Obergefell v. Hodges in Gaming Terms

Since this blog focuses on GLBT gaming issues, it's probably a good idea to note larger GLBT issues.  And today the big issue is the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.  I have mixed feelings about the ruling, so this is a really difficult post to write.  Obviously, as a homosexual I am incredibly pleased with the result.  Gay marriage is a huge win for the GLBT community and I couldn't be happier that we won.  But, from a legal perspective, I think that the case was wrongly decided.  Most people that want to talk about dissents in today's ruling will focus on the perennially snarky Justice Scalia.  And he did live up to his reputation, saying that the Justice in the majority "see what lesser legal minds--minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly--could not" and "The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."  But, more so than even the majority opinion, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts' dissent captures the correct constitutional analysis.

If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision.  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  but do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it.                                                                                                                                                       - Chief Justice John Roberts

A Bunch of Legal Gobbledeegook Probably Not Interesting to Non-Legal Types
Like Lawrence and Windsor, Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion in Obergefell.  And, like both of those decisions, Kennedy places a lot of emphasis on dignity as a driving factor.  14th Amendment challenges and decisions generally come in three types: due process, equal protection, and substantive due process.  Due process means that the laws cannot be arbitrary and that there is space to review them.  Basically, everyone gets their day in court.  Equal protection means that the laws have to be applied to everyone the same way.  Of course, most laws make distinctions between groups of people (prisoners cannot own guns, for example).  But the usual standard for making distinctions based on sexual orientation is rational basis meaning that as long as there was any rational basis for the law and it was not motivated solely to punish the class of people targeted, it stands.

Finally, there is substantive due process, which, despite what the opinion says claims, is the real meat of the holding.  Substantive due process is actually a really simple idea.  Many of our rights are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and those are easier to deal with.  But, there are some rights that aren't but are so fundamental to the ordered function of society that we cannot function as a society without them.  Marriage is one of those rights.  The right to send your children to the school of your choice is another.  To be eligible for substantive due process protection, the rights have to be fundamental, well-recognized, and essential to the functioning of a liberal society.  Ultimately, Justice Kennedy found that even as marriage is a protected fundamental right, the right to choose who you entered into a marriage with is also fundamental.

It seems like a good decision and the opinion reads really well.  But, substantive due process is one of the most hated legal doctrines out there.  And it is, as the Chief Justice rightly noted, rightfully reviled.  Today we generally think of those that hate judicial activism (generally code for using substantive due process) as being on the right.  But, the most reviled substantive due process case (and arguably the most reviled U.S. Supreme Court opinion) struck down a maximum hours law passed by the state of New York to protect bakery workers' health.  It was called Lochner v. New York and in legal circles it's as radioactive as The Dread Scot Case (black people can never be citizens of the U.S.) or Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal is okay).  Dread Scot and Plessy are reviled for their outcomes, Lochner is reviled for its methods AND its outcome.  In Lochner, the Supreme Court basically just said, "This law is dumb.  We don't like it and therefore it must not have a rational basis.  So, we'll overturn it."

When you pull off all of the gloss, that's basically what happened today in Obergefell.  Do we have a long-standing history of extending the right to marriage to same-sex couples?  No.  Is there a rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently than opposite sex couples in extending marital benefits?  Arguably yes, which means deference to the legislature is appropriate.  Now mind you, Justice Kennedy's result is fine.  I'm thrilled that I will be able to get married in any state I choose.  But, if we're going to make changes to the country's basic playbook based solely on the whims of Justice Kennedy, let's just cast him a crown and be done with it.  Chief Justice Roberts has the right of it.

U.S. Constitution = Rulebook
To explain why I find Roberts' position so compelling, let's use an analogy.  And, because this is a blog about gaming, that analogy will be to playing a roleplaying game.  For the vast sweep of American history, the U.S. Constitution has functioned not as law itself, but as meta-law.  Unlike most State constitutions, there's very little actual legislation in the U.S. Constitution.  Rather, it's full of rules about how we govern ourselves.  The Constitution is silent on what the appropriate level of welfare payments is or what city America should recognize as the capital of Israel.  But, it speaks very clearly about how the United States government should resolve those questions.  Appropriate welfare payment levels are determined through legislation, which requires the concurrence of both houses of Congress and either the President's signature or a congressional override of a presidential veto.  Because the Constitution vests foreign policy in the President's hands, the President gets to decide whether or not Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (at least in the eyes of the United States).

In gaming terms, the U.S. Constitution is like the an RPG rulebook.  The rulebook contains all of the mechanics necessary for resolving actions at the table.  It also contains rules that deal with optional situations.  For instance, the rulebook might give mechanics for dealing with avalanches.  The rulebook doesn't say that your adventure has to have an avalanche in it.  But, if you do have an avalanche, you adjudicate its effects using the system on page X.  Similarly, it has options for dealing with player choice--you don't have to take a particular feat, but if you do it must be implemented in a specific way.

Of course, one of the core ideas in RPGs is that if the rules don't work, the GM can (and should!) throw them out.  We don't do that with the U.S. Constitution, but this does bring up an interesting next step in the analogy...  Of course, sometimes the rules do need refining and we have legislators (or game designers, if you will) for that.  Additionally, if enough fans want to change something in the game, it likely gets changed, much like adopting a Constitutional amendment.

