|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Sometimes things come up and you have to miss a game... "I dont feel like it" isn't a valid reason to me... but "My boss told me I have to work tonight" is... so is "My sister is in town for only two days" and other various things. Actually being SICK (not just a general "i dont feel like it") is also a valid reason. But, all of these are potential things that could come up hours before the game and break your contract. So, yeah nobody I play with would sign such a contract, not even those who are less understanding about missed games are THAT much not understanding.
But what defines evil? There are grades of evil. Applying alignment to real life persons is kind of hard, but for analogy sake...
Is someone who pirates software evil? Possibly could be considered so by some people. Is a serial rapist-killer evil? Most definitely.
So, if you were doing a modern-day game and a selfish person that didn't care about anyone but themselves who regularly downloaded illegal movies and games but never physically harmed anyone... they must die, as they are neutral evil?
That even said, I've know people that I would have to unequivocally say would be Lawful Evil without any doubt that were much nicer than many who would deem themselves Lawful Good. Then again, there is doubt as this person would only be Lawful Evil by modern morality... very "Live and let live" attitude, cared only about himself most of the time, yes but does that make him evil, or is he only evil because he strays from the accepted morals of modern religion?
Went to the actual Facebook page and found the old comment thread, and later he commented this...
Jason Bulmahn, Game Designer wrote:
...it was a joke and mostly for fun. We changed the rule for game balance reasons, not based off my experimentation. Besides, if I only based rulings off my actual skill sets, the only things characters could do in the game would be design buildings, write game rules, and drink beer.
So, with THAT, I'm mostly okay with it as it doesn't (yet) set a precedent of silly rulings. :P
reika michiko wrote:
There is a thing called constructive criticism. If you had explained the problems you had with your example and then asked for alternatives, or even said why was this design decision made, that's constructive.
However, when you start the thread with "What was Paizo thinking" say you "hate them with a passion" and other such very hostile things... that says one thing to Paizo staff (and any company really)
This is a very hostile and rude person that we should ignore.
You make very valid points, but they are tainted by your hostile attitude and insults to the staff themselves.
If you want to go nuts, check out the variant tiefling tables. The tieflings can be hermaphroditic. THat can always make weirdness.
Yeah, I have a tiefling like that in my current campaign, although nobody knows yet. They think she's just a normal human woman, and with her being an oathbound paladin with oath of corruption, oath of charity, and oath of chastity, odds are they probably won't find out any time soon.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Ever read Terry Brooks' Shannara series? Essentially it was our world (although he's recently written novels to bridge his Sci-Fi world so it's not quite our world, with Shannara) but the "Last Great War of Man" (pretty much always sounded like World War III to me) basically destroyed the world. Humans survived, but the elves and dwarves and all such races that were in hiding came back. In that setting humans aren't dominant, they are mostly equal with everyone until the second trilogy where the elves retreat again.
Yeah... I am trying to remember where I saw someone say that vampires no longer do DRAIN but I can't find it (i even googled "pathfinder vampire blood drain" and all I found was discussion that they have it, not how it works except the confusing to me RAW)... and it looks like the Nosferatu does... so kind of confusing...
Ha, yeah I almost didn't want to post, but there was no discussion or anything just a simple "Yes" and I was like "Wait, what?" so I felt I just had to clarify because the 3.x rules it was humanoids and fey only (and you could only turn your own race or some such weird rule)
Okay, so I looked for this and I couldn't find it...
The base vampire says...
A vampire can suck blood from a grappled opponent; if the vampire establishes or maintains a pin, it drains blood, dealing 1d4 points of Constitution damage. The vampire heals 5 hit points or gains 5 temporary hit points for 1 hour (up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to its full normal hit points) each round it drains blood.
Then the Nosferatu entry says...
Bestiary 4 wrote:
A nosferatu can suck blood from a helpless, willing, or grappled living victim with its fangs by making a successful grapple check. If it pins the foe, it drains blood, draining 1d4 points of Constitution and Wisdom each round the pin is maintained. On each round it drains blood, the nosferatu gains 5 temporary hit points that last for 1 hour (up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to its full normal hit points).
