Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Chaleb Sazomal

3.5 Loyalist's page

5,532 posts. 26 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important?

Have you read anything Paizo has printed since the start of the Pathfinder AP line? Seriously 90% or more of the NPCs in their material never mention sexual orientation. Why do they not qualify for your request?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation).

Seriously read their stuff. If you honestly feel that this is not in Paizo's material then you can't possibly have read it.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

Since when has anyone here said everything must represent their group? The answer here is never until you. You are the only one who seems to think that only your interest group should be represented.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting. It makes the setting an uncomfortable place for those that aren't on board or very interested in the rosy presentations of one side. The last time I saw this, it was actually a series of games by a very Christian dm (so I am not just saying trans political proponents are the only issue),
...

If 90% of paizo npcs don't mention sexual orientation, and paizo npcs are great with plenty of depth, why does the sexual orientation of new npcs need to be mentioned or focused upon when they are LGBT?

It doesn't.
It isn't really that important, as it is missing from (your approximate) 90% of paizo npcs.

Thank you for making that useful point in the way you did. :}

In regards to the "must" it comes from Jacobs "make sure" in this quote:

"GLBT characters exist in Golarion, so make sure they're included.

As long as Paizo continues to have GLBT employees, we'll continue to put GLBT characters into our products. In fact, even if the employee thing changes, we'll still put GLBT characters into our products. As long as I have anything to say about it at least."

Make sure they are included. Not put them in if you like, or think they fit, or if your group wants them. Make sure they are included. We are putting them in and will continue to do so, tow the line and make sure they are included. Sounds like Jacobs is saying they must be in. Funny stuff really, reminds me of the phrase the tyranny of the progressive. I know players that would not like the whole gamut of LGBT in game, and I respect their wishes not to be bothered with this. Jacobs clearly does not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important? With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation). With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting. It makes the setting an uncomfortable place for those that aren't on board or very interested in the rosy presentations of one side. The last time I saw this, it was actually a series of games by a very Christian dm (so I am not just saying trans political proponents are the only issue), and it was faith heavy, paladins very superheroes, and everyone else was a bit inferior to clerics or pallies.

The best games, are where you leave your politics and your identity at the door. Roleplaying isn't just about playing you or someone similar to you, or always making sure your political group is in a world far different to our own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Sweetman wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I am not saying all trans characters are like this, I am painting an example of why a trans character lamenting their wrongful sex and confused about their self and gender (and how it all just doesn't fit for them) does not fit into heroic fantasy.

Which shows you haven't even read the AP or the character in question. Anevia isn't confused and doesn't lament her wrongful sex. You are complaining for the sake of complaining.

Maybe go and read the AP?

I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

You will find out why shortly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Liking your stories (not just because they affirm my views), but you know Apocalypso, you could just kill him.

For the greater good, and the xp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is a different world! It doesn't have to copy ours, and for members of interest groups to push that it should copy ours is incredibly dull and boring if you are not in those groups, and not interested in their agendas. It comes across as self obsessed, as determined to force a place because of new political wins (that is great, nice, you don't have to change fantasy worlds to accord with the present).

"be portrayed as cisgendered, white and heterosexual, like normal people?"

I am not actually Anglo white, nor do I want every character in fantasy to be hetero. I think sex and gender identity are kind of unimportant in much of fantasy, and their emphasis takes away from other parts of the game, so as to fly the flag.

The problem with inclusion? (1) Retroactively including something new to the detriment of the enjoyment of those already within the hobby. This wasn't here before, or it was mostly hidden. Now it is becoming increasingly pushed.

The problem with inclusion? (2) Trans and others want representation, but much of the real world is not ported. As in, and something an American can appreciate, there are people of dark skin in Golarion, but Africa is not (Mwangi is not Africa, geographically or entirely culturally), Africans are not (Mwangi are close in part, but that is not the same thing or full representation), African Americans and their culture is certainly not ported over. Why? Because it doesn't fit. There is no Africa, there is no America.

Fantasy should be about escape, not copy pasting to appease.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

I find it more satisfying to put powergamers in situations they specifically optimised against, where the less-powerful but better balanced characters have a chance.