Supreme Court = GM
Then we get to everybody in the country: the PCs.  The PCs are going to interact with, well, everything.  And sometimes the rules are going to conflict.  Sometimes the subsystem that the designers adopted in Splat Book B are going to conflict with the ones adopted in Splat Book A.  Sometimes, portions of the core rules themselves will come into conflict.  For instance, we have a strong constitutional principle that the federal government has a paramount role in interstate commerce.  But, the 21st Amendment provides that, as part of relegalizing alcohol sales in the US, States have inordinate control over regulating alcohol within their borders.  What does that mean for direct shipments from wineries in one state to consumers in another state?  (This was a real case.)  It's not that different than resolving areas where the rules in an RPG conflict with each other.  The GM makes a decision.  The GM should be making that decision in concert with everyone else at the table that has a good understanding of the rules, but might not.

(I have some ideas here about expanding this analogy out with things like case law = house rules and that GMs = District courts and games' FAQ/errata processes = Supreme Court, but that would make this post way too long).

Legislative Process = Player Agency
And this is where things get interesting.  Sometimes GM rulings are good interpretations of the rules.  Sometimes they are just GM fiat.  Fiat is necessary to keep the game going sometimes, but it can destroy the fun and immersion that are inherent to enjoying a good RPG.  This is one reason that there are systems out there that have no GM.  The GM that is doing it right aids the game by keeping it moving.  The GM that's doing it wrong robs the players of their agency (in the game sense, not in the legal sense).  In many ways, that's what happened here.

The majority opinion interprets the rules of the game and makes a policy choice that should go to the players.  Is expanding marriage to same-couples a good idea?  (Yes)  Well, that's not what we have judges for.  We have judges to answer a different question: Do the rules of the game as set up require that marriage be expanded to same-sex couples?  This is the distinction between speeding the game along and destroying player agency.  The court was actually looking at two questions in Obergefell.  The first question was whether or not the 14th Amendment required all states to allow same-sex marriages.  The opinion answers this in the affirmative, so it's largely able to gloss over the second question.  That question was "Do states have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even if the recognizing state doesn't allow same-sex marriages itself?"  But, you say, requiring recognition means that effectively the states have to allow same-sex marriage.  And that's true.  But we functioned that way with straight marriage for many years and still do today--there's debate between states about how distantly related someone has to be from you in order to marry them and civilization hasn't crashed.  

But, there's a fine distinction between these two and it's important.  Saying that all states must allow same-sex marriages robs the people of their agency to make decisions through the democratic process.  Requiring recognition would probably have been workable.  But, not requiring recognition could have been solved as well--most likely with legislation and constitutional amendments to allow gay marriage in the states.  Chief Justice Roberts did get one thing right today when he said:

[H]owever heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause.

Or, in RPG terms, the ruling destroyed the players' agency.

Vigilante Class Walkthrough

Stephen Amell as Oliver Queen
Copyright the CW, licensed
for promotional use of the
show Arrow.

Paizo recently released a playtest for the new class from it's forthcoming release Ultimate Intrigue.  The vigilante class is designed to hold one personality by day and another, ass-kicking, personality by night (or vice versa, I guess).  Honestly, at first I wasn't particularly interested in this class.  At first glance, it seemed like an attempt to port superheroes into Pathfinder.  And that's fine for some people's games, it's just not my cup of tea.  I enjoy watching Arrow, I just can't picture Oliver Queen on Golarion.  Plus, I was hoping that Ultimate Intrigue would turn out to be a more skills and social encounter-heavy rulebook and the vigilante class did not seem to be a harbinger for that.  Despite my misgivings, I persevered and found something to love with the vigilante.

Vigilante Class Overview
Alignment restrictions: None
Hit Dice: d8
BAB: 3/4
Good saves: Reflex & Will
Poor saves: Fortitude
Skill ranks: 6 + Int bonus
Class Skills: Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Knowledge (local), Perception, Perform, Profession, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth + skills from his/her specialization
Proficiencies: Light and martial weapons; light armor, medium, armor, and shields

In general, we've got a good basis for a class here.  The playtest PDF is 14 pages long, though 2.5 of those are title page, short forward by Jason Buhlman, and the OGL text.  The class skill list is pretty good, especially considering that each vigilante's specialization will add a few extras along the way.  The one exception is the choice not to give Intimidate as a class skill.  Only the Avenger and the Zealot specializations add it as a class skill.  But, one of the vigilante's most useful abilities, renown, is keyed to it.  If you're going to key a general class ability to a skill, it ought to be a class skill.  On top of this, all but one of the vigilante's class powers are extraordinary abilities, meaning that magic will have few effects on the vigilante's ability to fully exercise his class skills at any time.

Also, for those into this sort of thing, the different vigilante specialization descriptions switch between male and female pronouns, which indicate that we could expect to see multiple iconics for the vigilante.  Or, maybe that's just an error since this is a playtest document.  It seems like much of the vigilante base class is really just a chassis which the specialization will fill in.  Even more than other chassis-style classes like the sorcerer, the vigilante really seems like a blank slate.  Or perhaps I should say blank slates--since a lot of the vigilante's powers are tied into whether he's in full-on vigilante mode or mild-mannered daytime social mode, it's almost like a study in multiple personality disorder from a fantasy RPG perspective.

