Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Count Strahd Von Zarvoich

Digitalelf's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 2,405 posts (2,482 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
HenshinFanatic wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere. This is something that didn't come across in your previous posts.

That is the nature of text-based communication; though I thought it was pretty apparent in my posts because I have constantly been saying that how I play is a not a part of the RAW for Pathfinder or 3rd edition. Though where appropriate, I have said the how I play was backed up by the rules of the edition that I use (with the necessary text provided).

But, apparently, I was mistaken. :-)

HenshinFanatic wrote:
I like to think myself as tolerant (some might say overly easy-going), and flexible enough that I don't really subscribe to the "no gaming is better than bad gaming" maxim that I've encountered on various sites; after all, how bad is it really if the group has a different style? I generally think that any gaming is better than no gaming.

It should be no secret that I am a self proclaimed, card carrying "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard, and that means that I am only so easy going when it comes to games I want to play in or run. I mean, I like what I like, and don't like what I don't like.

I run my games a certain way, I am upfront about that to perspective new players, and they are free to decline if my style and that of my players is not something that they think they would enjoy. And I have no problem with that, as I know my preferred style is something that most gamers seem not to go for today... And the reverse to that is I don't think that I would enjoy what most gamers seem to enjoy today either... But that's okay too, and that is why I kept ending my posts with "YMMV", because I know it does.

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Heh, maybe I'm just that desperate to find a group that will let me join.

I hope that you're either in or are able to find a stable group that shares your gaming preferences. :-)

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Then again, I've never encountered a group I have played with that I couldn't adapt to.

I sure have!

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Even when I was part of a heavily home-brewed 3.5 campaign where everyone had to be some kind of evil alignment. For the record I generally like playing heroic warrior types so this was A)outside my comfort zone alignment-wise, and B)in a system where martially inclined classes were vastly weaker than spellcasters. Still had a blast with my psychic warrior Final Fantasy style Dragoon character. Sadly that game fell apart as the DM moved to a different city.

An evil PC campaign is an example of something that I would not enjoy. But it's a shame that it had to stop for you. Perhaps you could still game with him online via Skype or some other means?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
i guess a Ranger kit that gave up spellcasting and gave up the option to take proficiency in medium armor, heavy armor, 2handed melee weapons and shields in exchange for a few theif skills, a relaxing of the code of conduct, a loosening of the alignment restrictions, and the ability to specialize in city approved weapons like knives while restricting it's wild empathy, animal companion and animal entourage abilities to interact exclusively with urban species of animals like birds, dogs, and livestock could work but that is essentially the urban ranger kit

Wow, that's a bit more than what a kit is capable of providing...

Perhaps it would indeed take a whole new class to fit your concept. But giving weapon specialization to a non-fighter is a big advantage within 2nd edition. As that is the one ability that straight fighters have all to themselves.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
making a race kit for elves that traded some of their less fitting elfy abilities for minor air kin fae abilities like being able to predict weather by simply staring at the sky or reading displacement in the air as a means to track.

Well, racial kits do not exist within the rules, and tracking by air displacement is beyond even the abilities of a 2nd edition slyph.

But it was a fun little hypothetical...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
HenshinFanatic wrote:
What many people who share my position (whether to the same degree or not) are trying to convey (as best as I understand) is that were you, or someone with your outlook, a fellow player at the same table who tried to rain on our parades just because how we do things irks your sensibilities, would be something that we'd find vexing.

I know full well what the other posters are trying to say.

But message board threads are a back-and forth... And in the majority of cases, no one on either side is going to convince or change the other person's views and/or opinions, and that's fine (and I think most of us here already know this going in). I think it is part of the enjoyment people get out of the experience.

And in no way, shape or form am I trying to dictate to people what the "correct" way of playing is. I am merely telling others how I play and how I do things within my own games; and when asked why I do things like that, I try my best to explain it. I also do this whenever a new player joins my group, and if one were to one day, say "no thank you", that would be okay (so far, no one has done this). And if I join another group who's style is not my preference, instead of futilely trying to force my will upon the group, I adapt to that group's play style (so as to not "rain on their parade"), and if at the end of the session, I find that their style is just too at odds with my own, I do the sensible thing and politely bow out...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
i was thinking of Pathfinder Sylphs, not D&D sylphs. sorry if we had a misunderstanding of which sylph was which

I realize that you were talking about your Pathfinder character being a Pathfinder slyph, but you had wondered how I would handle such a character in 2nd edition, so I used the 2nd edition slyph for my example.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
think medium fey blooded humanoids with a minor affinity for the plane of air who serve a similar purpose to Genasi but have more ability to pass for human enough on a cosmetic level. (well, closer to a slighter framed half elf than a human when it comes to appearance)

Yeah, the 2nd edition slyph has 3 HD and is considered an "air kin" elemental.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
the Reason for Ranger/Thief is for both a combination of the free tracking and the better scaling thaco which helps target weak points, compared to a straight theif to make the character actually capable of holding her own in a fight and because she isn't an "i sneak in the shadows and stab your back" type as much as an "i fight dirty by applying my skill with sleight...

The damage output of Pathfinder (and 3rd edition) just isn't possible in 2nd edition. But then it really isn't the necessity that it is in 3rd edition and Pathfinder because the numbers overall in 2nd edition aren't as high.

But to continue the hypothetical, instead of thief, then perhaps ranger would work, but then that is not a perfect match either, as rangers do not have "pick pockets", just "move silently" and "hide in shadows".

The problem with a multi-class is that ranger can only be combined with cleric, and even then, only for half-elves (the Complete Rangers Handbook offers a second option, the "Ranger/Druid", but that is not useful for our hypothetical).

So this is why I am a proponent for designing a new class, or kit; I usually go the kit route first, and exhausting that, then I suggest designing a full class.

I try to design a kit before a full class because kits are easier to make, and offer options to classes that you would not be able to get without them, such as adding tracking as a bonus (i.e. free) proficiency, and they are easier to balance with other classes and other kits because of their inherent disadvantages (the bad, comes with the good so to speak).

I know that it can be (and has been) said that this is the reason for re-skinning a class, but to me, (and I know I've said this before) doing that just cheapens the class one is re-skinning, and I just don't see that as a good thing...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

well, i guess i might shoot down that Sylph street magician before i ever consider playing her at your table, even as a multiclass urban ranger/thief due to the fact she was so dependant on Pathfinder options to have viable damage output and would outright be useless in 2nd edition. much like thieves were useless in every edition. unless i gave her a mountain of multiclass

but then, i would have to work on Sylph as a race for approval.

I know we're talking about a hypothetical here, but you've mentioned ranger twice now. Is it because of the free Tracking proficiency, the better scaling THAC0; why ranger? I mean, it wouldn't help with weapon specialization, as only straight fighters get that...

