Pathfinder 2E About Agents of Edgewatch

CapnZapp

Legend
First off, I am aware of this:

Folks, this the latest in a lot of long threads which are proving to be identical. We're already closing some of those down as they have run their curse and are just repeating things over and over. This thread is already doing the same, so I'm closing it.
I made two attempts to find the other threads the moderation message is talking about, but I couldn't find any. Assuming the message wasn't really saying "don't discuss the AP controversy at all" I am starting this thread since I can't find anywhere else to post. (Just wanted to make that clear - I'm not trying to evade moderation. I honestly believe I have something to say which wasn't said before simply because at that time, the module wasn't out.)

Anyway, after having time to actually read through Devil in the Dreaming Palace I gotta say I'm disappointed.

I'm disappointed Paizo really think their response is enough to get them into the clear.
I'm disappointed anyone would find their response going far enough to make things good.

To me it's crystal clear that Pathfinder and D&D is about heroes fighting monsters. Yes, it's also about exploration and social interaction and equipping your character with loot (we'll get back to that shortly) and whatnot... but at the core of the game we have hundreds of pages that support a highly detailed simulation of heroes fighting monsters. Official adventures are combat encounter after combat encounter, with short brief interludes of doing other stuff sprinkled in.

The tl;dr is: if you're uncomfortable with replacing "heroes" with "cop heroes" and "monsters" with "criminal monsters" you should not give Paizo your money and you should skip this AP.

Let me explain:

First off, the module lets me down in my expectation we would get a real sense of time and place. The imagery of the module is all over the place. There's even pictures that could have been taken straight out of Victorian London (complete with genteelfolk in "modern" fashion).

What's the problem with that?

In order to get a handle on what the morality of the place says about expectations on local law enforcement, the fantasy game needs to tell us, or at least hint us in.

If Absalom gave off strong vibes of Ancient Rome, and was awash in details about who upheld the peace in that great old city (I actually don't know, and now I'm curious - during the Republic, wasn't the Senate nervous about soldiers in their city, and kept the legions as far away from the capital as possible? Later there was the Praetorian Guard, but did they bother with the crimes of regular folks? Anyway, I digress). Or, perhaps Tenochtitlan during the 1400s (religious priest cops?), or maybe Khanbaliq during the Yuan Dynasty (barbarian cops trying to understand a foreign civilization), or, for that matter, the capital of the Moon People that just does things differently. I mean, this is a fantasy game, there need to be no direct analog to any one (or three) historical methods of peacekeeping.

But there needs to be something. What we have now is pretty much nothing and everything. Do you play cops that has to comply with a modern protocol? Or is it the Wild West, where the fastest gun is the law? Or what?

And that's the problem, since it makes it easy to project whatever you, the customer, fancies the most.

While I can see why Paizo chose this approach (make the city as generic as possible so as many Paizo fans as possible will want to buy it), in the context of this discussion it creates the situation where you can (too) easily apply modern day morals to your fantasy game. It makes the AP an easy target for people getting upset with the state of law enforcement in the United States of 2020.

If the AP instead had presented an Absalom that (just for the sake of example) was modeled on Ancient Rome, and gave out a load of details on how the peace was kept there, the product would have been so much better for it. Questions like:
  • who do I answer to (as a "beat cop" or its equivalence)? Does my superior give a rat's ass about how I do things, or just that the masses stays quiet?
  • do citizens get to complain at all, and if so, who listens? Maybe "community leaders" can get your ass fired, while the common man is powerless?
  • do I simply get to keep the stuff I "confiscate" from criminals? (Likely not!) But if yes, do my superiors just take my word for it, or can I just rob any citizen and say I took stolen goods?
  • if a citizen is killed during a bust, do I have to answer to someone? (Or am I judge jury and executioner in my ward?)
  • the question of guilt: how do I know my suspect is actually guilty? What amount of force is justified when I'm sure? When I'm not?

Questions questions.