Vigilante Class Powers
Dual Identity (Ex) (1st):  What good is a class with two identities if you can't keep them separate.  And the two identities are very different from each other.  Changing back and forth from one to another takes 5 minutes and must be done in secret.  And each identity really is separate.  If you attempt to scry on the vigilante's secret identity while he's doing his daytime thing, you get nothing.  Vice-versa for attempts to connect the day to the night.
Interestingly, each identity can have its own alignment, provided that both are within one step of each other.  This can be a challenge, because although you can take feats and class abilities based on one of the alignments, you can only use them when in the identity that qualifies for those abilities.  So, if you're a Zealot (divine caster inspired) vigilante with a nighttime lawful neutral identity that casts divine spells granted by LG Iomedae and a daytime true neutral identity, no divine spells for you during the day.  Some might see this as a challenge, others might see it as an interesting role-playing opportunity.

Social Grace (Ex) (1st, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th): You've got your dual identities, but don't want them getting connected.  A vigilante gets a +20 bonus to Disguise checks while in his social/daytime identity to appear merely as a member of polite society.  A word of caution: this does not work both ways.  There is NO corresponding ability not to have the nighttime identity linked back to the daytime identity, so be secretive and don't get caught taking the law into your own hands.
Also, at 2nd level and at every 4 levels thereafter, the vigilante picks a skill tied to a mental ability score.  The vigilante gets a +4 bonus on checks related to this skill when in his social/daytime identity only.

Vigilante Specialization (Ex) (1st): Each vigilante picks a specialization between avenger (warrior focused), stalker (roguish), warlock (arcane caster), and zealot (divine caster).  I'll cover those in more depth later.  But, one thing that I do like about this choice is that it opens up lots of space for more design.  There's space for new vigilante talents AND there's space for more specializations.  The specializations are more keyed to the nighttime/vigilante identity, but I'm digressing there.

Vigilante Talents (2nd): At 2nd level and every even level thereafter, a vigilante picks up talents related to his specialization.  To me this was something of a 50/50.  On the one hand, it's cool that the talents are tied into the specialization.  On the other, the vigilante has the opportunity to do a lot of interesting things with skills.  I'd have preferred that there be some universal vigilante talents that any vigilante can take.  I like this for two reasons.  First, it recognizes that there are some abilities that would be useful to any vigilante, regardless of specialization.  Second, universal talents go a long way to opening up future design space.  If Paizo or a 3rd party publisher wants to design a new vigilante specialization in the future, they are stuck designing everything in that specialization from the ground up.  With some universal talents, it'll be easier to fit a new vigilante specialization on a 1-2 page spread in a Player's Companion.

Renown (Ex) (3rd, 9th, 15th): The vigilante gains the power to go around town in his mild-mannered identity and talk up how scary his secret identity is.  At first this can only be done for a small area (village or neighborhood of up to 200 or so) but it grows over time.  The vigilante spends his time talking up his nighttime identity and word gets around: he gets a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks while in his nighttime identity.  At 9th level, the vigilante can influence a community up to 5,000 people large or two communities of up to 2,000 people.  The intimidate bonus increases to +6.  At 15th level, the population area increases to 25,000 (or two cities of up to 10K) and the Intimidate bonus increases to +8.
This is a cool ability, but it could be improved in a couple of ways.  First, Intimidate isn't a class skill for the vigilante.  The Avenger and Zealot specializations get it, but the Warlock and the Stalker don't.  This ability is too central to the vigilante's schtick not to be a class ability to everybody.  Secondly, the jumps are too big.  There are more gradiated settlement sizes and there's no reason not to expand this ability out to take advantage of all of them.

Startling Appearance (Ex) (5th): Okay, this is just awesome to conceptualize.  The vigilante is setting up an ambush and--wham!--the hammer of justice is falling on some malefectors.  If the vigilante makes an attack against a foe that's unaware of his presence, the foe is treated as flat-footed for the rest of the vigilante's turn.  But also, the foe takes a -4 penalty on attacks made against the vigilante until the start of the vigilante's next turn.  Basically, this gives the vigilante the opportunity to attack twice or to go up against some foes that might normally be able to hit him hard and take him out early.

Loyal Aid (Ex) (7th): What kind of a vigilante doesn't have a good support crew.  Now there are game mechanics to make this happen for you as vigilante.  Within the vigilante's area of renown, the vigilante gains a bonus on diplomacy checks to gather information equal to 1/2 his level.  So, that's starting off as a +3 and rising pretty quickly.  Once per week, the vigilante can also increase the DC of skill checks for others gathering information about him or trying to track him by his level.  So, if the vigilante controls when he'll be striking, he's going to be incredibly hard to follow back to his lair.  Similarly, if the vigilante knows someone will be looking for him, time to up that Diplomacy DC to figure out what the vigilante is up to!

Many Guises (Ex) (9th): Allows a third identity, John Q. 6-pack.  The vigilante appears as a generic person of his race; his alignment detects as neutral; and he ports over that +20 Disguise bonus to appear this way.  Assuming a decent Charisma score and a few ranks in Disguise, it's going to take about a 30+whatever the vigilante rolls on the d20 to figure out that he's not who he appears to be.  To whit, you ain't catching him.

Frightening Appearance (Ex) (11th): This stacks on top of Startling Appearance and improves it.  As a free action, the vigilante makes an Intimidate checks against his target and enemies within 10 feet to demoralize them.  Note that because of his Renown ability, the vigilante is getting a +6 bonus to that Intimidate check in addition to any skill ranks, class skill bonuses, ability score bonuses, and a d20 roll.  Chances are excellent that the demoralization will work and good that it'll extend its effects by beating the necessary DC by 5.