Facing an obnoxious Cha 5 orc slaughterbot? Nothing but social encounters and mysteries for you, my friend... and if you tick off the wrong noble, into the dungeon you go. Assuming the guards let you live that long.

Meanwhile, the 14-Str human fighter who kept his 12 Charisma because he likes to party at the tavern is laughing and joking with that same noble, who cheerily offers his financial support to help find the assassin. The orc can demonstrate his awesome crits on the stone walls.

So, you like building and changing your campaign for the specific purpose of giving the finger to your player?

That makes more work for you, and frustrates him. It's a lose/lose.

However, if this:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I ran it like this, a Sargava and Mwangi expanse game. I said there will be a lot of combat. A player said he will build a pure combat character. I said, be careful, you will have to talk to people as well, and it won't be just about combat.

Player built a pure combat character that was a social retard.
Player had problems with social encounters.
Player was unhappy about this.
Player tried to cheat to make his character even better at melee.
Player was found out.
Player was unhappy.

Being a bit more general would go a long way. So yeah, when I see charisma 5 characters I think, I hope you put some ranks in diplomacy at least, not everything is solved by the sword.

Is what happened, then yeah, that's not optimizing (I won't use Power Gaming because you guys use teh definition I sarcastically threw out on page 1 for it).

That's being a retard.

It's not optimal to be a combat monkey with no social skills in a game where social skills are explicitly stated to be important.

Not to say you can't build a pure combat beast who's still good at skills, but it'll be...

No dear sir.

If they want to powergame, I will give them a challenge.

If they don't want to powergame, I will give them a challenge.

If they powergame too much, they may be obliterated because they were desperate to play rocket tag.

He who would rocket tag must consider, the dungeon playing rocket tag with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Calybos gets it, and some really good examples there bro.

Rynjin I got what you were trying to imply, but you missed the point entirely, and assumed a dm can only use crude instruments to discourage and punish power gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

In Monte Python's The Life Of Brian there is a scene at the arena where Eric Idle's character insisted that he should 'have the right to be a woman' and 'have the right to have a baby'.

The incredulous responses are quite accurate portrayals of the responses of people nowadays, if those people haven't been educated somehow in these matters.

We can't deny the genuine incredulity of the 'average' person, but is that incredulous response right or wrong?

Discuss.

I think incredulity is valuable because it is an expression of doubt. As in, that seems off, I don't know much but I am incredulous. Please prove your case to convince me, and so on. Incredulity isn't prejudice, it is resistance to new info until it is proven.

A play
Further incredulity

A man says they are a woman, to incredibly incredulous Ian.
Ian: that doesn't seem right, you look to be a man.
Undesignated subject [error, sex not found, US will be used]: no I am a woman, I was born a woman, mentally.
Ian: but you are of the male sex yeah?
US: no.
Ian: you have male primary sexual characteristics yes? (Ian took biology, the swine!).
US: I do, but I will be getting that changed. It is a process.
Ian: a process... to match your mind to your body?
US: yes. I should be able to change in ways that fit my mind and identity.
Ian: of course, and the capitalist consumer economy is there to meet your demands by providing such services (Ian took Marxism, the pinko!).
US: so you understand a bit more, see this was educational? We aren't all bad.
Ian: partly educational, but hold the praise. I have a question. Aren't you worried about the end result of this body modification?
US: no, it is what I want, and it seems right.
Ian: seems, you could be pursuing a process that leaves you but a hollow simulacrum of female and woman. In-between, not full, a mask and an adopted role and appearance, but the transformation cannot yet be a full one (Ian took French Philosophy, the cad).
US: that is a disappointing view to hear. I just want to be happy, and I am ready to make the changes. It will put me at ease.
Ian expresses further incredulity but offers some support: I am not your enemy, and there is hope. Baudrillard says that although you are copying the real, you are attempting to form a truth, a new truth in your personification of your gender idea and identity, you are making the hyperreal!
US is suspicious: does he? He might be on to something.
Ian: yes, although a lot of people think he and other postmodern philosophers are crazy, and that they don't understand people, and certainly not the common man and woman. That they are far too embedded in the abstract and demolishment of norms.
US: yes, we face a lot of challenges, disgust and rejection.
Ian: good luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That stance can be taken, to attack and reject everyone that doesn't keep up (or feel comfortable) with the changes, but it reveals Hadesblade was not entirely wrong. To say accept or leave indicates that yes, it is very political, there is a reason and a cause behind the changes.