So, am I reading this right that the normal vampire (Moroi, to use the Blood of Night term) only does ability damage, but the Nosferatu does ability drain?
Yep. Play Star Wars Old Republic as a non-human and you will see. Even Republic side there is times where an alien will be like "It's because I'm not human, isn't it? That's why you won't help me?" or if your charater is not human then instead he'll be like "Come on, we aliens need to stick together... you gotta help me" because for every alien there is 10 humans.
In the Empire, pretty much most non-Humans are at best second-class, if not slaves. On Dromund Kass random conversations you'll hear stuff like "I didn't do it!" "Shut up, alien scum. Speak only when spoken to."
Best case of an alien is to play a Chiss Agent, at which point when the aliens are like "Wow, so great to see another alien, sucks how the humans hate us so much" if you are a Chiss you can pretty much say "Actually, not that bad." because Chiss are the one species the Empire doesn't totally hate. They are allies with the Chiss Ascendancy, so they don't speak badly about you nearly as much as they would if you chose another alien species.
Kind of taking a bit of inspiration from one line said in Mass Effect 2 about the adaptability of humans being why they are so quickly becoming #1 in the galaxy after only 30-40 years, I recently developed a campaign setting (for GURPS) where all of our mythology, gods, stories, it's all true. But, anything supernatural is an alien. They all visited Earth because they wanted something from us. The adaptability of our DNA could help them in some way. So, for example, they "greys" (which I took this part from Stargate, I admit) want us because they are dying so they are hoping through experimenting on us, they can figure out how to save their own species. Plus, some species are able to breed with humans and get crazy results. For example on that, Jesus was half human, half-Elohim (the species that is angels and demons) The aliens are very hard to kill, but they stay dead. However, the resulting hybrid is no harder to kill than a human, but they regenerate and cannot die. They will always resurrect. Most aliens are also either unaging or very long lived. So, humans with our super-short life spans, they don't understand. To most of them, we are just toys for them to experiment on, like rats. Now, most of them do tend to be nice about it as they aren't the scientists, but the campaign is set as kind of a gritty cyberpunk world with these "gods" walking around... Some humans still have faith, but most are atheist because they've essentially met the "gods" so cybernetics and even robot bodies to live forever (if your mind lives on, are you still alive? Is there a soul?) and such things, desperate not to die. There is also a LOT more humans, for various reasons. They greys? They are dying. The Elohim? They are so long-lived that they only have children if they want to, so they generally don't. The Sidhe and Bane-Sidhe are actually an anomoly as they are unaging, yet there is a lot of them. They're the species that the characters are most likely to run into, and the Bane-Sidhe tend to head up criminal organizations and keep the humans under their heels.
Sorry that was long-winded, but your mention of "humans as the underdog" kind of made me think of that campaign :D
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I already covered that above when Vivianne LaFlamme or whatever said that. Yes, I agree one should not say **** you to a GM or a player, but this thread was what would you do as a GM if a player said **** you toward you. The part you quoted was to the people that were implying that the GM is somehow maybe at fault for why the player said it. So, in this case since it's being said to the GM, that's where it matters. If it were being said to another player it would still be wrong, yes, but the quote is about GM culpability not mattering.
We just had another game tonight, so all is well. Just chiming in for the last time probably as pretty much I've learned what others would do, and learned a few other things in the process.
No, I don't feel guilty, just confusion as to why I told him no when I almost never say no to anything without a level adjustment. Now I wish I'd just told everyone what he said, without any mention of having planned the NPC and left it at that (having been working on the NPC for awhile before she showed up, and then having sidelined her, I also don't recall when I settled on making her a black-blooded oracle, although I do know it was at least a possibility at the start of the campaign along with most others.) Because really, to me that's all that is necessary.
Trying to justify a player saying **** you to the GM or another player over a game issue was never the point. The point was, if you were the GM and a player said **** you to you, what would you do? I know what I did, it's done. I'm asking what others would do out of curiosity, and that's why whose fault it is, to me at least, has no bearing.
As I said, I have friends who curse like drunken sailors. I've had friends say **** you in jest, I'm okay with that. I do it myself. But, don't curse at me in hostility. That's the difference.