Quick Change (Ex) (13th): The vigilante can change identities as a full round action, but must make Disguise checks to stop those that know his other identity from making him.  On the other hand, using a whole minute means the change is made and nobody figures him out.

Stunning Appearance (Ex) (17th): It starts with appearance, so it must improve on the Startling and Frightening Appearance abilities, right?  You betcha!  And it stacks.  If the vigilante's appearance attack hits, the victim must make a Will save or be stunned until the end of the vigilante's next turn.

Everyman (Su) (19th): The vigilante can now appear to be specific random Joe Q. Six-Packs.  The vigilante gets the +20 Disguise bonus to be this rando person and a +10 bonus on Bluff checks to act like that person (remember bonuses if the vigilante knows the target of his impersonation).  The vigilante is even so good at this that spells and spell-like abilities designed to find that other individual find the vigilante in disguise instead 50% of the time.

Vengeance Strike (Ex) (20th): A vigilante can use up to 5 consecutive standard actions to study his target before striking from unawares.  For each round the vigilante spent in study, the vigilante gains the option to use following: +4 bonus on the attack roll, +3d6 precision damage, or treat the die roll as 2 higher for the purpose of threatening a critical hit.  (i.e., for each round in study the vigilante picks one and if the vigilante picks the same one twice, the effects stack.  Does that mean that 5 rounds of study can yield +15d6 damage?  Yes.  That's why this will likely be nerfed to +2d6 damage per round in study, but that's still pretty awesome).

Vigilante Specializations
Avenger
Class Skills: Climb, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Ride, Survival, Swim
Base Ability: Full Base Attack Bonus
Selected Talent Options:

• Armor Silence (Ex) & Armor Skin (Ex): Avengers that take these talents don't apply armor check penalties on Stealth (silence) or Acrobatics and Escape Artist (skin) skill checks when wearing light or medium armor.  Umm...is it me or is this an ability that rogues would love to have?  Why don't they get it?
• Close the Gap (Ex): Designate one foe within 20' not adjacent to the vigilante.  That foe doesn't get attacks of opportunity against the vigilante so long as the vigilante ends his turn adjacent to the foe.
• Environment Weapon (Ex): Choose a ranger favored terrain.  So long as there are moveable items around, can find an improvised weapon as a swift action and use it without penalties to attack rolls.
• Favored Maneuver (Ex): Gain Improved [insert combat maneuver here] AND gain another +2 bonus on foes that are unaware of the vigilante when the vigilante uses the maneuver on them.
• Fist of the Avenger (Ex): Gains Improved Unarmed Strike and does bonus damage of vigilante level divided by four.
• Living Shield (Ex): When grappling an opponent and being attacked by another opponent, make a combat maneuver check against your grappled opponent.  If you succeed, opponent takes damage from the other opponent's attack.
• Signature Weapon (Ex): Choose a type of weapon.  Gain Weapon Focus feat as a bonus feat.  At 8th level gain Weapon Specialization in that weapon.
• Vital Punishment (Ex): Gain Vital Strike as a bonus feat.  Once per round when making attack of opportunity, apply Vital Strike to the attack.

Stalker

Class Skills: Acrobatics, Appraise, Climb, Disable Device, Knowledge (engineering), Use Magic Device
Base Ability: Deal +1d6 extra damage against foes that are unaware of the vigilante's presence.  Increases by +1d6 every 2 levels.  Can also use it against foes that are aware of vigilante's presence when sneak attack would normally be in play, but the d6s are lowered to d4s.
Selected Talent Options:

• Another Day (Ex, Su): When dropped unconscious because of hit point damage, automatically stabilize but appear to be dead.
• Case the Joint (Ex): Spend one hour at a location while in social identity.  Make a DC Knowledge (engineering) check.  If you succeed, may reroll any one failed skill check related to that location (stealth, disable device, and sleight of hand are specifically called out).
• Foe Collision* (Ex): When dealing hidden strike damage (base ability above), deal an equal amount of nonlethal damage to a foe adjacent to the enemy (even if not adjacent to you).
• Leave an Opening* (Ex): At beginning of foe's next turn, if stalker vigilante threatens the foe stalker vigilante gets an attack of opportunity.
• Mighty Ambush* (Ex): Successful hidden strike allows vigilante to drop damaged enemy unconscious for 1d4 rounds.  (Fort negates)
• Perfect Fall (Ex): As long as there's at least a wall nearby, never suffer falling damage.  Even if no wall, suffer only half damage.  Always land on your feet.
• Perfect Vulnerability (Ex): Make one attack per day against a foe's touch AC (denying Dexterity bonus).
• Rooftop Infiltrator (Ex): Gain climb speed equal to half of normal speed.
• Strike the Unseen (Ex): Gain Blind-Fight as bonus feat and make hidden strike damage against foes who are totally concealed.
• Throat Jab* (Ex): Successful hidden strike on an opponent renders opponent unable to speak until vigilante's next turn.
• Twisting Fear (Ex): Whenever vigilante imposes the shaken, frightened, or panicked conditions on an opponent, opponent also suffers extra non-lethal damage equal to half the vigilante's normal hidden strike damage.  This applies with the normal ability to apply shaken condition to enemies by demoralize them?