Now, how do Agents of Edgewatch handle these issues? There are two main answers:
a) well enough
and
b) piss poor

If you accept that Pathfinder is about heroes fighting monsters, and you accept that the AP was conceived as hero cops fighting criminals-that-are-monsters, the answer is clearly "well enough". No questions are asked about the actions of law enforcement, because you aren't law enforcement, you're fantasy heroes that are in the right by default. You don't have to worry about bringing in the wrong person, because the AP makes it clear that you're on a story railroad and the guilty are placed in front of you, while the innocents are always safe. You never face moral dilemmas more than any other AP. You never have to face decisions real cops have to face.

If on the other hand you expect the AP to provide tools to tweak the game into something that even remotely resembles actual law enforcement, where questions such as "is this really the right guy" and "how do we take him without getting innocents in the crossfire" are always present, the answer cannot be anything else than "piss poor" and my only recommendation is "stay away".

Why?

Take the question about loot.

Did the AP create a subsystem where you hand in confiscated goods, the goods and tools of bad guys, and get, I don't know, "store credit" to equip your character as you level up?

Nope. The AP hands out specific items just like any other dungeon. It specifically hand-waves the issue by saying, and I quote "The guards’ only actual means of earning liquid cash is by requisitioning possessions and money from any criminals they catch breaking major laws—no trial required." which boils down to "you get to keep the loot, just like always". All questions regarding whether you did right are also handwaved, since, and again a direct quote, "the focus of this Adventure Path is fast-paced action rather than legal paperwork". The text tries to make this about skipping court proceedings. It is completely silent on the actual issue at hand: are you simply assumed to always make the correct decisions regarding loot? Apparently, that's not a question players need to worry about. Just like regular murderhobo heroes don't have to worry about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

What does it say then? It says "All findings are to be meticulously catalogued so as to prevent abuse of power, and any confiscated goods with identifiable owners must be returned." which turns out to have no impact whatsoever, since it means "you get to keep the loot, just like always". Loot is magically separated into two categories "stuff returned to the rightful owner" and "stuff you get to keep". And of course the adventure summary lists only the latter category.

This is just one indicator Paizo is trying to both eat the cake and have it too. One one hand you get to play just like normal, on the other hand, you get to have the moral high ground for free, no extra effort required.

But it gets worse. The free pass to play just like normal (greataxing monsters, fireballing them) hasn't even started yet!

The AP itself rather reasonably says
Because using lethal weapons is the default assumption of Pathfinder’s combat system (which imposes penalties on nonlethal attacks made with lethal weapons), you might consider making a house rule for this campaign that unless otherwise stated, attacks by the player characters are always nonlethal and don’t take the usual penalty when they use nonlethal weapons.
Had that been all, I could have given Paizo a pass. A weak pass, but still, in line what every other fantasy adventure starting with "you apply for a job in the City Watch" has to say.

Sure, it's not enough if you expected actual support for anything else than "cop heroes fighting monster criminals", but it is at least short and inoffensive.

If you go "but if I want a more realistic feel where the choice in how to bring in perps isn't taken away from the players?" you're bound for disappointment. Will you find advice on how to change your character build to make, say, a Barbarian work in a world where lethal force isn't the automatic choice? Will you find a feat that allows spellcasters to cause non-lethal damage with their magic?

No to all these questions. I've heard forumists speculate in the AP enabling "merciful attacks" (a magical weapon property and a metamagic effect in PF1, respectively, that turns lethal damage into non-lethal damage) but no. There are a small selection of nonlethal options, but all of them suffer the problem of being far weaker from a minmax option. There are no non-lethal options that allow the Barbarian to keep making d12 attacks at no penalty. There are no options for the spellcaster, period. There is no attempt to rebalance the Barbarian against the Bard, to speak plainly. (Some warriors can thrive using the non-lethal options presented, but the Barbarian - created to wield two-handed big-dice damage weapons - cannot. And the Bard, being built with the expectation that social - peaceful! - interaction is only a small part of the game, becomes a no-brainer minmax choice in any campaign that frowns upon just killing foes).

There's even one option that even I (that aren't personally up in arms about modern day law enforcement) can see is so very very misguided. They offer nightsticks as a nonlethal option, as a . It's impossible to not ask "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING" when you realize that the imagery of cops beating suspects into unconsciousness using nightsticks is presented fully non-ironically as a reasonable option. I quote: "nightsticks
are designed to subdue foes without causing permanent injury." Yes, they really say that.

