Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Yeah, I clipped it by mistake while editing. Your comment is right above mine, so what's the difference? It doesn't prove your point or make "With ethos system you can even tell what it is." into a valid sentence either way.
Like I said, get back to me when you learn how to read/write.
How do you track character's actions harming or benefitting specific faction or region?
People do talk.
If you monitor *all* interactions between characters in your universe you can have one "infect" another with their disposition towards PC, but that's pretty big IF - it means you can't ever afford to abstract an interaction away.
There are two different things being discussed here. One is the value of an action, which we both agree is chaotic, but which he mistakenly called neutral and didn't want to simply admit
Case in point.
You see, amusingly enough, I understand both your points.
Let me translate:
He called it neutral because choosing one ethos over another when they are mutually exclusive is not chaotic. There is no option there that would be more lawful than choosing either (I guess rejecting both would be chaotic). I don't see any mistake here. Which only highlights how useless alignment is - it doesn't even describe a simple case on the less ambiguous law-chaos axis in such way that you two would agree about it.
And True Neutrality as an alignment would ultimately be the net zero and net zero is functionally the same as a shift toward the center, as in order to have net zero, you would have to shift off of and toward the center repeatedly, unless you took no actions at all, so I'm not sure where you're thinking the contradiction is.
And here I was hoping it wouldn't come to this.
Very well:
You have 9 points in DnD unless it's 4e where you specifically have 5 or the very first edition where you had 3. There, happy? (And no, I do know it's a continuum).
For an enthusiast of a system abstracted past the limits of utility you have remarkably poor grasp of the concept of abstraction.
It's like teaching an impaired kid addition using apples as an example and witnessing them completely fail to get it when given the exact same problem but with pears.
Remember that I said more definition "within reason". Within reason because there comes a point where there's too much detail to keep track of. Can you track your character's every action AND thought? Of course not. It's silly to even try.
And this point comes well before you approach anything resembling a decent PC (or character in general, but with NPCs you can hide it and fake it) - the sane thing is to throw in the towel give player a pencil and let them draw whatever face they like (I wish I didn't need to, but I'm pointing out here that it's all an analogy). Yeah they may draw a dick instead. Deal with it.
You don't need to have 4000 datapoints, if 9 will suffice.
Suffice for what? A system generally takes some input on one end and produces useful output on the other.
For example reputation takes player's action and outputs reactions of NPCs.
What are inputs and outputs of alignment?
You can track player's actions (reactive alignment) and output what? That player will be affected by protection from evil? We've been over that - that's piss poor, produces more undesirable side effects than it is worth and other systems can do effectively the same better.
Alternatively you track what and output what exactly with prescriptive alignment?
It's not system's job to decide whether or not player's character makes sense as a character (as in 'person'), nor to decide what player character would do.
Alignment doesn't decide if your character doesn't make sense, but you do when you look at your character sheet and see "Lawful Good" while you're trying to become the head of the Dark Brotherhood.
Then why does the system allow me to define character in a way that is completely inconsistent with anything?
If I see a system I assume it to do something. If I see HPs I assume character to die or at least be KO'd if they run out.
If I see carriages I can pay for, I assume to not be able to get to the destination for free just by clicking the map instead (haha vanilla Skyrim goes derp).
So why should I expect to see lawful good alignment on my character sheet and be able to become a master murderer?
Imagine you're playing a wRPG (w stands for 'woke'). You are able to specify your gender and sexual orientation in excruciating detail in you character sheet. They are charts and funny shaped diagrams. Those choices don't have any effect on the gameplay. Your gender is not in any way related to your biological sex or dressing preferences. Your sexual preferences don't affect any romance questlines or have mechanical effect. None of those even affects purely cosmetic looks (all characters are some variety of rainbow-haired).
But they help you "define" your character.
Incline or not?
Definition only matters as far as the gameworld and mechanics acknowledges it.
Guess who is bethestard now?
It also does the one thing that you hate more than anything: it keeps you from having your cake and eating it too.
You can't be evil and good. You can't be lawful and chaotic. You can be neutral, but that's not the same as being one of the extremes either.
You hate such definition because it restricts you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Because you don't want to actually roleplay, you want to amuse yourself.
All of your arguments are in bad faith because this is your real motive.