As for slyphs, they are pretty powerful for a player character race, what with their innate ability to cast spells as a 7th level mage, and natural ability to fly - all from the very get-go.

Thieves however, are only "useless" in 2nd edition (at least IMO), if you attempt to remove them from the shadows. They were not meant to go toe-to-toe with the bad guys... The classes in 2nd edition are much more dependent upon one another in this edition than they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Skyth wrote:
I can't wrap my head around the idea that you find Skills and Powers overly complex, but don't bat an eye at making new classes.

I think the Skills & Powers books make the game more complex at least in the area of character creation, by adding two sub stats to each of the six ability scores, and give each class a number of points in which to spend on abilities. What makes this different for me from designing a new class, is that I only have to make the class once and it's done; all these other rules added to character creation, needlessly complicate the process, which like I said, was one of the reasons that I stopped playing Pathfinder and 3rd edition...

Other things that the Player's Option books added that needlessly complicate the game for me include the additional combat rules, many of which found their way in one shape or form into 3rd edition, and by extension, Pathfinder (e.g. Attacks of Opportunity).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
would you have forced her to take levels in "Street Magician?" would you have forced her to take a "Rogue/Ranger multiclass?" instead of backstabbing, she targeted weakpoints and even crit on a 12-20 with both knives

First of all, I probably wouldn't let you play a half-slyph; as slyphs were not made available in the Complete Book of Humanoids (like the Pixie was for a "fairy" example). As a general rule, I do not allow players to play non-core races. But, the thief class would be fine for the basis of the concept.

There are a few things that simply would not be possible for your character to do under 2nd edition rules, such as any class other than straight Fighter Specializing in a weapon, much less "triple" specialization, even for a fighter (however, there is a way for thief character to "buy" weapon specialization, but that uses the system set up in the Player's Option book, "Skills & Powers", which I don't make much use of, and especially do not use the character creation rules in it because it needlessly complicates the game, and one of the reasons I stopped running 3rd edition and Pathfinder, was the overly complex rules).

Moving on...

There is no "Weapon Finesse" non-weapon proficiency, so you would not be able to use your DEX instead of STR for your melee attacks. But, just to receive a +1 on damage, a character needs a 16 STR, and to get a +1 bonus to hit, a character needs a 17 STR (so even in melee, you'd need a fairly high STR score to receive any bonus from STR during combat). Regardless, thrown weapons use your "Missile Attack Adjustment" (and just like STR, the bonuses don't start until a score of 16). However, ambidexterity, two-weapon style, and tracking are all non-weapon proficiencies (though all are cross-class proficiencies for a rogue and thus would cost your thief one more slot each, and as listed, Tracking has a cost of 2 slots, so your thief would have to spend all 3 of her initial slots at 1st level just on that alone, the only saving grace, would be to have a high enough INT to gain additional starting slots).

Card tricks, are sleight of hand, and that would be covered in the "Pick Pockets" thief skill. The cards, I'd treat them as Shurikens, but in 2nd edition, no weapon gets a "crit" on anything lower than an 18, but only then, if you hit your opponent's AC by 5 points or more (and that is only if one uses the Player's Option: Skills & Powers rules for critical hits, otherwise, a “crit” is only on a natural 20). Also, magical items in 2nd edition are not the "commodity" that they are in Pathfinder (or 3rd edition), so buying them is a lot harder to do, as is crafting them; but they are also not as critically necessary as they are in Pathfinder (and 3rd edition).

As far as backstabbing goes...

Backstabbing in 2nd edition wasn't about just hitting critical areas; it was specifically hitting critical areas of a target's back:

2nd Edition Player's Handbook wrote:

To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him. If an enemy sees the thief, hears him approach from a blind side, or is warned by another, he is not caught unaware, and the backstab is handled like a normal attack (although bonuses for a rear attack still apply). Opponents in battle will often notice a thief trying to maneuver behind them--the first rule of fighting is to never turn your back on an enemy! However, someone who isn't expecting to be attacked (a friend or ally, perhaps) can be caught unaware even if he knows the thief is behind him...

...

Backstabbing does have limitations. First, the damage multiplier applies only to the first attack made by the thief, even if multiple attacks are possible. Once a blow is struck, the initial surprise effect is lost. Second, the thief cannot use it on every creature. The victim must be generally humanoid. Part of the skill comes from knowing just where to strike. A thief could backstab an ogre, but he wouldn't be able to do the same to a beholder. The victim must also have a definable back (which leaves out most slimes, jellies, oozes, and the like). Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony. Backstabbing him in the ankle just isn't going to be as effective.

So, backstabbing is significantly weaker than "Sneak Attack"...

All-in-all you could make a very similar character under the 2nd edition rules, but not an exact match (especially when you take Feats into account as well).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
And this is the kind of thinking that would completely drive me away from the game.

Well, I frequently tell people on these boards that I am a card carrying, "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard... Which, while said, more or less tongue-in-cheek, carries with it, the truth.

And as I also have said many times on these boards, I know that my preferred style of play is in the minority, but I have embraced that fact, even if it does have the potential to limit my pool of gamers (though it hasn't done so yet).

Lemmy wrote:
All that does is make the game world more predictable, boring and restrictive.

I don't know... I just don't need every possible, available option to have fun, or to make my game worlds vibrant, exciting, and totally unpredictable to my players.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
Overtime, as I aged

Age has nothing to do with gaming preferences.

Just because someone prefers a different style of gaming than you, does not mean that person is "narrow minded" or is "limited" in their thinking. Nor does it imply that they are closed minded.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:

Yes. It lessens their importance in determining who your character is. That is a good thing. When class doesn't determine who your character is, there are more characters that can be played. Stating that refluffing classes lessens their importance is far from a condemnation, it's praise.

Also, I get it when you say Your Mileage May Vary. You don't have to keep repeating it. You have a preference. But I think that preference is destructive to the game and inhibits the stories you can tell, and is unfairly punishing to players that want to do something different while creating dissonance in the game world and requiring large amounts of time to be wasted developing new classes when you could easily just use existing mechanics.

I just don't agree, I think it is a bad thing. And in my experience (which is anecdotal I know), I have never had a problem, or complaint about my games being too restrictive (much less "destructive") LOL... @@

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
Fluff is only flavor. Fluff should never limit player options. A class is only a package of mechanics that may loosely emulate a given class concept, but as I and many others in this thread are stating, that same package could be easily applied to any number of other class concepts. A class's title (ie: barbarian) shouldn't define, nor limit what a give set of mechanics should mean. Thinking so, is very narrow minded.

