the fight.

An unreasonable GM would just say, "You fall!" You don't seem to be one of them, but this is another of those regular mercy-versus-punishment ethical dilemmas that creates endless paladin threads; it's not safe to assume you'll be on the same page as the rest of the table.

Iomedae isn't a particularly merciful deity. "I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest."

What information did you convey about the tieflings? Do they seem like ruthless killers who will strike again if the party give them a chance to escape? Did you do anything to humanise them?


My thought process is that, even a LG Deity like Iomedae doesn't expect or want their paladins to be judge jury and executioner.

As far as the tieflings go, they're here for the paycheck and safety in numbers. The party has some prisoners from the first bout with one such group, and I've had them say similar stuff to what you'd hear most non-serious soldiers say "I'm just following orders, I'm just here for the pay, etcetcetc."

Obviously this is no point of contempt when it comes to actual demons. My concern is letting the Paladin just be Lawful Stupid with no repercussions, they themselves even going as far as to say that Iomedae is Lawful Stupid herself, which just doesn't sit right with me no matter what I read about her.

Paladins, in my eyes, should be very roleplay heavy, and not be except from the consequences of their actions (ie become ex-paladins) by giving the tired old excuse of 'It's for the greater good', because anyone can throw that line out with no backing.

At the end of the day though, I do recognize the rule of fun, and it's much more enjoyable to hack and slash than to worry about should/could/would type stuff. This is just my own nitpick that I want to iron out for my own sake at this point, I'm not going to bother with anymore moral quandaries for paladins.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I would say yes.

If he was a paladin or Shelyn or Sarenrea or something I’d say you were right.

But iomadea is famously not that level headed or fair minded and is very aggressive

Chasing an armed and dangerous enemy who has fought and presumably wounded (?) allies and yourself in The heat of combat and who you know to be bad, is the opposite of an eye brow raise from her to me.

It’s what she’d do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Opuk0 wrote:
My thought process is that, even a LG Deity like Iomedae doesn't expect or want their paladins to be judge jury and executioner.

That's not an opinion everyone's going to share. Who better than a Paladin to do those jobs?

Half the appeal of having adventures set in fantasy lands is that we're not in a modern civilised society. We have to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong, who lives and who dies; we don't demand lawful good PCs say, "Even though this red dragon burned down a village, it is an intelligent being, and entitled to the full protection of the law. If we used nonlethal damage on it, we'd be no better than the evil we fight. Let us bring it in for a fair trial."

If your conception of the tieflings is that they're neutral mercenaries who have been unfairly judged for their appearances, and you want the paladin player to understand this, then you can try to present it as a clear moral dilemma:

Player: "I run down the fleeing tieflings like the dogs they are."
GM: "Seeing your steed is too fast for them to outrun, they cast down their weapons and throw themselves at your feet, begging for mercy."
Player: "Mercy? When did you ever show mercy to the innocent?"
GM: The tiefling says. "Gah. You're just like all the others... Go on then. Just finish it." He bows his head down before you, awaiting the killing blow.
Player: "I Detect Evil."
GM: "You don't sense evil."
Player: "Sense Motive. 17."
GM: "You sense only despair. Some of the town watch arrives. 'You have prisoners?' says the sergeant."
Player: "Yeah, fine. Prisoners."
GM: "The weeping tieflings thank you as they're dragged away in chains."


There isn't a definitive right answer to this one, I think, and is the kind of thing two Paladins can disagree on without either of them falling. A Paladin of Torag would probably call you some very naughty words if you were to let these tieflings run off with their lives and their weapons. And Iomedae's maybe an inch more understanding than Torag is.

I think you would have more of a case if the tieflings were trying to surrender, but... they are retreating to regroup. Considering the stakes in this particular AP the Paladin would be foolish to give them that chance.


Opuk0 wrote:
I thought this was a little bit overkill and told them that Iomedae was raising an eyebrow at them for wanting to cut down a fleeing opponent who'd clearly given up the fight.

Have you heard about the infamous encounter with Iomedae in Wrath of the Righteous? If not, I'd recommend doing a little bit of digging to find some of the juicier threads and posts about it and the backlash relating to it.