I know I'm raining on your parade, but your mindread spell doesn't work IRL. I think lightning bolt won't either so you can save yourself some embarrassment.
Bro, you can claim to hate Bethesda walking sims all you like, but it's an awfully big coincidence that you love Bethesda games and want a system exactly like they have.
For a famed paladin to be awfully hard and most likely outright impossible to join and advance in a paid murderer faction
Likewise for a paid murderer to become a paladin
If it is still possible I expect the game to acknowledge the path that took them from A to B, treat them differently depending on direction and for any path to carry its distinct consequences a murderer != saint != atoning murderer become saint != fallen saint become murderer, not just to have the sum over deeds decide reputation.
Ideally an RPG is when the journey, not just destination leaves its mark on the character and world.
Lambchop19 The point of quoting the same source material is so that we can be on the same terms. It was also to illustrate the obvious contradictions. At this point in the debate, they are awfully glaring.
Lawful Good: Promotes good through order and law. Order and law are paramount to producing good.
Neutral Good: Promotes good. Methods vary.
Chaotic Good: Promotes good without regard for order/law. Order/law are often impediments or contrary to good.
Expatriate: Promotes good through order. Except they don't recognize any order other than their own. Order is also whatever they say it is. Still lawful. Totally not chaotic.
Yeah, I clipped it by mistake while editing. Your comment is right above mine, so what's the difference? It doesn't prove your point or make "With ethos system you can even tell what it is." into a valid sentence either way.
Like I said, get back to me when you learn how to read/write.
"You know what does it mean that a character is lawful?
They (this character) observe a specific ethos.
With ethos system you can even tell what it (this specific ethos) is."
I don't get why Druids are restricted from being Neutral Good or Neutral Evil. Clearly they shouldn't be either Lawful or Chaotic, since nature has aspects of both Law and Chaos, but what does Good/evil matter to Nature?
Druids were originally placed into D&D in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry to offer players a cleric-like subclass for neutral characters, since according to the original D&D rules the only permissible options for the cleric class were to play as a good (Lawful) cleric or as an evil (Chaotic) anti-cleric with reversed spells and no turn/destroy undead ability.
Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry said:
Druids: Druids are a sub-class of Clerics. They are neutral in nature (as mentioned in GREYHAWK). They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity. Mistletoe takes a place of importance with them as a holy symbol or item as crosses and other like items do with other types of clerics. Druids have spells which are in general peculiar to them, although some of their spells are similar to those of magic-users or clerics in general. Fire, natural forces, and living things tend to be their forte in this regard.
Druids are not as involved with humans, or with helping them, as they are in protecting plants and animals. They cannot turn the undead, but once a druid becomes an "Initiate" he has the following innate powers: Identify pure water, identify plants, identify animals, and pass through overgrowth (briars, tangles, etc.). Upon reaching the 5th Circle druids then gain the power to shape change (as previously mentioned in GREYHAWK with regard to the Druid-type monster), and when changing from one form to another they lose from 10% to 60% of any damage previously sustained; in addition they are not affected by the charm spells of woodland and water creatures such as nixies and dryads.
...
Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendency of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest —no matter how enchanted or evil it may be—although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.
In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, clerics were allowed to be any of the nine alignments except true neutral, though of course with each deity imposing alignment restrictions on its clergy. Druids were considered to be the only true neutral of a cleric-type class, characterized by Gygax as "viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things".
2nd edition AD&D removed the remaining restriction on clerics, but druids remained solely true neutral: "As protectors of nature, druids are aloof from the complications of the temporal world. Their greatest concern is for the continuation of the orderly and proper cycles of nature-birth, growth. death, and rebirth. Druids tend to view all things as cyclic and thus the battles of good and evil are only the rising and falling tides of time. Only when the cycle and balance an disrupted does the druid become concemed. Given this view of things, the druid must be neutral in alignment."
Naturally, this interpretation of druids and alignment is connected to the interpretation of the law versus chaos axis, and a different interpretation of law & chaos could result in druids being considered exemplars of chaotic alignment!
What if... he is hiding well and no one knows he's a paid murderer? With a flawless reputation like that, surely he can be admitted into the paladin order, unless the Lawful Good Divinity 1 refuses to invest him with paladin abilities because he is... evil?
