Is Pathfinder still Dnd? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Duke of URL

2011-01-10, 02:46 PM

Pathfinder is derived from the OGL 3.5 System Reference Document. It is not "D&D" because that is a trademark of WotC that is not available for use in products that WotC doesn't specifically license.

That said, many people consider it the heir to D&D 3.5 because the latter is no longer officially supported and despite its flaws, Pathfinder is still in active development.

Xefas

2011-01-10, 02:50 PM

Well, game-theory-wise, the moment you change any rule, you're effectively playing a new game. If, for instance, you're playing "D&D 3.5 but ignoring the encumbrance rules", you're effectively not playing "D&D 3.5", you're playing something else. And if you're playing "D&D 3.5 but without death via massive damage rules and ignoring the encumbrance rules" you're playing an even different game.

I think there are very few people who actually play "D&D 3.5".

MickJay

2011-01-10, 02:53 PM

D&D encourages people to housrule, by RAW. :smalltongue:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-01-10, 02:58 PM

Practically speaking, it's a form of D&D. Just don't tell that to WotC. If a D&D player asked what Pathfinder was, almost everyone I know would describe it as "D&D 3.5 with some houserules and homebrew." The ones who like Pathfinder* would probably describe it as "An improved version of D&D 3.5," but that's basically the same thing + value judgement attached.

*I'm neutral on Pathfinder because I haven't played it, and I am well aware of the severe limitations of judging a system without having played it.

Godskook

2011-01-10, 03:39 PM

{Scrubbed}

DeltaEmil

2011-01-10, 03:46 PM

I have been looking at some pathfinder books and on teh book itself it doesn't say dnd.
Officially is it still dnd?Officially, it's not D&D, as everybody else has already said it.

But inofficially, it's played by people and considered to be as D&D as OD&D, AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, 3.0, 3.5, 4th and Vista edition are and will be, which everybody also said.

Psyren

2011-01-10, 03:53 PM

I was ambivalent on Pathfinder until I found out they'd brought on Dreamscarred Press to make the Psionics rules. Then I jumped ship so fast I created a singularity at starboard. :smalltongue:

I don't mind 4e though, and in fact can't wait until the video game adaptation. (It's the most computer-friendly edition of D&D yet.)

Hazzardevil

2011-01-10, 03:55 PM

Got it. So did paizo just take the 3.5 rules, changed it enough to avoid copyright infringement, but kept it the same enough to use 3.5 books on it.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-01-10, 04:01 PM

Got it. So did paizo just take the 3.5 rules, changed it enough to avoid copyright infringement, but kept it the same enough to use 3.5 books on it.
Eh, not exactly.

Not to get into the legal aspects of this, but WotC worked out some sort of settlement with Paizo to get around certain aspects of the original licensing agreement that Paizo used to produce all their 3.5 "Pathfinder" material.

The long and short of it is Paizo is producing Pathfinder with the affirmative assent of WotC. It's not "Dungeons and Dragons" but similarities between Pathfinder and D&D3.5 are not coincidental :smalltongue:

DeltaEmil

2011-01-10, 04:04 PM

Psyren

2011-01-10, 04:12 PM

And since nobody has linked it yet, Saph's excellent guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7609693) (really, I cannot pimp it enough) should answer the majority of questions you may have about differences between Pathfinder and D&D - both detailed changes (like races and classes) to more systemic changes (like combat and skills.)

If you are of a psionic bent, my own guide (currently incomplete) will in the near future help you grasp the differences between those two systems as well.

FMArthur

2011-01-10, 04:14 PM

Are they allowed to even mention D&D or compatability with it or is that outside the terms of the agreement and relegated to being an encouraged assumption?

MeeposFire

2011-01-10, 04:20 PM

PF is a further attempt at refining the 3.5 ruleset. As has been said it is a direct part of D&D. That said it essentially uses the same basic system just like many games based themselves on 1e AD&D. It does not fix the big problems but it does off a lot of small changes that some really do like.

If you really liked 3e D&D you would probably like PF especially if you did not like everybody avoiding base classes for prestige classes. If you do not like 3e D&D I would not play it as it is mostly the same thing with minor tweaks (unless it fixed that minor tweak that made you dislike 3e).

