EntrerisShadow's page

Simon Legrande wrote:

I love playing fighters and rogues in spite of everyone on the Paizo forum telling me how worthless they are.

It's NOT "everyone" it's just a few VERY LOUD posters. A couple of them don't even play Pathfinder.

Fighters & Rogues are fine classes that are a lot of fun for the right player.

I feel like that's half-true.

Fighters are great for AM SMASH style players - the Barbarian, ironically, is actually a lot more sophisticated than the fighter and requires a bit of planning and resource management. (Superstitious is, of course, the best rage power mechanically, but you can make several viable builds without it)

But if you have a player who just wants to hit things real hard and a GM who likes a lot of combat without too many Will saves or social dilemmas, then BOOM! Your fighter is a worthwhile party member.

(8th level human fighter - Power Attack + Weapon Focus + Greater Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Point Blank Shot + Precise Shot + Deadly Aim + Quick Draw + Rapid Shot + Clustered Shot is a pretty good switch hitter that you can qualify for with feats to spare. Use that human alternate that lets you get +2 in two stats at the expense of a feat and you can make it work on a 15 pt buy (18, 18, 14, 10, 10, 7 with level bonuses) before any further investment in gear. Just, again, hope your DM doesn't like to use mind-affecting magic.)

For one shots, I actually love that flavor of character. The hulking stereotypical fighter who is looking for his next drink and his next lay and plans to kill things real good till he has enough money to get both. Even better if he fails at the latter due to an abysmal CHA. I would never bring a fighter to a campaign, but for a dungeon crawl - heck yeah! And it's a great introduction to the rule set with several static bonuses that only require new players to write them down once.

But this actually reminded me of the other thing that I forgot for my Rogue "Hate" column, although I could put it in my hate column for a lot of classes. I hate conditional benefits - when flanking, when charging, within this range increment, while clutching a chicken in the off hand and performing a sacred dance to the god Knyuck-Knyuck on the third full moon. The Paladin's smite is the only one that gets a pass in my book since 'evil' is the default alignment for almost every big bad in every game ever, and she's still competent without it. Smite just makes her ridiculous.

The other major offender is the Cavalier, with its dependence on charging, but the rogue not only has a dreaded situational modifier, but instead of leaving it to GM's to shut it down, it looks like the devs went out of their way to make it never work. It doesn't work on constructs, undead, most aberrations, anything immune to precision damage, anything under a spell effect like 'blur', incorporeal creatures, almost all outsiders and any humanoid smart enough to stay in dim light or that happens to be out on a foggy day.

Instead of doing a flat "I this class because" and "I love this class because", I'll mix it up with a Love/Hate for each:

Alchemist
Love: Love the mutagen feature. Throw anything, brew potion early makes a potent but not overpowered class.
Hate: Most extracts are pointless, odd that it has a low Will save?

Barbarian
Love: Cool rage powers allow almost any style - mounted, ranged, barehanded. Non-spellcasting class that gets a decent will save. Decent amount of skill points.
Hate: Hmm... hard to say. I really love Bar-bars.

Bard
Love: Ye gads, where to start? This is my favorite class - can do anything, be anything, and feels like the only class built with a party style of play in mind. Great spell lists with Bard-only spells that are thematically sounds. CHA synergizes well with spells and most class abilities.
Hate: Gets whip proficiency but is too feat starved to do anything cool with it.

Cavalier
Love: Gets mount at first level, Order edicts are what Paladin's code should have been,
Hate: Most order abilities are pretty 'meh'. Weak will save. Tactician is a terrible feature that is functionally useless until 17th level.

Cleric
Love: Great spell list, again flexible thanks to the sheer number of domains available. Will save that synergizes well with primary casting stat.
Hate: Channel Energy is a waste of print. Warpriest's "Fervor" is such a better mechanic it should replace it entirely.

Druid
Love: Wildshape is powerful without being too powerful (now). Great will save that synergizes with primary casting stat. Animal companion/domain are great trade-off. Spontaneous SNA is great.
Hate: The single most pointless alignment restriction in the game. I understand the Neutral is a holdover from D&D, and they've relaxed from the olden days, but seriously? STUPID.

Fighter
Love: Ease of play, flexibility. Armor training is one of the best combat features for a martial class.
Hate: Weak will save (again). 2+ skill points makes no friggin' sense whatsoever. Weapon Training is incredibly weak (I house rule it to apply to all weapons) which is pathetic considering the fighter's schtick.

Gunslinger
Love: Grit mechanic. I wish more classes had options that rewarded players for attempting to do cool things - which 'Hero Points' kind of do, but I love the class-specific flavor that grit provides.
Hate: Firearm rules are wonky and I HATE guns in high fantasy.

Inquisitor:
Love: Flavor - feels very Van Helsing. Bane is an example of how to make a 3/4 BAB class combat viable without stepping on traditional martials' toes.
Hate: I hate any class ability that makes you take Teamwork feats, although at least the Inquisitor doesn't make you jump through hoops to make your party gain the benefits. Just make them bonus feats.

Magus:
Love: 3/4 BAB with spellcasting abilities makes Gish viable.
Hate: Encourages 15 minute workday even more than traditional wizard, also one build is so optimized it discourages variation.

Monk
Love: Scaling unarmed damage. Bar-none, has some of the BEST archetypes in the game.(Zen Archer rules your face) All good saves!
Hate: Opposite of the Druid: Nothing synergizes well. Also, some abilities feel like they were plucked out of thin-air. Tongue of the Sun and Moon? Dubya tee eff is that? Also has the SECOND most pointless alignment restriction in the game.

Oracle
Love: Perhaps more than any other class, the flavor of this appeals to me more than any mechanical benefits. A reluctant scion thrust into fates beyond his ken due to higher powers is rich soil to mine for role-playing.
Hate: Not all curses are created equal - some are so painfully hindering as to be a joke, and some are so ridiculously banal you may as well not be cursed in the first place.

Paladin
Love: Alignment restriction. Yeah, I know, I'm in the minority, but I think - thematically speaking - it works very well for the Paladin. Divine Grace. (I can't stand weak saves - especially Will) Divine Bond, especially with the alternate mount or weapon option. Immunity to mind-affecting magic.
Hate: This is kind of Love/Hate, but as much as I enjoy Smite Evil, it's just so OP. Especially once you can give it to your party. Gee, I just gave everybody the ability to overcome the Balor's DR AT LEVEL 10.