I've said it quite a few times now, but it bears saying again, I realize I worded my OP badly. I don't remember telling him no, therefore my reason I stated in the OP was the only reason I could come up with why I MIGHT have told him no. I also do not think he is lying. I believe him that I told him no, I just don't remember doing it, therefore by extension I don't remember my reason. So, reason must be the NPC as that's the only reason that makes sense.
IF I am defensive, it's because half of the people in this thread it seems all they say is "Your fault. Your fault. Your fault. Your fault. Your fault. Your fault. Your fault. Your fault." and completely ignoring that justification of the behavior doesn't make it right, at least in my opinion and some others. If you feel we are wrong, so be it but don't be surprised that we don't agree with you on that too.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
You want to look at it that way, you can. DO I think those that tell me "You're a bad GM because you didn't tell the player outright that Black-Blooded Oracles are not allowed because they might be used for an NPC later?" are wrong? Yes. I do. I'm asking what people would do as a GM when a player says **** you. I've since talked to him, and outright told him I don't even recall him asking about it, and he's now said he's fully sorry and okay with it, so for the most part it's as over as it can be.
Any post that comes out as "BAD GM! **** YOU IS 100% JUSTIFIED!" to me, yeah I'm not gonna like it since justification of the behavior is not the point of the thread. Maybe I should have not given any scenario at all, and just left that out entirely, would that have been better?
EDIT: Also, some have pointed out that in my OP I said my reason was the NPC, but then I said later I only think the reason is the NPC since I don't remember him asking. The latter is more true, in that my thoughts get scattered sometimes especially when I am typing and trying to be less long-winded than I naturally am and because in trying to make my very long posts smaller, sometimes I leave out too much. If I had spent less time worrying about my OP being too long and more time making sure it was 100% crystal clear... maybe things would be different, or maybe not.
EDIT 2: Also, I have a special hatred for the term "special snowflake" due to another GM friend that throws that phrase around all the time (not just to me, but to everyone.) It's pretty much to a point of crying wolf with him, so that causes a bias to where every time anyone says "special snowflake" my gut reaction is to roll my eyes and consider them hostile.
EDIT 3: In fact, I can honestly say I've never said **** you or insulted a GM. I've said I find a house rule completely stupid and refused to play with said house rule, but I've never insulted the GM directly. So, by that respect, culpability of the GM in the situation means nothing to me because I do not see, as a player, any reason to say such things to the GM under any circumstances.
Make lightsaber a Weapon Finesse using weapon (for all intents and purposes, and Aldori Dueling sword (brilliant energy/conealment). They would be Free Hand Fighters with the Aldori feat chain (+2 AC, can WF) HIGH dex. Very high. From there, transmuter wizard, barred schools conjuration and universal. Mage hand cantrip for sure.
Brilliant energy would be great but for one thing... a lightsaber doesn't so much pass through nonliving matter as it slices through it with equal ease... so brilliant energy doesn't work because it doesn't affect undead or constructs. A lightsaber would.
Was just thinking of making a character from Numeria with a lightsaber... heh. So this made me remember the rule that to simulate Numerian weapons, copy the effects of a spell but make it the device. So, the lightsaber would be as you say here, only no need for the character to have the spell, just "Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Numerian laser sword" or whatever you wanted to call it.
Well, yes but it's a quirk of mine that I like to know the rules before I decide if I want to change them. Comes I guess from my times as a player where I've had a few GMs that would tell me that (just as an example off the top of my head, not an actual case, but this example I swear is no more crazier than stuff I've been told by GMs before) like a fighter's attack progression is [insert wizard progression here] and yes, that IS what the book says, it's not a house rule, it's the rules in the book. Don't pull out the book, just play your fighter the way I say.
So, because of that I like to know the rules so I can say "I am changing this rule." That make sense?
Okay, so I realize this is cheese, and OP, and stuff, but I am having my players fight a pack of werewolves and each of them has something unique to distinguish them and make them more challenging than your normal werewolf (CR of the undead template will of course be taken into account) so one I have decided to make a necromancer who is undead herself. I'm leaning toward vampire, but I might make her a lich... haven't fully decided yet.
So, that said the way I understand it (mostly from the old template priority in... was it Savage Species?) is that while an undead cannot become a werewolf, a werewolf could become undead and stay a werewolf.. or would they just be undead?