Tyndmyr

2011-01-10, 04:25 PM

I have been looking at some pathfinder books and on teh book itself it doesn't say dnd.
Officially is it still dnd?

Officially, no.

Officially, 4e is the latest and greatest incarnation of D&D. Unofficially, Pathfinder is far closer to 3.5 than 4e is. Many people regard it as a legitimate successor.

If you enjoyed 3.5, you'll probably at least enjoy aspects of PF. Use those you like, ignore those you don't. 3.PF is a growing designation for games.

Zherog

2011-01-10, 04:29 PM

Eh, not exactly.

Not to get into the legal aspects of this, but WotC worked out some sort of settlement with Paizo to get around certain aspects of the original licensing agreement that Paizo used to produce all their 3.5 "Pathfinder" material.

The long and short of it is Paizo is producing Pathfinder with the affirmative assent of WotC. It's not "Dungeons and Dragons" but similarities between Pathfinder and D&D3.5 are not coincidental :smalltongue:

I'm not aware of any special arrangements (though I'm hardly an "expert" in the field). What I'm pretty sure they did was make use of the Open Gaming License (and the material published in the official SRD by extension). The terms of the OGL allow a publisher to add, change, or remove whatever they like. (over-simplification here is being done on purpose - I'm not looking to delve into a legal discussion, even if it was something allowed on the forums.)

If you could provide some sort of source for your assertion, that'd be awesome and appreciated.

shadow_archmagi

2011-01-10, 04:40 PM

Officially, no.

Officially, 4e is the latest and greatest incarnation of D&D. Unofficially, Pathfinder is far closer to 3.5 than 4e is. Many people regard it as a legitimate successor.

If you enjoyed 3.5, you'll probably at least enjoy aspects of PF. Use those you like, ignore those you don't. 3.PF is a growing designation for games.

FOR COPYRIGHT PURPOSES: Pathfinder is a related but different product.

FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES: Yeah it's pretty much the same game and everything. It's just sort of like how Rifftrax isn't actually Mystery Science Theatre.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-01-10, 04:47 PM

If you could provide some sort of source for your assertion, that'd be awesome and appreciated.
Despite my recollection of this particular controversy, I cannot find anything online to support it.

As such, I'll withdraw my spurious rumor and stick to the official line :smallsmile:

icefractal

2011-01-10, 04:50 PM

Got it. So did paizo just take the 3.5 rules, changed it enough to avoid copyright infringement, but kept it the same enough to use 3.5 books on it.It's a definite change - IMO, a bit more of a change than 3.0 -> 3.5, but less than 3.5 -> 4E.

As for backwards compatibility:
A) Can you use stats directly (I.E, a module)? Not exactly, monster/NPC stats blocks have a changed a bit, as have skills.
B) Can you do a quick-n-dirty conversion in a couple minutes? Absolutely.
C) Will the quick-n-dirty conversion be a good fit with the rest of the system? Maybe yes, maybe no. Some 3.5 material may be substantially under/over-powered in Pathfinder.

Zherog

2011-01-10, 06:27 PM

Despite my recollection of this particular controversy, I cannot find anything online to support it.

As such, I'll withdraw my spurious rumor and stick to the official line :smallsmile:

drat -- I was hoping for some interesting reading. ;)

Thanks for looking for it.

Callista

2011-01-10, 06:30 PM

Actually, using the 3.5 rules doesn't require any changing to avoid copyright infringement because everything in the SRD is free to use. So they didn't "change them enough to avoid copyright infringement"--they just used what was already available for everybody to use.

Stephen_E

2011-01-10, 06:41 PM

They changed some rules, put away some other rules, and introduced a few new rules on their own. Theoretically, it should be backwards-compatible with 3.5-D&D-books, but some people claim that it didn't achieve that goal-set. Aside from that, it's popular amongst many people.

Yes, PF isn't fully compatible with 3.5, but then 3.5 splat books could be argued to not be fully compatible with 3.5.:smallwink:

Paladins that could torture been one of the more egarious examples, but in general approx 75% of what was added fitted so poorly (or was so badly written) that it was largely junk, and 15% fitted so badly that it was way overpowered. :smallsigh:

Stephen E

Ernir

2011-01-10, 06:41 PM

Are they allowed to even mention D&D or compatability with it or is that outside the terms of the agreement and relegated to being an encouraged assumption?