"I am zealous christian and my lord is a known devil worshipper, but I still like him because we're both gregarious and he gave me a county" - reputation system in nutshell.
If you monitor *all* interactions between characters in your universe you can have one "infect" another with their disposition towards PC, but that's pretty big IF - it means you can't ever afford to abstract an interaction away.
Alignment is an abstraction of your personality. The fact that you could make it more detailed or that it isn’t strictly necessary for a game to function doesn’t mean you should remove the system entirely any more than reputation should be eliminated for the above reasons.
And this point comes well before you approach anything resembling a decent PC (or character in general, but with NPCs you can hide it and fake it) - the sane thing is to throw in the towel give player a pencil and let them draw whatever face they like (I wish I didn't need to, but I'm pointing out here that it's all an analogy). Yeah they may draw a dick instead. Deal with it.
It doesn’t. A good DM (or game designer) won’t allow this. And even if they do, as I’ve said, a flawed implementation of they system isn’t the fault of the system, it’s the fault of the designer.
For a famed paladin to be awfully hard and most likely outright impossible to join and advance in a paid murderer faction
Likewise for a paid murderer to become a paladin
If it is still possible I expect the game to acknowledge the path that took them from A to B, treat them differently depending on direction and for any path to carry its distinct consequences a murderer != saint != atoning murderer become saint != fallen saint become murderer, not just to have the sum over deeds decide reputation.
Well, first off, alignment isn’t meant to keep a paladin from doing anything or even to make it difficult. A paladin can choose to do whatever he wants, but there will be consequences.
Second, you need an alignment system, a system of tracking who a person is on the inside, to deal with the other two situations.
If you just have a reputation system, it won’t prevent any of those problems.
So you see why I doubt your sincerity when you claim to want these things. I offer you an obvious solution and you refuse it. That combined with your obsession with walking sims makes me doubt that you truly want any of what you say that you do.
But if you do and I’m wrong, an alignment system of some kind is the solution to two of those issues.
"You know what does it mean that a character is lawful?
They (this character) observe a specific ethos.
With ethos system you can even tell what it (this specific ethos) is."
This is still pretty broken, but I think I get what you’re going for.
Yes, however, as I said, the paladin in question hasn’t changed his ethos. His vow was betrayed and so he renounced it. It may damage his belief in the infallibility of the law in the case of the Expatriate kit, but he’s still lawful and restricts himself to lawful thinking and actions.
It was also to illustrate the obvious contradictions. At this point in the debate, they are awfully glaring.
Lawful Good: Promotes good through order and law. Order and law are paramount to producing good.
Neutral Good: Promotes good. Methods vary.
Chaotic Good: Promotes good without regard for order/law. Order/law are often impediments or contrary to good.
Expatriate: Promotes good through order. Except they don't recognize any order other than their own. Order is also whatever they say it is. Still lawful. Totally not chaotic.
Bro, how can you write “Lawful Good: Promotes good through order and law. Order and law are paramount to producing good.” and not understand that “promotes good” is part of the equation?
By your logic, a paladin could swear himself to a lawful evil government or religion and be fine with it because law = good. Maybe a Lawful Neutral character would, but not a Lawful Good character. Sheesh. And you were the one saying that I shouldn’t neglect neutral alignments.
And no, you’re mischaracterizing the Expatriate kit. They still need guiding principles, a religion or philosophy to follow or they won’t have powers. They may break with a corrupted institution (or could have been forced out due to politics - not what we were discussing, but it is an example given in the kit description), but they haven’t changed their outlook toward order itself and decided it’s unnecessary. At most, they don’t trust institutions implicitly.
I'm not saying Lawful = Good. I'm saying Lawful Good. There are two parts to that alignment. How can you not understand the "through law and order" portion? I say that they have to abide the system to reform it to remain lawful. Just like the reference material has written. You're saying they can disregard the recognized law and order while remaining lawful. Expatriate is your evidence. Just like the reference material has written. Expatriate contradicts the basic definitions of Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. It exists outside of it. It's an exception.