This thread reminds me why we can't have nice things...
I support the Right to Bear Arms.
I also support a business or event planner to say "We don't want guns at our event."
Seeing as how PFS isn't even saying this, the OP is... sorry but throwing a hissy fit and giving the sane members of the NRA a bad name (whether he is a member or not, I am sure most are assuming he is a member, rather than assuming he isn't)
Okay, if his reasoning was it's too OP then he let the new girl play it? Yeah, I'd be pretty annoyed myself.
I never once said black-blooded oracles were banned in my game, that I know for a fact. I don't use the word banned unless it's third party stuff (which I pretty much reserve a blanket ban on all third party even with myself, but if a player really wanted to play something third party and I didn't feel it was OP, then all players would have to agree to allow it, not just me.) or if I truly think it's OP, and I do not find the black-blooded oracle to be OP, nor do I really find anything published by Paizo as OP. SO, banned? No.
Also, to all those that say I should have given him full reason "I have a plot involving black blooded oracles, so I am not allowing it for players" or any such reason... The other GMs I know are total jerks, apparently... not only would they not give a reason such as that for not allowing something, but they wouldn't allow at least 75% of what I do allow and they don't even give him a chance to ask if he can play a kitsune (or other fox character) before they tell him no he can't play a fox, because they know he's going to ask. I let him play a Kitsune because I know nobody else does.
But in the end, even if I did what the above quote says, would that be then reason to say f you? Apparently, many think there is a point where it's okay, or else why keep trying to justify it by telling me what I should have done before he said it?
Because his character is a Kitsune from Tian Xia, this part of the story was a witchwolf from Alkenstar and I had already ditched the whole plot because he was so adamant that he did NOT want to go to Alkenstar due to it being in the Mana Wastes, and him having a strong aversion to guns and steampunk in general. But then when I removed the plot in a way that made sense by having the NPCs asking for the help decide to go do it on their own, the other players (and he agreed to go with them only when he realized that without there being SOME magic in Alkenstar, they would not be able to teleport there) decided to do it anyway, teleporting to beat the two NPCs there.
I think the biggest problem here is that many are failing to understand is I don't think I would have told him no, but I do believe him that I did... I just can't figure out why... the only thing that makes sense is this NPC's story... but again, even that really is like... that's not a reason I can see myself using, yet it's the only one that I can think of...
At this point I am thinking I might talk to him before next game, see if he remembers even a reason I gave him... and maybe allow him to use the retraining rules to change his curse to black blood, maybe say the same primal magic energies that affected her spread it to him?
Oh sorry, that last part wasn't to you specifically, I get the notes thing and it's a good idea, but see my last post before this one for why I think even extensive notes may or may not have worked in this case...
Again, since I don't even remember telling him no, I can only guess at what my reason must have been at the time. Would I tell him no if we were making characters today? No, I would let him play a BB oracle. That's the biggest problem with this... I can't honestly see myself saying no... but I did have the idea for this NPC at the start, so I am guessing that must have been my reason since it's the only reason that makes sense... or else I didn't tell him no... I have no idea.
As for the DC, yes he was. He rolled a 28 and while I don't recall his actual roll, I know it wasn't 19 or 20. He's got a pretty high religion so yes he could have made it.
I do sometimes, but how much notes are you thinking? (making up names and situations for joke purposes and because I find it hard to come up with real reasons for doing stuff I almost never do I am giving silly reasons)
1. Told John he couldn't play a BB oracle because I don't like John's obsession with catgirls, i'm letting him play a catgirl isn't that enough?
2. Told Ryan he can play a Moroi born dhampir, cause they're awesome.
1. No black-blooded oracles allowed.
2. Yes, Moroi are allowed.
Then, even if I did write down every little thing like that, especially the latter list, where do I make the decision to break #1 for an NPC?
I've had many cases where I wanted to play something, GM told me no, I moved on and then later saw it on an NPC. I didn't feel slighted, I didn't cuss at the GM because "OMG you banned me from that how dare you make an NPC with it"
That's really the thing so many people it seems fail to understand I think that is kind of taking this slowing off topic... if you're trying to find a situation where it's okay for a player to cuss at another player. Unless my reasoning is because I just don't like John and have it out for him in real life (being GM saying no to a class archetype or a player messing with him trying to kill his character,) there is no reason for cussing at me or anyone else.
