3.5 Loyalist's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could keep it old school. Forests and hills are tremendously dangerous, but settled lands are mostly fine and safe.

As a dm, I like to work out the monsters of my region, and make it all make a form of sense. So it is less random, but they may rock up at the worst time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah but Evard's field of black tentacles are below. Don't do it man. You have so much to live for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Classes are a slippery slope. Either you have a core handful of classes (Martial, Magic, Expert) and you let people multi-class, building a myriad of character archetypes from there.

Or you have a class for every broad archetype you can imagine. This of course makes all martial classes redundant after the fighter, because he is a truly blank slate, but the rogue is not the quintessential expert and the wizard and cleric are not quintessential magic-users.

So without a generic class called Expert that gets a d6 or d8 and lots of skill points and feats to do what bards, inquisitors, etc. do, or a Magic-user with one spell list that you get to pick from to define your caster type and role, you are compelled to have lots of classes, because fantasy archetypes abound.

Gygax and Arneson didn't start with the elemental 4 types of fantasy characters, they just picked 4 to suit the kinds of games THEY liked to play and a mold was set. Why are healers also kind of knights? Why are all experts criminals? Why are wizards so damned aggresive with their magic? The original build is flawed, though the concept of 3 core types of character is an excellent basis for game design, which is why it's still the most dominant force in RPGs.

Some mechanics may be broken, some may be fine tuned, but adding more classes to a game with 11 already isn't really that outlandish.

As for the pros and cons of the new classes, I'm pretty bullish:

** spoiler omitted **...

Frankish ninjas!

Frank guardsman is walking along, stares down at his hand, feels the ki power. Shouts "Je suis un ninja!"

Leaps over a wall and starts hunting English.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.

There is real merit in trying the basics, or a simple system, again. Evade the crunch, the arguments, the optimisation and the powergaming and actually get some gaming done.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, facing outside of combat, but not during combat.

Now I am imagining opponents twirling like fans. Iiiiiiiiiiiiii haaaaaaaaaaave nooooooooooooo faciiiiiiiiiiiing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I see them as scouts, but also light spellcaster rushers. They can soak spells (mmm those saves, mmm evasion). Heavy buffed clerics take them out though, so they are more anti-wiz and anti-sorcerer, which you will never get players of these classes to ever acknowledge. The monk is crap, it is known, they say.

Rushing a wiz, taking the spell, charge with stunning fist. Then flurrying them to death, aaaaah, it is one of the great joys of this game, and 3.0-3.5.

If a heavy fighter comes to bash your teeth in, lure them away. Do not engage a greatsword fighter in close; and be very wary of barbarians because they are a counter to the monk.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yaris can have a lot of cutting steel.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, well you could make a feat or trait:
--
Actually know how to use spears
Prerequisites 3 int and 10 dex.

You may use a spear as a double weapon, doing d8 pierce/d6 bludgeoning. You may use a standard two-handed spear one-handed, in accordance with historical accuracy.
--
To Zhayne, spears vary greatly, and they are not always light or thin. I was checking out some Malay spears in the Asian civilisations museum in Singapore, they had really large heads suitable for cutting or thrusting, with quite thick and lengthy shafts. The same applies to pikes, you might think they are thin, and then you hold one. They have to take the force of a charging horse and a lot of hits on any battlefield.

The Koreans are another people that were all over spears, here are some types:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_spears

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bard clerics can be dangerous foes if they get all those buffs going.

Orcish bardarians (bard + barb) are not to be underestimated as they sing the song of total war, rage and charge, lol.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bollywood fantasy battles, lol, just spotted that. Ha ha.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Often the bard is not the military commander type, and that is the crux of Hugo's grievance. They could be 3.5 marshals, but they are not by default or typically.

So on they sing and play, and powerful verisimilitude shattering effects come from that. I know I know, sometimes it isn't the dragons or orcs and chests that seem off.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All the threads like these popping up recently makes me feel like I'm the only one who still plays games where the monsters are evil and the good guys (PCs) kill them heroically.

Then I remember that Paizo still puts out a line of excellent APs and modules with no shortage of evil monsters to slay and stuff to take, and I feel better.

Anyway.

What, exactly, is so evil about killing Drow?

Is it killing evil monsters using trickery or deceit?
Were the Rouges in your campaigns dissapointed to learn that using bluff or Sneak Attacking are evil?

Is it killing helpless Monsters? Is Coup-de-Gras also evil?