Ranger
Love: Combat style is how fighter's bonus feats SHOULD work. Fsvored Enemy is great situational bonus for games that are heavy on a certain type of creature. Hunter's bond with an AC makes you damn powerful, even without "Boon Companion" and with BC you're a force to be reckoned with.
Hate: 'Hunter's Bond' alternative option is perhaps the worst trade off I could imagine. Most other classes you give alternatives - this is barely a step up from just nixing the animal companion altogether. Favored Enemy spell makes a good class feature extra cheesy.

Rogue
Love: Havin' a whole mess of skill points. I like skills, I like being good at skills.
Hate: Crappy saves, crappy BAB, pointlessly gimped in its major class feature, outclassed by LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLASS at doing what it's supposed to do best. Makes a decent dip if you're playing a skill starved class otherwise, but other than that, there's very little I can say for it.

Sorcer
Love: Bloodline powers are sweet. Good will save progression - which I always want - and CHA based, which is another thing I enjoy. Less paperwork makes for a great intermediate class when you're ready to try out a caster but not quite ready for a Wizard.
Hate: 2+skill points works for Wizards because they're INT based casters. Sorcerers are pained by it. Also the diminished spellcasting is unnecessary and unfair.

Summoner
Hate: My one and only flat-out 'hate'. Take the busted 3.5 Druid and magnify every problem by, then add an overly complicated Eidolon (Side note: How is that pronounced? AYE-duh-LAHN or AYE-DOE-LUN? I've heard both.) that I guarantee you will be built improperly. Its spell list is more powerful than either the Druid or Cleric, 3/4 BAB classes that get 9th level spell-casting. Flavor doesn't fit anything else printed. Just screw this class. Even the good Will save puts me off as it once again got the best possible option among those available when it REALLY didn't need it. The only scenario I could imagine wanting to play a Summoner is as a thought experiment to see how utterly I could wreck a campaign.

Witch
Love: Hexes are, for the most part, great. Love that it's an Arcane class with healing capabilities - kind of a 'white mage' for Pathfinder. Say it with me - great will save!
Hate: Some of the things that spell list is missing feels wrong - like not having 'Invisibility' for instance. Whole "Patron" thing feels like it was copied and pasted from the Sorcerer section. Fluff REALLY makes it sound like it should be a CHA based caster.

Wizard
Love: Iconic. Again, Will save makes me happy. 'Familiar' is one of the coolest class features, surpassing even the Druid's animal companion in its sheer usefulness without being stupidly OP (Did I mention I hate Summoners?)
Hate: Dull in the low levels. Specialist school abilities feel like a little too much icing on the cake, especially when it already gets too many goodies over the poor sorcerer.

Can't speak on the ACG since I've not really played any of them yet.

I personally imagine Hodor from ASOIAF, but a bit more intelligent. No particularly useful skills, not really 'trained' in anything and no magical ability to speak of . . .

But simply a powerhouse. Seems nigh-unto invincible to the other common folk, but easily defeated by somebody with a bit of know-how, training, or mystical ability. (So, your typical level 8+ adventurer)

I mean, let's break it down with a typical stat array and capability:

STR: 14 (+1 Level)
DEX: 12 (+1 Level)
CON: 14 (12 +2)
INT: 10 (+1 Level)
WIS: 11 (+1 Level)
CHA: 10 (+1 Level)

Since most Commoners are peasants, laborers, farmers, etc. the most likely candidate for the stat boost would probably be CON. By either luck or inheritance, he would have come into a couple of magical items to represent a high NPC wealth. The actual 'value' part of his wealth would mostly go to hiring underlings, purchasing land, and paying for equipment. For giggles, let's give him a Cloak of Resistance +5 and his stat boosts would most likely be evenly divided as most of us - rather than focusing on improving one aspect - typically grow a little in all of them. To survive this long without any special skills, he's probably pretty beefy, so any feats not related to his profession are probably going to be those that represent a natural conditioning or predisposition to being hard to kill. I've also kept them to (predominately) General Feats to avoid too many prerequisites.

So how does this look ultimately?

Jon Everyman
Level 20 Commoner
HP: 140 (20d6 + 80)
AC: 12 T: 12 FF: 10
Melee: Unarmed Strike +12/+7 (1d3 + 2)
or
Club +12/+7 (1d4 + 3)
Ranged: Sling +11/+6 (1d4 + 2)
FORT: +15 REF: +12 WILL: +11

Feats: (10 + 1(Human)) Toughness, Endurance, Diehard, Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus (Profession), Great Fortitude, Alertness, Fleet, Deft Hands/Deceitful/anything that gives a flat +2 bonus to some skills, Survivor, Catch Off Guard.

The last feat is a toss up, but I chose Catch Off Guard to represent his resourcefulness, despite not being formally trained in any actual 'weapons'. If you want to make him more of a brute, put the bonus in STR and give him Power Attack. (So 1d3 + 9. Absolutely brutal to a 1st Level anything) If you want to make him less of a combatant, take out the IUS, Catch Off Guard, and replace with Knowledge feats. His saves are godlike to an inexperienced would-be poisoner, but pretty weak for a typical level 20 adventurer. He is easy to hit, but good luck taking him down permanently.

Ashiel wrote:

K177Y C47 wrote:

*yawn*

Paladin's are some of the most cookie-cutter classes ever... should have been a prestige class. Unlike most classes, the Paladin has the most likely to end up carbon-copies...

I'd love to introduce you to my Paladin of Wee Jass. :)

I agree with Ashiel here, we once had a party of all paladins for a one off, and they were very different.

Some varieties of Paladin I've seen at my table:

A grizzled veteran longbowman looking for his son that was the embodiment of "Good is Not Nice".

A simple-minded country boy who would burst into bouts of righteous fury.

A gambling, hard-drinking light-armor skirmisher who managed to never out himself as a Paladin AND never tell a lie. (Full disclosure: This one had two Bard levels.)

A Gnome with a Don Quixote complex and a large wolf mount he named 'Doggy' that he would routinely try to have accompany him in the tavern.

Be 'Lawful' and 'Good' are broad enough edicts that I would say that it is quite possible to make a variety of character types within those parameters.

I recently started DMing for a bunch of early 20 somethings. Sadly, and this includes my own son, they are a pretty misogynistic bunch. I had to put the hammer down on the use of the "b" word when referring to women, both in and out of games. Next will come the hammer on the "n" word they use when talking to each other.