On that day, the progressive ceases to be inclusive and it becomes about pushing the agenda of an interest group over the wishes of others in the game. Here are the new gay characters, accept it, that is how things are now (officially anyway).

Are they (the interest group and their supporters) the good guys? Are they the bad guys? That isn't a question I much care about. I don't like it when the hobby has political causes dragged into it, and LGBT is big news in America at the moment. All the rage as it were. So in that sense I agree with Hades and he has identified political intrusion into our game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a simplification. Not everyone went the power gaming route, or stuck on it for that long, at least as I experienced it. Some got tired of magic marts and easy wins. There were all manner of settings too, some of which pushed PG, some which did not (Ravenloft, Dark Sun, adventures set in the middle of nowhere with low resources and high danger).

Basic classes, avoiding op feats and dodgy prestige classes was a far cry from powergaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Cheating"... If you cheat to get more damage, you have chosen your path.

A charisma of 5, your character must get into a lot of fights. Good thing he has all that damage.

So have you heard of mix maxing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well if you have 20 str at level 2, what are the rest of your abilities like? If you are in love with the damage, and being a damage-dealer, where is the rest of the character?

Less power gaming is good all round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sleep flat out doesn't work on a lot of things. Hardly op.

I repeat, a lot of players, young players especially rush in this direction of massive mods, I wonder why they are so desperate to win so easily.

Keep calm man, avoid the insults at a different player and dm. You don't see the power gaming, clearly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, sleep is not powergaming and you know it. Don't try to pretend the stat juggernauts aren't real.

Crits are rare and allow quick ganking or quick player killing, they always have, but they are also (x3 to x4 especially) not a sure thing. Consistently doing crit damage (and above what the party can crit for) is powergaming. Hence my stance on 26+ at level 2. Nothing can take it, soak it, unless the dm starts to go up and up the CR table, or ganks the player before they can get it off.

There must be balance. As a dm that includes having the players be balanced for what they might face, and not OP compared to the monsters and the other non power gaming players. I know I know, this is against the power gaming logic pushed so hard through computer games and DPs builds, but it is important to remember we aren't playing a computer game here. Tipping it a bit back to defence over offence is a good idea for survival and making every battle a damage rush is limiting (after you chase that for a few characters, you can ask what else have you done?). I love tripping btw, and weapon locking, grappling/grabbing. Take it a moment away from the damage, and make it about who is actually controlling the fight and not just exploding an enemy in a hail of look at modifiers or that pile of dice. A lot of players rush in this direction though, I wonder why they are so desperate to win so easily.

26+ at level 2 for every hit, is a bit excessive. Everybody be cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I am putting together a new setting, and the asswere tribes control a chunk of territory. I always liked their confusion attack. Fantasy needs less orcs and more assweres, and flail snails, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How did it go down?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but it is my concern that the game has lost its way if traps are breezed through, poorly used, not a challenge and the damage easily healed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I am dming and new players poke around and social anxiety threatens, I just smile, play the extrovert for a bit (a total bluff), and throw myself back into the game.

Because fear is the mind and mood killer. :)
If we worry about what other people think and their judgements, the whole game session can collapse. I've seen it happen and heard the stories. Laugh and be merry, for tomorrow we raid a dangerous dungeon and die.

I have turned away a couple of prospective players though, because I just couldn't be bothered slowing the game down and doing the whole intro to the hobby thing. Not my most esteemed moments, but the game must go on. I see it that as much as social anxiety can threaten when dealing with tourists, be friendly but be sure to put doubt from your mind, and just get back to the game. We only have so much time to p*** about, and the other players are also here to roll some dice!

Many crits to you Cal. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, very boring. Until you walk into the trap that the rogue didn't solve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cylyria wrote:

Surprised no one mentioned it, but 1st Ed. Bards were the most OP things around.

If you saw someone with psionics you knew they were cheating.