Is poison evil? I thought we had evolved beyond that. Are swords evil? They kill things too, quite painfully.

Is killing evil monsters painfully evil? Swords hurt, Bleed hurts, Fireballs hurt. Are they evil? Subdual damage hurts, but doesn't kill. Is it evil?

Is killing evil monsters evil, period? Are all the Paladins in your campaigns non-violent pacifists?

Are all the Good-alligned characters pacifists? Do most adventures consist of non-violently arresting the evil monsters and taking them to trial?

Is allowing evil monsters to hurt and kill innocents because of your own inaction evil?

You aren't the only one quantum Steve; but these "don't kill evil types that would make you evil" are very loud on boards. I don't understand their perspective, but I hear it a lot.

Heroes oppose the forces of darkness, and axeing an evil orc/ogre/drow opponent a question of alignment is not an evil act. Tee hee. Now murdering vulnerable weak evil actors like drow slaves that come into your power but are not your enemies is an abuse of power so it does start to get more complicated. These are not wonderful rosy do-gooders, but they could be put on a better path. I am reminded of being attacked by desperate escaped slaves trying to take my stuff in a game last night, and that is what could happen, but does not have to happen (but it is easily prevented with some gifts, rp and checks to settle them).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

jetblaksuit wrote:

I'm always hesitant to play a fighter, because even in Pathfinder I find that I don't have any abilities that allow me to perform out of combat. Anyone have any solutions to shore up a fighter's usefulness out of combat? Any feats that might allow some utility?

You can role-play, interact with the environment around your character just like anyone else.

Fighters have interests just like anyone else, they may be more martial in subject matter, but they still have interests. So you can go shopping for a new sword, you can go to a pub or bar, you can try to get hired on as a mercenary or guard somewhere between adventures while your party mage is stuck in a tower researching how to create a new spell. You are ONLY limited by YOUR own imagination on what you can do with any character class. Just because you have few actual skill points, doesn't mean that you are useless, think outside the box my friend.

There are also wondrous opportunities inside a city, that involve combat in the short term but mainly are about increasing your renown, spreading funds, making friends and developing your character.

Two come to mind, old classics:

1) Compete in a tournament. Even if it isn't exactly your thing, give it a go, your bab, ac and hp may set you straight. Make coin, meet other fighters, perhaps get adoration. This must heavily involve gambling. As Quark said, the bigger the risk, the bigger the win!

2) Night raid on the thieves guild or look to get yourself mugged. The former requires a bit of research, but it can be hilarious fun for the fighter all plated-up and ready to go to kick the door in to a pickpocket's den or local rogue toughs safe house with archer/mage support.

http://letusnerd.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/surprisemuthaf~&&a.jpg

Bonus points you bring a party hat, tinsel, poisoned weapons and drink your delay poison potion before entering. The poison, it does nothing!

Now this involves combat sure, but it isn't just that. Once you get your earnings lavish it upon the people, be the nicest guy around, donate it to good faiths and public works, hire bards to spread your reputation.

Be the coolest fighter around in and out of combat. The RP combat circle.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Neo2151 wrote:

If said fighter doesn't get a hefty situational bonus to intimidate (if not an outright success, whether the character wanted to or not) from the GM, then that's the GM's fault, not the game's lack of anything.

(Although you're not wrong. The game can't cover everything, and doesn't really try to - As you point out, there is no "reputation" value either.)

"Before you force me to kill you, I'd like to show you something." *whips sword out, neatly cleaving the signpost almost outside of his peripheral vision in two* "Take a look...that's neck level."

"You sure about this, now?"

If that isn't worth +10, what is?

Good lines, one I've seen in samurai comics was putting a grain of rice between two knuckles, and cutting the rice in two without harming the holder. Maybe need an attack of 20, but could be a very cool demonstration.

"Before you force me to kill you..." ha ha ha, using that in game.

Our group had one, as the foes charge and shoot, raise shield and say "We do take prisoners." The delivery must be reasonable and happy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good! Reminds me of pf art mixed with dragon age.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

But through real mastery and expertise (which is easy in PF) we can see the demonstration of intelligence, learning and reasoning. If you've got the skills for the job or task at hand, and you go through it smooth demonstrating real ability, you are not stupid/dumb/daft/retarded/slow or idiotic.

