To me this depends on your groups character creation dynamics. Some groups follow the I build my character in isolation with no regard for what party roles are covered. Other groups build in close cohesion with other players covering all the roles. Most groups lay some where in between.
By choosing what you feel is the best role at that level consistently, if your group works together to build balanced parties, you are forcing someone else to take a less optimal or interesting role. If your group builds in isolation then I don't see any problem with what your doing.
The group I play in has a few members that only ever play one or two types of char and we tend to only have four players. That means if we want to have all the roles in the party covered and not get murdered one of the other players and I are forced to play the same roles over and over again and that gets frustrating. If I had to guess that's were some of the frustration with how your choosing characters comes from.
As for the gm kicking you out if you leave the campaign that is overly harsh. I've retired several chars because of in or out of game reasons and there shouldn't be a problem unless its critical to the story.
I most campaigns versatility will beat specialization as long as your still pretty good both options. More options in combat, better able to fill combat roles in the party, a switch hitter fits more easily into a party then a dedicated archer, harder to stifle. And the all important for roleplaying purposes my character makes sense if your into that sort of thing.
I am a big fan in awarding xp for noncombat ways of overcoming encounters. That said I think they should get xp for overcoming the dragon but not the monsters in the keep. They overcame the dragon by escaping(that should be a lot of xp by the way so maybe they lvl any way). In doing so though the bypassed the chance to earn the xp by encountering the challenges in the keep. I'm a fan of if you don't see the enemy(not that they have to see you of course) you didn't overcome the encounter.
Why do the other PCs have different opinions? Because they do not know what a bugbear is?Maybe they don't have the history?
Blood thirsty human eating masochists who don't have a butcher knife for cooking/dismembering?
Crazed little psychopath children without little knives or clubs themselves they use to play war and practice killing random forest fauna pretending they are dwarves?
If trying to mirror human society with bugbears one must look at what humans would have had or been like had you approached their camp.
Too often we think of an unarmed society of the modern era, for the most part our lives are not threatened by wild beasts nor are we forced to hunt or fight something.
Now turn that into a camp, with no drawers. There are knives and hatchets anywhere and everywhere.
Now have someone break into your home/camp and start killing your loved ones, do you watch in horror as someone puts an axe to the face of your husband? Or pick up his weapon were he fell and fight too? Or grab the hatchet by the pile of wood used to stock...
The question is how far are you willing to take this? Is it ok to snatch a suckling baby bugbear from its mothers breast and kill it simply because it will most likely become a killer. Should you murder the children to young to walk, speak, or in any way be harmful even if they are as murderous as you believe. That goes well beyond what I think a lot of people are willing to justify even assuming they knew how evil bugbears generally are. There is also the problem of outliers. Bugbears are generally evil like the Drow but one of the most iconic heroes in fantasy is Drizzt because he came from a largely evil race. Anyone who judges by the races is a sloppy role player. Good chars in pathfinder kill based on what they have seen their enemies do or have evidence they have done not because of their inherent characteristics(unless your talking about creatures of pure evil like demons). Under this theory if the dwarf fighter came upon a sleeping Drizzt and killed him in his sleep he would be justified and that's crap. FOr the same reasons we scorn racist in real life we should scorn players who do the same in game as a crutch for actually role playing.
you might get different opinions about killing women and children of evil races but if they weren't actively being evil at the time he killed them is an evil act. He slaughtered a lot of innocents most normal people wouldn't want to be associated with him and that's reasonable. If he wants to stay in the party have him show remorse and offer to redeem himself. If not you should have the player reroll a new char.
Wow this thread has reenforced why defining alignment is futile...to many ideas most of which disagree on at least one major point.
OP all you need to do to play a good pally and have a good time is talk to your gm and between the two of you set the ground rules for what is acceptable pally conduct. Then there are no surprises and you can play the char you want to play without constantly worrying.
A lot of players do this for role playing purposes and there is nothing per se wrong with it. Assuming he actually knows the system and isn't just ignorant to how it works. I've done it on more then one occasion although I'm never quite that useless. Let him play what he wants and when he gets killed for being useless work with him to build a more useful one but in the end it is his choice.