Warlock
Class Skills: Fly, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (planes), Spellcraft, Use Magic Device
Base Ability: Ability to cast limited number of 1st level arcane spells.
Selected Talent Options:

• Arcane Training II-VI: Available at the levels at which a warlock vigilante would become eligible to use a new level of spells, the warlock vigilante must use talents to gain spells of the higher level.
• Arcane Striker (Su): Gain Arcane Strike as a bonus feat.  At 12th and 16th levels gain further effects normally tied to magic weapons that can be applied to the arcane strike.
• Bombs (Su): Gain bombs like an alchemist.  Don't add intelligence to bomb damage because "don't possess the alchemist's thrown anything class feature."  So, if you take the Throw Anything feat, do you start adding Int damage to bombs?
• Caster's Defense (Su): Gain Combat Casting as a bonus feat.  If successfully casts defensively, gain DR/magic equal to 1/2 vigilante level for one round.  At 10th level, the DR also gains an alignment component.
• Educated Defense (Su): If successfully identify a spell using Spellcraft, use immediate action to negate the spell.  Can negate up to as many spell levels per day as the character has vigilante levels.
• Elemental Battle Armor (Su): Gains resistance 5 to cold, electricity, or fire.  At 4th level, those attacking vigilante with natural weapon or non-reach handheld weapons take 1d6 points of that same energy every time they strike the vigilante.
• Mystic Bolt (Sp): Gets a ray-like melee touch attack of elemental energy.  Using it doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.  Can also be used as a ranged attack with a range increment of 30 feet.  Does 1d6+[vigilante's level] damage of energy damage.  Can take Weapon Focus for it, but must take Weapon Focus (mystic bolt) rather than Weapon Focus (ray).
• Social Simulacrum (Sp): Create simulacrum (as per lesser simulacrum) that lasts up to 4 hours.
• Tattoo Chamber (Su): Magically absorb some items via a tattoo.  Can retrieve the items with a swift action and can also trigger spell-like abilities of the items while stored as if the vigilante were wielding them.

Zealot

Class Skills: Intimidate, Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (religion), Knowledge (planes), Spellcraft, Survival
Base Ability: Limited spellcasting ability of 0th and 1st level spells off of the inquisitor spell list.
Selected Talent Options:

• Channel Energy (Su): Channel energy as a cleric of vigilante's level minus 4.
• Divine Bastion (Su): Swift action to gain CMD bonus equal to 1/2 vigilante level.  At 5th level can grant bonus to allies adjacent to vigilante as well.  Can use as many times per day as the character has vigilante levels.  Comment: I'd feel like this ability was more balanced if the character had to expend extra uses for each other character that receives the CMD bonus.
• Divine Training I-VI (Ex): First of all, this HAS to be a type.  This can't be an extraordinary ability, can it?  Anyway, gain ability to cast inquisitor level spells of higher levels as the vigilante achieves levels when those spells would normally be castable.
• Domain: Gain one cleric domain's powers, though not it's bonus spells or spell slots.
• Empower Symbol (Su): As standard action, empower holy symbol to act like center of consecration/desecration spell.  At 10th level, this just happens passively.
• Life Bond (Ex): When ally within 30 feet takes damage, vigilante can instead take half of that damage.  Useable once plus vigilante's Charisma bonus times per day.
• Revivifying Touch (Su): Once per day can use to heal an ally that died within one round.  Touch heals 5d8+[one point per vigilante level] and brings that person back from the dead if healing sufficient to bring back to life.
• Stalwart (Ex): If vigilante succeeds at a Fortitude or Will saving throw, the vigilante avoids all effects of whatever caused the saving throw.  Basically this is improved uncanny dodge for the other two types of saves...at the same time.

In general, I don't think I like this class very much.  First of all, it just doesn't feel particularly coherent.  Rather than discrete classes, these just seem like abilities that could be layered onto the fighter, cleric, wizard/sorcerer, and rogue class to let them be dual-identity heroes.  One on hand, it has a lot of abilities that I find to be a little bit overpowered.  On the other, they don't all fit together very well.  In general I find the class disorganized and lacking coherence--for players at least.  I find that this class is fantastic for villains!  Villains need some of these abilities to get past things like alignment detection and Sense Motive checks.  Not all villains of course, but certainly the main villain mastermind that orchestrating everything.  What fun is it if the villain can't overcome that.  So, I think that I might grant some bonus levels in vigilante to villains.

But for players, this just doesn't seem like a well-organized class.  I have high hopes for Ultimate Intrigue.  My plans for running an entire Kaer Maga campaign hinge on giving players the ability to do a lot more with skill checks.  (Okay, actually, they really just hinge on convincing the PCs that there will be ramifications if they kill humanoids or other civilized creatures, but I still have high hopes for Ultimate Intrigue).  What I'm seeing about this class doesn't fulfill those hopes.  I'm used to better class designs out of Paizo.

Blue Rose Kickstarter Launches

Green Ronin's Blue Rose Kickstarter has launched.  First launched in 2005, Blue Rose has always focused more on romantic fantasy and has always been GLBT-friendly--which has had some mixed reception.  The Kickstarted launched earlier this week.  Green Ronin will be using its Adventure Game Engine (AGE) system for mechanics.