The low int bard is not dumb, at least not judging by skills, body of knowledge or recall (skill + bardic knowledge) or speed of reaction (initiative). He isn't in a stupor unless he fails some sort of will save.

The low int fighter with some levels really knows combat, the ins and the outs, the parries and the thrusts, how to kill people, monsters, how to take a dungeon and what you will need. He can be quite good at a few professions (broadening him as a human being and allowing him to do more than just fight and drink potions), or he is into some knowledges like dungeons and engineering. Allowing him to make checks regarding encounters, what is likely ahead in a dungeon, common dungeon monsters, ooze and aberration knowledge, as well as details on defences and fortifications via engineering.

His low int does not slow him down here, he can still make the checks as fast as anyone else. This doesn't strike me as a really dumb character.

Official low int fighter spokesperson, out.

7 isn't as dumb as a rock. They can be skilled...just not quickly...when you compare them with a smart person...or average, for that matter. They prove to still be the same 7 Int every time it's an Int skill they don't have.

What do you mean quickly? They level and rank up just like every other character. There is no special delay that you can't put your earned ranks in your skill because you have a 7 int. Knowledge int skills are trained only, int doesn't matter if you don't have the ranks. Also, if a knowledge skill is a taken class skill with ranks thrown in, they will never be on -2 at 7 int because of the class skill bonus (3.0 was far less forgiving).

Don't forget the unpredictable nature of the d20 as well. Where a roll of 15+4 is better than a roll of 7+10. I have been at times shocked how badly all the knowledge wizards can roll.

Behind a little bit on some numbers doesn't mean dumb or without a capacity for intelligence and problem-solving (especially in the example of the low int bard, or rogue or a fighter in a dungeon).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now I want to play a character with an interesting backstory in which his family hoped he would go into wizardry, but it turns out he has an int between 3 and 8.

Give him spellcraft for giggles.
"Oh I've heard of this spell, I could never get it working though."

"You were a wizard?"

"Yeah the mages said I was the worst pupil they had seen in a generation."

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've run with all manner of houserules, but it was only a few months ago I started thinking, wait, I can do this, I can make the system I want. It is quite rewarding actually, and what came out was nothing like d20, but it was for fantasy.

Last friday in one of my games with the new system, at the end of a good night a player excitedly exclaimed "the system works!"

And there was much rejoicing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My mother was very very British.

Pathfinder needs more jokes and humour!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be great for random encounters. A celestial hit-team rocks up to kill you... again.

Brian: neutral leaning to evil makes for a great and memorable rogue.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bwahaahahhahahaha! That is inaccurate.

Japan developed from Korean, Chinese and Indigenous Ainu influences. Zen Buddhism is the Japanese form of a belief from India.

On China, there were all manner of ethnicities, languages and cultures in this territory simplified by the term "China" and the "Chinese". The Han have control now, it was not always so. There is also the contact and trade with south east asia, Korea, India and Mongolia to consider. Asian homogenisation and isolationism is an assumed western inaccuracy.

We can talk Tokugawa Japan and the post-European influences and after the extermination of the Christian faith in Japan. That "very little came to them from outside their borders" is false. I have done my units in Asian Studies to come to these conclusions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Over-sensitivity becomes used as a rhetorical trick: I am offended, you shut up!

Seen it again and again.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love me some charts. One of the best influences of old D&D.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is (mini-settings), which is its strength and greatest weakness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I am in love.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always wondered why the mage in the party didn't just cloudkill the bastards. Repeatedly. Or send in an air or fire elemental along all those little corridors to fry them on.

To me, it was an exemplar of pretty poor game play. They simply should have made a priority of killing off all the kobolds by whatever means were needed, filling in their tunnels, and else...instead they just endured the problem.

Meh.

But, it was a great story about incompetent adventurers being defeated by skill and brains back then!

==Aelryinth

Because magic isn't the solution to Tucker's kobolds. You gas yourself more than the kobolds behind the murder holes, no chance to get a great fireball off, the spellcaster is being shot constantly (probably poisoned or hit with rot grub dung pies as well).

The whole idea behind Tucker's kobolds is that the typical actions of the powerful players (I hit it with my spell, it dies) do not work by design. It is a true ambush where hitting back is hard.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I only really gm in the sandbox. Part of my love for the game is sub-creation--world design. The degrees in Anthropology and Archaeology lend themselves to crafting sandbox worlds with cultures and realities all their own. I build continents to play on--so options are wide open.