Something to keep in mind when playing this. Every time he casts it give every monster in the area a chance to hear the scream (it is a freaking scream after all). Now to kill one monster he has alerted a hoard of others that are either coming to hurt the party or are prepping for their approach. Daze monster doesn't make any noise as far as I can tell so it can be a big tactical advantage. Don't just access spells by the RAW think about how they would actually work in game.
Dark Immortal wrote:
Sorry can't agree. If your playing a char you know the rest of the party is going to conflict with your being selfish and that kills games. The game is a group effort towards a common goal. If everyone else in the party says there going to play some version of good and you come back with a neutral evil rogue your being a jerk. They see the game one way and your playing a char that is incompatible with that. Everyone blames the pally or the good char when there is conflict but some of us don't like playing with sociopaths in the party. If you create a char that the other characters wouldn't work with you (pally in a party of scumbags or evil in a party full of good) have failed the point of this game.
If a dm was trying to make the pally fall everyone would be screaming he was a jerk and this is no better. Don't try to mess with another characters concept to fit you own unless there cool with it. This could end very badly.
Did I make the fight to hard is the question I ask in these situations. If yes I fudge roles. If not the party had more then a fair chance and either bad planning, tactics, or luck lead to there down fall and I let them die(if the BBEG wants them dead). I never make encounters harder because the PC's are doing well. I will on occasion ad an extra wave of late arriving bad guys or ad additional encounters after the to easy one if it feels anticlimactic.
That's almost exactly what I said.
In the real middle ages the answer is next to nothing. A peasant would pay his lord in kind(goods) and with days of yearly required service. They belonged to the land and had limited opportunity to better their station(unless they had special skills). The duties they owed their lord were generally high. After them they rarely had enough left to do anything but feed their families and barter for other necessaries. The nobles would sell the goods they received at regional markets for money. Not saying you have to follow close to historical practice as this is a fantasy game but its a good place to start.
@Ashiel- lgp while a pittance to an adventure is a hell of a lot of money to a commoner(at least if you want to follow something approaching a real world comparison). I would wager most farmers have never seen a gold piece and never had more then a few silver to their name. If they did it was immediately spent.
Be more tactical when you use limited resources. Save your spells for big threats. Focus on spells that give you more band for your buck(last longer have multiple effects, control the field)You do have a light crossbow right? Shoot all the things once your out of spells. Don't rage round one of every combat if you think its either going to be easy enough that you don't need it or long enough that you will run out of steam mid battle.
Nothing wrong with resting to regain spells and abilities but make sure you make the area as safe as possible. The average gm loves to attack sleeping parties. I find that resting for 10 hours works best. One caster takes first watch then sleeps for 8 hours another take last watch after sleeping 8 and your non magic chars take the middle watches because they don't need uninterrupted sleep. Relying on sleeping is very dm dependent though. A lot of them will keep attacking you to make things harder and disrupt your casters sleep.
Cha boosting items become critical especially if gm won't allow you to switch con and cha. Your going to need ways to hide in plain sight. Non detection, undetectable alignment(maybe not for skull and shackles), hat of disguise, gentle repose, ranks in disguise and bluff might help. Or your going to need to hide constantly. With low con your going to need to either hang back in melee or stay to the fringes and keep mobile.
To me its not a question of whether in an isolated situation a pally might use a dirty trick. The question should be is it a big enough part of the pally's repertoire that he's taking feats for it. Most iconic pally builds would not work well with this concept(the honorable, chivalric warrior). How ever there is nothing in the pally class that says you couldn't. I just think you need to come up with a good back story/role playing reason for why you went down an unusual route.
I'd say its a common flaw of railroad heavy campaigns. I'll even admit to being guilty of it a time or two. One example was I began a campaign by press ganging the party and making them sailors(sounds like skull and shackles but I'd never read that). I thought it would be a cool way to start the campaign but it didn't go as well as I'd hoped. The party wasn't happy about it and It made for an awkward beginning to the campaign. They were the pawns an NPC and his men used to help commit a mutiny and they took it badly when I had the captain explaining they where no essentially slaves for a period of months. Should have just told them they were starting as impressed sailors in character creation to keep from leaving a sour taste in their mouths.