I'd like to know the answer to this as well, if anyone has it...

Callista

2011-01-10, 06:42 PM

Wait, what now?! There's a splatbook where it implies that paladins would torture? What were they on?

AslanCross

2011-01-10, 06:43 PM

Pathfinder calls itself an update "of the world's favorite roleplaying game." It's the closest you can get to D&D 3.5 without calling it D&D 3.5, but officially it's not.

Benly

2011-01-10, 08:44 PM

The big thing with Pathfinder backwards compatibility is that old material will work with minimal changes in PF but may not be a good idea.

See, the thing is that pretty much every book Wizards made for 3.5 has at least one or two completely broken or breakable things in it. It's just that nobody worried about that too much because the core material was also incredibly broken and/or breakable - when a wizard can already break the game over his knee from level 15 up, nobody cares much if this book has a few spells or feats that also help break the game, especially if it's in combination with other material. Pathfinder tries (with questionable success at times) to unbreak the core rules to an extent, so letting in all material without question is a bigger concern in that regard.

In general, it's probably best to treat 3.5 material ported to Pathfinder as you would treat an unknown third-party product. It will work with the existing rules, but you need to examine each piece you intend to use and decide whether you want to use it. Honestly, in my mind one of the big benefits of using Pathfinder is that players feel less entitled to use every ill-conceived book or rule that WOTC ever printed and don't mind vetos nearly as much. :smallsmile:

Gametime

2011-01-10, 09:01 PM

The biggest annoyance with using Pathfinder (and it's by no means insurmountable) is that Wizards-printed monster statblocks aren't quite accurate any more. You can buy Pathfinder's monster book (which is also available online), but anything not included there you'll have to convert yourself; mostly, this involves switching around maneuver (trip & co.) stats around and switching out some skills.

If you use entirely custom statblocks anyway, or don't mind being limited to Pathfinder core, this obviously isn't a problem.

Fox Box Socks

2011-01-10, 09:11 PM

Officially, no. D&D as a name is owned by Wizards of the Coast. Whatever they say is D&D legally is D&D.

Unofficially, the D&D community is fragmented into little warring cliques, so just saying that it is "like D&D" isn't saying very much. Specifically, Pathfinder basically is 3.5 with a few bells and whistles. If you (like me) had serious issues with 3rd Edition's design philosophy, or if you had some serious issue with 3/3.5 that Paizo didn't correct (or didn't correct enough), then you're going to walk away from Pathfinder disappointed (didn't like how CoDzillas totally snapped the game in half unless the DM specifically went out of his way to screw them? Yeah, that's still there).

The ability to import material from 3.5 proper with little to no benchwork is both a blessing and a curse. There's a wealth of material there for you to use, but you could do some crazy stuff in 3.5. Best review on a case-by-case basis (ask for individual specifics, not books).

TheOOB

2011-01-11, 02:34 AM

The answer is no. There is no "technically", "officially", or any other qualifiers. Pathfinder is not D&D. That said it is compatible with most D&D 3.5 content with little or no changes.

Tvtyrant

2011-01-11, 02:38 AM

Its 3.5 with some homebrew thrown on it as a "fix." It doesn't actually balance the game all that much though.

Grelna the Blue

2011-01-11, 02:43 AM

It feels like D&D. That's good enough for me.

I do wish that while they were upgrading the paladin and monk classes to something more playable they'd given a bit more love to the fighter, but you can't have everything.

And as far as I'm concerned, 3.5 should have been using the PF rules for skills from the get-go.

Kurald Galain

2011-01-11, 05:15 AM

The answer is no. There is no "technically", "officially", or any other qualifiers.

Sure there is. There's plenty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InNameOnly) tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DolledUpInstallment) closely (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SerialNumbersFiledOff) related (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpiritualSuccessor) to "things that look like Foo but really aren't", "things that attempt to be Foo but fail", and "things that really are Foo except they don't have rights to the name".

Matthew

2011-01-11, 07:09 AM

drat -- I was hoping for some interesting reading. ;)

Thanks for looking for it.