Now--I do take PF modules and re-skin them all the time because as much as I love the sandbox--adventurers also like story arcs and character development that comes along with chained adventures.

How do you do this for a continent when you players might hop a ship well away from your carefully planned adventure?

I have a couple of suggestions:

1) ** spoiler omitted **

2)** spoiler omitted **

3) ** spoiler omitted **

4) ** spoiler omitted **...

:D

Sandboxes are just great. So much that can be done, no need to be linear at all. For published adventures and paths, just slot them in and allow time to roam and do other stuff between books.

You are anthrop, I'm in Sociology. Both can get the world building juices flowing.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice guy paladin stands over his defeated foe, a hobgoblin fighter now bleeding out.

Hob: splutter, gasp, urrrgh, accck, cough cough.
Nice guy paladin: oh let me just help you with that! Can't have you suffering.
The coup de grace is hard and quick, followed by "Just like your mother knave!" as the blade is thrust home.
Hob: *the life fades from his eyes and his body goes utterly still.*
Nice guy paladin: I love my job. To smite evil, give the touch of grace and to laugh at my dying enemies. Mmmmm mmm, I am chosen for good times.
LG deity: you are a sick puppy, you know that?
Nice guy paladin: a puppy lapping up the blood of your foes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best option is not to lie, but to joke. Just because you are a paladin doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humour.

Then in an rp roundabout way, explain to the fiend that you are immune to fear and intimidation. While this torture is really going to hurt, you the paladin have nothing to fear (due to your secured place in the afterlife) and cannot actually experience fear, you only have dim memories what it was like anyway. Damn god took all that sniveling away from you, turned you into paladin kill-bot.

So yeah, kind of wasting your time evil buddy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Urge to play paladin, rising.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rynjin wrote:

Nah. I send out my own fair share of snipes and sarcastic remarks, it'd be a mite hypocritical of me to bristle up every time somebody returns fire.

And yeah, I realize it's all a matter of opinion, and that this argument has been going in circles for a while now. I'm a bit obsessed with trying to sway people to my point of view if we're being honest.

I don't care about swaying people that much (though it would be nice), but I'm more concerned with what future incantations of the Paladin will be, should Paizo go with a PF 2.0 route in the future (I'm confident they will at some point). I love the Paladin as it is now. I would hate to see it change too much. But I also started in 3.5, so it's always been like it is now for me (more or less).

Would it be cheapened somehow if there was a Paladin of every alignment, or at least the extremes (LG, CG, LE, CE)? I dunno. I know the fighter looks dull as hell from an RP perspective every time I look at it. Same with Wizard, and Monk, and Ranger, and Rouge, and Cavalier, and Barbarian, and probably one or two more. I mean, I can make it work, but it feels like there's so much more to a Paladin than the other classes.

If they can keep the RP flavor in some kind of transition like you're working on...I can probably get behind it, even if I'm not 100% in agreement with it.

Rouge is all about the application. It doesn't have to be dull.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The is no force on earth that will make me add the gunslinger as is from the book. Now, you can talk to me about what you want out of the gunslinger and see if there is another way to give that to you, but if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. And why is it not equally incumbent on the player to try t find something from the nearly infinite combinatorial possibilities of class, race, skills, spells and feats that exist that doesn't press at that one button? Is there really someone out there that can only have fun with ONE class?

As they say in politics, "Here here!"

I've ran into the player obsessed with playing a gunslinger and determined to argue for it being allowed, even if it doesn't fit at all with what is being run.

You would think with the number of first person shooters they would just go and play one of those, and not try to drag that in and muddy up the setting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vincent Takeda wrote:

RadiantSophia wrote:

Vincent Takeda wrote:

I'm a simulationist sandboxer. I never run adventure paths or modules. they're just more 'books on rails'.

I COMPLETELY TAKE THAT BACK. I think you would like it/be very good at playing/running it, if you are o.k. with a majority consensus reality.

I only rail against dictator gms and cringe at stories-on-rails since at the end of the day the more prevalent they are the less meaningful contribution I can have as a player, and start asking myself 'why am I here again?' 'Here's my character sheet. Come back to me when you're done with chapter 36 and we'll see how well you've managed to incorporate my guy.'

I totally roll with majority consensus. Getting the whole table on board is job one in the 'running of a successful game', which is why i'm happy to avoid a game I'm not on board for and encourage playing what you want to play instead of joining a game you wouldnt enjoy since a lack of enjoyment might end up thrashing everyone else's fun.