Well, it is the view I take, and it is my preferred play-style, so I guess that make me narrow minded in your view, yes? It may be the opinion that you hold, but it not a very polite thing to actually say on these message boards where Paizo thinks that everybody with every play-style is welcome on their boards...

gamer-printer wrote:
You keep stating how you don't like re-skinning - which is fine, but you've also stated your players would love to run a ninja, that doesn't come with all the fluff baggage. Obviously you are alone even in your own table for your "preference".

No, I haven't, and no, I'm not... You've completely misread my posts, for I have never used examples from my table, only examples I've pulled out of thin air to illustrate my point.

gamer-printer wrote:
Except for the words "ninja" and "ki" there's nothing about the ninja class that specifically emulates "this is a Japanese feudal assassin". Changing the word ninja and ki to some other non-oriental words is all that's necessary to make ninja be equivalent to a professional commando, a master spy or saboteur serving a Euro-analog king.

I don't want my games to work like that. I view the classes as one of the defining factors of a character. It is an integral part of who the character is. The class one chooses is important in my games for those reasons, and to just re-skinning, re-flavoring, re-fluffing, or re-whatever, lessens that importance; which in my view, is not a good thing (which is why, despite the editions changing, I have run things pretty much the same from edition to edition).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote:
Well, the books specifically call out the idea of a "civilized" barbarian. So not even the books support your assumptions.

They do in the edition that I play, but within the context of 3rd edition and Pathfinder, I have never claimed that my veiws represent the RAW. I always (again, within the context of 3rd edition and Pathfinder) clearly state that these are the opinions I hold, and that YMMV...

Albatoonoe wrote:
Classes are meta concepts. They aren't literal professions.

In 3rd edition and Pathfinder, you are absolutely right... However, in the edition that I play:

The 2nd Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game

And as I've said many times in this thread, I did not change the way I ran, played, or viewed the game just because the editions changed.

As always, YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
Of course you can

Except that you missed the part where I don't allow, or like, re-skinning classes.

If someone wants to make a character like the one in my example (Elite Soldier), they would have to design a new class for it (or a kit, and in this case, either one could work).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
Why? You didn't give a reason.

The short answer (which I have stated many times in this thread), is that I do not allow the re-skinning of classes in my games.

In the post you quoted from, I say:

Digitalelf wrote:
this game, Dungeons & Dragons (and by extension, Pathfinder), is not about replicating real life. It is a class-based system, and to me, that means the characters, after having chosen their class are pigeon-holed into a specific role

I dislike re-skinning classes because I think that in a class-based system, the classes are not only an integral part of the game, but an important one, and I think that just re-skinning as needed lessens their importance. It is my opinion that if you cannot do what you want to do using one of the existing classes, make a new one that does (or just make a kit if what you want to do doesn't require an entire class).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
don't bring gaming time into the subject. It means basically nothing.

I disagree; the meaning is entirely dependent upon the usage. Using it while thumping your chest, saying; "Well, I've been playing for 30 years, so I can tell you for a fact that blah blah blah..." is a usage that would be meaningless IMHO.

My usage of it was to illustrate a point of possible empathy with your point.

Lemmy wrote:
What I dislike is the fact that the world is created as if characters had a neon sign on their head telling the world what they are.

And I don't see that as the case.

Does it simulate or even emulate real life? Not entirely, but this game, Dungeons & Dragons (and by extension, Pathfinder), is not about replicating real life. It is a class-based system, and to me, that means the characters, after having chosen their class are pigeon-holed into a specific role, and I do not find that to be in any way, shape or form, to be a negative in a class-based system; I expect it.

In a system like Chaosium's BRP, which is skill-based, I don't have that same view, because in that game, my character is not pigeon-holed into anything...

It is two entirely different playing styles for me.

Lemmy wrote:
Profession is what the character does for money.

And adventurers usually get paid (in some manner) for what they do.

The rogue is responsible for finding the traps, picking the locks, scouting ahead, etc. The warrior is responsible for going toe-to-toe with the enemy, protecting the weaker members of the group, etc., etc...

Lemmy wrote:
If your character kills people for a living she's an assassin. It doesn't matter what class she uses. She doesn't need the Assassin PrC to assassinate people for money.

I didn't buy that when TSR used it as an excuse to pull the Assassin class in 2nd edition, and I don't buy it now...

YES, absolutely, anyone can kill someone for money, but that does not make them an assassin any more than me taking biology in high school makes me a biologist.

Lemmy wrote:
Similarly, a player that assumes an sneaky assassin has levels in the Assassin class is jumping to a lot of conclusions.

I can agree with that, but I think it is a good assumption to make (especially in a class based system), as it is better to prepare for the worst by being prepared for almost anything, than assuming otherwise.

Lemmy wrote:
What can I say... Class is not concept. Concept is not class. One of them is just a bunch of mechanics (that hopefully can satisfyingly represent the character concept that inspired the class in the first place). The other is the background, personality and other role-playing characteristics that a player has for his character.

I've said in another post that a class to me, is not just the fluff OR the crunch, it is a mixture of both.

Lemmy wrote:
I'd be really annoyed if my player said I have to be a Paladin to play a holy warrior of Good... Or that I had be a Barbarian to play a warrior of the wilds who doesn't trust magic and civilization... That's a game I simply wouldn't be willing to play.

I don’t see any of your examples as needing to re-skin or even re-visualize any of the existing classes.

For example, in 2nd edition, you can choose the thief class and still be from a barbarian tribe that distrusts magic; because that's where you're from, but you still CHOSE to be a thief by "profession" amongst your people (and that may or may not cause problems, but that's another topic)...

Playing a character that kills for money, or is a holy warrior of good (and not specifically a Paladin), and a warrior of the wild who does not trust magic, are ways that you can play your character, regardless of class, it's just that the existing classes do those things much better.

But what you cannot do (at least IMHO), is choose the barbarian class for example, remove the "man of the wild" connections, make him "civilized", rename the class "Elite Soldier", and explain his rage as is his ability to focus his concentration while on the field of battle.

Conversely, there is nothing stopping a character with the barbarian class from being recruited by the king and assigned as his personal bodyguard, but in such an instance, he is still a barbarian.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
Having to be a Rogue to play a sneaky scoundrel or having to be a Ranger to be a woodsman is... Well... one of the more restrictive and unimaginative ways of playing the game.

Having played 3rd edition and then Pathfinder for a combined total of 12-13 years, I can see why you would think that.

For me, I began to see that I didn't need all the options in the world in order to offer the type of game I wanted to run or play. I didn't need my wizards to be good at tracking, or my fighters to be able to sneak around unseen... But then, I also never stopped viewing the classes as professions (e.g. it was the rogue's job to scout ahead, it was the ranger's job to track the enemy, it was the... You get the idea).

This did not stop me however, from designing a new class or more often than not, a new kit to fulfill a role that was not represented by one of the full classes I had available.