Also, read ahead in Wrath of the Righteous until you get to the point where the PCs can get to encounter Iomedae.

Opuk0 wrote:
Everything else they've done so far I've been fine with, aside from splitting off from the group during the same combat to fight more enemies on their own, which also earned a slight raise of the brow.

That sounds more like an OOC issue with running the game and splitting the party and something best addressed out of character.

Does the player realize OOC the problem there and with splitting the party in general? Did the other players express any issues they had with this behavior to the other player OOC?

Have you spoken to the player directly and OOC about the issue?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As a paladin you have to accept an honorable surrender.

An armed enemy running away with their weapons isn't a surrender it's a retreat: a retreat that's going to see them come back to harm you another day. Eliminate the threat now or hit them hard and fast and force their surrender with as little bloodshed as possible.

Iomadae is a military commander. She understands these things.

Dark Archive

The Iomedae encounter has nothing to do with that though, because its case of flavor not fitting mechanics :P

Flavorwise she isn't trying to harm you or kill you, so its nonsensical the wrong answer buzzer does sonic damage. Like you can only interpret it as being non canon or that she genuinely doesn't somehow realize the heavenly trumpet choir harms mortals

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So you believe an encounter in a prewritten adventure path is noncanon? What evidence do you have to support this stance? She is a very no-nonsense deity, and as said, the tieflongs clearly did NOT surrender.

Dark Archive

Well, that editor for the said scene noted they increased damage dice a lot and regretted it afterwards?

Anyway, I don't actually disagree that Iomedaen paladin wouldn't run down escaping evil doers to prevent them from doing evil in future, they wouldn't cut down surrendering enemies as that would be dishonorable, but they would definitely chase down evildoers.

I'm mostly just annoyed at every bringing up the Iomedae's crusader pop quiz out of context :p Its like beating dead horse months past its death and then when someone comes to clean out the remains they notice it was a llama all along


Iomedae has the following that all Paladin worshippers of her have to follow lest they fall and become an Ex Paladin.

I will learn the weight of my sword. Without my heart to guide it, it is worthless—my strength is not in my sword, but in my heart. If I lose my sword, I have lost a tool. If I betray my heart, I have died.
I will have faith in the Inheritor. I will channel her strength through my body. I will shine in her legion, and I will not tarnish her glory through base actions.
I am the first into battle, and the last to leave it.
I will not be taken prisoner by my free will. I will not surrender those under my command.
I will never abandon a companion, though I will honor sacrifice freely given.
I will guard the honor of my fellows, both in thought and deed, and I will have faith in them.
When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
I will suffer death before dishonor.
I will be temperate in my actions and moderate in my behavior. I will strive to emulate Iomedae’s perfection.

OP wrote:
Everything else they've done so far I've been fine with, aside from splitting off from the group during the same combat

Your Paladin is already an Ex Paladin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think leaving your companions behind in a safer place than the one you're heading is abandonment.

"Hey guys, where's the bathroom?

"Outhouse is outback"

Heads out.

Falls.

"Dammit. Two more atonements and I can get a free sandwich.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think leaving your companions behind in a safer place than the one you're heading is abandonment.

"Hey guys, where's the bathroom?

"Outhouse is outback"

Heads out.

Falls.

"Dammit. Two more atonements and I can get a free sandwich.

I literally quoted the part where he said he left them DURING COMBAT. That isn’t leaving them in a safe location, that is abandonment, thus Ex Paladin.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That part is a bit more cause for concern. I actually use that to justify his actions with the tieflings. If he doesn't try his best to take them down, via chase them down if the rest of the combat is over, he's abandoning his allies at the village to their continued predations.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think leaving your companions behind in a safer place than the one you're heading is abandonment.

"Hey guys, where's the bathroom?

"Outhouse is outback"

Heads out.

Falls.

"Dammit. Two more atonements and I can get a free sandwich.

I literally quoted

As opposed to figuratively quoting ?

Quote:
the part where he said he left them DURING COMBAT. That isn’t leaving them in a safe location, that is abandonment, thus Ex Paladin.

behind in a safer place

because...

Quote:
to fight more enemies on their own

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the paladin didn't leave the party behind with 1 red dragon to go fight 20 kobolds.