If your world is a simulationist sandbox built on majority consensus where the players create their reality based on their actions, well then its quite likely i'd find a comfy spot to enjoy. I'm all about theater of the mind. At least you wouldnt have to worry about me making a gunslinger since I don't much care for them.

Railroads suck. Simulationist isn't the opposite of railroad. A good narrativist/dramatist GM will focus even more than a simulationist one on making character decisions matter. A hallmark of the style is creating points where characters are forced to make hard choices: character development.

Yeah, railroading takes away what is best in this game--actually making choices, adapting, trying new things and the unexpected.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Krom laugh at your four stages of interview!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you are on to something there; people have been fooled into hating who they are, and the anxiety kills some of them every year, because they can't match the standards of beauty. I found myself hating some shows for similar reasons and inaccurate portrayal.

I do find I emphasise the physical a bit more in female characters, no chain-mail bikinis though. The most recent three female characters deserve mention:

Sorceress: racially/culturally somewhat of a mix of medieval Hungarian and warring states Japan. A powerful and determined sorceress, no sense of honour but loyal and a monster-hunter for the good of the less powerful (NG), slow to develop relationships, short and low in weight, fine pale features but low personal hygiene (sorcerers in this setting really live on the fringes, swamps, that sort of thing).

Witch: the all powerful soccer mom. A village leader, 40s, forceful, dangerous, proud, evil but not totally unreasonable (LE). Quick-thinking, skilled in politics, good appearance with the wealth to spend on looks but not physically fantastic since she is mostly village bound these days.

Ranger: grim forest hunter, thrilled at the taking of lives, loves an ambush and the clash of steel (favours the shotel and shield). Cruel, and has respect for the powerful and those that kill well and fast (CE). Somewhat sexual and suggestive. Rough looks, strong shoulders, a body hardened by combat, so her most attractive physical feature would be her wheat coloured short hair.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember when the Weave collapsed, and all I got was this lousy chain shirt.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

KenderKin wrote:

The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.

So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.

I don't care WHAT class Kender take. And it doesn't matter WHAT class I am playing when I see one. Soon as I see kender, I kill kender. End of story. Wouldn't care if I lost my class as a result, or if I lost the character.

Had some baaaaaad experiences with them once upon a time!

Kill them all, the kender god will recognise his own.

Thieving trickster characters are the reason two-handed weapons were invented. To split them in twain!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

CAN, not MUST include recklessness, resentment, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.

Remember, Chaos aligned people are all about personal freedom and choice. No two Chaotic people are going to be exactly alike in beliefs, attitude, and mannerisms (though there are some similarities between those following certain causes).

Chaotic people CAN be irresponsible, or responsible. They CAN be reckless, or reserved. They CAN be rigidly organized, or woefully disorganized.

The difference between an organized, responsible, and reserved Chaotic person and a Lawful person is a matter of choice and philosophy. That Chaotic person chooses to be those things because he likes being those things or they are useful qualities to have. A Lawful person embodies those things because that's how he truly believes life should be lived.

Rynjin seems rightjin.

Alignment should never be a straight-jacket. Chaotic isn't hard to play, and you don't have to play it one way.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well from what I've read from the more unpleasant parts of history, I cannot agree Chaotic evil is the rarest alignment.

It may be rare today in our comfy little democracies, but there are also pure thugs, rapists, war criminals, kidnappers and serial killers our there.

As for a vigilante, er, I met one. Nice guy, very driven, walks around on edge. As for chaotic evils, I've met a few people that would easily qualify for NE and some just don't care about morality and decency and will be as crude and violent as they can get away with.

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen-name of a psychiatrist that writes on the degeneration of British society. A lot of what he talks about is CN and CE behaviour and attitudes. Real immaturity, hatred, lashing out at people, that sort of thing. The chaotics are out there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A DM should have ultimate power, and wield as little as possible.

Wise sage Gaekub. You just became an npc in my setting, congrats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would only have been better if one had said as a follow up, "thank god we are not Jewish."

Last night, a player of a merc in a buddy-style mercenary party busted out this gold line when captured by hobgoblins:

We are men of honour, whose honour is for sale.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, turning well made former pcs and strong player-made builds against pcs can lead to a great challenge.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After my character got killed in one game, I played a wise snail advisor for a bit.