Assassin was a base class and 1/2 orcs were invariably assassins.

Weapon damage vs armor type. And don't forget weapon speed!

Subdual damage and dragons

There was generally no such thing as a single classed elf or 1/2 elf

Halflings were invariably rogues

The combat matrix in the DMG. Before Thaco there was math

Illusionist was a base class and totally different from wizards.

Totally legit random encounters of 40-400 orcs.

5 different types of saving throws

I think the one of the biggest differences between 1stEd and PF is magic items. There was no such thing as the big 6 that everyone had. You had what you found and you treasured it. I have a player that I have gamed with for 20 years now who still talks about his beloved Cloak of the Manta Ray. Nowadays no one would be caught dead in one. This saddens me.

I loved that manta ray cloak, but the bat could be more useful (and help you get eaten faster by giant spiders in caverns).

After running magic on the PF model, I've switched how I handle magic back to the way old dnd did it, and never looked back. The big six, claiming it is necessary or you die, it is a total lie. Resourceful adventurers find a way and they use the fun magic items, not just the stat boosting magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The opposite of the step up, might be the step slip. You try to step up, but fall down a hole/pit/magical portal. Some sort of crazed knack for slipping to safety when you would have got killed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Solution.

He goes off alone.

He finds the allosaurus.

Except it is way above his pay grade, not friendly, and it eats him.

GG! Now what are you playing next?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loup Blanc wrote:
29. When attempting to overthrow the Tsar, it's useful to have an inside "man" who can survive being stabbed, poisoned, shot, beaten, and thrown in an ice-cold river. Took burning to do that one in. Best investment of onyx ever made.

Wait, the zombie wasn't meant to do that to the royalty!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lol, not a fan of furry. Ha ha.

When I've run a lot of underground settings, I've brought the minotaurs in more. I play them somewhat of an orc/klingon type like people, large, dangerous, cunning to fight underground, not absolute fools (int can be close to 10, wisdom can be above 10). In my last game, they had spewed out on to the surface, and set themselves up as chieftains and warbands above ground. The humans were not happy, but the minotaurs were in an alliance with other monster peoples. Yes, it was a great awakening of demihumans.

There is a lot that can be done with them, but given how nasty they are, their presence may discourage low level adventurers, since they are so gnarly. My players in a sandbox did not choose to take the minotaur missions. They didn't want to fight minotaurs in the badlands.

I even threw in their standard of measurement into a game, the Gershetek. Which is a point of average distance the standard minotaur can reach moving at a good pace (no much can stop determined minotaur packs underground). It was about two hours of travel. The players took to using it actually. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

601b. And before we knew it, we had been dragged into a revolutionary cause against the corrupt authorities. The bounty on our heads was so high, none of us had ever even seen that much gold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:

170. Murderising another bunch of adventurers.

171. Kidnapping the PC's relatives.
172. Committing suicide.

172, the following scrying.

Turns out it was a clone, and the villain seems to have developed the power to make even high will people kill themselves. Weirdly, he tried this first on a clone.

The villain smiles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ha! I like that one Ruski.

"My char has these abilities!
And these magic items!
And look at those ability scores, I rolled them all legitimately!"

"Yes, but who is your character?" said the annoyed dm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The old grizzled mercenaries sat around the tables quietly drinking what passed for ale in these parts.

That was until a rookie brought up the Foreskin war.

All shuddered except one enraged veteran, who took the rookie outside and beat him unconscious with a bucket.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Beholders are not in PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The deserving and committed should be a higher level.

The most adventurous and accomplished should be the better adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

And that difference is my point. Some players feel punished when the dice kill their character. Some players feel punished because the enemy they are facing is able to exploit weaknesses they have.

Because you feel punished doesn't mean the GM is out to get you. Because if the GM is out to get you, they can do it at any time unless you walk away from the table. But because on a given night you personally didn't have the most fun possible, or something bad happened, doesn't mean it wasn't a good session.

By some people's logic, Game of Thrones readers are constantly "punished" and yet they love the books and the show.

Your GM is selling a product. The game they are running. Every session you are either buying that product by showing up, or you aren't by not showing up.