Now to put that into perspective. Since we're playing a game of pretend, where no actual monsters (human or otherwise) get hurt, but where monsters die by the score, and every level 20 hero has left behind a trail of corpses a mile long, nightsticks does come off as merciful.

So again, the question becomes: Can you play the game without drawing parallells to current events? If "yes", then okay. If "no", you should simply not give Paizo any money.

The final piece of the puzzle is the added layer of official rulings in the Player's Guide.

There it says that basically heroes can't cause lethal damage, period. It basically allows players to play heroes fighting monsters, and hero cops fighting monster criminals specifically, but magically nobody gets hurt.

It feels deeply illogical and insincere to expect people to just playing the game normally, except magically nobody ever gets hurt, as if that's going to solve anything. And I hope I have shown why this is so lazy compared to having a fantasy adventure that gives real insight into what morals are in place in this fantasy city, and what is expected from fantasy city watch members, AND how to tweak the game's character options so that these remain reasonably balanced against each other.

In conclusion, the only way to not be incredibly disappointed by this is to go into Agents of Edgewatch with open eyes: this is just like any other AP except you're in uniform. You still take names, you still fight monsters, you still keep their loot. Nothing changes.

It is in no way a module to support playing fantasy cops, and I fully acknowledge how it comes off as outright reprehensible for anyone unable to separate your fantasy gaming from parallels to modern day events. Don't be fooled by Paizo's attempts to salvage the situation. I see nothing else than a panicky attempt to salvage sales.


Zapp
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

ccs

41st lv DM
Sound like they need to apologize more for crappy writing than anything else.

As for how to adjust your characters to an effective non-lethal approach? I fail to imagine that PF players - who often display amazing degrees of system mastery - can't figure that out. I suspect that it's not that they can't, but won't.
 

Let me explain:

If you accept that Pathfinder is about heroes fighting monsters, and you accept that the AP was conceived as hero cops fighting criminals-that-are-monsters, the answer is clearly "well enough". No questions are asked about the actions of law enforcement, because you aren't law enforcement, you're fantasy heroes that are in the right by default. You don't have to worry about bringing in the wrong person, because the AP makes it clear that you're on a story railroad and the guilty are placed in front of you, while the innocents are always safe. You never face moral dilemmas more than any other AP. You never have to face decisions real cops have to face.
Not disagreeing with you, and as a fan of Paizo’s AP, Paizo is especially poorly placed to deal with these issues.

The best Paizo APs have raised some pretty interesting moral questions, with Evil NPCs that the players could work with (and occasionally redeem). In the past, Paizo has touted its horn as being more mature, realistic and gritty than D&D (which I would broadly agree with).

All those things work against Paizo when the AP mirrors current events a little too closely.
 

Retreater

Legend
I'm still running their first AP, "Age of Ashes." "Extinction Curse" did not appeal to me because of the circus theme - my games tend to get silly enough on their own. When Paizo released their statement about "Agents of Edgewatch," I sent it to a couple of my players and talked it over with my fiancée (who also plays in the game), and after some initial awkward chuckles about how inappropriate they felt it is to play this game in these times, they quickly shot down the idea.
I suppose after "Age of Ashes" we might go to "Aegis of Empires" which I just preordered. Granted, we are playing on Roll20, and having an official module release on there would save me a LOT of time (converting "Age of Ashes" to VTT has been a massive undertaking). But it's more important for me to deliver a good experience at the gaming table. And I do not think "Agents of Edgewatch" will do that.
Reading your assessment (which I greatly appreciate, BTW), I am disappointed in the Adventure Path. However, I'm not surprised. I would not ever want to run a "town watch" campaign, and I can't imagine a set up that would make the concept appealing to my gaming tastes.
 

dave2008

Legend
It is surprising that they don't have a discussion about the legal system in an adventure about cops and criminals. It also seems like a missed opportunity to add some new rules about social interaction or how to determine criminals or protect innocents from collateral damage.
 

dave2008

Legend
All those things work against Paizo when the AP mirrors current events a little too closely.
But from the sound of it, that is exactly what this adventure needs: "...Evil NPCs that the players could work with (and occasionally redeem). In the past, Paizo has touted its horn as being more mature, realistic and gritty..."