Leaving a toddler behind in a battle is abandonment. Leaving an adventuring party to mop up a fight while you look for a harder fight is not.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

your mixing up tactical dividing of troops and abandoning them.
when you run away from the enemy leaving your friends behind that is abandoning.
when you split up to cover more area to not let them pass you and kill the low level mooks on your side it's useful implement of forces in battle. otherwise the whole army of paladins would go one after the other in a straight line each trying to be the one in front...and anyone not in the lead falls from grace!


zza ni wrote:

your mixing up tactical dividing of troops and abandoning them.

when you run away from the enemy leaving your friends behind that is abandoning.
when you split up to cover more area to not let them pass you and kill the low level mooks on your side it's useful implement of forces in battle. otherwise the whole army of paladins would go one after the other in a straight line each trying to be the one in front...and anyone not in the lead falls from grace!

He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
zza ni wrote:

your mixing up tactical dividing of troops and abandoning them.

when you run away from the enemy leaving your friends behind that is abandoning.
when you split up to cover more area to not let them pass you and kill the low level mooks on your side it's useful implement of forces in battle. otherwise the whole army of paladins would go one after the other in a straight line each trying to be the one in front...and anyone not in the lead falls from grace!
He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

By this logic any Paladin with first Initiative that uses the charge action would fall.

The OP did not say the Paladin abandoned anyone, they specifically said they split off to solo some enemies. If they had abandoned them the OP would have mentioned that.


Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
zza ni wrote:

your mixing up tactical dividing of troops and abandoning them.

when you run away from the enemy leaving your friends behind that is abandoning.
when you split up to cover more area to not let them pass you and kill the low level mooks on your side it's useful implement of forces in battle. otherwise the whole army of paladins would go one after the other in a straight line each trying to be the one in front...and anyone not in the lead falls from grace!
He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

By this logic any Paladin with first Initiative that uses the charge action would fall.

The OP did not say the Paladin abandoned anyone, they specifically said they split off to solo some enemies. If they had abandoned them the OP would have mentioned that.

No, that logic does not say that. That Paladin wouldn’t fall because they didn’t leave the area. The Paladin OP is talking about flat out left his companions just so he could kill enemies solo. If you don’t see the very clear difference, I’m sorry, but I can’t explain it to you then, but OP’s Paladin is very clearly an Ex Paladin.


Reksew_Trebla wrote:

He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

The paladin had a horse and thus was more suited to keep fleeing troops from getting away ?

***

"hey, that eldritch abomination over there charms people.. erm.. Lusto, Lemming, and Picknose why don't YOU stay here I'll go get that one..."

****

"ONCE MORE INTO THE BREECH!...

"You know, I just got these new robes and i'm down 8 of my 90 HP i'm gonna go put a bandaid on this..

"COWARDS!!!!

****

detect evil, detect evil... Hey you guys good here?

barbarian never get to use great great great grandpa cleave before! Wheeeeeeeeee... *fountain of blood*

Yeah, I'm going to go see if we can find that demon around here somewhere. Detect evil, detect evil.....

There has GOT to be someone of more strategical importance for our group to take out than these peasants...

We don't know the situation, but the situation doesn't sound like what would be called abandonment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

The paladin had a horse and thus was more suited to keep fleeing troops from getting away ?

***

"hey, that eldritch abomination over there charms people.. erm.. Lusto, Lemming, and Picknose why don't YOU stay here I'll go get that one..."

****

"ONCE MORE INTO THE BREECH!...

"You know, I just got these new robes and i'm down 8 of my 90 HP i'm gonna go put a bandaid on this..

"COWARDS!!!!

****

detect evil, detect evil... Hey you guys good here?

barbarian never get to use great great great grandpa cleave before! Wheeeeeeeeee... *fountain of blood*

Yeah, I'm going to go see if we can find that demon around here somewhere. Detect evil, detect evil.....

There has GOT to be someone of more strategical importance for our group to take out than these peasants...

We don't know the situation, but the situation doesn't sound like what would be called abandonment.