If it is any consolation, I was like that in my late teens and early twenties as well. That mentality is sadly fostered by an Internet generation that is trained to see others not as individuals with real feelings but objects for amusement - women get this treatment particularly hard.

I am ashamed how long it took me to mature beyond it, but I know that my mother's influence was what won the battle for my mind in the end. Take heart that for most it's mercifully just a phase.

Something that keeps coming up is how you can make a good rogue or fighter, it's just a little trickier. I hate that argument. This is actually what irks me most about underpowered classes and why I simply don't play them on principle.

Most people here have a fairly hardy grasp of system mastery. I'm not nearly in the same league as some people here (That Carnivorous Crystal Wild-Shaping Druid is something that would not have occurred to me in a billion years) but I know it well enough to make pieces fit where I need them to be.

Like I said - it's not about comparing to what everyone else brought to the table, it's about the fact they don't do the concept I like as well as something else would. Name any typical Rogue/Fighter role, and I could probably role up a class that will do it better. At best, the Fighter is a dip for feat trees.

But what about the new players? What about new players who are introduced through APs?

My first introduction to serious role-playing was the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. After a week of studying the CRB and Player's Guide, I brought a Tiefling (Faultspawn for the DEX and WIS boost with an INT penalty because, thanks to the CRB description, I figured DEX would be more important) Monk to the table.

I spent several frustrating sessions doing no damage, having nothing to contribute outside of combat, and unfortunately not dying. I was bored way too much of the time. I very nearly lost interest in gaming before I began because I was saddled with something not fun at all that was not just being outperformed, but rarely - if ever - contributing meaningfully in any scenario.

Eventually I was put to a merciful death and got to reroll a Half-Elf Bard. I finally had something to do. There were options at my feet. As a new player, with all of those different skills and abilities I got the confidence to try different things. Even before I really understood how to effectively use all of the bard's tricks, I had a fairly useful character.

Good for you if you can optimize a Rogue to outperform a poorly-built Wizard. Yes, the strongest players will make the best characters at the table, period. They'll spec a Fighter that makes GM's cry tears of frustration. They'll squeeze every list little known feat out of every splat book until their Rogue can hit on anything but a natural 1.

But those who don't know any better, those who get caught up in their idea of what the rogue 'can' do, only to find out FREAKING DARKNESS shuts down a sneak attack? That's who really gets shortchanged. All of the 'simple' classes are pitifully weak and those who are learning by trial and error are the ones who really suffer for it. They don't know anything about tiers or Quadratic Wizards or crazy feat combinations to make possibly gamebreaking juggernauts. All they know is they wanted to play a sneaky thief and now they're stuck with a character whose pathetic at everything their chosen class was supposed to excel at. They're sidelined unless there is some very specific hand-holding by the GM, and good luck with that because (from personal experience) it is damn near impossible to make a situations particularly suited to the rogue that someone else isn't already able to do just as well.

Goldenfrog wrote:

I think a lot of issues assume a high level of jerkatude in the game,who else would make a character just to make another character useless?

That's just it. You don't have to intentionally do so. Some classes are so pathetic, it just HAPPENS.

Kind of ninja'd me on this one, but yeah . . .

For instance, in a recent game I ran we had a Half-Elf Barbarian, an Orc Fighter, and a Halfling Rogue. Nobody knew what anybody else was making and everybody based their concept around role-play instead of optimization. The Barbarian took ranks in Diplomacy for chrissakes!

Even so, in combat the Barbarian ALWAYS outpaces the fighter unless he gets very lucky. Outside of combat, most of the rogue's time is spent healing herself from the brink of death, and when she fails at some RP-heavy aspect, the Barbarian can reliably step in for an assist. The fighter? Well . . . he got a couple of craft ranks so he can make armor. Whoopee.

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

I'd call that a matter of taste. I hate the grizzled anti-hero. You want to talk about overdone? Wolverine, The Punisher, Lobo, V, Rorschach, The Question, Elric, Hellsing, Batman (granted this is largely dependent upon the writer, but the most well known Batman - Frank Miller's - definitely qualifies), pretty much every video game character ever that's not a Croft or an Italian plumber.

Just . . . ugh. We get it. These characters are like cigarettes - cool and dangerous but ultimately not worth the money and bad for the health of the culture.

Cynicism is easy. I've fallen to it many more times in my life than I care to admit. It's easy and boring and vulgar (in the Shakespearean sense) and I hate, hate, hate, hate it. Even the perennial Boy Scouts like Green Arrow and Superman are getting gritty anti-hero reboots.

Finding another way, being better than the world and not capitulating to it, showing those who have all but given up that there is hope left - that is far from boring. That is the coolest thing imaginable.

The preceding, of course, is all my own opinion and I'm sure there plenty of people who feel the opposite.

I think somebody already said this, but it deserves to be reiterated: Condensing the feats chains to scaling feats would benefit the other martials, but it would benefit the Fighter in that it would make the Fighter what it should be.

Since the Fighter is still getting feats every level, he could be the pinnacle performer in every single fighting style there is. Whereas a Paladin/Barbarian/Cavalier/whatever would become more powerful in their chosen style, the Fighter could outperform them in ALL styles. He could specialize in Archery, TWF, BFS, Sword & Board, and Mounted Combat. Sure, the Cavalier atop his mount might outperform the fighter slightly still, but if those ponies bite the dust, or they're entering a cramped dungeon, the fighter will whip out his Greatsword or Longbow and embarrass the Cavalier easily.

I've dated a wide variety of women, and honestly as a man of modest means, height, and genitalia, I'm not interested in limiting my choices too much.

But if there is one thing that will absolutely put a woman on my "No Fly" list it is entitlement.

And this is a tricky one, because I am aware of the baggage that comes with calling a woman, or any underprivileged class really, 'entitled'. It's like saying you can't handle a woman who's 'bossy' - what you're saying may be saying a lot more about you than her. So, if I may broaden the subject a bit, this would apply to any person of any gender no matter what level of relationship I am considering.

No matter who you're talking about, there is nothing more irritating than a person who believes they are owed something by the world and treat the rest of humanity as mere pissants to witness their greatness. And I feel like so many of the most common 'deal breakers' - rude to waitstaff, doesn't show gratitude, complains, can't have fun, "Nice Guy" misogynists, even racism/sexism/homophobia - can all be described as some form of personal entitlement.

Quote:

The GM is a strict LG interpreter (eg Paladins can never lie(including to save a life), cannot feint in combat or ambush or do anything even mildly interpretable as dishonorable without breaking their oath).