If the GM doesn't treat the customer right, he'll lose customers. It really is that simple. That is the motivation for the GM not to be a jerk to players, lest they have no players left. A good GM will generally find themselves with too many players and not enough time.

On the other hand, if you have been kicked out of all the good GM "stores" because the GM would rather have someone else (or worse an empty seat) than you in that chair, you may find yourself having to get your fix in some shady tables in the gaming world.

It is a market economy.

Yeah, I agree with your post. Some people are really attached to their build and the character's capabilities, so when they get countered or killed they fume. This attitude is behind all the threads on how great spellcasters are. Yes, they are good, unless your weakness is exploited. Which of course many spellcaster players will insist never can happen and never has happened.

When it does though, some players hurt bad, rage, insist they are being punished.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the dm sets the setting and what can be played.

You hate gunslingers too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anime isn't a bad inspiration for dnd characters, e.g. full metal alchemist, berserk or basilisk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep. I remember a discussion I was having with one such bad dm, and he was s#*$ty about the view of poster 1 on this forum. The idea dms aren't gods and should chill out and be civil was spreading, and this guy was resisting.

A lot of his games dried up, and I could see where things were going, and I had already been a dick dm for a few years, so I consciously made the change.

It also lowers in game dming stress, to not be so fixated on your wants. Paladin dm exists to serve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Imagine someone took away the pad you were writing on. You would be angry right Vic? Would you continue what you were writing on another pad? Would you be angry about your writing pad being taken?

Now imagine someone said "Here, use my pad. Just please dont draw rude pictures all over it, okay?" and you then proceeded to draw rude pictures on it. When they repeatedly take it away, give you a clean pad and say "Please stop doing that." do you see how it might be considered jerkish to continually take their pad and ignore their wishes as to what they are giving it to you for?

What you call 'evidence' for overzealous or unnecessary thread locking is always just evidence of a thread being locked. It doesnt speak to whether the locking was necessary or heavy handed. How could it? The putative level of acceptable moderation (which you continually portray as objective fact) is merely your opinion - I know that because I generally disagree with you on pretty much every case. That doesnt mean you're right and it doesnt mean I am - it is a subjective question, not a matter of fact.

By definition, what paizo declare to be acceptable level of moderation is an acceptable level of moderation. Hostile posting results in thread locking and/or post deletion. Them's the rules - you're using their pad, it's not yours. You can say "please change the rules" but you can't keep saying "those arent the rules" without looking both stubborn and silly.

Well that analogy would work, if I was drawing rude pictures.

Instead I'm bringing up the problems with all this locking, where it is wrong and unnecessary, and that they have denied there are problems and tried to lock all threads discussing them.

You really go to bat for them here, insisting they can only define what is right, but I'm contesting that. And what do you know, turns out what is acceptable, right and warranted can be argued. Now what you are doing is technically an appeal to authority. It is common, easy to do, don't worry about that for now. The flaw is that by saying the rule makers are right, you are side-stepping whether what they are doing is right ethically and where they have broken their own rules, or enforced their rules without real reason. As in, locking an off topic thread when it is already back on topic, locking a thread for hate-filled posts when the hate-filled posts have already been deleted, and the discussion has continued on with merit.

I hope that helps communicating my position.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zexcir wrote:
I have been GMing for about 12 years now and my wife hates it. I am at the point that I don't know what to do. She used to tolerate it and now more and more she mocks me about it or will have an argument about it. Our group gets together for aboit 6-8 hours every 2-3 weeks. A good portion of the game we are just socializing and chit chatting, but my wife just thinks we are acting like kids who don't want to grow up. I am 27 and we have one kid. Does anyone have any advise on what I could do? I feel like we argue about something that I have done for a long time and love doing.

There is jealousy, a control issue here, she is trying to end this old part of your self.

Stand your ground, don't let gaming die on her account (you will regret it), but spend plenty of time with her and show affection etc.

Three hours a week on average is not much. There isn't much grounds for her to say, stop that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Latest one, a nice long discussion, some brilliant points on the editions and how gaming has changed (and the divide/mixing with mmos) by people like Vincent Takeda, Adamantine Dragon, Fabius Maximus, then it gets closed because of a few hostile posters.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pwl3&page=4?MMOs-are-evil#161

What the hell mods? Stop killing the good threads on gaming, in gamer talk!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The words of Bruce Lee are very relevant:

"Be the water my friend."