Uh, I think you are confused. I’m talking about the last paragraph, which is a different event to the main topic. OP said him splitting off is something different from the chasing fleeing enemies thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
zza ni wrote:

your mixing up tactical dividing of troops and abandoning them.

when you run away from the enemy leaving your friends behind that is abandoning.
when you split up to cover more area to not let them pass you and kill the low level mooks on your side it's useful implement of forces in battle. otherwise the whole army of paladins would go one after the other in a straight line each trying to be the one in front...and anyone not in the lead falls from grace!
He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

By this logic any Paladin with first Initiative that uses the charge action would fall.

The OP did not say the Paladin abandoned anyone, they specifically said they split off to solo some enemies. If they had abandoned them the OP would have mentioned that.

No, that logic does not say that. That Paladin wouldn’t fall because they didn’t leave the area. The Paladin OP is talking about flat out left his companions just so he could kill enemies solo. If you don’t see the very clear difference, I’m sorry, but I can’t explain it to you then, but OP’s Paladin is very clearly an Ex Paladin.

No.

The code does not state the Paladin has to never leave their allies' side, it says they cannot abandon them but will honor sacrifice freely given. Going off to chase fleeing enemies or fighting another group when your allies are not in danger is not abandoning them.


i'll go with the old fashion way. if they die fighting the enemy he left behind he abandoned them. if they live it was not a danger they couldn't face .he isn't their baby-sitter ether, they are grown men(and women) and it is a war (large scale combat was mentioned).

in fact any paladin in a war who have two low level npc on ether side of him would fall if this was true.

abandoning is going away from combat. not into it. you can't protect them all. you can't save them all. but turning your back and leaving them fighting while you chose not to fight at all is abandoning. going to fight the big bad boss. or his more competent 2nd in command since that is the best tactical way to divide your strength in battle - is not.
don't be lawful stupid...


Reksew_Trebla wrote:

Uh, I think you are confused. I’m talking about the last paragraph, which is a different event to the main topic. OP said him splitting off is something different from the chasing fleeing enemies thing.

No, I'm listing more than one scenario. One of which they ran into at some point.

There are lots of justifiable reasons to split off. Assuming it's unjustified splitting and thus "abandonment" is premature.


Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
zza ni wrote:

your mixing up tactical dividing of troops and abandoning them.

when you run away from the enemy leaving your friends behind that is abandoning.
when you split up to cover more area to not let them pass you and kill the low level mooks on your side it's useful implement of forces in battle. otherwise the whole army of paladins would go one after the other in a straight line each trying to be the one in front...and anyone not in the lead falls from grace!
He left them in the middle of combat to find different enemies to kill solo. How is that tactical dividing of troops?

By this logic any Paladin with first Initiative that uses the charge action would fall.

The OP did not say the Paladin abandoned anyone, they specifically said they split off to solo some enemies. If they had abandoned them the OP would have mentioned that.

No, that logic does not say that. That Paladin wouldn’t fall because they didn’t leave the area. The Paladin OP is talking about flat out left his companions just so he could kill enemies solo. If you don’t see the very clear difference, I’m sorry, but I can’t explain it to you then, but OP’s Paladin is very clearly an Ex Paladin.

No.

The code does not state the Paladin has to never leave their allies' side, it says they cannot abandon them but will honor sacrifice freely given. Going off to chase fleeing enemies or fighting another group when your allies are not in danger is not abandoning them.

I never said that. Please quit putting words in my mouth people. The Paladin left the group IN A FIGHT, WHICH CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT IN DANGER, just because he wanted to kill different enemies that weren’t in the area. He literally left them to fend for themselves for personal reasons (wanting his own enemies). The fact they can fight is irrelevent. Abandonment is abandonment, regardless of the capabilities of the people you abandon.


so..picnic time and the flies are swarming. he can't go for a potty break?

nor can he leave the babysitter he hired since the kids are clinging to her (grapple?)

there is danger everywhere in the world. heard of doppelgangers? now he can't EVER leave the party alone with each other!


IN A FIGHT, WHICH CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT IN DANGER

High level PCs vs Low level peasant militia is technically a fight but it's not really in danger

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Uh, I didn't?

And read the OP, the paladin split off from the group to fight more enemies, implying that if the main group was still fighting the new enemies outnumbered those. They also don't state they went to a new area, just that they went to solo enemies in the sammme combat.