Description: Like the Errant, the Expatriate has no permanent home, wandering from place to place in search of adventure and acceptance. However, the Expatriate is a nomad by circumstance, not choice. A warrior in exile, the Expatriate has renounced his allegiance to the officials or institution that originally granted him his paladinhood. His government or church may have become corrupt, his superiors may have betrayed their commitment to lawful good principles, or he have may have been dismissed for political reasons. In any case, his disillusionment is complete. He now makes his own decisions.
A knight that believes in law and order, that is totally disillusioned with law and order. A knight with a belief system that only he defines which exists outside of any external order or law. Super lawful and orderly. Definitely not Chaotic Good. Definitely not an error or oversight on the author's part. I like the alignment system, but that kit doesn't fit within it.
I'm not saying Lawful = Good. I'm saying Lawful Good. There are two parts to that alignment. How can you not understand the "through law and order" portion?
Right, but the ends must still be good. There are two other lawful alignments. A lawful evil government wouldn’t be acceptable to a paladin. He would tolerate it as a lawful institution, but he would strike down those who commit evil acts, even if they had or were the authority of that institution.
By your logic, a perfectly Lawful Good paladin would massacre a village or rape a child under orders because he must always serve the whims of the institution no matter what. The only solution you allow him is to write a complaint letter.
Though still lawful good, an Expatriate distrusts most formal institutions, including lawful good governments and organized religions. He obeys the dictates of his conscience and his deity only, remaining skeptical of all self-proclaimed and elected authorities. Though courteous and respectful, he no longer automatically follows the orders those holding positions of power. He weighs each request against his own principles, agreeing to a mission or favor only if completely convinced of its merit.
No, my emphasis also highlighted other sentences. Specifically referencing betrayal.
By “he makes his own decisions”, it means he no longer lets that institution or, for the duration of his career as an Expatriate, any institution arbitrate right and wrong for him through individuals.
He still values order, commitments and institutions, but he mistrusts them. He doesn’t disregard them entirely. He still gets his morals from and makes decisions by a specific code that he follows and dedicates his life to.
Most of your problem stems from your not viewing statements in their context.
I like how this changed from an argument over whether or not a paladin could renounce fealty and on to your criticism of a specific kit based on your blatant misinterpretations and inability to read in context. And you accuse me of goalpost shifting.
Again, the Expatriate kit is only one option after a paladin renounces fealty. There are more.
Renouncing Fealty
Once a paladin discovers that his church or government has become neutral or evil, he may immediately renounce his pledge of fealty without penalty.From that point on, he is not obligated to follow their edicts.He must discard symbols representing a renounced church or government. He must also give up equipment that the church or government has loaned or given to him.
A paladin who renounces his church must immediately pledge fealty to one of the following:
• A new lawful good church.
• A lawful good philosophy.
• The set of principles represented by the renounced church before it became neutral or evil.
A paladin who renounces his government has several options:
• He may continue serving in the same society. However, he is now obligated to obey only the edicts of his faith (and any other nongovernmental individuals or institutions to which he has pledged fealty).
• He may relocate to a different land, pledging fealty to a new lawful good government.
• He may become an Expatriate (see Chapter 4).
Ah finally. We get to the point where you cite the parts where he has to seek recourse through other authority, like the church, or a new lord. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
A paladin can't just openly oppose the law because they feel a tax policy is excessive, a punishment to severe, or any other matter. They aren't the sole authority on right and wrong. They would need to appeal through courts, church, councils. Part of being Lawful is recognizing authority greater than your own.
Going your own way is an individualistic (chaotic) act. In the Lawful Good mindset, if everyone did whatever they thought was best, things would be a mess. People are often wrong. That's why they need structure. The paladin is no exception. Lawful means order, structure, community legitimacy. Recourse needs to go through those, not around or in defiance of.
For example, if the paladin thought the taxes violated his tenants of charity, they could let everyone know that the collectors are coming at 2pm on Tuesday, as to be sure they are home. *wink* In the meantime, they can make their appeals through the proper channels.
Ah finally. We get to the point where you cite the parts where he has to seek recourse through other authority, like the church, or a new lord. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
A paladin can't just openly oppose the law because they feel a tax policy is excessive, a punishment to severe, or any other matter. They aren't the sole authority on right and wrong. They would need to appeal through courts, church, councils. Part of being Lawful is recognizing authority greater than your own.