Because stone breaks and railroads rust and buckle, water moves and adjusts, it is whatever it needs to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Running a game is about getting players and keeping them with fun and entertainment. Punishing two players for acting out their characters (which could logically hate Drow from the setting) is a good way to get them both to leave (Dave, can you believe how much of a dick that dm was? Yeah John, they totally cramped our style, everyone knows you kill Drow. For the xp, I know brah).
I bolded the first part because the second contradicts it. The 'kill the other PC first thing' players seem like the type who get their enjoyment by preventing others from having fun, and are exactly the type of people I want nowhere near my game table. I've aged to the point where I realize I'd rather have no game than one that isn't fun.

Yeah, it is a problem. One player has a character that sends two players into pvp mode, kill the drow before it betrays us as they are all shifty (not you Shifty).

You can side with one, or you can side with two, or you can be neutral. Kick two and you have gutted your group. The drow never should have been approved in the first place. Especially not to join the guild of elf slayers. If two players have a problem with a drow character, that is a problem (of course you can punish/take sheets, but that is just a new problem).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Oh cool.

Player 1 "Oh hi guys, I want to roll a drow"
Players 2 & 3 "Hey sure, go ahead, drow are cool, we got no beef".

***later

Player 1 "I walk into the bar, and sit on a stool looking about to see what is going on"

Player 2 "I move to the bar"
Player 3 "Me too, to right there"

Player 1 "Well met fellow travellers!"

Player 2 Sneak attack, shes flanked and flat footed.
Player 3 Yeah I will attack as well, hopefully she is dead before the next round.

Player 1 "Guys WTF?"

Players 2 & 3 "You're a Drow, just walked into our Elven village and sat down in the tavern, our characters HATE drow". Players shake their heads.

Since my group uses a no PvP rule, players 2 & 3 now hand over their character sheets as evil NPCs and start new characters at one level lower. Meanwhile Player 1 and the town guard fight off the characters 2 & 3. Why the town guard? Because they obviously allowed the drow into town so the drow is to be treated as a friendly during her visit. Attacking her on site in a tavern will bring the wrath of the entire elven town upon these evil surface elves who dare draw steel in a peaceful tavern.

Killing fun for the two, siding with one over the two rping their characters, punishing attacks on drow and making a whole city obedient to how you think it would go, one mind, one purpose against the pc drow slayers. Pretty poor dming there. Very desperate to bring them to heel. That never goes well.

I like how the elves suddenly became defenders of the drow. Hilarious. Did you read second darkness?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a spellcaster sits in a cell and casts good descriptor spells all day, do they become a saint?

Is this illegal according to most churches?

Is it a form of alignment masturbation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kmal2t wrote:
hexagonal grids become an obvious problem when trying to have neat spaces. When you're trying to draw the walls of a dungeon and the hexagons are all split its likely to cause confusion. This would be my guess.

Mmmm, reminds me of a few times I've been dming and I've said, the world is not nice neat boxes. It is roughly this much, this distance, this space. It doesn't cleanly correspond to squares (maybe it is a triangle room, gasp!).

I don't use grids, distance counts to me. Sometimes squares would fit, sometimes hexs, sometimes circles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

I actually enjoy some in-character racial tension from my players when one chooses to be an unliked race. It makes for an interesting story. The only time I would have a problem is when the player chooses such a race and doesn't like the result of that choice. Everyone needs to be on the same table about this.

Which is why I think players should discuss this ahead of time. If you're going to play a commonly despised character race, check with the other players and see if they're willing to play in a way that won't ruin the game for you. If you're going to play a character who hates another race, however justified that might be in game, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't ruin the game for other players.

Very good advice. The two humans against one drow could have been avoided:

"I want to play a drow."
"Well we don't like them, no one really likes them, our characters wouldn't like them because they are from Blarigh, which the Drow attacked. That won't make a smooth game."
"I want to play a small otyugh!"

And thus the adventures of the two heroes and one roving garbage can, began.

1 to 50 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.