1. Give the information in short hand code that requires a linguistics check to decipher.
How about something more challenging like incorporeal undead, do ghost touch weapons actually cleave off limbs?
A large slash leaking inky shadow appears across the wraiths chest. The shadow recoils in pain as your blade plunges into its torso. As your mace slams into the ghost it seems to waiver in and out of existence for a moment before its form stabilizes a little less vibrant then it was a moment before. I avoid cleaving limbs when describing damage except for outright kills because losing a limb has mechanical effects.
Why on earth would you corrupt such a wish?
For the lulz.
But seriously many people grew up on corrupting the wish in fantasy and role playing(especially older forms of dnd). Some people don't like it but do we need another thread on whether or not its a good idea. If he wants to corrupt it I'm assuming he's playing in a group were that is the expectation.
I don't think there is any broad class restrictions here. Most Pally's probably would look down on throwing dirt in an opponents eyes or something of the like but I could think of some goods who wouldn't mind. Might work well for a redeemed pally who grew up on the streets and learned to fight how ever they could. As for monks there is a ton of variation between flavors of monk. Ones that place a high value on honor or one particular fighting style might shun this but most would be indifferent or ok with it. Do you think a drunken master is going to refuse to use dirty tricks?
I read crew member and I think a demon would to as anyone but the player. So no crew member would be traumatized but the captain would. You could argue that seeing the captain after the effect with the tattoo could traumatize a crew member but I think its a little harder to shock the average pirate then that.
Your sword cleaves off a piece of ooze the size of a loaf of bread...Your mace blow causes pieces of ooze to splatter in all directions...After the fireball the ooze gives off a terrible scorched smell and seems to have problems retaining its former size and cohesion. Just think about what the thing their doing would look like and describe it.
Have the briefing appear as a painful tattoo or brand every day on the chars skin(have it clear before a new report comes the next day also painful). Then every day he will be dreading the arrival of his much needed intelligence. You get everything you asked for it just is in a form you never would have agreed to if you thought it threw. Also creates a role-playing opportunity. How long can the char stand it? How can he remove this "curse"?
I guess my point is your party is going to trust or like this char anyway. Would you? No caster is going to deal with you at all. So if you can find a way to play a char that is some what likeable he's a bit delusional. He doesn't have to be chewing the scenery crazy. He fundamentally misunderstands one part of reality. The others trying to convince your char their wrong could be a lot of fun. If you play it in a funny way you can make good cooperative role playing rather then the stand offish char your likely going to end up with. Just my two cents.
@bacon's analysis is spot on for buy the book values.
On the other hand if the players where aware of a person who through role playing reasons might pay more I'd let them. Lets say a dragon collector or someone like a dragon disciple with a special connection to dragons might pay more then market value...A whole corpse also for some purposes might be worth more then its parts(I want a stuffed dragon for the mantel). Just a thought.
This character reminds me of a character from the Gathering Dark(Magic the Gathering Book). She was a priestess(in a world where priest don't in theory have magic) who hated magic but had magic. She was convinced that these where miracles sent to her to destroy all magic users. She crusaded about trying to smite down all the casters she could until she ran into a school of ones that new how to use their powers a hell of a lot better then she did. You still use magic but you are delusional about where it comes from. Might not work because even divine magic pisses you off but you could find some other justification for the slightly demented mind(its not really magic its your mind, lucky things happen for no reason, your opponents have mishaps, ect). Not only will all casters hate you but you get the added bonus of making them want to face palm out of frustration of your hypocritical ignorance while your doing it)
Don't leave your Pc's unsatisfied at the end of the adventure. They put alot of time into there chars and if you resolve the story in a way that makes them angry you've failed. Its supposed to be fun. To illustrate I have a gm who like the dark no one really wins type endings. You do everything right but some how you've been tricked the whole time and released the big bad from Ravenloft or all ends lead to badness. This is not what you want when you have spent 6 months playing a char. If you can figure out why your players play and make that pay off at the end your a good gm.