I never felt restricted, nor do I feel restricted having returned to an earlier edition.

YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
fantasy fiction is loaded with self taught swordsmen and the like if somebody didn't want to deal with a trainer and was willing to spend extra time.

Training with a teacher can take a pretty long time:

The 2nd Edition DMG" wrote:

The amount of time required depends on the instructor's Wisdom. Subtract the Wisdom score from 19. This is the minimum number of weeks the player character must spend in training--it takes his instructor this long to go through all the lessons and drills. At the end of this time, the player character makes an Intelligence or Wisdom check, whichever is higher.

If the check is successful, the lessons have been learned and the character can advance in level. If the check is failed, the character must spend another week in training. At the end of this time, another check is made, with a +1 applied to the character's Intelligence or Wisdom score. The results are the same as above, with each additional week spent in training giving another +1 to the character's ability score. This +1 is for the purpose of determining the success or failure of the check only. It is not permanent or recorded.

So, I make use of training schools and academies, which makes finding a teacher pretty easy (but at a higher cost than with a private teacher)...

But I do allow for self training. Basically using the system as above, I assign a flat 5 to represent the character's Wisdom score (just for the purposes of determining the length of training time), and then give a +1 bonus per point of Wisdom above 5; so if the character had a 15 Wisdom, that character's effective Wisdom is 10 for our purposes, thus it take the character a minimum of 9 weeks to train himself for a new level. So with this system, the minimum number of weeks it would take a character to self-train would be 6 weeks (and this would assume a maximum Wisdom score of 18)...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
since a ninja and hellstalker use all the same skills, one should be able to logically train the other and vice versa.

They could but I don't believe that they would... I can't speak of the Hellstalkers, as I never used them when I was playing Pathfinder and using Golarion, but I can speak of ninjas, and they are very secretive, clannish, and not very open to teaching their arts to outsiders.

It is very possible that the original Hellstalker was a ninja, and he adapted his styles, techniques, and abilities to better suit the Hellstalkers...

But in my games, especially now that I use 2nd edition AD&D, I would require them to be two separate classes that share a lot of similar skills and abilities, because a class to me, is not just the fluff OR the crunch, it is a mixture of both, and since both classes have different functions, their abilities would be similar but not exactly the same.

Thus, as I said, there would be two classes, and members of each class would need to receive training from another member of their class; though, I suppose, depending on exactly how close the two classes are to one another, that one could train the other in a pinch, if one found himself half-way around the world with no others that could train them, but that would in no way be an easy task as the character would have to 1). Find an NPC of the other class and 2). Convince that NPC to train them...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Aratrok wrote:
why are you on Paizo's forums if you only play 2e?

No offence taken...

I don't only play 2nd edition, it is just my "goto" game of choice.

That being said, this is the "Gamer Talk" area of the board, it is specifically for: "Non-game-specific talk about games and gaming".

These boards are not just for those that play Pathfinder.

Aratrok" wrote:
I find that to be an impossible, inefficient method

It's not an impossible task for me, as I've done it plenty of times before (and to great effect)... As for being inefficient, well, fast and efficient is not always the best thing to do, especially if you enjoy the process.

Aratrok" wrote:
It's a fundamentally different game focused on giving the GM total control and putting player advocacy in a very narrow band of options, which is like, the exact opposite of what 3e and Pathfinder are about.

As I stated in another post, despite being different games, I had continued to run my 3rd edition and Pathfinder games much as I had (and now do again) run my 2nd edition games with great success. It's like GreyWolfLord above wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:
it is merely a different playstyle... ...and as such, this is just as valid a play style as any other play style gamers have on these boards.

As always, YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm sure you have. That doesn't mean that that's the correct thing to do or explains things well in-world.

Correct, incorrect... There is no such thing that applies to all in an RPG, especially in light of my experience to the contrary. What is incorrect for you, is correct for me...

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Indeed. which means that anyone with some Craft and Disable Device can have a 'locksmith' profession without the need for a specific Rogue variant to do that. Which is sorta my point.

Though there are many reasons, this is a part of why I went back to playing 2nd edition AD&D.

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
There are some verisimilitude issues with the training thing. Does the trainer need to have all the skills they raise higher than they do at higher ratings than them? Do they need to purchase Feats the trainer also knows? As Ashiel notes, who trained the trainer? Eventually, if you go back far enough, someone had to be first.[

When I was playing 3e/PF, I did not require the character to find a trainer who shared the same skill/feat set, just the class. I did require that characters only add ranks in skills that they used, or spend some time learning a new skill or feat with someone who has the skill/feat (which is how things worked in 2nd edition, especially for thieves and bards).

As for "who trained the trainer", I already addressed that in my response to that post, but I'll add, chances are very good one would have to go back pretty far to find the first.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

What if I want to play, say, a prodigy without meaningful training? Is that just not an existent thing in your world?

Or, heck, any spontaneous spellcaster? Having them need training to advance makes just about zero sense.

Sure, your character can start out as a "prodigy", but just like in real life, at some point, a prodigy needs training to help "focus" that talent. And even virtuosos, continuously train...

As for spontaneous spellcasters... All I can say is thank goodness 2nd edition does not have them! ;-)

However, requiring them to train does indeed make sense because training exposes them to new spells that they can try to emulate. And by having someone "better" than you are at what you do, helps you understand your abilities better, and hone them further, thereby making you better at what you do (like I said, even experts continuously train)

"Deadmanwalking wrote:
There are also verisimilitude issues with the ability of NPCs (or anyone) to clearly distinguish between more mundane classes. Spell-casters are clearly distinct in-world due to the nature of their spells, as are some Barbarians due to the nature of their Rage Powers...but everyone else? Not so much.

Verisimilitude is keeping things within the story (or in the case of RPGs), the setting, internally consistent with itself:

Dictionary.com wrote:
The semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction. The concept implies that either the action represented must be acceptable or convincing according to the audience's own experience or knowledge or, as in the presentation of science fiction or tales of the supernatural, the audience must be enticed into willingly suspending disbelief and accepting improbable actions as true within the framework of the narrative.

Just because two fighters, for example, appear to be statistically identical to one another, does not break the suspension of disbelief (unless you are actively looking for it to be broken); because the two fighters are (presumably) two completely different individuals who look at and tackle problems in completely different ways from one another.

As always, YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Who trained the trainer?

Who invented the wheel, who was the first to use fire? It doesn't matter however, because it wasn't your character...

Even if you collaborate with me and create a new class or kit for my campaign setting, your character was not the first, and more than likely, nowhere near the first.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
You're missing the point... ...What has "re-skinning" a ninja got to do with that?

Apparently, you missed my point.