I stopped reading right here. You GM is completely misusing alignment. Your best bet is going to be to find another game.

If I may play GM's advocate here:

I am a lover of classic Paladins. I want the law-and-order, holy avenger, could-never-behave dishonestly types. For all the talk of "lawful stupid" Paladins I hear about, I do not think I've ever seen one played in this method.

Every - and I do mean every - Paladin I've ever encountered was trying to be a Chaotic rebel with awesome powers. The worst of these veered hard into Chaotic Neutral territory (one even skirting chaotic evil - but that's was more seriously a Good vs Evil issue, so I digress) and should anybody have the audacity to call them on it they were - say it with me now - "just playing their character."

I know I'm in the minority here since I interpret Lawful to pertain specifically to societal law because EVERYBODY has a personal code, even if that personal code is "Do What Feels Good". (I also drop the Lawful restraint from monks for this reason to remain consistent.)

Being "Good" in most tabletop games, and especially PF adventure paths, is usually pretty easy. It's the default setting for most adventures. Just by participating in most of the quests you're given you'll be on the side of the angels - and usually those scenarios where you're not it's a big last minute "Gotcha!" reveal.

Being ethical, on the other hand, is much more difficult. And it should be. Why would Paladins have to be Lawful Good if the Lawful part of that statement meant nothing?

Ultimately, Good is more important, but Paladins should exhaust every other option before resorting to anything illegal or dishonest. I have some rules for Paladins a lot of players would call 'arbitrary', but I don't do a lot of mechanical punishment. Rather I would prefer my players try to think before they just take the path of least resistance.

OK, I hate to be nitpicky, but one thing that sort of gets my goat is when people say, "Neutral just does whatever is most expedient/easiest."

When you really break down that standard, 'whatever is the most expedient' is Evil. Some examples:

You're alone with a wealthy benefactor in poor health. Upon his death, you will receive a large sum of money that you are counting on to repay a serious debt. You know you can smother the benefactor while nobody is in the room and it will be assumed he died of natural causes.

You're in charge of building a bridge. You know you could save a week's worth of work (and some serious coin) by doing a slap-dash job, even though there is a very strong likelihood that the bridge's collapse could result in serious injury or somebody's death. By the time these flaws become apparent, you'll be long-gone and beyond the reach of the law.

You're married and away on a very long business trip. After weeks of loneliness, you go out for a night of drunken debauchery, during which a very attractive person of the same/opposite gender (take your pick) comes onto you. Passions inflamed, you can easily spend the night with them.

Although these are varying degrees (murder isn't the same as infidelity, after all) nobody would call those actions 'neutral'. They all involve some sort of betrayal, maliciousness, or recklessness and in every case the easiest or most personally beneficial option would hurt somebody else.

Evil loves the easy way out. Neutrality is simply maintaining a level of common human decency - which can itself even be difficult at times - while good is exceeding it.

You're Welcome.

However, one of my personal favorites to refer to is Jack Valentine - the DEA agent played by Ethan Hawke in Lord of War. The Hero Antagonist to Nicolas Cage's Villain Protagonist Yuri Orlav, there's a scene where Valentine has Yuri cold, but can't bust him without fabricating evidence. Instead of breaking his code, he finds the loophole and leaves Yuri in detainment for 24-hours and allows his plane intended for the smuggling of illegal weapons to African warlords to be dismantled and stolen in a VERY dangerous area.

If you want to know how a Paladin should be, watch Lord of War.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Men getting abused is a problem. However, it's a problem that is made worse by a patriarchal society that assumes that men are weak and pathetic when they are abused, and victim-blames them at least as much as women who get abused.

But, like, everybody telling people bringing up the abuse on this thread that "they're a bunch of entitled whiners who are crying because their privilege is threatened" has nothing to do with that, of course.

It couldn't be that, despite their "enlightened views," they're still bought into that line of crap.

WHOA! Hold up!

Okay, I never said anything about people being legitimately abused. That's a completely unfair characterization.

The OP made a point about men attacking a feminist blogger because she pointed out some of the more odious sexism that - while prevalent in all media - is particularly egregious in the video game market, since the target demographic is typically considered to be adolescent boys and young men.

Rather than addressing that, several posters completely ignored the very real issues about our treatment of women and instead said men are the ones who are REALLY discriminated against. They were insisting that there is a widespread institutional discrimination against men and that this discrimination against women was actually no big deal. That by taking steps to address this disparity between men and women we were actually guilty of REVERSE sexism.

That is entitlement speaking, and factually wrong besides. I stand by that.

After that, the conversation turned toward abused men. I've never said that a man who has been abused is just an entitled whiner. Again, though, another posted what a ridiculous argument this is. Feminists are not the people claiming men cannot be abused - it's typically a patriarchal attitude that insists a man never appear weak, in particular in his relationship with a woman, that creates an atmosphere that prevents these men from coming forward and treats them less seriously when they do.

Just a couple of notes:

1. Rogues can use Arcane Strike to its full potential by taking minor magic talent.

Bards get it first level and don't have to blow a feat on it.

2. A dervish dancer bard's performance only affects the bard. Yes it will make the bard better in combat but then there is no benefit to the rest of the party.

Still a better benefit than Sneak Attack, to which the same argument can be applied.

3. Why does the bard automatically have higher CHA than a rogue? Why is this a fact that isn't up for debate?

It's not that the Bard necessarily has higher CHA. It's that the Bard gets so much more out of it. The Rogue gets a skill boost - and admittedly, a boost to his most important skill, UMD. The Bard, meanwhile, by boosting his CHA not only gets more performance rounds but also raises his spell DCs and Spells-per-Day.

4. Somebody else already mentioned Shadow Strike.

You have to sacrifice a feat slot for something you should be able to do in the first place. This is a serious mark against the rogue.

EDIT: Damn! I started this at B&N and came home and missed all the responses. I got Ninja'd on all of this.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Not denying the badness of the things you describe, but what has any of that to do with 'reverse discrimination'?

So yes, there is a huge difference between things like Affirmative Action for people of color or Affirmative Action for white people. In the first instance, it is meant to correct years of a dominant hierarchy wherein whites enjoyed the sole privilege of higher education and people of color were segregated into school systems that lacked funding, attention, or proper staff. In the second instance, it is meant to reaffirm that privileged status for people who have always had it.

Actually, though we don't like to talk about it, it's really to correct for ongoning discrimination as much as past discrimination.