Me too. Almost some juicy gossip there! :smallbiggrin:

Path Finder is the game formerly known as D&D 3.5 (or D20/3e).

Oracle_Hunter

2011-01-11, 11:56 AM

Me too. Almost some juicy gossip there! :smallbiggrin:

Path Finder is the game formerly known as D&D 3.5 (or D20/3e).
So... I actually had been doing some research on the controversy because I recalled hearing some rumors at the time that:
The actual license that Paizo had signed with WotC (not the OGL) required the destruction of all stocks of unsold 3.5 materials that Paizo had made under that license - basically the foundations of Pathfinder.

In the end, WotC backed down and permitted Paizo to develop Pathfinder because of the potential PR disaster that could have ensued. Of course, these were all rumors I had heard (by word of mouth) and the fact that I never was able to find any reference to them on the Internet means they were probably just rumors.

Which is a shame, 'cause that would have made an excellent case study for the paper I'm writing in re IP Law and RPG Design :smallsigh:

Pink

2011-01-11, 12:02 PM

Kurald Galain

2011-01-11, 12:06 PM

The actual license that Paizo had signed with WotC (not the OGL) required the destruction of all stocks of unsold 3.5 materials that Paizo had made under that license - basically the foundations of Pathfinder.

Actually, that was the first version of the 4E OGL that they wanted third parties to sign in order to develop 4E products. It required that (1) they immediately cease distributing 3E products, (2) would sign the copyright of all their 4E works over to WOTC, and (3) would destroy their 4E stock at WOTC's request. This was quite the PR disaster about two and a half years ago, and seems to be the main reason Pathfinder was created in the first place.

Duke of URL

2011-01-11, 12:19 PM

The now-defunct d20 trademark license had similar, but far less restrictive, terms. WotC had sole discretion to declare a work as containing objectionable content, which would require the publisher to destroy all stocks of unsold copies that used the d20 trademark.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that clause was added as a result of the BoEF.

That said, when I saw the original 4e GSL, I nearly threw up in my mouth. Oh, and you missed 4) WotC reserved the right to essentially steal your ideas with no compensation.

Yora

2011-01-11, 12:24 PM

In fairness, that rumour kinda fits with the general "WotC is actively sabotaging their old product" theme that's been going on.
That's not a meme. It's the truth. Though sabotaging is not the right term. Rather remove it from the market. Too bad they allowed others to publish d20 books as well.

Pink

2011-01-11, 12:31 PM

That's not a meme. It's the truth. Though sabotaging is not the right term. Rather remove it from the market. Too bad they allowed others to publish d20 books as well.

Ummm...I said Theme, not meme. Maybe it didn't come out right, but yeah, that's kinda the point I was going for. Wizards would, apparently, definitely want 3.5 and everything it spawned to quietly vanish. I mean, some companies might use money gained from an old product to continue to support the new product, choosing to gain revenue from customers who haven't chosen to move to the new product instead of cutting that off.

Zherog

2011-01-11, 12:43 PM

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that clause was added as a result of the BoEF.

That's correct. And so the publisher of the book simply dropped the d20 logo and went straight OGL.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-01-11, 12:46 PM

Actually, that was the first version of the 4E OGL that they wanted third parties to sign in order to develop 4E products. It required that (1) they immediately cease distributing 3E products, (2) would sign the copyright of all their 4E works over to WOTC, and (3) would destroy their 4E stock at WOTC's request. This was quite the PR disaster about two and a half years ago, and seems to be the main reason Pathfinder was created in the first place.

The now-defunct d20 trademark license had similar, but far less restrictive, terms. WotC had sole discretion to declare a work as containing objectionable content, which would require the publisher to destroy all stocks of unsold copies that used the d20 trademark.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that clause was added as a result of the BoEF.

That said, when I saw the original 4e GSL, I nearly threw up in my mouth. Oh, and you missed 4) WotC reserved the right to essentially steal your ideas with no compensation.
Man, if y'all could find links to this, I'd be very happy. For whatever reason my Google-Fu is missing anyone who had anything to say about this matter (officially, anyhow).