What are you even talking about? Which part of renouncing his fealty involves hiring or becoming a lawyer and challenging the King or the Government in court? Just how well do you think that will go, assuming it's even possible?
And what if it fails? If it's not possible because the courts are corrupt? What then? Keep serving the same government that asks unrighteous things of him? Ridiculous.
Going your own way is an individualistic (chaotic) act. In the Lawful Good mindset, if everyone did whatever they thought was best, things would be a mess. People are often wrong. That's why they need structure. The paladin is no exception. Lawful means order, structure, community legitimacy. Recourse needs to go through those, not around or in defiance of.
By your logic, a perfectly Lawful Good paladin would massacre a village or rape a child under orders because he must always serve the whims of the institution no matter what. The only solution you allow him is to write a complaint letter.
For example, if the paladin thought the taxes violated his tenants of charity, they could let everyone know that the collectors are coming at 2pm on Tuesday, as to be sure they are home. *wink* In the meantime, they can make their appeals through the proper channels.
Why are you suddenly so focused on taxes? Was that an example I or any of the material I cited talked about?
Again, think about the consequences for renouncing fealty and the kind of evidence there would need to be for the Paladin to risk it. At the very least, he would need to use detect alignment, which itself would be a risk were it found out that he used magic on his superiors. No, he'd need full evidence that whatever they were doing was blatantly evil or not good. It would need to be something extreme. Like the class description says:
Otherwise, a paladin avoids killing whenever possible. He does not kill a person who is merely suspected of a crime, nor does a paladin necessarily kill someone he perceives to be a threat unless he has tangible evidence or certain knowledge of evildoing. He never kills for treasure or personal gain. He never knowingly kills a lawful good being.
Paladins don't operate on mere suspicions, they operate on certainties. Raising taxes may not be "charitable", but it is necessary at times. It would be an idiotic reason to renounce his fealty.
Rape, murder, genocide, starting wars for personal gain, showing complete disregard for life, other overt signs of evil and unrighteousness.
The Paladin has no legitimate reason to renounce his fealty until his lawful good government is clearly no longer lawful good. And after it's clear that's the case, his oath is no longer binding, since the covenant has been broken and the government is no longer the arbiter of right and wrong. He has been betrayed, not the other way around. His class requirement is to serve a lawful good institution and said institution is no longer lawful good. This isn't rocket science.
What would the Lawful Good route be to you if a paladin's rulers become blatantly evil or unrighteous?
You came up with an example, which I responded to, so answer mine: Your King asks you to rape someone. Maybe for personal gain, maybe for his amusement, maybe for revenge, it doesn't matter. You CAN'T challenge it in the courts because they are corrupt or because he's a despot and no such court exists in the land. The church is also corrupt, if indeed it exists. As is the military and the heads of every institution. Maybe it was a conspiracy, brainwashing, whatever it was that caused it, it doesn't matter because you have no way of knowing. You just know you can't fix it and that it's evil. Do you follow orders and rape the innocent person? Or do you renounce your fealty and leave? Not a personal choice, not what you SHOULD do, but only the "Lawful Good" choice, in your opinion.
A paladin dealing with a liege that's honorable and good at dawn then commanding him to rape and pillage innocents by dusk is an ad absurdum fallacy. The same applies to every other source of authority around being equally heinous. It's not going to occur. A paladin that finds themselves in that situation fell from virtue ages ago. It's irrelevant to the point of being a logical fallacy.
A useful scenario is one where the authority is slipping from LG to LN. This is why I use taxes, or degree of sentencing, because it's a relevant moral gray area that a paladin will actually face. That's why I keep reiterating that they need to seek equivalent authority. Paladins are not the source of their authority. They don't have access to the Commune spell in any edition, so talking with a supernatural authority is out. They need a cleric for that (church). Their authority typically comes from the state and church. They're going to have to defer to one when the other is in opposition.
I never said he did one thing at dawn and another at night. And even if I did, it's not a fallacy, since this is a fantasy setting. The slide to evil could have happened over time and only now has it become obvious. Tell yourself whatever you like, it's an example.
You say that just to avoid the question because you know that according to what you say, there is no answer.