Another example (and I don't recall all the details, it was about 10 years ago), once I was in a game where the GM was allowing evil alignments, and so I asked if I could play a chaotic evil necromancer. I was told he wasn't allowing chaotic evil, just neutral evil and lawful evil. So, I made a lawful evil necromancer. Later in the game teamed up with or something an NPC who (i don't recall how) we figured out was chaotic evil. Should I have felt slighted? Should I have insulted the GM and cussed at him for allowing evil but not chaotic evil, then making a NPC ally of ours chaotic evil?
Well, again seeing as how I almost never ban stuff unless I think it's overpowered (and I have no problem with the Black-Blooded Oracle) and I don't even remember banning it, I am only assuming the NPC story is the reason I banned it as the only reason other than hating it that I can think of. I really can't remember what I was thinking at the time I told him no when I don't even remember telling him no. That's really the biggest problem with the "special snowflake" argument.
Further, note that managing to successfully determine the "why" may still mean that even the thought of an outburst, of any sort, is not justifiable; and the problem still lies entirely with person who made the outburst.)
Right, a few have said they see why he was upset, but that his outburst was inappropriate. Others have just said "Oh, well yeah I'd be mad too." The latter is an apologist of sorts, the former is not. I myself see why he was upset, that doesn't make cussing at the GM (or another player, since at least one person thinks my words suggested I think I deserve respect and the players do not) okay, or does it?
Google Definitions wrote:
Sort of but not exactly, because I don't even remember banning it how can I truly say why I banned it? I guess I should clarify that, and state that when I don't even remember banning it three months ago, I can only really guess that my reason was I didn't want a player to be a black-blooded oracle and therefore know all about black-blooded oracles and circumvent the whole plot of having to protect the "evil necromancer" who is just an innocent girl with a particularly nasty curse from townsfolk that want to "kill the evil necromancer" when they don't even fully understand what she is themselves, while trying to keep her from actually becoming the evil necromancer that they fear she is.
This player already has a hard time keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate sometimes (evidenced by his just saying outright he knew exactly what a black-blooded oracle was without a roll because he happened to be a level 5 tongues oracle himself), and he's shown already his character has a strong aversion to necromancy... but because he as a player knows that a BB oracle is not necessarily an evil necromancer, is he going to have his character fully accept the NPC when all his character knows is "She's got black blood making her seem undead and more than likely is going to be good at necromancy" because the only other BB oracle the witch that told them what she was happened to be Bones?
Exactly. I have friends who cuss like a drunken sailor sometimes. Doesn't bother me. It's not the words, it's the intent behind them.
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?
Apparently because then you are saving that character idea for your special snowflake NPC.
Another example, many GMs say "Core Races only" So, if a GM does this, should he throw out his copy of the ARG and avoid having any Drow? Changelings? Anything not allowed to a player is also not allowed to the GM? Where does that stop? Do we no longer allow werewolves because players can't be werewolves? Do we put the extreme at I can't introduce a Tarraque because players can't be a tarrasque? Yes, that is an absurd extreme example, but is it really when there are GMs that say "Core Races only" yet would you put that exact same restriction on non-monster NPCs? Why does it stop when you hit monsters?
In the end, you can say "If you told a player they couldn't play X and then later introduced X on an NPC" all day, but how many GMs are really "absolutely anything goes for players" as that? I don't know any myself.
ugh please do not tell me you are using Skull & Shackles for that example
Why does that matter? Point is, a GM is fully in their rights to ban guns, yet guns exist later in the campaign. So, it stands as to is a GM who runs that adventure being a jerk by sticking to the "no players with guns" suggestion?