Sorry, I should have been more cautious with my tense. But yes, it would be correct to say ongoing discrimination.

The white guy sporting the power mullet, living in the trailer park, somehow missed this year's invitation to the Illuminati dinner. Maybe he'll get it next year.

Actually, what is interesting about your choice of analogy is how perfectly it summarizes who actually holds white men back - rich white men.

Not in a Secret Cabal "Illuminati" conspiracy sort of way, but it is true that rich oligarchs have rigged the system to stagnate economic mobility and keep the lower classes - well, lower. And a big part of that is making sure that poor white men blame poor black men, immigrants, and the influx of women into areas traditionally reserved for men for their lack of economic opportunity. Pretty much anyone NOT responsible for falling wages and shrinking opportunities.

I think the Bard is just the most often brought up because it is so similar, but just so superior, to the rogue that it's an easy comparison. They're 3/4 BAB lightly-armored skill monkeys with a motif based around out thinking rather than overpowering opponents. But when it comes down to it, whatever aspect of that character you want to focus on, the bard does it better.

I want a whole mess of skills! Bard gets more.

I want to be sneaky! Bard has Stealth and a whole slew of Illusion spells to buff herself.

I want to be a master spy, a silver-tongued beguiler unmatched in disguise and intrigue! Bard has better CHA, better skills, spells to enhance herself (like she needs it) and I mean come on, seriously, we all know Bards are hands-down the best Party Face characters. Glibness, Disguise Self, Charm Person all make the rogue obsolete before we even do a Skill-for-Skill comparison.

I want to be a lightly-armored skirmisher! Bard might eclipse the rogue only slightly here, but she'll have cooler weapon proficiency (Especially for Finesse - the whip rocks) and performance is hands-down a better bonus than Sneak Attack. It's not situational, it actually boosts accuracy, and it improves the whole party.

I want to be an expert in disarming traps! A) Why would you want to focus on the lamest part of dungeon crawling? and B) Archaeologist Bard will take that focus and still keep pace in the skills department.

Entrers Shadow wrote:

I don't have much to add to the topic that hasn't been said already. All I can say is that every time a woman points out the sexism that is a major problem in our society, the MRA guys dismiss it and whine about how bad men have it. It's as inevitable as a white person crying from the halls of privilege about reverse racism. It's embarrassing.

just a quick point I'd like to throw in here: I find it a lot more embarrassing that the only way our society seems to come up with to battle racism, sexism, and any other ism out there, is to do the exact same thing, in reverse...

OK, take this from a fellow white man: You have no idea what you're talking about. 'Reverse' isms don't exist. Not institutionally. Are there black people who think white people are inferior? Yes. Are there women who think men are obsolete and we'd all be better off if the 'Y' chromosome disappeared? Yes. Are there people who think we should outright ban Christianity? Yes.

Do those people have any real power? No.

The people who do have power are the politicians who are claiming that 'real' rape shuts down abortion and, besides, she was "asking for it". It is the pastors of megachurches who say that gays being allowed to marry is an affront to THEIR rights. It is the criminal justice system that says it's okay to shoot unarmed black teenagers but unacceptable for an abused woman to fire a warning shot to scare off her attacker.

Blacks are more likely to be arrested for the same offenses, sentenced to harsher punishments when convicted. 1 in 5 women will suffer some form of sexual assault in her lifetime, and enormous wage gaps still exist on both fronts. More acts of terrorism have been committed by white Christian men than any other group since our nation's founding and yet we have never profiled them as terrorists nor spawned movements forbidding them from building their places of worship. Gay teens commit suicide at 4 to 6 times the rate of straight counterparts, and I won't even get into the homeless and murder rates for transgendered men and women.

When white heterosexual males complain that somehow society is being unfair to them, it is not only wrong. It's stupidly offensive and belittling to all of the REAL discrimination that is still rampant in our society.

I think the guy is a bit cuckoo for coco puffs, but you do have to give him some mad props.

The craziest thing about Kucinich is that he is naively optimistic about our politics and how much 'We the People' can affect change. But he is also way ahead of his time (he warned us about the dangers of privatization before Enron - actually a big factor in why he didn't win reelection that year - and supported gay marriage at a time when speaking for equality was political suicide) and, having met him, I can tell you he is infectiously pleasant. Kucinich perfectly demonstrates the difference, for me at least, between looks and charisma.

Being chiseled, tall, and having a deep timbered voice makes things easier. But there are things that will always matter more than all of that combined. Hell - look at Prince.

I don't have much to add to the topic that hasn't been said already. All I can say is that every time a woman points out the sexism that is a major problem in our society, the MRA guys dismiss it and whine about how bad men have it. It's as inevitable as a white person crying from the halls of privilege about reverse racism. It's embarrassing.

By the way, do you have any evidence that societies do better BECAUSE they have more open attitudes about sex? I'd really like to see it, but all I get when I search for related statistics is things like "more single parent families" and "decreasing population because of low birth rates". I didn't know either of those were good for nations...

Let's start with a direct comparison of the United States with The Netherlands.

Across the board, the Netherlands has lower rates of STI's, abortion, and teen pregnancy. The Dutch are known for having incredibly liberal attitudes towards sexuality - abortion is accessible and federally funded, prostitution is legal and treated like any other profession - in fact, in general, the concept of treating sex as shameful or taboo is rather foreign. Teenagers are expected to have sex and teenage partners sleeping over is no cause for alarm.

Not coincidentally, The Netherlands also has a lower divorce rate.

In fact, if you look at the best countries to live in ranked by Life Expectancy, GDP per capita, lack of corruption, general life satisfaction among citizenry, etc. - the list is consistently populated by countries who inherited enlightenment ideals and have liberal attitudes toward sex. Australia, Denmark, the aforementioned Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Canada, et al.

To be clear, it was YOU who made an assertion when you indicated in your post a lament that we, as a society, are having issues because we do not hold to Biblical sexual ideals.

Nowadays, fornication is a fairly common thing, and marriage is almost like a used tissue thrown into the trash (Very sad generation we live in). Today's society doesn't much pressure on "staying true" and "stay pure"

While it's true that one cannot say any one thing is responsible for the welfare of a country, the facts bear out that having a repressive attitude toward sexuality is unnecessary for a vibrant and happy society. Enforcing mores meant to establish very strict rules, control women's sexuality and demonize homosexuality serve no beneficial purpose.