If someone wants to play a ninja, as a ninja, I have no problem with that. But, if someone wants to play a ninja, because of all of the nifty abilities, but does not want all of the "baggage" (for lack of a better word) that is associated with the class, and therefore re-skins the class to remove all of the ninja fluff and the connections to anything remotely ninja related - Then I have a problem.

gamer-printer wrote:
I played D&D 2e and used kits back then, but since the arrival of 3x/PF and more fully developed classes - I don't miss kits and 2e at all.

And after playing 3rd edition and Pathfinder for a combined 12/13 odd years, I missed the simplistic elegance of 2nd edition AD&D...

gamer-printer wrote:
Ninja fulfills "spy" far better than either the prestige class, or other altered flavors of rogue.

Which is precisely why many want the class, but do not the "ninja" part that comes along with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
You've just described a typical ninja, not a "special one".

Yes but many who wish to re-skin a ninja are doing so to strip away the ninja fluff, thus making their character a generic "spy"...

My setting does not have a generic spy class, but if you want to create one, I can probably help you do it (or create a "spy" kit which might be a better fit than a full class would be).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Pathfinder and 2E are not the same game, and are not designed with the same definitions in mind.

I agree with this. They are not the same game, but from past (anecdotal) experience, the definitions of 2nd edition can be successfully applied to 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

Deadmanwalking" wrote:
The very existence of skills as a meaningful and expanding thing profoundly alters the dynamic between Class and in-world Profession.

I agree with this as well... In 2nd edition, if you want a character that can pick a lock as well as pick a pocket with any reasonable degree of success, then your choice is pretty limited, as these abilities are not "skills" available to all like they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
applying the standards of 2E to Pathfinder in this area is inappropriate, and a mistake.

Here I have to disagree with you. As I've said earlier in this post, my experience has shown (even though it is totally anecdotal) that it can be done, and done successfully. When the editions changed (from 2nd to 3rd, and from 3rd to Pathfinder), I did not alter my views of the game, nor the style in which I ran it.

I realize that there are those that would not enjoy my gaming style or agree with my views of the game (or elements thereof). I also know that my preferred style of play belongs to a dying breed of old and musty gamers (such as myself)...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
If a player told me they wanted to have a character who was originally a farmer and as a result wished for us to homebrew a "farmer" class, I'd facepalm.

Well, in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, there is already a class that can handle that; the Commoner NPC class, or, if you really want to make a really good farmer, you could use the Expert NPC class... ;-P

But since I am coming at this from a 2nd edition AD&D standpoint, if the player really wanted to make a farmer, and not just have farming as a background, then creating a new kit would better suit such a concept...

The kits of 2nd edition had such titles as:

Amazon
Pirate
Peasant Hero
Beggar
Fence
Smuggler
Militant Wizard
Outlaw Priest

And that's just a sampling of kits from just the core 4 classes (and there were 22 books in the "Complete" series alone, each filled with new kits. Plus there were kits in quite a lot of the other source books as well)...

But kits are not full classes...

Let's take a look at some full classes from editions past:

Astrologer
Bounty Hunter
Duelist
Geisya
Jester
Merchant
Savant
Smith

And that's just a few from a very long list.

The argument could be made that those classes were intended for NPCs only, but we both know, that most gamers let players use them (and it has been argued that these so called NPC only classes were labeled that way because of the views Gyxax held)...

Anyway, here are a few full classes for use by players for 2nd edition AD&D:

The Soldier
The Tradesman
The mystic

The reason I pointed all of those out is because they represent concepts that could be made by re-skinning the core classes.

It's not difficult to make a new class (and it's even easier to make a new Kit), and it makes for a more permanent part of the campaign setting than just a single re-skin of a class. It also allows me as the DM to add that concept to my setting and make it an integral part, while maintaining my setting's verisimilitude and not just something fleeting and temporary like a re-skinned class more than likely would wind up being.

Like I said, I do not like disassociated game mechanics. I want a person in the world to be able to tell someone asking them why he can do what it is he can do. And while this can be explained with a re-skin, I don’t run a game where players are free to create and add to the setting (to do so requires my co-operation and final say). Most re-skinned classes I hear or read about are one shot deals for the players doing it, and would require whole institutions (no matter the size) to keep that character trained and possibly even functioning (because of exotic weapons or equipment). I just don’t want that headache.

It may be a headache for you to make a new class instead of just re-skinning another class, but making that (more than likely, one-off) character, logically work in my setting is a headache I’d rather avoid.

For me, I just do not like re-skinning the classes. In my view, classes are not a series of numbers that can be worked and re-worked at a whim. Like I said, classes are the character's chosen profession or career, and you can't take a CPR class in high school and call yourself an EMT after graduation; you'd still have more classes to take...

But it's not just my opinion that classes are a character's profession. It comes directly from the rules that I use to play:

2nd Edition Player's Handbook wrote:
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game.

No, it's not a perfect system, but I don't have the inclination or a valid enough reason to change it. I happen to think it works just fine as it stands...

Ashiel wrote:
Your average McSlave is actually a 7th level dual-dual-dual-dual-dual classed human, with levels in Kindergarden Student, Highschool Student, Bagboy, Burger Flopper, College Student, Best Buy assistant, and later on levels it Guidance Councilor. :D

D&D has never tried to accurately portray or simulate the vast capabilities the human race has or is capable of... And I think that the classes as written do a good job of defining who a character is; so when a player says; "my character is a fighter!" that's because by the RAW (of my chosen game anyway), the character IS a fighter. He is a Fighter in the same vein as someone telling you they are a doctor, a fireman, or even a gourmet chef.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
like people actually wore signs over their head saying "Fighter".

No, but people also don't go around wearing signs that say "biochemist", "farmer", or "school teacher"; though there are some professions that do advertise, such as "doctor", "police officer", and "cable guy".

Which brings me to my point; I still view the character classes as professions. Which is exactly how they were portrayed way back in 1st edition AD&D.

I also require that a character spend both time and gold to train before they are able to advance to a new level once they have earned enough experience points to do so.

So, if a player is playing a super unique ninja that is really a circus performer who is really a secret agent that spies for the king; well, good luck finding another person that shares the same [unique] class as you in order to teach you your new level because:

2nd edition DMG wrote:
This tutor must be of the same class and higher level than the one the character is training for.

So at least with a new character class (or kit) that both the player and myself came up with, a president has been set, so I can easily have in-game reasons for why and how the new class does what it does in my setting, thus keeping the game mechanics from being disassociated from the setting, and keep the verisimilitude intact (both are VERY much important to me).

But again I remind you, I am a card-carrying "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard through and through!

Ashiel wrote:
Yeah...that makes tons of sense. Why don't we all just do that?

Well, I did say: "Obviously, YMMV..."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Voadam wrote:
I remember goblins having 1d8-1 HD in Moldvay Basic and 1e AD&D so the basic set 1d6 weapons would take them out in 1 or two hits.

