9/9/2011 10:51:31 AM
Leviathan
Posts: 17
|
Are the warded spell prohibitions also meant to negatively impact spell-like abilities? In this case, I was thinking of the paladin's Smite Evil and/or Detect Evil abilties? Since the rulebook doesn't include the phrase "spell-like ability", I would say no, but...that interpretation seems contrary to what the designers seemed to be working towards, so...I don't know for sure.
L
--
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda, Jedi Master
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/10/2011 8:41:53 AM
ShadowcatX
Posts: 53
|
I would say yes (based on RAI). Anything that impacts magic influences spell like abilities (or even supernatural abilities) based around those spells. This includes warding, banning, or anything else.
(Cleaned up punctuation.)
edited by ShadowcatX on 9/12/2011
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/10/2011 5:04:35 PM
Leviathan
Posts: 17
|
I was afraid you were going to say that. And, yes...I think you are probably correct.
Unfortunately, that really puts a big bullet hole right through the character who's managed to put together a nice 6th level paladin IMC via PF so far. The Detect Evil ability I could care less about, and frankly I find it a bit annoying sometimes...but the Smite Evil power in PF is like his bread and butter "Sunday Punch" thing. I'm not sure if you've played a PF paladin or DM'd one in your game, but once you identify a foe who qualifies, the additional combat to hit bonus (which is equal to your CHA bonus) lasts until your battle with said foe is down (or you are). It's a big deal deal for that class.
Pimping it by making him run through the whole Warding thing is problematic. I'm gonna have to think on that. It's way more relevent than the valco issue at this point, for my game.
L
--
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda, Jedi Master
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/10/2011 5:11:26 PM
Leviathan
Posts: 17
|
Looking at all of other pc class options makes me think that paladin might well be the ONLY pc class where an alignment-type spell-like ability comes into play. And if THAT is true, it'd be easier to simply play rules lawyer and say that warding does NOT apply to spell-like abilities.
Better to cut that hair in this one narrow example in favor of an actual existing player character situation than to side with an in-game principle not likely to matter again for the other folks.
L
--
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda, Jedi Master
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/11/2011 8:24:00 AM
Leviathan
Posts: 17
|
I put some thought into this subject and here is what I came up with (mind you, this is simply for my own campaign, and amounts to a "house rule" rule modifification):
The OB7 rule section detailing warded spells and alignments on page 337 specifically refers to spell that DETECT alignments. It then goes on to list a number of spells that AFFECT alignments. I'm going to run that part of the warding effect so as to apply to all spells and spell-like abilities that actually detect alignments. OTOH, all spells or spell-like abilities that affect alignments are fine, i.e. are not warded. Thus, Detect Evil is warded and Smite Evil is not, for example.
I think this works. It is also in keeping with the fact that alignments ARE a key part of the Pathfinder game and game system. Wacking out a big chunk of that system through the warding prohibition presents more problems than it is worth (again, for me as a DM).
If you knew me...and paid attention to some of my ramblings and complaints about the alignment concept in general (most don't btw LOL), over the years, than you would know that this is actually an ironic twist for me. I actually prefer rpgs without an overlying alignment schematic at all, such as Arcana Evolved or Call of Cthulhu, if possible. PF, OTOH, does make use of one, however, so...that's fine too. No biggie either way.
As the designers always say, settings and rule sets are a toolbox for use as you see fit. A little tweaking here or there, if done with some thought, is usually fine if you think it might benefit your own particular paradigm somehow. If not, well, then you fix it or live with it, as the case might be.
Sorry to ramble on overmuch about this one narrow topic, but I tend to delve into minute aspects of the games I run quite a bit, so...bear with me!
L
--
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda, Jedi Master
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/12/2011 6:06:56 AM
ShadowcatX
Posts: 53
|
If I ever run Oathbound I'll probably allow Paladins to smite whomever he believes is currently acting in an evil manner, rather than just people of evil alignment. Of course, if it turns out he was wrong and the person was good and acting in a good manner and he was just rash, well then that'd be a great time for a crisis of faith leading to an attonement and hopefully a wiser paladin.
IMO this makes sense in looking at the Forge as the gods power doesn't actually reach into the Forge, instead the Forge itself (or is it the Oath?) powers divinely granted abilities. The forge prevents abilities from detecting or affecting alignments (because abilities that affect alignments could be used to determine alignment). Let 'em smite anyone, and then worry about the repercussions of their own conscience and suddenly smite evil can't be used to detect alignment any more.
Besides, I like it when alignment isn't clear cut. World of Warcraft rpg did this the best, IMO, as you can have an orc paladin and a human paladin both be lawful good because both are striving for what is best for their people and their loved ones, both obeying and respecting the laws and traditions of their land, but they're trying to kill each other with every bit of strength they have because they both view the other as evil.
edited by ShadowcatX on 9/12/2011
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/12/2011 4:00:44 PM
Leviathan
Posts: 17
|
Alignment can be a somewhat murky topic, easily lending itself to a lot of different kinds of philosophical and ethical debates. For my part, at least as far as fantasy role-playing goes, there's usually enough stuff going on so that keeping alignment type questions fairly straight-forward tends to work best. From a humanocentric vantage point, orcs and demons are obviously evil races, categorized thusly by their actions. Humans, elves, dwarves, dover, and pickers, not always so easy to pigeon hole...
L
--
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda, Jedi Master
|
|
0
• permalink
|
9/12/2011 10:23:13 PM
Greg Dent
Administrator
Posts: 195
|
ShadowcatX wrote:
If I ever run Oathbound I'll probably allow Paladins to smite whomever he believes is currently acting in an evil manner, rather than just people of evil alignment. Of course, if it turns out he was wrong and the person was good and acting in a good manner and he was just rash, well then that'd be a great time for a crisis of faith leading to an attonement and hopefully a wiser paladin.
Seems like a good solution, I'd vote for this. I'd been pondering myself what to do about the paladin, since there was one in the monster manual Dave turned over. I ended up using the zealot class instead just so I wouldn't have to answer this question.
Since you guys appear to have been paying attention, I will say that from the beginning, we've consciously tried to get rid of alignment from Oathbound. Partly we think this helps make the game more morally ambiguious and adds a different flavor to the setting. Mostly though, the idea of alignment is completely artificial (if it were realistic, we'd probably use something similar here on Earth). What really pushed it home for me was playing a few games where players were like "It's ok to kill him, he's evil!" We realized if we wanted a real world and not a cartoon, we'd have to get rid of this concept. The idea behind the oath blocking it seemed a good way to deal with this in the game. It made sense that the gods who made it wanted above all else to obscure the alignment of the bound god. If nobody could ever determine he was on their side, then nobody would ever be too keen on setting him free.
--
President, Epidemic Books
|
|
0
• permalink
|