(As a semi-related aside, the notion of "purity" is probably the most perverse sentiment I can personally imagine. I find it disgusting that we are still raising young women with the notion that they can be reduced to what happens with their vagina. As if having sex somehow creates a stain on her soul that trumps everything else about who she is as a person. How unbearably genitally obsessed and misogynistic.)

But ultimately to the original point, real world religions can push mysterious ways or 'higher reasons' all the want - especially in Pathfinder rules, evil is evil is evil. I, of course, am of the opinion that there's really no excuse for the more disgusting tenets of religion when we can easily find contemporary philosophers and writers espousing far more ethically sound ideas. But while we can debate shifting real world definitions of good, in Golarion there is an objective good and an objective evil. If you're performing human sacrifice or murdering fornicators in Pathfinder, the religion is evil. You can't really claim 'mysterious ways' when the gods plainly interact with mortals.

Rynjin wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Most Bards I run into, swap out Versatile Performance through the Arcane Duellist archetype.

Most (good) Rogue archetypes trade out trapfinding and you still find people clamoring that it's one of the Rogue's main niches.

A ranger and a bard have more skills, combat, and magic than a fighter and a rogue even if the bard is an arcane duelist.

I have discussed this topic at length and have had my fill of rogue vs. everyone else in threads like this. I'm not going through that song and dance routine again.

You don't like playing rogues.. I've got a radical idea... don't play them.

Not playing them doesn't make them suck any less.

It just makes them not played, so people don't see how badly they suck, and the issues never get fixed.

Except, as mentioned, they are played, and many people like them, do not think they suck, and do not need them to be fixed.

Besides, if nobody were playing it, what difference would it make whether they needed to be fixed? If commoner was a PC class, would people be posting thousand-post threads clamoring to "balance" it, or would people just play something better?

Here is the thing - a lot of us complaining about the rogue actually love the concept. I don't harp on the rogue because I hate the class, but because I would love to see it work. (FWIW, I think the Slayer class might fix these issues, unfortunately evil sounding name aside.)

And 'just don't play one' does not solve the problem. This is a cooperative game and if a class cannot meaningfully contribute it not only causes problems for the player but the party and DM as well. My biggest problems with rogues honestly has been as a DM having all of the fun sapped out of encounters due to the power disparity.

(They may even be killed).

Quote:

Not in a Good-aligned religion.

Without going into this TOO much, fornication and adultery are not in a nation's best interests. There are tons of statistical proof regarding children who lack one or both parents do worse in school, have higher crime rates, etc... (Although there are exceptions to this rule, and not every parent was placed into said position by choice. It's a generalization, but it's true). As fornication and adultery increase, more families are broken up, or are started without two parents, causing higher and higher percentages of children in families without both parents.

As for "not in a good aligned religion", why not? (This is a really, really touchy subject mind you, calling someone's real world faith lawful neutral or lawful evil is not very tactful). As for reasons stated above, does a "good" deity have to have laws that make everyone happy? Or does a "good" deity enact laws that are in the best interests of a nation? I think either can be determined as good, at least according to Pathfinder. In my opinion, however, good for a nation follows a more lawful approach...

This - I just, wow, what?

I mean, REALLY? I know we all want to be respectful of others' beliefs, but is nobody else shocked or disgusted that somebody would make the argument that a good society could approve of killing "fornicators"?

Disproportionate retribution against people who disobey societal norms is textbook lawful evil - I think there is a tacit admission to that in the fact you were so quick to warn posters against trying to put alignments to real world religions. That anybody could hold MURDER as a morally justifiable or even righteous punishment is mind-boggingly unethical. (Worse so if one says any premarital sex is tantamount to adultery.)

Posts like this remind me why religion is definitely best left to the realm of fantasy.

And for the record, societies with more open attitudes about sex and sexuality do fare better. Comparisons between places with progressive attitudes towards sexuality and premarital sex - Sweden, Denmark, etc. - and places with regressive attitudes - the Middle-East, the conservative parts of the US - strongly favor the fornicators.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

When you're of less use to the party than 1/3rd level NPC, the class is demonstrably broken.

Detect Magic wrote:

I'm fully aware of the problems with the rogue class; I've got a number of house rules to make them more viable.

It should say something, however, that you not only had to houserule the rogue to make it viable, but then STILL had to ban a class that continued to make it obsolete.

Seems like a simpler fix is just to reskin the Ninja/Vivisectionist/whatever as a rogue and ban the utterly useless Rogue-as-written altogether.

I was under the impression that Campaign Traits were only intended for characters participating in particular adventure paths. If this interpretation is correct, players are only able to select the "Trap Finder" if they're playing in a Mummy's Mask game. My suspicion is that traps will be more common in said adventure, and that the party needs at least one person that can deal with 'em. With that in mind, it doesn't seem to be a death sentence for the rogue; the trait just facilitates gameplay in the event that no one wants to play a rogue.

That said, there's till the issue of the vivisectionist alchemist. My solution is simply to ban 'em. Solves the issue pretty easily, in my opinion.

I'd much more likely ban the rogue.

Having been DMing for a party the past few weeks that consists of a Wizard, Sorcerer, Sword-n-Board Fighter, and a Rogue; I can tell you it sucks a lot of the fun out of it for me. If I don't want the rogue to sit there to the side and watch the grown-ups play, I have to do a lot of adjustments. The casters will always have something to do, of course, and even the fighter will always hit things real hard and keep on trucking. But my choices essentially always boil down to either kill the rogue, not challenge the rest of the party, or specifically play counterintuitively. They could be a party of 3 and I can honestly say it would make no difference if she were there.

Even when it comes to roleplay, the Sorcerer can outshine her with his pumped up Bluff and Diplomacy and insane CHA score. At least an alchemist could be brewing healing potions or providing buffs.

Now, I understand if she had optimized we'd be looking at a different story - a bit. But that's the thing: NONE of these characters are optimized. The Sorcerer is all blasts all the time, the Transmuter Wizard's spelllist is mostly a flavor vehicle (He wanted the most 'traditionally' magical of schools, which pretty much boiled down to transmutation or conjuration, and he took the weaker option because he loved the polymorph ideas), and the fighter's not even two-handed or power attacking. Even though nobody is optimized, the Rogue is probably the closest to optimized of the group (High DEX, small size two-weapon fighting - generally agreed upon as the best-of-the-worst rogue build) and she still drags them down.