I haven't made a decision about whether to back or not yet.  On the one hand, I want to back something inclusive.  On the other, I've got a lot of setting books and already have dropped significant funds on Kickstarters this year.  I will likely star this one and make a game-time decision with 48 hours left.  It's already funded, so I don't feel like I'm holding them back.  Anybody have thoughts on this thing?



In addition to the setting and mechanics themselves, there are some cool stretch goals.  Here are a few of my favorites:

• $22,500: Designer Crystal Frasier will detail the laeyvel, embodied souls beyond the more common expressions of male and female in Aldea.
• $27,500: Designer Jeb Boyt will write a series framework called A Game of Thorns and detail the Pirate Isles.  
• $33,000: Designer F. Wesley Schneider will write the Orchard of Tears micro setting.
• $50,000: The setting book goes hardcover.

Crystal Frasier and F. Wesley Schneider are two of my favorite Paizo staffers and have good perspective on making products GLBT-friendly, being GLBT themselves.  I don't know much about Jeb Boyt, but I love all things involving pirates.  And a hardcover is obvious why it's good!

Green Ronin is also promoting the return of Blue Rose with a T-shirt design contest.  Those want to help design artwork that demonstrates "Blue Rose RPG’s world & theme of diversity and inclusion" and invited to do so before July 18.  (Actually, the official rules say the contest runs from June 18-July 18 but that entries must be submitted before June 18, but this seems like a typo).  Winner gets a copy of their shirt and a free copy of the RPG book.  Second and third places get their choice of a free shirt (winner's design, not theirs) or the RPG book.

EDIT: I'm told that winner of the t-shirt design contest also gets a cash prize of $300!

One more GenCon GLBT Event

I've missed a GLBT event for the GenCon schedule.  Greg's, and Indy gay bar, is hosting a GenCon Appreciation BBQ & Gay Gaymer Meetup.  Unconfirmed rumors also say that a GenCon badge gets you in to Greg's cover-free on Friday evening.

When: Saturday, August 1, 6:00p.m.
Where: Greg's Indy, 231 E 16th St
Why: Because they love us and are giving us free things!

All the details (from Greg's):
During the RFRA debacle earlier this year, we were proud to see GEN CON take a stand supporting the GAY COMMUNITY.

As a way to say THANK YOU Gen Con - and encourage any GAYMERS and all our FRIENDS at GENCON to be united once more for FREE BURGERS, HOTDOGS, COLESLAW, COOKIES, VEGGIES, and CHIPS at our first annual GEN CON APPRECIATION BBQ & GAY GAYMER MEETUP.

As our door now states after the passage of RFRA: "WE PROUDLY SERVE EVERYONE" and welcome any, and all GAMERS visiting our fine city this weekend to come enjoy our grilled tastiness,affordable cocktails, and other people who have a flare for dressing up in costume when its not Halloween.

Food to be served from 6:00PM to 7:30PM, or until its gone. 

GREGS is located on 16th street (1.6 miles north of Monument Circle) and Alabama (3 blocks east of MERIDIAN). We encourage GAMERS to ride together and use UBER ($5 each way)

Invoking IP: What is it with the OGL?

All of the usual disclaimers about my being a law student rather than a lawyer apply.  If you're reading this post after I've passed the bar, I'm not YOUR lawyer, so it doesn't matter anyway.  Consider this an inquiry into a question rather than definitive legal advice.  If you want legal advice, call someone who can give it (including me--AFTER I've passed the bar), but don't roll into a courtroom claiming that the article below is in any way definitive--it's not.

I followed a post on Bat in the Attic back to an earlier post on Tenkar's Tavern where they were talking about gaming products.  Apparently, someone created a one page dungeon/adventure design contest, someone dropped a trademark they shouldn't have on it, and all hell broke loose.  I can't say that I 100% endorse either blogger's views, but here's a few portions of Tenkar's post that I do agree with:

• Mocking the OGL while displaying a compatibility logo isn't just poor taste - it's asinine.
• Compatibility logos and licenses. You get to use someone's trademark on your product. It's awesome until you fuck with it. Why are you fucking with it? Sure, this is the internet and we are all to some extent attention whores, but why piss on someone else's work that you are making a claim to appreciate?
• If you're not sure it's fair use, assume it isn't.

In response to this, Bat in the Attic decided to pen what's actually a pretty decent article about complying with the OGL.  The Bat hits the highlights of the distinction between the Open Gaming License and Creative Commons--to whit that one is an all or nothing proposition (not 100% true with the multiple CC versions available, but we'll let that slide) and the other allows for the protection of some content but not all content.

I continue to contend that the OGL and all its successors are a fantastic piece of legal chicanery.  This comes from two fairly well settled pieces of law.  First, it's well accepted that games and their rules are not subject to copyright.  It's also well settled that the "sweat of the brow" theory (I worked hard for this, so I must have a copyright) is a legal non-starter.  That means that if there is a true copyright for tabletop roleplaying games, it must come from a different source.  One theory could be that the "rules" to an RPG are somehow different from the rules of other games like Monopoly or Spades.  Another possibility would be that the game rule materials are so intrinsically tied in to trademarkable product identity and copyrightable elements in RPGs pre-cooked settings that the copyright must extend to them.  