But if you knew anything about Law at all, you'd know that laws, contracts and even oaths all have conditions, whether written or implied. And when said conditions are violated, they become non-binding. That's a Lawful interpretation of Law. Using legal loopholes or even moral loopholes is a Lawful act. Simply violating them "just because" is not.
Well, actually, I suspect you know that and just don't want to admit you're wrong. Hence the past several pages of deflections you've made.
A useful scenario is one where the authority is slipping from LG to LN. This is why I use taxes, or degree of sentencing, because it's a relevant moral gray area that a paladin will actually face.
It's not a gray area unless the Paladin is seeing gross violations of human rights or dignity because of it.
If the people are starving to death and the ruler doesn't care, then he may renounce his oath, yes. Assuming he's tried to do things legally* to avoid this or is unable to and doesn't want to rip the money from the hands of starving peasants at swordpoint.
Edit: *actually, he doesn't even have to avoid things legally. The fact is that his government is no longer Lawful Good and therefore his oath is nullified as he has been betrayed. He ignores evil/neutrality at his own peril, since he will be responsible for his actions:
However, although the patron provides the basic moral code, it is ultimately the paladin who is responsible for and bears the consequences of his actions.
That's why I keep reiterating that they need to seek equivalent authority. Paladins are not the source of their authority. They don't have access to the Commune spell in any edition, so talking with a supernatural authority is out. They need a cleric for that (church). Their authority typically comes from the state and church. They're going to have to defer to one when the other is in opposition.
Paladins don't even need to have a deity lol. They can substitute one for a philosophy.
Again, you assume the church exists, isn't corrupt and is an equivalent authority and the King won't pull an Ivan the Terrible simply execute the priests and you for challenging him.
I also find it funny that you accept the idea of challenging a king by going around his back and rallying support from a church as a lawful act (it's sedition), but not renouncing an oath said king has already betrayed through his actions.
Storyfag you wanted citation on magic being openly cast being treated with hostility. I cba to dig up loads of stuff from FR/D&D settings, but in Golarion most settlements have quite strict rules.
It obviously varies a little bit on the region/culture, a town in Geb/Nex (necromancer/wizard ruled magocracys respectively) is probably going to be less strict than somewhere in a less magic inclined region.
A large port city in one PF campaign had these as the rules on magic usage:
Open use of magic is treated with suspicion — particularly spell casting. The casting of low-level personal spells is tolerated, though not in places of business. Evocation or obviously destructive spells will attract immediate hostile attention. For high level magic threats, the captain of the guard will call upon the assistance of a high level wizard employed by the guard.
I would suspect that casting spells like Detect Alignment which have very obvious vocal components, would be considered a rather large social faux pas at best and possibly an invitation for hostile action to the less tolerant.
Again, the other issue is a non magic user would probably find it quite obvious that they are being targetted by a spell, but not know what they're being targetted with. "It was just a detect alignment spell, Bro!" might not convince them.
Storyfag you wanted citation on magic being openly cast being treated with hostility. I cba to dig up loads of stuff from FR/D&D settings, but in Golarion most settlements have quite strict rules.
It obviously varies a little bit on the region/culture, a town in Geb/Nex (necromancer/wizard ruled magocracys respectively) is probably going to be less strict than somewhere in a less magic inclined region.
A large port city in one PF campaign had these as the rules on magic usage:
Open use of magic is treated with suspicion — particularly spell casting. The casting of low-level personal spells is tolerated, though not in places of business. Evocation or obviously destructive spells will attract immediate hostile attention. For high level magic threats, the captain of the guard will call upon the assistance of a high level wizard employed by the guard.
I would suspect that casting spells like Detect Alignment which have very obvious vocal components, would be considered a rather large social faux pas at best and possibly an invitation for hostile action to the less tolerant.
Again, the other issue is a non magic user would probably find it quite obvious that they are being targetted by a spell, but not know what they're being targetted with. "It was just a detect alignment spell, Bro!" might not convince them.
If the spell allows for a save that the non-magic user has a prayer of making, they would probably notice a funny tingling. Unless the spellcaster is an absolute retard, though, he's going to find some way to avoid attracting suspicion via metamagic, certain skill tricks, a concealed spell trigger item, etc. Sure, Mr. Fighter, you felt a tingling sensation. What are you going to do about it? Go full-retard in the middle of a town screaming about someone casting on you (that no one else may have seen)? Might find another spellcaster who noticed it, might be able to convince them to tell you what they sensed, but you're assuming they're even inclined to cooperate. Most of the other folks around aren't going to have the ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledge, etc. to even know anything happened.