Duke of URL

2011-01-11, 01:10 PM

No, I'm working from memory. My copies of those files are long gone, and the links I have to them don't work.

randomhero00

2011-01-11, 01:16 PM

I think PF is more DnD than 4e.

grimbold

2011-01-11, 03:04 PM

it is not officialy D&D however most 3.5 stuff converts to it no sweat and it converts to 3.5 easily, many savvy gamers kind of combine 3.5 and PF to fix some of the major issues with 3.5 but retain the D&D feel

onthetown

2011-01-11, 03:59 PM

Same game, different name. Basically.

Technically: most of the rules are the same because Pathfinder was created using the d20 rules under the Open Gaming License. WotC had moved on to 4e, so Paizo expanded and personalized on the 3.5 rules to create a sort of 3.75 version of it.

But when it comes to game night, I just automatically say, "Let's play D&D." It's more or less the same thing.

This has, of course, already been covered by about twenty other posts.

Matthew

2011-01-11, 04:04 PM

So... I actually had been doing some research on the controversy because I recalled hearing some rumors at the time that:

The actual license that Paizo had signed with WotC (not the OGL) required the destruction of all stocks of unsold 3.5 materials that Paizo had made under that license - basically the foundations of Pathfinder.

In the end, WotC backed down and permitted Paizo to develop Pathfinder because of the potential PR disaster that could have ensued.

Of course, these were all rumors I had heard (by word of mouth) and the fact that I never was able to find any reference to them on the Internet means they were probably just rumors.

Which is a shame, 'cause that would have made an excellent case study for the paper I'm writing in re IP Law and RPG Design :smallsigh:

Actually, that was the first version of the 4E OGL that they wanted third parties to sign in order to develop 4E products. It required that (1) they immediately cease distributing 3E products, (2) would sign the copyright of all their 4E works over to WOTC, and (3) would destroy their 4E stock at WOTC's request. This was quite the PR disaster about two and a half years ago, and seems to be the main reason Pathfinder was created in the first place.

I think Kurald has the right of it there. The original GSL caused a lot of apprehension. It was certainly interesting when Kenzer & Company published a D20/4e compatible Kalamar without using it!

Path Finder, though, has no special relationship with WotC, and rests pretty much on the same legal ground (as far as I know) as True20, Castles & Crusades, and even to some extent Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC. Back in 2000 WotC resuscitated TSR's internet reputation by taking the almost exact opposite course in making D&D a kind of open source game.

The GSL pretty much reversed that.

Tyndmyr

2011-01-11, 04:28 PM

I think PF is more DnD than 4e.

You are correct, sir.

I saw a word analysis of the editions once...I wish I could find it again, was on a blog somewhere. It's fascinating watching the different trends come and go throughout the editions, but through it all, you have a number of consistancies.

Then...4th ed. It was utterly different. PF is quite close to 3.5, though.

Gametime

2011-01-11, 05:34 PM

There's no objective measure of what makes a game "Dungeons & Dragons." There are officially licensed products using the name Dungeons & Dragons, and there are games extremely similar to those officially licensed products. To say that 4e isn't D&D is silly; of course it's D&D. You might not like 4e, but it's D&D.

If you consider 3.5 to be D&D by virtue of its qualities rather than by virtue of its logo, then yes, Pathfinder is D&D, but that brings up all kinds of value judgements and has nothing to do with objective fact.

Gorbash

2011-01-11, 06:01 PM

Pathfinder is the continuation of the 3.5, albeit in a slightly different direction (there's more focus on core classes than prestige). It's for all those people who enjoyed 3.5, were a bit annoyed at some parts of it (cheese, useless classes) and don't want to play a game that doesn't have any new content to it.

I didn't really care for PF when it came out and wanted to continue playing 3.5, but I tried it and it's a truly enjoyable system to play.

SimperingToad

2011-01-11, 08:50 PM

From a property rights standpoint, no.

From a common usage standpoint, yes. Xerox doesn't always mean a copier made by Xerox, and Kleenex doesn't always mean a tissue in a Kleenex box.

Tiki Snakes

2011-01-11, 11:44 PM

If Pathfinder is D&D, then so are a hell of a lot of other games that have nothing directly to do with TSR or Wizards.

To the point of the term losing all meaning.

