Saving Kesten and Jhod. Enchanted Edition

[Askavi]

From the Patch notes.
It used to be possible to save both Kesten Garess and Jhod Kavken in Chapter 3 by coming to Lamashtu's Womb, talking to Kesten, and then going to the capital to save Jhod. This was a bug. Resolution: fixed. You can still save them both if you pick a special neutral option in the final dialogue in Goblin King Fort.



...ok. Has anyone figured out how this shall work? i have no *special neutral* option found yet to save both of them.

[NightfallRob]

Originally posted by Murf_This!:

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Did you actually read the response to the lawful choice? I'm speaking of a fantasy world where Kesten's determination is set, so yes, this "anime logic" applies. I even said, Only in a world where alignment is a real thing. He's not really listening to the PC about his choice. He hears and sees the PC and is realizes on his own. Even the most powerful magic can only hide alignment, not make it different.

Also, I don't remember, but how bad is it to lose Jhod? Perhaps lawful characters (derp, neutral*) really need to choose to save Kesten.

Or, y'know, suffer for not actually being not-lawful? In a kingdom building game.

This fantasy world just so happens to be Pathfinder. In Pathfinder there is no such thing as "I now want to be immune to social skills, cuz i'm determined and sh*t". So whatever Kesten decides, a character who is convincing enough, would be able to sway him.

The problem is not losing a Lawful advisor, the problem is losing a Good advisor. Ekun could replace Kesten, but Ekun is being a little girl who runs away crying, if you keep Kobolds / Trolls.

Meaning your only Good replacement may not even be there, either because he bugged out and didn't spawn, or because of a quest choice. Which is kinda fine, except that, you know, i didn't expect the game to force me to lose an advisor.

Still, that's what mods are for.

In any tabletop game there is a simple rule: the DM/GM/Storyteller/Marshall/Whatever ultimately rules on decisions and what is possible versus not possible. What you're complaining about here is DM fiat. Owlcat wanted a choice to be forced and they gave an option to represent a lawful alignment having an advantage other alignments would not. Social skills can always be applied, but only to a certain point. It's important to remember that NPCs are thinking and reasoning too. If your attempt to reason with them or intimidate is conflicting with their ability to reason (i.e. this threat must end now or everyone is doomed), it can lose regardless of how high you roll. Any DM that does not use judgement first and dice rolls second is a poor DM. The dice are there to add an element of randomness and competition. They do not and should not dictate play.

[Nightskies]

Causing fear happens in Pathfinder, and when it's from Intimidate, that works on PCs, as Demoralize does. There's no question that when the PC loses rectal control, they run. That's on another level from typical demoralize, and really, a lvl 3 thug could do that. There's your social prowess if you must make your fellow players lose rectal control with muscle flexing and growling. And if that's not good enough, outright use enchantment magic on them. Even though it goes against ettiqute.

Also, yes, there are PLENTY of powerful options, and if you seek to control your fellow players choices through game mechanics, you got a screw loose. If it comes down to it, a PvP built character is going to have a really good initiative and a lot of 1-round killing power, like RAGE-LANCE-POUNCE. Easily enough to put down PCs in first attack. Ugh, just thinking about actually playing an adventure with open PvP makes me nauseous. There are plenty of games for that, not a party-centric adventure game.

Really, though, Pathfinder wasn't even built for PvP, but if that's your thing, a LARP should be. With that, I think I'm done with the topic, as mentioned, deliberate builds for PvP make me nauseous.

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by NightfallRob:

In any tabletop game there is a simple rule: the DM/GM/Storyteller/Marshall/Whatever ultimately rules on decisions and what is possible versus not possible.

Yes, that's why Goblins can have 100 AC and 5000 HP. I already state that before. The GM can also say, that the fighter is incapable of attacking his teammates and that the wizard's spells just fizzle out when he tries to cast them on party members with harmful intent. That's not what we are arguing here.

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Causing fear happens in Pathfinder, and when it's from Intimidate, that works on PCs, as Demoralize does. There's no question that when the PC loses rectal control, they run. That's on another level from typical demoralize, and really, a lvl 3 thug could do that. There's your social prowess if you must make your fellow players lose rectal control with muscle flexing and growling. And if that's not good enough, outright use enchantment magic on them. Even though it goes against ettiqute.

Also, yes, there are PLENTY of powerful options, and if you seek to control your fellow players choices through game mechanics, you got a screw loose. If it comes down to it, a PvP built character is going to have a really good initiative and a lot of 1-round killing power, like RAGE-LANCE-POUNCE. Easily enough to put down PCs in first attack. Ugh, just thinking about actually playing an adventure with open PvP makes me nauseous. There are plenty of games for that, not a party-centric adventure game.

Really, though, Pathfinder wasn't even built for PvP, but if that's your thing, a LARP should be. With that, I think I'm done with the topic, as mentioned, deliberate builds for PvP make me nauseous.