If that is what they are good at, they should have leaned into it here, IMO.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
However, I'm not surprised. I would not ever want to run a "town watch" campaign, and I can't imagine a set up that would make the concept appealing to my gaming tastes.
While I generally agree with this sentiment, I have seen enough good anime in this genre to think it could be done well and be interesting and exciting.
 

Retreater

Legend
While I generally agree with this sentiment, I have seen enough good anime in this genre to think it could be done well and be interesting and exciting.

Even though I do not watch anime, I believe you. I can enjoy watching buddy cop movies - they can be entertaining, funny, heartwarming, etc. But the premise of the "town watch" campaign in a TTRPG, just gives me pause for several reasons.
1) Player agency is reduced - they are given jobs, report to a superior officer.
2) You're likely stuck in one town, on one beat, on one shift. You don't get a variety of locations (or combatants), etc.
3) Add to that all the other issues mentioned (lethal force, stealing property from people)

As someone who has come into PF2 about 6 months ago, I really wish that Paizo would have delivered some more "meat and potatoes" Adventure Paths before something like this, which forces artificial constraints on players and is contrary to what most people would want in their fantasy role-playing game (for real, who fantasizes about being a cop and plays D&D/PF?)

Dragons, giants, evil wizards in crumbling towers, invading demons, gothic horror, pirates. These are the things they should be focusing on, since there's next to nothing in official PF2 adventure content (and even less from 3PP). They should forget everything they wrote for PF1 and reset this as if it were a new experience (which it is). So give us something like Runelords, give us something like Kingmaker (which is due out next year for 2E, but that should've been prioritized above this).

Instead we got an Adventure Path equivalent of Tyranny of Dragons in "Age of Ashes" ("sorry, but our writers were learning the system as we designed the campaign, and you're going to have to put in a lot of your own work") and "Extinction Curse" ("if you don't like the ridiculous premise of running a circus throughout your adventuring career, you're just out of luck.")

I am hoping that 3PPs (I guess, only Legendary Games at this point) can carry the weight of good adventure design for Pathfinder 2. This is a surprising thing to say about Paizo, who used to be considered some of the best writers out there for adventure content.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
But the premise of the "town watch" campaign in a TTRPG, just gives me pause for several reasons.
1) Player agency is reduced - they are given jobs, report to a superior officer.
2) You're likely stuck in one town, on one beat, on one shift. You don't get a variety of locations (or combatants), etc.
3) Add to that all the other issues mentioned (lethal force, stealing property from people)
Whatever you might think about issue #3, there is absolutely no reason to think #1 and #2 will be problems.

#1: This is an AP, not a sandbox. Player agency is never a concern, believe me.

#2: Absalom is the campaign setting's biggest city. I haven't seen 5/6th of this AP, but i have no doubt in my mind the variety will be there.
 

dave2008

Legend
Even though I do not watch anime, I believe you. I can enjoy watching buddy cop movies - they can be entertaining, funny, heartwarming, etc. But the premise of the "town watch" campaign in a TTRPG, just gives me pause for several reasons.
1) Player agency is reduced - they are given jobs, report to a superior officer.
2) You're likely stuck in one town, on one beat, on one shift. You don't get a variety of locations (or combatants), etc.
3) Add to that all the other issues mentioned (lethal force, stealing property from people)c
I don't think 1 & 2 are a concern for an AP, rr at least it shouldn't be if written properly. Regarding #3, that is exactly what I would want it to tackle in this AP. That is what I find the most interesting about the anime I was referencing. How do you handle the gray areas of crime and punishment. The ones that do it well are brilliant.

As someone who has come into PF2 about 6 months ago, I really wish that Paizo would have delivered some more "meat and potatoes"
i agree with that. It does seem they are going a bit out of their way to present these APs as different.
 

Remove ads

Top