Nobody listened to my accurate advice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ha ha, yep. Which has eternally marked them as a people. As in, they have a culture that is part papal states at war, theocracy, but also with a love of joyous times, drinking, games, competition and fine craftsmanship done right (still according to the old Dwarven standards). Marked in that they are known to turn on allies at the worst time if great advantage can be obtained. Duplicity and betrayal is down deep in their bones, but not an everyday event, but something they can mentally handle (not the type of people to suicide at all).

If this side comes out, they claim betrayal was for the greater good, that their leadership is best and most religious and thus they are a dangerous people. Big smiles, happy faces, shorter than average and love to hug and embrace, welcome converts but cannot ever be trusted if something important is on the line.

Very human in that respect.

I called them Catarinans (more formally Catar'ina) a country name off dark souls. For this setting (not in the Dark s game), the two main tribes were the Catar and the Ina. Both came from the plains and the hills, and both were under Dwarven influence. Now there is only Catarina. Although the Dwarven tombs and old castles remain in the tallest mountains far behind the Catarina border. The Catar'ina shy from such high places, rocs, ghosts, golems and other constructs guard them. The Catar'ina expunged the Dwarves from history, taking their accomplishments as their own, and only some of the very old factions remember them.

The Catarinans copied the fortification design of the Dwarves and transplanted them across their territories, aiding the sprea of their theocratic feudalism. Designs have not changed for millenia. :D

The longest opponent that this theocracy has faced? The Scythian-like faction to the south. Taller dark-skinned people that while wild and dangerous, never betrayed their masters and stuck to their own traditions. Masters of bow, steed and the parting shot, not stone, steel and religion like the Catar and Ina chose (and stole). They are the same race as the original two tribes, but the Catar and Ina blended with captured Dwarven slaves and a host of smaller tribes they absorbed.

A bit rape of Nanking and Japanese atrocities as well.

Glad I could share this with you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sociologist, so yeah, I'm all over this whether I like it or not. :P

Ah the helpless princess. How will we escape this? I alas dislike Ameiko taken in the Mary Sue, and eventually princess direction.

Good point on male traits and desirability.

Peace over war is to believe in nurturing and good will for all over warrior masculinity. Masculinists find the former offensive and the latter natural and god's will if religious radicals.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ha ha, yep.

Although female culture and the associated behaviour and thoughts, do exist.

Negation or de-feminisation isn't always the answer, feminine women exist (adhering to the culture they have been socialised into) but you can play the feminine as a light card.

Or it is curiously absent, as in one npc char I've put together. The hard mercenary and ranger Khergita. She isn't that pretty, has done a lot of fighting and hunting of people (evil, but not in the manipulating sense). If she fancies you she will be frank about it (puts on the beard of frank), and if a pc goes along with it, she will f*** them like a man. Lol.

All types out there.

I also throw homosexuals into my games, and avoid stereotyping. A hetero dandy may be more feminine than a homosexual.

Whewww, is good to be able to talk about this here.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mary Sue protectionism annoys me. She is so beautiful wonderful blessed and lucky that she always overcomes. Yawn.

Or, this npc cannot be touched or influenced, they are set in stone and you cannot change them meddlesome adventurer.

Slut archetype or evil lustful witch woman is unfortunate to see.

In my games, I try to make the women as believable as the men. With their sexuality and appearance not the most important factor. Some will be asexual, others into sex/showing affection but without it being a big deal or all there is to them.

Put some of the real world into the game, without being a sexist weirdo pig is a code I game by.

One of my favourite characters was an Oriana Jeggare, Chelaxian warmage. Had a few near romances, but was not lucky in love. Powerful, commanding, sometimes feminine (appearance and the arts mattered to her).

One char in a recent game is trying to romance an asexual sorceress (her magic is certainly not sexual or tied to skimpy outfits). That has been a bit different, the quiet npc has been taking it very slow.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Hey Hama, yeah another dm had the same rule, but even no beer. It made me wonder who else he gamed with and did he want to be their mother?

Dude. WTF? You are being extremely rude. Cut it out.

Who tells people what to do and what they can and can't drink?

Answer: Parents, politicians, clergy.

Enforcing (or trying to enforce) teetotalism at the table is entering a creepy space. It only happens when a dm doesn't trust their players.

Note: getting a bit tipsy or drunk and gaming can be a whole lot of fun. My group generally prefers ale or cider.

A boot hill gm favoured whiskey, and spirits for his vietnam game.