A third possibility is that the rules of an RPG extend so far beyond what's historically considered rules for a "game," that they should somehow be afforded greater protection.  This theory cuts both ways.  One on hand, the protection would be created based upon the RPGs technical complexity.  But, that's not the province of copyright law.  That's the province of patent law, which requires that anything patented be "novel."  This means that while the RPG might have been eligible for a patent when Dungeons and Dragons was first conceptualized forty years ago, the fact that it was never patented means that the "invention" spilled into the public domain anyway.

I have a fourth possibility, built out of cynicism: RPGs are assumed to have a level of copyright (by the public) because there are big (okay moderately sized) game companies out there that have legal departments and outside counsel that are willing to file lawsuits to bury anyone that wants to contend otherwise.  Under this theory, RPGs as games still lack copyright protection but no one with the legal muscle to fight back has cared to.  (In case reps of any large game producers are reading this, I don't have any desire to do so either).

This is where the OGL and its successor agreements come in and why they are so genius.  The OGL bills itself as a license, but really it's a contract.  Contracts are just private laws.  When you contract with someone, you create private law between the two of them.  You make an agreement to do something (or, sometimes to refrain from doing something) in exchange with the other party's promise to do something.  Once a contract is accepted, it becomes binding, aka it is the law for everyone that's a party to the contract.  Questions about how that gets applied?  Take a look at the OGL:

3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.

Say someone offers me $100 to paint my house blue.  I take the $100 dollars.  At this point in time, I have a legal obligation to paint my house blue.  Or, maybe the contract is to pay me $100 to only paint my house with a particular brand of paint.  I'm now locked into using that type of paint.  Licensing agreements work the same way, only with copyright things get a little more interesting because there are large criminal and civil penalties prescribed in 17 U.S.C.  

That's what makes the OGL so fascinating.  It's a licensing agreement whereby the producer of the game says, "I'll let you make material related to my game, but you can only do so under a specific set of circumstances.  Oh, and by the way, you have to agree that previous "owners" of the game rules have a copyright (which would make challenging the copyright at a later date difficult, to say the least):

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

 Now, it matters a lot less whether or not the game manufacturers hold a valid copyright or not.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  But, you've sat down and agreed that you won't challenge their copyright as part of a contract.  Contracts allow people to waive their rights all the time and that's exactly what's happening here.

So, to bring it back to gaming terms, the copyright status of RPGs are a little bit like gods in the Forgotten Realms.  In and of themselves, they lack power.  But, once enough people believe in them (by producing 3rd party products or just buying into the idea of the license's power), they grow in power and can influence you.  And, once you've given them that power, you've given it to them and there's little you can do about it.

To whom does this apply?  Well, if you've purchased physical RPG books, you aren't bound.  Even if you've bought PDFs from websites, you're likely not bound.  Even if the website made tacit agreement to honor the terms of the OGL and/or successor licenses are part of its terms, it likely wouldn't hold up--that's not the kind of right you can waive in small print.  But, what if you are an adventurer developer in one of these OGL systems or a game designer that wants to model some mechanics?

You're in trouble if you've produced anything and put the OGL or successor agreements on the product.  Because that implies that you bought into the contract and accepted it--see Section 3 of the OGL above.  If you've done that--especially in a commercial product--a court is likely to assume that you either knew what you were doing or that you should have known what you were doing.

What's an aspiring adventure writer to do?  Well, my personal advice is to keep the behemoth off of your back by just signing the damn thing and agreeing to its terms.  Paizo themselves are proof that even with a monolithic opponent that you can keep to the OGL's terms and still make good money.  (They are also, coincidentally, excellent proof in the conspiracy part of my theory.  Even if WotC wanted to challenge Paizo at this point in time, Paizo's likely defense would be to challenge the OGL writ large and if it fell it could become non-binding on everyone that's signed it.  That's also bad business for Paizo at this point, so a lawsuit between the two is unlikely to happen.)  If you've never signed anything, you're probably good to go, but don't be surprised when one of the big guys' lawyers comes knocking once you've had a little bit of success.

All OGL material referenced from: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/; copyright to the text of the contract (WTF?) claimed by WotC.
Some caveats: This article examined the OGL and its successors from a copyright perspective.  While copyrights in games might be on shaky grounds, the inviolability of their trademarks stands on strong firmament.  So, if you decide to take a "no copyright in games" scorched earth approach, be very clear in differentiating what is a game's rules content and what is original, creative thought.

Breaking: Playtest for new Pathfinder Class the Vigilante

BREAKING:  No--I'm not Paizo and I'm not Pathfinder, but I do love them both!  Paizo's opened up the playtest for the class that will be coming out in its new Ultimate Intrigue in 2016.  Visit the site to check out the class.  I'll be doing the same and letting you know thoughts once I've had a chance to check it out.

Gayming in Greendale -- Community Campaigning

So, I play RPGs.  But, my roommate doesn't.  Once, when my college roommate was visiting, we got her to play a game of Fiasco.  She was fantastic, taking on the role of a Swedish research scientist at an Antarctic research station.  But, from time to time, she'll ask about something in an RPG even if she's not interested in playing.

Lately, we've watched a lot of Community together.  There are two fantastic episodes of Community (called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" and "Advanced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons") where the gang actually plays an RPG.  On the show they claim it's D&D, but it's a highly modified version more suitable to TV.  The theory behind it isn't changed, it's just that the DM does all of the rolling.  I can get behind the idea of having the players do all the rolling (thank you Monte Cook Games and the Cypher System!), but making the GM do it is just one more burden when your GM could be doing something to make the game more interesting.