Fake Healer wrote:
Well, then Paizo themselves are bad GMs and writers. In a certain published AP campaign it strongly suggests not allowing gunslingers or even guns in the campaign (sure, it gives a few ideas on how to introduce them but it's up to the GM to do so, the assumption by the writers is no guns and especially no gunslingers and you will never find guns or bullets in any treasure lists) Yet, there is one NPC with a gun at the end of the campaign. They said to ban guns. They gave a gun to an NPC. Another published AP it assumes again that no players have guns... no guns in the treasure lists (in fact not even a suggestion on how to add guns like the previous AP I mentioned did) until like the 5th book where they introduce NPCs (pretty sure at least one is actually classed as gunslinger, but I could be wrong... been awhile since I read the AP, but still even if it doesn't make any of them gunslingers, would it be wrong to do so?) with fully automatic weapons (yes, again not saying the name of the AP, but there is a Paizo published AP that features modern (well, WWI era) guns). But wait, those fully automatic weapons were not available to the players at the start of the game... Bad form, Paizo, bad form?
EDIT: Expanding on that, especially the part about if you dont' allow a class you'd expect it not to show up in the campaign...
Are you telling me that if the players are told they can't have guns and especially can't be gunslingers and then later in the campaign they go to Alkenstar... You are telling me I should completely rewrite the entire history and NPC population of Alkenstar to remove the guns and especially gunslingers that i did not allow to the players?
Here is another example... I played once with a GM who would not allow me to play a wizard specialized in necromancy. That's a class OPTION, same as the black-blooded oracle... Does that mean he just forbade himself from ever having a necromancer NPC?
The black raven wrote:
Well, sir. Just reading my posts but not reading anyone else's is not a good way to understand what someone said to make me say things.
I respect the opinions of those who think I should not have denied him the Black-Blooded Oracle (which I again do not remember even doing...). I also wanted to introduce guns to the campaign slowly and not have players start as a gunslinger (not that any of them care about guns really). None of this changes the facts of the situation that I am the only GM in our entire town who has not started telling him "No fox characters. Period." (White Wolf Hengyokai games where they are actually common aside, but don't think anyone has played that here in years. But other WW games, D&D, what have you... everybody says no foxes)
Also, to the person that thought my wording meant the GM mattered more than a player because I said "Saying **** you to a GM" ... Yes, if he'd said **** you to another player I also would have been "whoaaaa" however, at that point it would be up to the other player to decide just how much it meant to him and for the two of them to decide if or how much of an apology was necessary. Same as the other players did with me.
Part of the problem with things on this board is people don't know me, they don't' know my players, all you know is what I tell you, which is I admit suspect because you only have my word. I try to be honest, but in the end it's still how I see it only.
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?
I don't know, I don't live close enough to a PFS game to actually play, and I am so new to PbP stuff (does PFS even do that?) that I'm not ready to do PFS games online.
But, I have played with GMs that are very strict on the Evil descriptors, yes. IF you are not evil, you do not cast evil spells, or it corrupts you.
Now, my take is... are you a cleric? Cast it once or twice, fine. But if you keep casting it, yes it will corrupt you and you will turn evil.
Arcane version though, it doesn't corrupt you per se, but where you get the bodies very much might and the things you have to do to defend yourself vs. the mob of angry villagers coming after you with torches and pitchforks because you are an "evil necromancer" will turn you evil. It's a slippery slope.
Oh, and I might also add, to all those like ThunderMan who think that I am being rude myself and such, when the NPC was asking for help back in Alkenstar protecting her daughter, he didn't want to go. For a couple of reasons.
1. Half of the city is a dead magic zone? He's an oracle. Refuses to go to Alkenstar.
2. Guns. Steampunk. Grr. Does not belong in Dungeons and Dragons. At all. Grrr.
So, I decided to give in and the two NPCs that were asking for their help skipped out of town and left a note that they were going to go do it on their own, but they had found some other information about the other quest that the players were on that is more in tune with the overall campaign (the Alkenstar/rescue thing was a sort of side plot for some extra experience and levels along the way of the main plot). Well, they managed to finish part of that and then the other players decided they wanted to go help them, he did not object to them, and so when they managed to afford a teleport spell and such, and were able to teleport Skyside where there IS magic in Alkenstar even beating the two NPCs there, that's what they did.
I'd already therefore written the whole trip to Alkenstar and meeting the girl out when they decided as an overall group not to let me do so.