You are kinda assuming a lot and considering little. My point was, that IF it comes to PvP, a fighter can smack, a wizard can cast and a social character can talk. All of those things have stats. A fighter deals damage with his weapon against my hitpoints & AC, a wizard casts spells against my Will / Fort & my HP, a social character uses verbal manipulation against Sense Motive.

The result is that things are resolved through brutal force, because you don't wish to tell your players to roleplay properly and accept that their characters are easily swayed by words, because they never invested enough into these talents.

It's not my goal to dominate other players and prevent them from playing - it's not having to start every argument going south by casting Greater Invisibility and drawing my sword as an EK. If the barbarian decides to go murderhobo, i don't want to have to Storm Step into him and lock him up with an Emergency Force Sphere.

I know how to build an efficient character, i'm fine with the Rule of the Jungle. Stats are usually used, once the players can't come to a consensus, or if it would be too much metagaming to solve the issue OoT. If at that point you want to have the one winning the arguments, who can put the others through a wall, then fine by me.

[Nightskies]

Fair enough, but if you're gonna call someone a Social character, there is just as much a Swimming and Climbing character, a Sneaky character, a Scholar character, and so on. They all, including the Social character, have combat ability. The Social could be a Paladin. See the point? Skills may avoid combat, but they don't end them and, misused, will provoke it. If the Sneaky character combines stealing the PCs gold with Bluff of "it wasn't me", which is legal by rules, it's gonna go south Really Quick. The same with trying to use social skills on PCs, lest it be carefree in nature. The GM has a responsibility to stop the issue before it goes that far and meditate a solution, bending the rules as needed.

In the end, it remains my claim that PCs don't ever have an Attitude value, and subsequently are immune to Intimidate's use to bully someone to do something you want, demoralize being possible. It appears (?) you would ask that your PC's social competence allow your PC to simmer down an argument in your favor, as a GM, I'd say If the other player is okay with that, sure. Armag knows better than to let someone trick him though, even if Armag can't see the trick.

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Fair enough, but if you're gonna call someone a Social character, there is just as much a Swimming and Climbing character, a Sneaky character, a Scholar character, and so on. They all, including the Social character, have combat ability. The Social could be a Paladin. See the point? Skills may avoid combat, but they don't end them and, misused, will provoke it. If the Sneaky character combines stealing the PCs gold with Bluff of "it wasn't me", which is legal by rules, it's gonna go south Really Quick. The same with trying to use social skills on PCs, lest it be carefree in nature. The GM has a responsibility to stop the issue before it goes that far and meditate a solution, bending the rules as needed.

In the end, it remains my claim that PCs don't ever have an Attitude value, and subsequently are immune to Intimidate's use to bully someone to do something you want, demoralize being possible. It appears (?) you would ask that your PC's social competence allow your PC to simmer down an argument in your favor, as a GM, I'd say If the other player is okay with that, sure. Armag knows better than to let someone trick him though, even if Armag can't see the trick.

Yes. And i expect Swimming, Climbing an Stealth to be handled the same way. As in - a player can't just state "Well, yes, i don't have swimming, but i just won't drown in my full plate, because that would be forcing a choice on my character" or "Nuh uh, you definitely didn't sneak up on me. No, i don't need a perception check - you just said that you sneak up on me out of character and i heard that, so my character simply turns around."

That's exactly what happens, with social skills. "Well, yes, you said something that is 100% convincing, but my character will simply ignore it, because i don't want him to be influenced"

And as i mentioned before - this problem exists in ever PnP, whatever wording the social skills have. People are fine with the use of force or magic in PvP, but not with the use of words. Usually, the less experienced the player, the more they want to be the pan-ultimate super-character, who has no flaws and cannot be defeated by anything.

They then proceed to put everything into combat / magic abilities and are basically playing a brain-damaged powerhouse, with everything dumped that isn't responsible for hitting or damage.

I'm fine with my Face getting his face smashed in, if he fails his checks or doesn't get a chance to open his mouth. Why can't the Fighter deal with being an easily influenced simpleton, just like he was built to be?

But hey, you are welcome to just metagame and ignore skillchecks. Just don't wonder if people start solving everything by force, if social skills work once in a blue moon and do literally nothing the rest of the time.

And let's say your magic character in the group uses Still Spell + Silent Spell + Charm / Dominate Person? What, you just going to say it doesn't work? It's exactly the same - a PC is forced to do something for a short period of time. What if somebody uses physical force to force somebody to do something? Does that not work either? You are just trying to prohibit the possibility of PvP at that point.

[Nightskies]

Actually, I did suggest using such spells...

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Actually, I did suggest using such spells...

Well, then it's just hypocrisy as far as i can see. Both is using your PC to make another PC do what you want. The only difference is that spells are limited to some classes.