But, I'm digressing.  This weekend, I hit on an idea to introduce my sweet roommate to the RPG world.  I built a fantasy world based on the tropes in Community.  This is not the world that Abed creates for his games in the show.  Rather, this is a game that utilizes the tropes from Community to build something totally new (or, as we'd say in the world of copyright, an unauthorized derivative work).

One of the most difficult parts about campaign settings is getting into them.  If it's homebrewed, the GM knows everything and the players have no frame of reference and that's a lot to learn.  Ditto for other campaign settings.  I love Paizo's Golarion setting and dutifully subscribe to the Campaign Setting line as well as devouring gazetteer articles in Adventure Paths.  Most people don't.  Golarion is a tough setting to get into.  Ditto the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, the 9th World, and any other setting you can think of.

Shadowrun might be able to overcome this problem since it's setting is based on the modern world.  Unfortunately, Shadowrun's gameplay is so totally opaque that I have no way to evaluate this statement.  In fact, I'm attending a two-hour GenCon session that's just about creating Shadowrun characters.  There's no adventure--just character creation.  Maybe.  Just maybe, after I get back I will have an idea about how Shadowrun is supposed to go down.

So, a campaign setting is probably best if it's accessible.  One way to do this is to create it from the ground up.  The GM doesn't know anything more about the setting than the players do because the GM hasn't invented anything yet.  Have a player that wants to be a cleric?  Okay, pick a couple of domains and tell me about the god(dess) you worship.  Is there a cobbler in town?  Hmm...okay, sure.  Her name is Shawna Tumbletights and she's an ancient gnome who's warding off the Bleaching by investigating all forms of footwear.  She'll provide you a discount on a pair of shoes created custom for your feet if she can investigate your strange bunion...

But, worlds built from the ground up fall easily to internal discontinuity.  What if you need the Vermin domain to be the sole province of the evil insect god and your player already picked it as part of her worship of the goddess of music, who happens to be incarnate as a giant cricket?  Well, you either have to take something away from the PC (never a good idea) or be SOL.

I won't dwell on the problems of playing in a setting familiar to just about everyone, like Middle Earth because we've all hung out with that one guy that can recite the entire Silmarillion.  So, back to Community.  This seems like a great compromise.  My roommate's already familiar with the show's tropes, so it's accessible to her.  There will be some changes, of course, but she should get the general concepts.  Greendale is a good place.  The Pala-Dean is a good guy.  The Greendale Seven are good guys.  Commander Chang is a bad guy.  Etc.  Etc.

I shared the one-page Google doc with her last night.  Thus far the only comment is that the Pala-Dean sounds a little bit like Paula Dean--which only goes to show you why accepting feedback is important.  Anyway, I thought it would be fun to share the one-pager with y'all as well.  Since my family is visiting this weekend, I'll plan on posting the stats for a few of the characters, including Dingleberry the Troll(kin) on Monday.

Harken close to hear the tale of Greendale...

Once upon a time, in the Aumverg region of the Idlemann River Basin, the bucolic Kingdom of Greendale flourished under the rule of King Greendale, the Human Being.  The king was advised by Baron Carl Bladt of Rusty Bucket Manor; Duke Richie Countee, an overweight alcoholic who believed he could read others’ minds; and Benjamin Chang, known today as the Betrayer.  After consultation with his council, King Greendale directed the Pala-dean, a holy warrior dedicated to love, education, and fabulous costumes; to enact his will.  The Pala-dean was assisted by great champions, known collectively as the Greendale Seven.

But all was not well in the kingdom.  Chang played to the fears of the little people within the kingdom; the dwarves, the halflings, and--especially--the gnomes.  In secret he recruited them to his cause.  Chang made common cause with a band of wizards that operated a bakery.  The wizards wanted to corner Greendale’s grain market.  The wizards carved secret passages beneath the city of Greendale.  When the time came to strike, his Changlorious Bastards attacked through these tunnels, known as the Subway.  

Chang coopted Baron Bladt and Duke Countee.  They sent the Pala-Dean to challenge the dread dragon, Draconis.  With the Pala-Dean distracted, there was no one to protect the king when Chang struck.  By the time the Pala-Dean realized Chang’s plan, the deed was done.  The Pala-Dean returned to Greendale, making haste to the castle.  Fighting through Chang’s midgets, the Pala-Dean entered the inner keep.  He exited an hour later, spurring his horse to the east.  None have seen him since.

The Greendale Seven attempted to free the king, but were repelled by Chang’s men.  Early on, Chang was successful in framing them for the coup.  By the time the truth came to light, the Greendale Seven were scattered and unable to form effective resistance.  Shirley the Cloying, ever an enemy to the wizard bakers, fled south to New Fluffytown.  Troy the Obtuse and Abed the Undiagnosable vanished.  Only Britta the Needlessy Defiant attempted to organize resistance, but none rallied to her cause.

Today Chang imposes arbitrary law and rules with an iron fist.  Chang keeps Baron Bladt and Duke Countee loyal by plying them with alcohol and women.  Anyone who speaks out against Chang is jailed as are any even suspected of defying Commander Chang’s authority.  Just last night, you were imprisoned.  Perhaps you were taken by surprise, perhaps the guards tricked you into coming in for questioning, perhaps they threatened your family.  Now you sit in a cell among other suspected traitors, awaiting what passes for justice in this Chang-blasted country.