The problem is that other classes do EVERY SINGLE THING the rogue does, but better. It would be one thing if the Rogue were a Bard-style jack of all trades that's good at everything but not excelling in anything, but the problem is it sucks at everything. I could choose almost any other class in this game and make a build that will surpass the Rogue in all of its designated roles, or far exceed it in one designated role and perform comparably in its others. Leaving behind the theorycrafting, I've never been in a game where encounters did not have to be tailored to make the rogue useful. I've seen a 12th level rogue outshined by a 4th level Fighter cohort. When you're of less use to the party than 1/3rd level NPC, the class is demonstrably broken.

Am I the only huge nerd who flashed back to this when reading the thread title?

The only way I could see this going down is if two beings are given charges by different lawful good gods who think there is only one right way to solve a problem. Say, some elder force of destruction (maybe not even evil, just very unpredictable CN?)is locked away under the charge of a LG god, but it is the only being that might know the secret to stopping a world shattering cataclysm. One good god tells his charge to commune with this creature, the angel is told to let absolutely nobody speak with it ever for fear that even a minor breach will let it free. That I would see as something a good character would see as worth killing for - even though they would feel absolutely remorseful about it.

1) Is the act of "finishing off" disabled enemies an act that falls within the very gray purview of Chaotic Neutral, or does this press toward evil?

2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?

3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?

Thanks for any help. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment that gets defined many different ways, and this situation is giving me trouble.

I know I'm late to this party, but I am a sucker for Chaotic Neutral debates. (Now if only I could find several dozen other topics on this, fallen Paladins, and how to handle homosexuality in a campaign. But alas, that's just not the world we live in. Le sigh.)

1) I say 'no'. These were obviously bad guys. Thugs. Good might do the honorable thing, but as long as the people he's dealing with are capital 'E' evil then neutral can justify a lot. ESPECIALLY chaotic neutral. Lawful neutral might hold his word as his bond, true neutral might be more concerned with his immediate safety. But that, to me, is chaotic neutral played correctly. This is a case of messing with the wrong freaking guy.

2) I'd say if you still don't buy that, it would only push slightly toward chaotic evil.

3) Even though mechanically I wouldn't make this shift his alignment, I would still provide some in-game consequences. Someone mentioned earlier that, particularly if this took place in an urban environment, the chances of nobody noticing are slim. For that matter, these are brutal thugs --- who knows with whom they are allied?

I think for sure the Cleric of Asmodeus would get along better with the Paladin of Iomedae. At least between the two, there will be a mutual understanding of the importance of contractual obligations and order. (Also, Lawful Evil doesn't necessarily mean malicious. Just ruthless. A merciless assassin who performs his duties without question, for instance, could still find common ground with a Paladin easily.)

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Things I do not get:

-How anybody could enjoy the program 'Dads' enough that it survived past the pilot

-How we first discovered that pineapples are edible. That is a fruit that seems to shout in big bold spines, "DO NOT TOUCH ME"

-The intelligent people I know who are also religious fundamentalists

Dads - it's more of the same crude humor of Family Guy. Seth macfarlane is, dare i say it, an acquired taste. :D

Here's the thing, though: I like Family Guy. I love American Dad. (Honestly a far superior show.) I think even Cleveland Show wasn't really given its fair shake. I found Ted hilarious.

But even loving all of that, Dads is just godawful. The jokes are like 80's sitcom jokes that Family Guy would parody.

Pineapple - my theory is that, if it exists, a human has tried to eat it, shoot it, or have sex with it - or sometimes all three. Just like we figured out pineapples, coconuts, and psychedelic mushrooms, we also figured out from the Darwin Awards that eating nightshade is deadly, live crocodiles don't make good sex toys, and flinging yourself from a trebuchet is a bad idea.

Given, although that does bring up another point I don't think anybody gets.

Religious fundamentalism - contrary to conventional opinion, devout belief and scientific curiosity aren't mutually exclusive - otherwise, we wouldn't have Newtonian physics, genetic theory or certain key theories of electromagnetism (or we'd have had them much later than we did). It takes all kinds, and most importantly people understanding that ignorance and stubbornness is not the exclusive province of any group - idiots abound from Sea to Shining Sea. :)

Yes and no. Newton was a product of his era and was able to push the boundaries of what we knew at the time without running into any glaring religious inconsistencies. But how a person of an intellectual curiosity could believe that the earth is 5,000-years-old or that species do not evolve in the face of overwhelming evidence is mind-boggling.

Belief in the supernatural, I grant, is a philosophical difference that by its definition cannot be debated on an empirical foundation. But it's the obviously, plainly false things that get me.

No, BG2 and NWN yes, but SoA no :)

Not to quibble, but BG2 is Shadows of Amn.

Baldur's Gate
--Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast (Expansion Pack)
Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn
--Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal (Expansion Back)

There was also Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, but we'll just pretend that NEVER HAPPENED.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

This is probably the easiest question in the world to answer:

Think of damn near every single person that you know. Does anybody you encounter in your day to day life really concern themselves with how much good they're doing in the world? Or how they can reign death upon their enemies? Most people are just concerned with paying their bills, keeping themselves and their family fed, and amusing themselves.

TN adventurers simply do what they do for value-neutral (no pun intended) reasons. The good character fights the dragon to save the village and protect innocent lives. The evil character does it so he can extort them later or establish himself as a bigger threat. The neutral character does it for gold, or to test himself, or for thrill.

Or the neutral character watches the dragon devastate the village not caring. (Or so that the dragon has more loot for him to take later on.)

Two things about that:

1. We're talking about role-playing adventurers. If you're going to make a TN character, he still needs to find an excuse to be a part of things.

2. Neutrality is not psychopathy. "Ha, I'll let that dragon kill everybody and take the treasure for myself!" is definitely E-V-I-L. I can see the argument for neutral ignoring conceptual evil, because to some degree we all have to do this. I can see the argument for self-preservation, but see number one for that.

People --- almost always family members of course --- who forward you every idiotic, blatantly false chain e-mail as gospel truth.

I am preparing for the onslaught after Halloween passes and we liberals begin our fictional War on Christmas, but just the reminder that I'm related to people who believe this stuff is depressing. Why can't they keep their insanity to themselves?

I love FATAL, it should regarded as the very pinnacle of game design.

Wait, is this one a joke? I honestly cannot tell.

I love using Fey as villains. Here's the thing: Most monsters are just evil. If you encounter a Bugbear, you know the solution is to kill it and just keep killing it until it's properly killed.