As for forgetting that he'd asked to play a black-blooded oracle, at a character creation session with 3-4 players making characters I don't remember everything every player asked if they could play because what matters to the game is what they end up playing. If you have a photographic memory, I commend you. I do not. That doesn't mean that I should never be a GM because I don't remember every single thing a player does or asks 2-3 months later.
Can anyone think of a way for an oracle of bones to buy skeletons or make them from purchasing animals to keep from scenario to scenario? Like is there a way for instance to buy animals or mounts and kill them and strip the corpse into skeleton form. Then add the skeleton to handy havar sack to animate later? I had one person mention doing that to elephant mounts or other creatures but wanted to check if this would be legal in PFS or if there is a way to accomplish this.
Not sure if it's legal in PFS, but you might consider this feat (from Ultimate Magic)
Ultimate Magic wrote:
This way, thematically you still can fight with skeletons, but don't have to carry them around and no GM can ever say "OMG that's an evil spell, you just alignment shifted"
I am reminded of a story I heard about a game run by a TSR employee back in the day.
Paladin of Torm, God of Law. The party is in Calimshan, and they see a wizard ordering around his elven slaves. The paladin immediately takes offense to the evil slavery he is seeing and, while he doesn't kill the wizard, he does threaten him and help the elves escape. BAM Just lost his paladinhood.
Why? He broke the law. Is slavery evil? According to TSR back in the day, yes. Slavery is a Lawful Evil institution. Problem with the paladin is, he broke the lawful portion of his alignment by forcing the wizard who lawfully owns elven slaves to free his elven slaves. Torm, the God of Law, would very much strip him of his paladinhood in a heartbeat. Even as a Lawful Good deity, the paladin should work within the system to rescue the slaves and not break the law. This is why paladins are so hard to play... a Lawful Good rogue can still bend the laws or even break them occasionally... a paladin cannot.
I would recommend if your GM will let you do the Permanency thing, maybe he would instead let you craft (or have crafted) a magic ring or maybe a tattoo, if you have tattoos in your game, that allows you to turn it on and off. I did this once with a halfing battle oracle. For the most part people thought she was a half-elf or something (in my games I don't do the straight up x8 thing that makes a minimum weight halfling end up a maximum weight human... I apply reasonable weight increases to keep you the same basic body proportions with x2 for tiny, x4 for small x8 for medium, x12 for large etc cause when you compare the tables, those numbers make sense, but when they designed the spell they just used the medium x8 and called it a day) because she always kept her Enlarge Person tattoo active, but if she wanted to she could always deactivate the tattoo and be a halfling again.
2 bouncers in a bar where everyone is evil? Yeah, the paladin was stupid.
Take Star Wars Mos Eisley Cantina, The Most Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy for example. If a Miraluka Jedi (Miraluka have the ability to tell if someone is more light or dark because they can see the Force itself, so kinda if you are dark side you warp the Force around you, if you are light you are in harmony with it. Basically Detect Evil and Detect Good, rolled into one) walks into the Mos Eisley cantina, odds are she's gonna see a lot of dark siders. So, if she walks up to the two Gammorean bouncers that are pretty much not light or dark and says "Hey, I'm a Jedi, this whole place is full of dark siders... help me clean up this cantina" the Gammoreans are going to do the very same thing to that jedi that was done to the paladin.
I wasn't sure about the love of foxes and ring tone. Sorry I couldn't help but be suspicious. I think he was probably miffed because he wanted to be a black blood and you turned him down. Then add one as an NPC. He rolls well to identify it but you don't give it to him. From his perspective you may have denied him and screwed him out of a roll to protect your special snowflake NPC. You sound reasonable and didn't mean to plan it this way but that's how it went down. I think you handled it like a pro.
Yeah, I can kind of see that. Also, as I've said before I tend to be pretty lenient about stuff, and I think if he had not been playing a Kitsune I might have let him have Black Blood (as I also said above to someone else, I don't recall him asking to even play it,) but rare race + rare class... I am pretty sure that's another big reason I said no.
Varisian Wanderer wrote:
Well, part of the problem with that also is I don't even remember him asking... It was back in late November, early December that we even started, so while I can see how he would remember having asked to play something and been told no, I would not be remembering this long after that I'd told him no.