Stephen_E

2011-01-11, 11:58 PM

Wait, what now?! There's a splatbook where it implies that paladins would torture? What were they on?

Might be complete Scoundral.

It was a prestige class for Paladins specifically.
And it didn't just imply, it stated they could and allowed them to convert their "lay on healing hands" into "hand of pain".

The more you advanced in the class the more you culd do whatever you liked so long as you beleived it was for the greater good, and still retain your Paladin abilities and LG alignment.

At 10th level you could torture the child of a suspected bomb planter to try and make them give up the ticking bomb and cheerfully retain paladin status. (that sound you hear is me throwing up).

There is a reason I consider 3.5 splat books require modding to fit into 3.5.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

Psyren

2011-01-12, 12:29 AM

At 10th level you could torture the child of a suspected bomb planter to try and make them give up the ticking bomb and cheerfully retain paladin status. (that sound you hear is me throwing up).

There is a reason I consider 3.5 splat books require modding to fit into 3.5.:smallfrown:

Stephen E

I'm not sure which PrC you're describing here, but it sure as hell isn't Gray Guard. :smallconfused:

Torturing children will make you fall no matter what kind of clemency you're granted.

TheOOB

2011-01-12, 01:37 AM

There's no objective measure of what makes a game "Dungeons & Dragons."

Well, there is the trademarked name of the product. That's pretty objective. My 4e books says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, and are published by the company who has the legal right to make D&D books, my Pathfinder book does not. Ergo, objectively, 4e is D&D, pathfinder is not.

Honestly, I think D&D 4e captures the originally spirit of D&D more then 3e(and by extension pathfinder with is a modified copy). D&D was originally a fantasy war-game where you played 1 more complex character then an army of simplified ones. 4e shows it's war gaming roots very well.

Stephen_E

2011-01-12, 03:46 AM

I'm not sure which PrC you're describing here, but it sure as hell isn't Gray Guard. :smallconfused:

Torturing children will make you fall no matter what kind of clemency you're granted.

Yep. Grey Guard is the name of them.

And torturing children would pass so long as they can justify it to themself.
And justifying things for the greater good is amusingly simple.

Stephen E

Gametime

2011-01-12, 10:43 AM

Yep. Grey Guard is the name of them.

And torturing children would pass so long as they can justify it to themself.
And justifying things for the greater good is amusingly simple.

Stephen E

Keep in mind that the Gray Guard's capstone only prevents them from losing class features for violating the code of conduct. They have no special protection from ceasing to be Lawful Good if they regularly perform evil acts, and being Lawful Good is still a requirement for the class.

Kaervaslol

2011-01-12, 11:28 AM

You are correct, sir.

I saw a word analysis of the editions once...I wish I could find it again, was on a blog somewhere. It's fascinating watching the different trends come and go throughout the editions, but through it all, you have a number of consistancies.

Then...4th ed. It was utterly different. PF is quite close to 3.5, though.

I think 4th edition is more D&D than pf, because you know, it's frigging D&D.

Psyren

2011-01-13, 11:01 AM

Yep. Grey Guard is the name of them.

And torturing children would pass so long as they can justify it to themself.

No, it wouldn't. If they stop being LG they fall, just like normal Paladins. Worse, they can't even atone.

What the capstone lets them do is e.g. beat a confession out of the cultist who knows where the king's daughter is hidden away, or lie his way past her guards to break her free. In other words, actions that would be iffy at best for Paladins.

Torturing children is capital-E Evil and hyperbolic examples like that don't help your case at all.

Benly

2011-01-13, 11:28 AM

No, it wouldn't. If they stop being LG they fall, just like normal Paladins. Worse, they can't even atone.

What the capstone lets them do is e.g. beat a confession out of the cultist who knows where the king's daughter is hidden away, or lie his way past her guards to break her free. In other words, actions that would be iffy at best for Paladins.

Torturing children is capital-E Evil and hyperbolic examples like that don't help your case at all.