In 1st edition AD&D, goblins are listed as having 1-7 hit points in the Monster Manual. In 2nd edition AD&D as well as in Original D&D (i.e. the 1974 edition), they have 1-1 HD (which really winds up being the same as having 1-7 hit points)...

Original D&D also listed every weapon, regardless of type, as only doing 1d6 damage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
As a result you are actively murdering many, many character concepts, especially if there is no pre-established fluff for the concept whether there are mechanics that would allow it to begin with, or you are forcing everyone to look like everyone else in the world.

I don't entirely agree...

I tend to not allow the re-skinning of classes because the game rules usually have the option of creating new character classes, with the steps on how to do so included (e.g. this was true of both 2nd and 3rd edition).

So if a player wishes to play something that is not within the rules already or represented by one of the available classes, they are free to come to me with an idea for a totally new class (or, since I play 2nd edition AD&D, a new character kit if that would fit their character idea better instead of an entirely new class).

I also tend to not allow the re-skinning of races either because the races within my settings are fairly well established...

But then, I don't run a game where the players are able to add to the setting outside of actual game-play (meaning that once the game starts, it is then that the players, through their characters, can affect and change the world around their characters through their characters in-game actions).

Obviously, YMMV...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If your GM is throwing you into the Mana Wastes or facing you against cabals of beholders
Terquem wrote:
Oh, yeah, and Beholders are lurking around every corner

ROFL...

I just mention, in passing, that there are beholders and dead magic zones (specifically in ONE setting at that), and that's taken that I somehow mean that there are cabals of beholders lurking around every corner, and that every setting has vast swaths of zones of nothing but dead magic!?

Talk about taking things to the extreme... Goodness. :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

All dice are not created equal:

Part 1 (of 2)

Par 2 (of 2)

These videos have been around for a while, but they do a good job of explaining why some dice tend to roll either high or low...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Outside of GM fiat AMFs don't happen

That's not entirely true. I have not seen the new MM, but if Beholders are kept true to form, then they have an anti-magic field "attack" (through their main eye), and I can't comment on the state of the current Forgotten Realms, but I know that both 2e and 3e FR had large areas that were anti-magic zones...

Just sayin'

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Torchlyte wrote:
Suppose you are playing a Paladin and your character's mother pings as evil. What do you do?

This being the generic gamer talk board, even though everybody seems to be discussing this question through the lens of Pathfinder, since I play 2nd Edition AD&D, the answer to the question for me is very different because:

The Complete Paladin's Handbook wrote:

Any association with an evil-aligned character can be construed as an evil act. In general, a paladin bears responsibility for the actions of his associates, even those taken without his knowledge or consent.

...

Because he is duty-bound to suppress evil, a paladin won't tolerate an evil PC. He may take the evil PC into custody, physically restrain him, or demand his expulsion from the party. If all else fails, the paladin severs his ties with the party and go his own way. In any event, inaction is unacceptable.

...

A paladin walks on shaky ground, however, the moment he begins an association with an evil NPC that could be perceived as friendly or compliant.

So, it would seem our paladin would need to at the very least, sever his ties to dear old ma, lest he risk placing his status as a paladin in jeopardy...

And just for the record, an evil act (in 2nd Edition AD&D) carries with it the penalty of an immediate loss of the paladin's status:

The Complete Paladin's Handbook wrote:

Even a single evil violation results in the immediate and irrevocable loss of the paladin's status. He forfeits all benefits, powers, and privileges associated with the paladin class, none of which may be restored by magic or any other means. From that point on, the character exists as a fighter.

...

If a paladin commits an evil act while enchanted or controlled by magic, he immediately loses his paladin status and becomes a fighter as described above. However, because the evil act wasn't intentional, the status loss is temporary. To regain his status, the character must complete a dangerous quest or important mission on behalf of his government, church, or mentor.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Logan1138 wrote:
Is your enjoyment of the game predicated on fighting non-standard monsters?

There was a limited bit of "monster building" during the days of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, especially if one used the pre-published modules, as there were several that featured monsters with class levels.

Granted, this wasn't anywhere near to the extent of 3.x and Pathfinder, but the concept is certainly not a new one...

Though, to answer your question, I like to use both in my games (with 2nd edition AD&D being my goto game of choice).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
The most heated it got was a comparatively mellow discussion of the merits of frequent apologies.

ROFL... :-D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Are you thinking that I said "Bam! You've shifted from CG to CE!" ?

Since you quoted my post, it's hard to tell. Are you asking me, or Lemmy?

I’m going to assume that you’re asking Lemmy, because I agree with you in that I think casting evil spells is an evil act and effects a character's alignment...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
That doesn't mean he should do it. Or that doing that whatever isn't a dick move.

I agree that there are a lot of things that a GM could do that would cause others to call him some sort of phallic symbol, but I do not agree that making evil spells effect alignment, or saying that good can never be achieved through evil acts, is cause for such...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
there that would justify an alignment shift any further than Neutral

I can agree with part of what you say here, in that in a gradual shift towards evil (from Lawful Good anyway), the first stop so to speak on the alignment train to evil, is neutrality (Lawful Neutral in the case of a Lawful Good character moving towards evil). But being neutral does not give a character free reign to continue to willing do evil... So the journey towards evil would continue from that new, neutral alignment (at least that is how things work in my games).

As for actions being evil because the GM makes them evil, I think that is wholly within the GM's purview to do, especially in the case of deeming evil spells having an effect on alignment, and deeming that one cannot achieve good through acts of evil... It's very clear that Aelryinth makes that call as a GM. That's part and parcel of what house-rules are about.

Making a PC an NPC is irrelevant to the above, so I have no comment on that specifically...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
your lawful good cleric can absolutely cast animate dead in 2E.

Not in my games (and that's not even a house-rule or an optional rule, it is RAW, because 2nd edition tells the DM that he does not have to grant any spell to a cleric he feels is inappropriate)!

While there were no spells specifically labeled evil, there were plenty of spells that had an evil taint to them, much like the aforementioned Pathfinder spell Infernal Healing carries with it (at least in my opinion it does); spells such as the various reverse versions of the cure spells (PHB even says, good clerics need to watch out for the reverse of some spells because it may conflict with their deity's views)... Like I said, 2nd edition specifically states that the DM has the right to withhold and not grant whatever spells the character prays for that he deems are inappropriate (for the character, for the campaign, whatever)... Sure that power can be abused, but a good DM will have valid reasons for not granting certain spells.

Regardless, even though skeletons and zombies are neutral in 2nd edition, there is only one official source (that I recall) in which they are used in a non-evil fashion, and that is in the Jakandor trilogy of rule-books, and not only is that barely a campaign setting (it's better classifieds as a "mini-setting"), it was not supported past those initial three books.