If the group is finishing up a single foe and more foes start swarmming and the Paladin rushes in to hold those off that's not abandoning, a Paladin is not attached to the the hip of their groups. That they can fight is very relevant. If they have things under control and the Paladin sees a comming threat then that's not abandonment, note that again, the OP did not say the Paladin abandoned the group or left them in danger.


he didn't leave and go home. he went to face other dangers that might harm some1 less competent.

as i said if he came back and find his entire party turn to bits..yea. that might count as abandoning. if he comes back and the cleric is healing the wizard while the rogue is hiding stuff in his backpack. it was fair game


zza ni wrote:

so..picnic time and the flies are swarming. he can't go for a potty break?

nor can he leave the babysitter he hired since the kids are clinging to her (grapple?)

I mean, it isn’t unheard of to just s+%#/piss yourself in battle. It’s not like you can say “hold on, I gotta poo” and go behind a tree, and expect the opposition to just stand there.

Also, your kids aren’t your companions, not at that age anyways (because if you try to be friends with them when they are that young, they have a huge chance of growing up immature and/or spoiled, due to not being properly raised and what not), so he can abandon them, so long as doing so doesn’t violate any other bit of his Paladin code.


zza ni wrote:

he didn't leave and go home. he went to face other dangers that might harm some1 less competent.

as i said if he came back and find his entire party turn to bits..yea. that might count as abandoning. if he comes back and the cleric is healing the wizard while the rogue is hiding stuff in his backpack. it was fair game

I think making decisions based on what you knew at the time is more reasonable than "it worked out didn't it?" ... which seems to be more the CN rogue motto.


i was taking it to the extreme. just pointing out that since they did survive maybe they were not is such a great danger they needed the big strong paladin to save them.(heck for as much as we know the rest might be 7 feet tall barbarians who hate to share..)

also (@Reksew_Trebla ) in the babysitter example up there. he was abandoning the babysitter not the kids ;)


I don’t think y’all know what “splitting off from the group” means in this game. That phrase only gets used when members of the party go to a completely different location from the rest, which usually results in a TPK. This is a common phrase used by players of this game. Unless OP is new, it is clear that the Paladin flat out left the group, and considering OP said it raised a brow (a phrase he used previously to say “this is probably not something a Paladin should do”) it is clear he knows the lingo.


zza ni wrote:

i was taking it to the extreme. just pointing out that since they did survive maybe they were not is such a great danger they needed the big strong paladin to save them.(heck for as much as we know the rest might be 7 feet tall barbarians who hate to share..)

also (@Reksew_Trebla ) in the babysitter example up there. he was abandoning the babysitter not the kids ;)

Oh. Well, the code also says “though I will honor sacrifice freely given” so still not falling.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I don’t think y’all know what “splitting off from the group” means in this game.

I don’t think you do.

Splitting off means exactly that, they are now apart. It’s not some specific lingo.


Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I don’t think y’all know what “splitting off from the group” means in this game.

I don’t think you do.

Splitting off means exactly that, they are now apart. It’s not some specific lingo.

It is specific lingo though. Everyone knows this. In fact, I honestly have no idea how to rebute your post because it is that well known in this community, so I’m at a loss for words. Like, literally a basic google search will show you this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I don’t think y’all know what “splitting off from the group” means in this game.

I don’t think you do.

Splitting off means exactly that, they are now apart. It’s not some specific lingo.

It is specific lingo though. Everyone knows this. In fact, I honestly have no idea how to rebute your post because it is that well known in this community, so I’m at a loss for words. Like, literally a basic google search will show you this.

It is not.


EDIT: You know what, I’ll be the grown up and just not respond to that anymore.


In our world no one is safe anywhere near a battle.

In a heroic fantasy world that's not true.

Silver Crusade

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Like, literally a basic google search will show you this.

So, I just did a google search of

"splitting off from the group" and
splitting off from the group.

The second search gave me nothing at all RPG related in the first page of search results. The first did give me one hit (the last one) where some dude said that you should never split the party

This lingo seems to not be well known to Mr Google


CorvusMask wrote:
I'm mostly just annoyed at every bringing up the Iomedae's crusader pop quiz out of context :p Its like beating dead horse months past its death and then when someone comes to clean out the remains they notice it was a llama all along

I didn't bring it up out of context.