1. The spider room isn't an evil act buy any stretch. Killing the innocents was an unintended consequence of reasonable actions(lots of enemies with no obvious friendly's is a perfect time for fireball). If you didn't know they were there you will probably feel horrible about it but that doesn't make you a bad person and the pally should back off.
Bending the rules is alright but you have to be confident enough to say enough is enough. He demands things from you? I'd let him ask but as soon as he tells you how to run your game that should be the end of it. He's trying to bully you and thats not cool. Classes that have pets don't give them lvls so there is no way you should. If he wants to make it a cohort have him take leadership and at some point you might be able to justify giving it lvls but thats a stretch. Sit down and talk to him and if he isn't going to be reasonable the enemy should start rolling really well against that owl until its dead.
I've been watching a lot of Spartacus of late and I'm intrigued on how best to build a Oenomaus styled character. Assume a 20 point buy. I think he should focus on using the whip to disarm and trip while still having the versatility to use other weapons to deliver the killing blow. I view him as a more mobile fighter but I'm interested to see other interpretations. Since he will need at least 13 int a good con, strength, and dex he's going to be a bit mad so I'm having a hard time figuring out the best set up. I'm not a fan of the gladiator arch type and would see that part of the character filled by role playing. Let me know how you think best to build him.
We are starting at lvl 3...unknown how high we will go(my gm is deployed at the moment so communication is difficult)But judging by previous experience I would say going above 8-10 is unlikely...just played a battle oracle or that probably would have been my choice. Antipaladin is interesting never played one of them before. I haven't played Kensai or any other magus so that could be fun. also really like the elven eldritch knight concept if he says we are going to reach a decent lvl. So many good options. I don't think he'll let me go the synthesist route unfortunately.
Tempting but I usually wait to fill out the party based on what they choose because most of them won't play a character just because it would make sense for the party to have one (I also know the system better then most of them so I can fill wholes others aren't comfortable with) I'm just curious about any casters builds you have in mind especially arcane ones. I know a straight wizard only benefits a little from the extra stats but I could try some sort of Magus or Bard I suppose.
My Gm for reasons that escape me and fill me with no small measure of dread has informed us that our next campaign will be based on a 32 point buy. We have never done more then 20 before so I'm a bit out of my depth. He is a notorious optimizer so what ever I build has to be powerful. The campaign is exclusively dungeon crawl so I don't have to worry about social skill and knowledge is only for monster Id. Any advice on builds to take advantage of this high point buy would be appreciated. Lastly the party is going to be evil so take that into account.
I'm a LG Paladin of Serenrae, would I tolerate a group member summoning Daemons or Devils to fight other evil?
Where there's an ambiguity in a code, the usual way to deal with it is to give advantage to the signatuary of the code, in which case it is the individual paladin's discression as to how they interpret it. I actually believe this argument ought to be happing in-character during a game rather than out-of-character on a message board. If you can agree to that I'll be satisfied.
Fair enough. I agree that the final interpretation of the code should be decided in each game between the pally and the DM. Any code written in hyperbole is going to have room for interpretation and as long as the player shows they have put serious thought into what there code means i'm not going to fault them for any reasonable conclusions they draw. I think the code can be limited to only needing to destroy Rovagug's minions but it doesn't need to be read that narrowly.
I'm a LG Paladin of Serenrae, would I tolerate a group member summoning Daemons or Devils to fight other evil?
The Diplomat wrote:
Your argument doesn't counter mine. Your talking about a normal pally that has taken the oath against fiends and indeed you may be right. The code of Sarenrae operates differently. The oath of fiends doesn't supersede a god's code it adds another element to it. If the Pally was required by there god to kill devils on sight they wouldn't now be required to do less because they took the oath. If you disagree with my interpretation of the code that's fine but we are arguing apples and oranges. The codes in Faith's of Purity aren't always the clearest things in the world so it is possible to interpret them as you do but I think the path a pally is more likely to choose is striking down a Daemon's and other evil outsiders.