Everywhere else you look it's a variation of the same thing: The town's LG priest approaches the low level party of adventurers and says; "Please help us! Skeletons and zombies have infested the local grave-yard. You must destroy this blight upon our beloved community, for only then can I can re-consecrate the grave-yard and properly lay the souls of the dearly-departed to rest once again..."

Then there's my favorite setting: Ravenloft! Where casting Animate Dead (and other seemingly harmless necromantic spells like Raise Dead) prompts your character to make a "Ravenloft Power's Check", where if he fails, he gains somewhat useful "perks", which get better and better with each failure, and if he fails a total of 5 of them, it's instant NPC for that character (because at that point, there is NO possibility for redemption, as that character has now become an integral part of the campaign setting and can never leave it, or his newly formed domain/prison cell created especially for him)...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Would such a character eventually provoke the 'PCs who turn Evil become NPCs' clause from the 2e DMG*, or would they remain PCs so long as they remained 'Heroic Evil'?

I don't know about being "happy" about such a character... ;-)

But, in most cases, yeah, I'd let the player continue playing the character, so long as he genuinely strived towards returning his character's alignment back to being good. I don't allow player's to play evil characters as a general rule, so if a player, after having a character change alignment, embraces the new evil alignment, then that character does become an NPC under my control (which usually means that character goes off into the shadows never to be seen or heard from again).

However, I could see with some players where I would just instantly make the character an NPC, because I would know the player, and thus know that he would not play the character any differently than before the change, thus perpetuating the problem (thankfully, as I said, I have not encountered such a player personally).

However, depending upon the dynamic of the group such a player was in, a now-evil character may pose other additional problems, so I would probable suggest that this "journey of personal redemption" be done as a venture away from the group as a whole.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
My question is: Have you ever had a player who decided that "I don't care if using IH makes my character hear voices; Evil is a choice, and my character continues making Good ones"?

Obviously I am not Aelryinth, but I have a similar view that casting spells such as IH gradually shift one's alignment towards evil...

I have not had such a player as the one in your example, but in my games, evil can be a choice, a good character that continues to play with evil, especially willingly so, no longer has a say about retaining his good alignment. I am NOT NOT NOT saying that one simple casting of an evil aligned spell will change a good character's alignment, but what I am saying is that if a good character continues to make conscious evil choices again and again, his alignment will not just shift, but will eventually change. Such a character could then start to make good choices that mattered (for starters, by discontinuing the use of evil aligned spells), and be able start back up the path towards good.

This is all predicated on the fact that I do not view evil and good as being equal, that it is much harder to maintain goodness than it is to do evil - so one cannot steal one day, and give to the poor the next and expect their "moral account" to be balanced out...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

As promised (to keep the back-and-forth in spoiler tags):
Ashiel wrote:
I point towards DigitalElf and Lemmy. Here are two people who play the same game.

THIS, this whole part of your explanation is exactly what I meant when I kept saying that you could have made your point without leaving me feeling as though you've dragged my interpretation through the mud, regardless of whether or not that was your intent... With this, you managed to make your point clear and succinct while still using me as an example of why you do not use alignment in your games, but without my feeling as though you had dragged my view through the mud...

As to the topic at hand...

I view alignment as being a real part of who a character is, not just something he identifies with. Which is why, back in 1st edition, as well as in 2nd edition, changing alignment carried with it, stiff penalties (e.g. 1e you lost a level, 2e you stop gaining XP). My view of alignment did not change simply because the editions changed (though I did stop using 1e's rule of losing a level and adopted 2e's rule in its place when I changed from 1e to 2e).

When 3.0 and 3.5 came along, I continued to use alignment the same as I had, same thing when I started playing Pathfinder...

I disliked the change in the rules of alignment that started in 3.0, it made a character's core belief in a multiverse where core belief really mattered, seem trivial, and "wishy-washy".

Does alignment emulate real life? Partially, though not perfectly... However, it does so enough in my opinion in a game where good and evil are tangible forces that can effect everyday life; where moral choices are either black or white (though you can still have areas of morally grey as well, just to change things up now and then if you like without being inconsistent).

Can any of this be done without alignment? Yeah, most of it anyway. Though by doing so you'd loose the ramifications of changing your moral compass, and while that may appeal to many, I think, as I said earlier, having lax rules (or in the case of no alignment, no rules) cheapens the game. I mean, look at the argument about whether or not using evil spells effects alignment... I think in a world where good and evil are tangible, where whole realities are shaped by moral points of view (i.e. the Outer Planes ala the "Great Wheel"), if you play with fire, not only should you get burned, but you NEED to get burned. Having lax rules concerning alignment makes it hard to justify making good harder to maintain than evil, I think the same would be true if there were no alignments at all; especially if you think that there should be consequences for changing your moral point of view...

I know without a doubt, that my views on alignment, and in many areas, the game as a whole, are in the minority (I mean, I went back to playing 2nd edition AD&D as my goto game of choice). But I fully embrace that, as well as the fact that it would potentially limit my pool of possible players. But, as I have said many time on these boards: I am a card carrying, "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard.

Though, I do have to say (tooting my own horn here), that as strictly as I adhere to alignment, especial harsh (you stop gaining XP) "old school" alignment, I have yet to have a problem or true argument over it (and that's essentially using the same rules for alignment for over 30 years)... :-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:
What if someone finds your religious beliefs offensive?

It would seem that I was a little too vague...

So as to not totally derail the thread:
An apology does not necessarily mean resending what was said or done, but that the intent was not to offend, often-time accompanied by an explanation providing a reason for the words or action (but not always).

An apology does not have to compromise who you are (such as myself being a Christian)...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Apologizing for making a a logical argument is not a good thing. It's not healthy for you, since you're becoming a doormat, and it's not healthy for the other person, because at some point they need to grow up and realize that, yes, their opinion is NOT the only one that matters, and other people can rightly argue against it.

Warning, A real thread derail here:
As a Christian, it is a very healthy thing to do. Jesus gave us two commandments... One of which, was to love those around us as we love ourselves. And offering an apology, not necessarily for what you said, but to assure the person that it was not your intent to offend them, is to show the love of Christ through your words.

Am I infallible? No. I more often than not, fall obscenely short of that mark, but I strive on a daily basis to improve my walk with Christ... And that does not make me a doormat!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Why?

Because it takes so little of my time, and almost no energy to do so. And if the person is genuinely offended, my apology actually means something to them, and more often than not, that simple act leaves them feeling better... If the person was just looking to be offended, I'm out what, a few seconds of my time??

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
WPharolin wrote:
there are things you should not apologize for, regardless of who it offends

If I inadvertently offend anyone, regardless of the setting, with my words or actions, and that person makes it known to me that I have offended them, even if I do not think I have said or done anything offensive, I will offer a genuine, sincere apology to all persons involved.