Storyfag you wanted citation on magic being openly cast being treated with hostility. I cba to dig up loads of stuff from FR/D&D settings, but in Golarion most settlements have quite strict rules.
It obviously varies a little bit on the region/culture, a town in Geb/Nex (necromancer/wizard ruled magocracys respectively) is probably going to be less strict than somewhere in a less magic inclined region.
A large port city in one PF campaign had these as the rules on magic usage:
Open use of magic is treated with suspicion — particularly spell casting. The casting of low-level personal spells is tolerated, though not in places of business. Evocation or obviously destructive spells will attract immediate hostile attention. For high level magic threats, the captain of the guard will call upon the assistance of a high level wizard employed by the guard.
I would suspect that casting spells like Detect Alignment which have very obvious vocal components, would be considered a rather large social faux pas at best and possibly an invitation for hostile action to the less tolerant.
Again, the other issue is a non magic user would probably find it quite obvious that they are being targetted by a spell, but not know what they're being targetted with. "It was just a detect alignment spell, Bro!" might not convince them.
If the spell allows for a save that the non-magic user has a prayer of making, they would probably notice a funny tingling. Unless the spellcaster is an absolute retard, though, he's going to find some way to avoid attracting suspicion via metamagic, certain skill tricks, a concealed spell trigger item, etc. Sure, Mr. Fighter, you felt a tingling sensation. What are you going to do about it? Go full-retard in the middle of a town screaming about someone casting on you (that no one else may have seen)? Might find another spellcaster who noticed it, might be able to convince them to tell you what they sensed, but you're assuming they're even inclined to cooperate. Most of the other folks around aren't going to have the ranks in Spellcraft, Knowledge, etc. to even know anything happened.
Yeah probably depends a bit on the spell. But really if you're going to do anything like detect alignment without consent you probably want to conceal the casting.
Storyfag you wanted citation on magic being openly cast being treated with hostility. I cba to dig up loads of stuff from FR/D&D settings, but in Golarion most settlements have quite strict rules.
It obviously varies a little bit on the region/culture, a town in Geb/Nex (necromancer/wizard ruled magocracys respectively) is probably going to be less strict than somewhere in a less magic inclined region.
A large port city in one PF campaign had these as the rules on magic usage:
Open use of magic is treated with suspicion — particularly spell casting. The casting of low-level personal spells is tolerated, though not in places of business. Evocation or obviously destructive spells will attract immediate hostile attention. For high level magic threats, the captain of the guard will call upon the assistance of a high level wizard employed by the guard.
I would suspect that casting spells like Detect Alignment which have very obvious vocal components, would be considered a rather large social faux pas at best and possibly an invitation for hostile action to the less tolerant.
Again, the other issue is a non magic user would probably find it quite obvious that they are being targetted by a spell, but not know what they're being targetted with. "It was just a detect alignment spell, Bro!" might not convince them.
Fair enough. For Golarion. Pity PFK doesn't do this any justice. But your claim regarding FR remains empty. Athkatla is just one city out of hundreds. It just ain't Warhammer, mate.
Storyfag you wanted citation on magic being openly cast being treated with hostility. I cba to dig up loads of stuff from FR/D&D settings, but in Golarion most settlements have quite strict rules.
It obviously varies a little bit on the region/culture, a town in Geb/Nex (necromancer/wizard ruled magocracys respectively) is probably going to be less strict than somewhere in a less magic inclined region.
A large port city in one PF campaign had these as the rules on magic usage:
Open use of magic is treated with suspicion — particularly spell casting. The casting of low-level personal spells is tolerated, though not in places of business. Evocation or obviously destructive spells will attract immediate hostile attention. For high level magic threats, the captain of the guard will call upon the assistance of a high level wizard employed by the guard.
I would suspect that casting spells like Detect Alignment which have very obvious vocal components, would be considered a rather large social faux pas at best and possibly an invitation for hostile action to the less tolerant.