As far as crossing the battlefield to strike at the Daemon that adds facts I didn't use into the analysis. Yes it would indeed be stupid to run across the battlefield with no regard from safety. I was assuming that the Daemon appears in melee(flank buddy perhaps or within reach). Given the choice of a rapidly appearing Daemon or an orc that's not hard and I'd engage the daemon. In your circumstance I would continue fighting the orcs but once they where deal with I would go after the Daemon. Afterword there would be a conversation with the summoner. You would have to find out what type of spell was used and why they did it before determining how your relationship will proceed in the future(great fun role playing for those mature enough not to confuse in character conflict with out of character fighting).
I'm a LG Paladin of Serenrae, would I tolerate a group member summoning Daemons or Devils to fight other evil?
It seems to me most of the people that think the paladin should allow this are doing it for non roleplaying reasons. Its not that a paladin of Sarenrae should or should not do something but rather there idea of a good player should not do something. I find it interesting that everyone gets up in arms about pallys forcing their chars on others but no one seems to care if a the summoner is forcing his concept on the rest of the group. Why is is that the people who want to play selfish psychopaths aren't doing any thing wrong but those who want to play upright and noble characters are always getting thrown under the bus.
And is is just me or if you where in the heat of battle and not meta gaming(knowing what spell your caster was casting) and Daemon showed up across from you(and you recognized it for what it was) your first instinct wouldn't be to smite it with extreme prejudice. If you see a creature of unredeemable evil your first instinct should be to smite it down and if you don't every life it takes is on your soul and you should redeem(just as the pally would if they let a servant of the rough beast take lives through their in action). There are a lot of things a paladin should be pragmatic about and work with your group but I don't think this is one(and if you ruin another PC's concept because he can't summon Daemons there was no way they were ever going to get along with any well played pally anyway).
Whether the evil outsider is "pure evil" or not is besides the point.
Must disagree with you on that point. The rough beast minions are denied redemption because they are so debased and evil that there is no hope for them. The same is true of all evil outsiders. They are scions of evil incapable of any form of good. A creature must wish to be redeemed in order to be redeemed. A demon, devil, or Daemon lacks the capacity to be good and thus cannot be redeemed by words or actions so out comes the scimitar.
perhaps this particular paladin is ignorant of the fact that such creatures cannot be redeemed?
This is an easy fix because if there ignorant of the nature of the outsider they won't have any obligation or non-metagaming reason to destroy the creature short of their actions. If you don't know the creature can't be redeemed your honor bound to give it a shot.
As far as how long you have to give the creature to redeem. I am currently playing just such a pally. What I do is make either a diplomacy or intimidate check against any opponent at the beginning of combat to give them a chance to redeem rather then use violence. This doesn't always work but I give them a chance to choose a nonviolent path so that they can begin to down the path to redemption. if they attack me and my allies after that they are redemeed with the sword. I do go out of my way to try to end combat short of their death if possible (using nonlethal damage, grapple, and intimidate when practicable) but I see that as sufficient. Otherwise it drags the role playing out and some others get a little board.
While the code only specifies the servants of the Rough beast it is unforgiving when dealing with beings that can't be redeemed. Demon's and devils are creatures of pure evil thus they cannot be redeemed. The paladin's code states those that can't be redeemed by words must be redeemed by the sword. So the pally has to kill demon's, devils, or pretty much any evil outsider on sight IMHO. I'm having a similar in game conflict(in a good role playing way) with a neutral summoner. If he summons anything evil we have words and if he won't stop in the future the conflict will grow.
Two other points. If your using the code from Faith and Purities it supersedes the general code in the core rule book. People are mixing the two and that will lead to confusion. Secondly if using the original code they can ally with evil only in exceptional circumstances and they must atone even for doing so. That is not something that any paladin can do on a routine basis as part of ongoing party strategy. Embrace the code and enjoy the role playing challenges don't look for the easy way out.