It was entirely in context because they're running the adventure path and thinking about Iomedae's characterization.

Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I literally quoted the part where he said he left them DURING COMBAT. That isn’t leaving them in a safe location, that is abandonment, thus Ex Paladin.

We simply don't have the necessary information about the circumstances at present to make that call as to what exact form this party splitting took.

As I touched upon earlier, though, splitting the party is almost always primarily an OOC problem and should be addressed as such, especially once the precipitating event at the table has ended.

Rysky wrote:
By this logic any Paladin with first Initiative that uses the charge action would fall.

Um, no, because context and circumstances actually matter.

Rysky wrote:
The OP did not say the Paladin abandoned anyone, they specifically said they split off to solo some enemies. If they had abandoned them the OP would have mentioned that.

That sounds like an assumption.

Opuk0 probably could have or indeed, should have provided more information, and they still could elaborate and clear everything up, or at least start that process.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

while "never split the party" is a great and informative song(look it up). it is also a metagaming song.
all the reasons in it are how the party had troubles fighting things or what not (rogue stealing stuff behind their back) because of D&D troop issues (game balance mean the party face dangers set to their party power level. so half party has less chance to succeed)

-but all in all metagaming should not dictate how and when a paladin falls in RP.

the players can lift how many eyebrows they like (and i as one WOULD do the same). the characters were not abandoned.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Coidzor wrote:
Um, no, because context and circumstances actually matter.
Precisely.
Coidzor wrote:
That sounds like an assumption.

Far less an assumption than what Reksew was making.


It's metagaming if you say, "Well, it doesn't matter if I leave the group to do my own thing for a while, because the GM will know I'm not there and reduce the number of opponents to balance things out."

It's not metagaming to say, "I'm not going to walk out on these guys because they might get outnumbered and die without my aid." That's how real-life battles work. Numbers matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like all you need to do is look at the definition of abandon

cease to support or look after (someone); desert.
Or
give up completely (a practice or a course of action).

Chasing down an enemy in a fight is actively supporting your allies and the second definition isn’t even arguable.

By this logic every scout in a dungeon (dangerous place) is routinely abandoning their allies.


Matthew Downie wrote:

It's metagaming if you say, "Well, it doesn't matter if I leave the group to do my own thing for a while, because the GM will know I'm not there and reduce the number of opponents to balance things out."

It's not metagaming to say, "I'm not going to walk out on these guys because they might get outnumbered and die without my aid." That's how real-life battles work. Numbers matter.

Honestly, metagaming or not metagaming is a red herring anyway.

Addressing someone else at the table and saying something like "Hey, Todd, having your character go gallivanting off on his own is disrupting the flow of the game and isn't very fun for any of the rest of us," is not some kind of grievous tabletop RPG sin.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah the weekly falling paladins thread.

After playing through that meeting with Iomede in wotr, the only way I could play a paladin of Iomede now would be as a naive petulant child, just like her goddess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I don’t think y’all know what “splitting off from the group” means in this game.

I don’t think you do.

Splitting off means exactly that, they are now apart. It’s not some specific lingo.

It is specific lingo though. Everyone knows this. In fact, I honestly have no idea how to rebute your post because it is that well known in this community, so I’m at a loss for words. Like, literally a basic google search will show you this.
It is not.

Lately I've seen a lot more occurrences of a phenomenon in which a person thinks that "everyone knows" something when, in fact, the speaker is the only person in the room who seems to "know" it. Maybe it's just more noticeable given certain best-left-unspecified current events. Or maybe folks are becoming increasingly unable or unwilling to empathize. I dunno. *shrug*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:

Ah the weekly falling paladins thread.

After playing through that meeting with Iomede in wotr, the only way I could play a paladin of Iomede now would be as a naive petulant child, just like her goddess.

To be fair, damn near every deity in the whole bloody Golariverse pantheon is some sort of jerk or another. At least the non-good ones are relatively honest. Say what you will about Groetus, but you know where he stands. Or where he looms menacingly, anyway.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Am I Being Too Nitpicky? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.