[Nightskies]

Nnnnnnoooooo, I never suggested ignoring valid skill uses. Why did you even suggest ignoring rules? I'm not. I'm ignoring your interpretation of what passes for social skill capability. You still have not explained in any capacity what constitutes impossible for diplomacy in your book, but still seem intent that with the right words, and a high enough roll, anything is possible.

Worse, you're once again resorting to strawman. You decided I'm ignoring or cherry picking rules, but no, I'm standing firm because your arguments have failed to show 2 critical elements that I keep demonstrating are above what you say: how PCs are not subject to attitude rules, and THERE ARE IMPOSSIBLE things to negotiate. Which is indisputable, it is subject to GM fiat, but GM fiat isn't bad, it's ESSENTIAL.

We're done.

[Majber]

So this thread gone offtopic sooo much. Can we get final answer and close it?

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Majber:

So this thread gone offtopic sooo much. Can we get final answer and close it?

It probably got buried - you have to be Lawful to force him to go to the Capital, because Kesten is being a little c*nt. The only way to solve it otherwise, is to either respec at Eight Eyes into Lawful, or download the "Bag of Tricks" mod and temporarily disable dialogue requirements, so you can pick the option no matter what alignment you are.

It has been possible to just be fast enough to save both, but apparently achieving things through player skill / ingenuity was considered a bug.

Originally posted by Nightskies:

Nnnnnnoooooo, I never suggested ignoring valid skill uses. Why did you even suggest ignoring rules? I'm not. I'm ignoring your interpretation of what passes for social skill capability. You still have not explained in any capacity what constitutes impossible for diplomacy in your book, but still seem intent that with the right words, and a high enough roll, anything is possible.

Worse, you're once again resorting to strawman. You decided I'm ignoring or cherry picking rules, but no, I'm standing firm because your arguments have failed to show 2 critical elements that I keep demonstrating are above what you say: how PCs are not subject to attitude rules, and THERE ARE IMPOSSIBLE things to negotiate. Which is indisputable, it is subject to GM fiat, but GM fiat isn't bad, it's ESSENTIAL.

We're done.

RAW only Diplomacy doesn't affected PCs, Intimidate and Bluff do. And that if we use only the Core Rules, ignoring every other book. Anything else is just spinning the rules however you want them to be.

PCs can use Bluff & Intimidate (And Diplomacy, if we are actually using all official Pathfinder books) against each other and no amount of clinging to a single word will change that. No interpretation needed - just reading comprehension. Intimidation isn't using attitude, it's affecting it after the initial effect. Unlike Make a Request, it doesn't state "If the target's Attitude is X", so it doesn't need anything to initiate.

If a weapon has a poison coating, meaning it first deals normal weapon damage and then poisons, doesn't mean undead are immune to the weapon damage, because they are immune to poison. Same way PCs aren't immune to Intimidate aside from Demoralise, just because it also mentions a drop in attitude.

And we are done, because your only real argument is "I don't like social skills and will find all kinds of excuses for them not to work in that particular situation, because brain-damaged barbarians should be on equal verbal footing as world-class bards"

[Jeysie]

Alternate take I've been musing over:

What if the reason you have to be Lawful to order Kesten back to the capital is not because Kesten will only listen to Lawful people, but because you will only think to say it if you're Lawful?

Consider: A Chaotic or Neutral MC is possibly more likely to agree Kesten has a right to do his own thing even if you don't like what he wants to do. A Neutral Good MC might possibly try to persuade that it's for everyone's greater good if he saves the citizens under attack and lets you handle the Bloom, but a TN or NE character probably wouldn't think of that.

[Shadenuat]

That brings us back to alignment defining our character.

[Jeysie]

True, but from what I read in the thread, everyone was mostly focusing on the "it's cheap that we can't just Persuade him" angle, and I thought maybe the "you can't persuade someone if you can't think up the argument" angle was worth considering.

We sometimes forget that even if you're roleplaying "you", there's still an element of what your MC knows versus what you the player know.

(Actually we sometimes kind of forget that in general re: What certain NPCs do and don't know versus what we the player know, and the resulting not-quite-accurate judgments the players sometimes make.)

[Dixon Sider]

can I kill them both?

[Hex: Onii-Chan]

Originally posted by Jeysie:

Alternate take I've been musing over:

What if the reason you have to be Lawful to order Kesten back to the capital is not because Kesten will only listen to Lawful people, but because you will only think to say it if you're Lawful?

Consider: A Chaotic or Neutral MC is possibly more likely to agree Kesten has a right to do his own thing even if you don't like what he wants to do. A Neutral Good MC might possibly try to persuade that it's for everyone's greater good if he saves the citizens under attack and lets you handle the Bloom, but a TN or NE character probably wouldn't think of that.

Well, a Chaotic PC would also not take somebody just disobeying them. I don't think that has anything to do with alignment at all. Kinda like favorite food. You are in command, the leader of your forces says "Well, but like, what if i don't do what you tell me?"