"You must remain Lawful Good and not knowingly commit evil acts" is explicitly part of the Gray Guards' code of conduct which is released by the higher levels. Gray Guards who have reached the capstone only lose their abilities for "unforgivably evil acts" if they are actively and personally expelled from the order by superiors or their deity. It does not happen automatically. This is stated under both the "Sacrament Of The True Faith" ability ("If you violate this trust by habitually acting in an immoral or corrupt manner, the leaders or deity of your faith might revoke their blessing and banish you from the ranks of the faithful") and the "Ex-Gray Guards" section ("If at any time your deity or a jury of your faith's leaders finds you guilty of grossly abusing the freedom of the order, you permanently lose both gray guard and paladin abilities and can never again advance in either class.")

If he follows a hands-off deity or no deity at all, and he can keep his deeds secret from his order or justify his deeds to their satisfaction, a gray guard can in fact torture his way through an orphanage to get to the bad guys without losing his abilities.

The Glyphstone

2011-01-13, 11:33 AM

"You must remain Lawful Good and not knowingly commit evil acts" is explicitly part of the Gray Guards' code of conduct which is released by the higher levels. Gray Guards who have reached the capstone only lose their abilities for "unforgivably evil acts" if they are actively and personally expelled from the order by superiors or their deity. It does not happen automatically. This is stated under both the "Sacrament Of The True Faith" ability ("If you violate this trust by habitually acting in an immoral or corrupt manner, the leaders or deity of your faith might revoke their blessing and banish you from the ranks of the faithful") and the "Ex-Gray Guards" section ("If at any time your deity or a jury of your faith's leaders finds you guilty of grossly abusing the freedom of the order, you permanently lose both gray guard and paladin abilities and can never again advance in either class.")

If he follows a hands-off deity or no deity at all, and he can keep his deeds secret from his order or justify his deeds to their satisfaction, a gray guard can in fact torture his way through an orphanage to get to the bad guys without losing his abilities.

That doesn't keep him from changing alignment though - torturing his way though an orphanage would be a heniously evil act. What his capstone does it let him retain his class features after torturing the first orphan rather than lose them immediately. Or the second, and third, right up until he's done enough Evil to slip alignment brackets into Lawful Neutral.

Now, this does hinge on the disputed point (only officially stated in Complete Warrior, IIRC) that if you stop qualifying for a PrC, you lose all benefits of that PrC and can no longer advance in it.

Zherog

2011-01-13, 11:40 AM

Now, this does hinge on the disputed point (only officially stated in Complete Warrior, IIRC) that if you stop qualifying for a PrC, you lose all benefits of that PrC and can no longer advance in it.

It's in a second one of the Complete series as well, if I recall correctly. I just can't remember which.

Duke of URL

2011-01-13, 11:44 AM

This Grey Guard talk is way off-topic, is it not? Perhaps start a new thread to hash it out if necessary?

Benly

2011-01-13, 11:45 AM

That doesn't keep him from changing alignment though - torturing his way though an orphanage would be a heniously evil act. What his capstone does it let him retain his class features after torturing the first orphan rather than lose them immediately. Or the second, and third, right up until he's done enough Evil to slip alignment brackets into Lawful Neutral.

Now, this does hinge on the disputed point (only officially stated in Complete Warrior, IIRC) that if you stop qualifying for a PrC, you lose all benefits of that PrC and can no longer advance in it.

By that same interpretation, you would also immediately lose your class features for violating your code of conduct despite Sacrament Of The True Faith, because "must adhere to a code of conduct that prevents the character from performing evil acts" is also a prerequisite of the class, and once you violate the code of conduct you no longer qualify for the class.

Since interpreting things this way causes the class's signature abilities to do nothing at all, it seems reasonable to assume that this is not the intended interpretation. Therefore, it seems to be that the gray guard's ability to mitigate his code of conduct (which itself explicitly includes the Lawful Good requirement) extends to covering him against loss of prereqs due to code violation.

Psyren

2011-01-13, 01:54 PM

Gray Guards who have reached the capstone only lose their abilities for "unforgivably evil acts" if they are actively and personally expelled from the order by superiors or their deity. It does not happen automatically.

Since your deity firing you can happen anywhere and any time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html), I'd say that it is pretty much automatic.

And if you're worshipping a deity that doesn't consider torturing children to be "unforgivably evil" then why the hell do they have paladins?

But I agree, we're derailing the thread with this; feel free to PM me your rebuttal or make a GG thread.