Again, the other issue is a non magic user would probably find it quite obvious that they are being targetted by a spell, but not know what they're being targetted with. "It was just a detect alignment spell, Bro!" might not convince them.
Fair enough. For Golarion. Pity PFK doesn't do this any justice. But your claim regarding FR remains empty. Athkatla is just one city out of hundreds. It just ain't Warhammer, mate.
Yeah someone with more knowledge of FR may have to offer an explanation on that. 3.5 games I've played have generally had DMs who have suggested open spellcasting in towns is not a good idea.
I've always assumed that was in line with the rules/customs of most areas, but who knows.
Something to keep in mind for any setting where magic is both a fairly common and accepted fact of life and yet it's considered rather rude to just go around casting spells on people willy-nilly is that security in any setting is typically reactive to threats, and proactivity is generally limited by a number of factors (kind of like real-life and the never-ending arms race between software pirates and publishers, or white-hats and black-hats, or... you get the idea). Meaning anyone who isn't a retard but still wants to play fast and loose with social conventions regarding magic is going to have a lot of tricks up their sleeve to try and ensure they don't get caught or punished. It's already implied that magic-users are generally fairly intelligent people, and with intellect comes imagination, lateral thinking, so on and so forth.
Something to keep in mind for any setting where magic is both a fairly common and accepted fact of life and yet it's considered rather rude to just go around casting spells on people willy-nilly is that security in any setting is typically reactive to threats, and proactivity is generally limited by a number of factors (kind of like real-life and the never-ending arms race between software pirates and publishers, or white-hats and black-hats, or... you get the idea). Meaning anyone who isn't a retard but still wants to play fast and loose with social conventions regarding magic is going to have a lot of tricks up their sleeve to try and ensure they don't get caught or punished. It's already implied that magic-users are generally fairly intelligent people, and with intellect comes imagination, lateral thinking, so on and so forth.
Something to keep in mind for any setting where magic is both a fairly common and accepted fact of life and yet it's considered rather rude to just go around casting spells on people willy-nilly is that security in any setting is typically reactive to threats, and proactivity is generally limited by a number of factors (kind of like real-life and the never-ending arms race between software pirates and publishers, or white-hats and black-hats, or... you get the idea). Meaning anyone who isn't a retard but still wants to play fast and loose with social conventions regarding magic is going to have a lot of tricks up their sleeve to try and ensure they don't get caught or punished. It's already implied that magic-users are generally fairly intelligent people, and with intellect comes imagination, lateral thinking, so on and so forth.
Personal quibbles with CHA as a casting stat aside, yes. It's implied that Sorcerers are not typically concerned with being especially covert about their abilities anyway - they're usually rather proud of the fact that they instinctually channel arcane ability in most lore snippets, and mechanically they're poorly suited to covert or overt intel-gathering despite CHA being a good basis for "grease for the social gears". Bards typically work better in the open (or at least, doing the "hiding in plain sight" schtick by masking suggestive abilities with music or schmoozing rather than spying) than they do in the shadows, and while Warlocks are more likely to be covert than open due to the sources of their power sometimes rubbing people the worst way possible they're better at wrecking shit and leaving someone with a more forensic mind to sift through the pieces. Clerics can be a VERY mixed bag, depending on their deity's ethos and consequently their focus in their careers (and sometimes their position within a special order of their church, as the case may be). A cleric of a deity centered around things like knowledge, within a special order devoted to knowing things most other people don't want them to know? Could be a damn scary-good spy/inquisitor. Druids probably barely give a shit about societal intrigues anyway (unless they're "urban" druids), but their panoply of abilities can make them potentially competent at it. Rangers, more or less same as Druids with more of a focus on mundane types of spycraft/info gathering for the Urban version.
Not gonna touch very hard on psionics because holy fuck they can be really broken, but psionicists of some stripes could give Divination-focused sneak-wizards a run for their damn money depending on how well the area they're in deals with the presence of manifesters. In 3.5 the otherwise rather-unremarkable Lurk class and Ebon Saint PrC is kind of centered around being a medieval, psionic James Bond/Mr. Phelps. If I were running an intrigue-oriented game I'd seriously consider banning a lot of Psionic shenanigans or at least reeling them in HARD by ensuring the setting was well and truly prepared for them.
so many times, so I guess they are important to you