In fact, you're absolutely right, this has been a major derail, and I apologize for my part in that. Any further discussion between myself and Ashiel in this thread about our "disagreement" will contain spoiler tags in any of my posts from this point on...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
I didn't.

Usually, in a polite setting, when one person says something, and another takes offence to the remark, the person making said remark, will more often than not, offer up an apology (unless of course, the remark was intended to offend that person).

I know that whenever I say something on these boards and someone says "Hey! Not cool dude." my post history shows that I sincerely apologize (first) and then offer an explanation of why I said what I did, or what prompted me to say what I did in the first place.

Did I expect too much from you? Would it have been so awful to, at the very least, acknowledge that even though you don't think or believe you said anything wrong, that perhaps, just perhaps, you might have inadvertently done so, and thus offer an apology?

You may have thought you were only adding to the conversation by holding my views up as an example, but I very clearly had an issue with the way in which you did it.

Quoting me and posting your disagreement is one thing, but I thought you took it a step too far... I mean the back and forth exchange with Lemmy and the few others who posted their disagreement with my interpretation of LG did not end up like this has.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
but using the opinion you have intentionally inserted into a group conversation as a an example in the group conversation.

Using it to say "hey look at how silly this interpretation is! Don't you know alignment does not work that way? It is supposed to work like this..." is inserting it into the conversation as a negative example of how you feel about alignment overall, and if you had just disagreed with me, and stated how you interpret what the rules of alignment say and mean without pointing and laughing at mine, we would not be having this conversation...

You can justify what you wrote until your fingers fall off from all the typing, but whether you meant to or not, you ridiculed my opinion...

So instead of flagging your post and moving on, I thought I’d very politely inform you that your post was very mean-spirited.

You may disagree with my opinion, you may even think that my opinion is silly, but don't point to it as an example of everything you think is wrong with alignment... Quote it, perhaps tell me you disagree with it, say how you personally view alignment, and move on...

I'll say it again; you could have made you point without using my opinion in a negative way to illustrate your point, pure and simple.

Ashiel wrote:
This...is...fun... :D

I'm glad you're finding this so amusing...

But this WHOLE exchange (which will probably get deleted in the morning) could have been avoided, or at the very least, nipped in the bud when I first said something to you about your initial post...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
And for the third time, I haven't condemned your opinion. Your opinion on alignment doesn't matter to my point and doesn't matter to me beyond its standalone value.
Ashiel wrote:
Digital Elf demonstrates why alignment adds nothing to the game. When questioned on why his character would behave that way, noting that it didn't sound very kosher, he then goes and pulls up the alignment stuff to try and show that he is playing lawful good correctly or in this case playing lawful correctly, but alignments aren't supposed to dictate our actions or be strait jackets, they're supposed to be based on how our characters act, but this isn't true in practice.

This raises my personal opinion as the poster-child of why YOU don't like alignment, and why YOU think that it adds nothing to the game…

Ashiel wrote:
It is factual that your post exemplifies that it has added nothing to the game that you couldn't already do without alignment except an argument, which you felt compelled to try and justify within the rules to say that you were playing it correctly.

Hear you are saying I am wrong...

And BTW, I did not bring up the rules to try and justify anything but how and why I have the opinion that I do...

Ashiel wrote:
I've presented reasons why alignment doesn't really do anything.

Yes, you provided reasons, not opinions...

Ahiel wrote:
You haven't presented much beyond a real life example of alignment causing a pointless disagreement between you and another game player (thanks for that by the way, this way I don't have to use a hypothetical, I can just point and say "Here we have exhibit A").

Opinions do not need justification. It would be a different conversation if I had claimed that my opinion was fact or RAW...

And the only disagreements I've had with other posters in this thread, is when they tell me alignment does not work that way or have taken my posts to mean or say something that they are not or did not...

”Ahiel” wrote:
It would appear that, with your example, it didn't help to deepen your character as you presented it. If anything it made the character feel less real while reading it, less like the character was making a reasoned choice and more a check and balance vs his alignment axis.

And if you read my original post, you’ll note (as I have explained in a later post) that I never said what his answer to the guards would be, only that it was a conundrum to the character...

Ahiel wrote:
Explain to me what alignment adds to character development that is not present in literally every other form of storytelling?

For one, this thread is about how we use or do not use alignment, specifically in Pathfinder, not other game systems, and talk of how they work or do not work with or without alignment is irrelevant. What IS relevant, is how and/or why you personally use or do not use alignment (the why does not actually matter unless you are trying to claim that your opinion is anything but your opinion)...

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
you are certain that your interpretation of the mechanic is the correct one or at least not the incorrect one, while Lemmy and I look at it and see something different, be it right or wrong.

I never said that my view of alignment was the correct nor incorrect interpretation. I said it is the way that I view and interpret it...

Here is exactly what I said:

Digitalelf wrote:
As I see it, the rules for LG...

As you can see, all I said was that is how I personally see alignment.

Ashiel" wrote:
The fact is that it's still adding nothing to the game other than needless conflict.

It's not a fact, it is your opinion. I happen to think alignment adds a multitude of role-playing opportunities, as well as being a mechanic that helps define who a character actually is (note that I said "helps", I do not think, nor have ever stated that it is the be all and end all of a character).

Ashiel wrote:
In fact, the opposite is true. By adherence to alignment (rather than alignment adhering to you, but even that's pretty flawed) the player is given a false set of absolutes that governs how the character is supposed to respond to...

Maybe that is the case in your purely anecdotal experience, but in my purely anecdotal experience, my strict adherence to alignment has not once, been an issue. But, anecdotal is antidotal...

Ashiel wrote:
Since other RPGs have no problem whatsoever with depicting a near infinite amount of potential character personalities... ...it's clear the alignment system is not even granting us an advantage in roleplaying or storytelling. More often than not it actually hinders both.

While it may be true that other games work just fine without alignment, and that perhaps in your personal games, you do not even use alignment, it is anything but "clear" that alignment in D&D/Pathfinder "does not grant us an advantage in role-playing"... It's nothing more than your opinion. And using my personal opinion as the poster-child of how you feel that alignment is useless, is wrong... And I say for the third time now, you could have very easily made you opinion known without condemning mine...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
This paragraph, albeit small, is a notation of my personal frustration with the conflict and problems that alignment creates by its very existence. It seems too difficult for people to divorce the idea that alignment determines what you do instead of by what you do.

I view alignment as an integral part of who a character is, an actual part of their identity...

There is nothing wrong with that interpretation, other than you not liking or agreeing with it; which again I say is fine, you don't have to...

I still posit that you could have very easily made your point without saying that my OPINION is wrong.

1 to 50 of 2,405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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