But dealing with Fey is a different beast altogether. Even quote unquote 'good' Fey are capricious, mercurial creatures that only offer the most cryptic of help or advice. A few, granted, are just plain ol' "Kill on Sight" baddies, but for the most part, you never quite know where you stand.

Sure, maybe you should kill that Satyr. But he may also be the only hope you have of finding a guide through the treacherous forest. But he may screw with you a bit on the way. But he might reward your diligence if you impress him. (Note to self: Idea for next session.)

Ditto with evil Druids. I think they get less attention because it's harder to picture the motivations for an evil Druid. What does an evil Druid want? A Cleric of Urgathoa is going to raise an army of zombies. A Cleric of Zon-Kuthon is going to 'enlighten' (re: torture) an entire city's worth of victims to appease his dark god. A Cleric of Asmodeus is going to instill a tyrannical dictatorship and trek with devils.

Evil Druids, though? Harder to pull off. Typically it's a noble goal (e.g. The protection of a sacred Grove) taken to an ideological extreme (e.g. Preemptively destroying every neighboring civilization as a potential threat.) but it seems like Paizo specifically introduced things like 'Plague Druids' just to make it easier to use them as bad guys.

I think Neutral Outsiders get under utilized. You see a lot of Angels vs Demons, Agathions vs Devils, Demons vs Devils, and so on, but very rarely do you get to see the Aeons or Kalyrauts getting involved.

Edit: OH! And evil gnomes. Where are all the evil gnomes? I think an evil gnome has the potential to be absolutely terrifying.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

I have zero interest in being challenged in video games, and I really don't get people who do. Seriously. What's the accomplishment there? Are you going to tell your boss you beat Halo on Legendary in one life? Is it going to score you a date with an attractive woman? Is it going to win you a trophy your family and friends give a crap about? No, no, and no.

Some challenge in a game is fun. (The 2008 Prince of Persia was so dull precisely because you couldn't die.) But I have better things to frustrate myself over than playing the same 1/2 hour chunk of Dark Souls just to say I did.

You come off waaaaaay hostile, bro. Cool it, stop acting like you're telling someone they're having badwrongfun.

Are all your accomplishments judged purely on how they are perceived by others?

Interesting...

All right, now I think we're getting the point of the shun thread.

Shun! Shun! SHHHUUUUNNNN!

Although I'd like to point out that confession was sort of meant tongue in cheek. If you do enjoy beating games on Insane Hardcore Murder Mode, knock yourself out. To each his own.

Of course, my experience has always been a sort of snobbish disregard for those who don't. I understand this isn't indicative of everybody who enjoys playing that way, but those gamers---those 'Hardcore' gamers who cannot stand that video games have become accessible to the unwashed masses---irritate me to no end.

Yeah, I know, every hobby has them. But still, perhaps my rant came across a bit harsh because there's always seemed to be a stronger undercurrent of it among video gamers than anywhere else I've encountered.

I have zero interest in being challenged in video games, and I really don't get people who do. Seriously. What's the accomplishment there? Are you going to tell your boss you beat Halo on Legendary in one life? Is it going to score you a date with an attractive woman? Is it going to win you a trophy your family and friends give a crap about? No, no, and no.

Some challenge in a game is fun. (The 2008 Prince of Persia was so dull precisely because you couldn't die.) But I have better things to frustrate myself over than playing the same 1/2 hour chunk of Dark Souls just to say I did.

Oh, this isn't one that comes up a lot, but something that has always been a source of contention between my fellow players and me:

-Paladins don't gamble. They just don't, I'm sorry. If you're playing a Paladin and your GM allows it, fine, cool, whatever. I'll let it go. I hate it, though, and not one of my NPC Paladins would ever indulge. To be sure, in my world you'd definitely get some aside glances from the other Paladins if they caught you doing it. It's not "fall-worthy" (something that's just way too abused) but it's just a really terrible way for a champion of light to spend her time-it would be like if you eyed somebody eating from the bins at the grocery; not something you would turn someone into the authorities for, but distasteful and rude. If you win, you're taking money from poor saps having a run of bad luck. If you lose, you're throwing good coin away that could be put to better use vanquishing evil or helping the less fortunate. Since I am apparently the only person in the world who holds this opinion, I'll include it here.

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Tieflings? Pfft. Lame.

Down with Paizo!

I also agree Tieflings are lame, but I do have to admit that's partially a personal prejudice in that I've never seen one played well. As a race, the are apparently very attractive to angry teenage boys and men who never grew out of being angry teenage boys because that's about the only way I've encountered them.

tieflings merely require a player that isn't an angry emo teenage boy

(Sorry I cut the description. Brevity and all.)

I've actually never seen a Tiefling played what you would describe as 'emo'---correct me if wrong, but I would imagine you mean full of angst and pseudo-philosophical. (I did notice a lot of appeal for Drow, among those types when I was younger and some of my friends were really into the scene, and now Dhampir among some of the younger players, but I digress.) Tieflings I've always seen played like ludicrous caricatures of 1990s Anti-Heroes. That is, always played as an excuse to act like an anti-social jerkward. Every Tiefling player I've encountered was essentially Wolverine of the setting turned up to 11.

But again, I recognize that is a personal hang-up. Though it has created a pretty large mental block that makes me cringe a little inside at the thought of playing a Tiefling.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Ironically, a non-evil drow/tiefling/goblin/etc. is much less "cliche" than the evil ones, yet the former was the star of a popular novel series and is thus unusable by anyone anymore.

Not only that, but the depiction of goblins as evil is racist to begin with. I mean, who the hell are you pinkskins to judge?!?

In other news, not only are good drow wicked cliche, but drow are wicked cliche. They're so boring I've only ever used them once, and that was in the Scarred Lands where they were different. They were LE.

Tieflings? Pfft. Lame.

Down with Paizo!

Vive le Galt!

A bit off topic, but I've always hated the Forgotten Realms Drow as a very intricate, powerful society . . . consisting entirely of stab-happy for the evulz CE psychopaths.

Now, I'm not super familiar with Golarion Drow (other than the whole good elves turning drow when they become evil enough, which bothers me in its own way) but the idea of a bunch of chronic needlessly malicious murderers building a powerful underworld society that rivaled even the most powerful human settlements just bothered me. Every other mundane CE evil 'society' is barely held together under strong leadership or external threat and then disbands or implodes on itself due to the nature of chaotic evil. THAT makes sense. What doesn't make sense is a delicate power scheme in impressive underground labyrinths featuring powerful magic. That screams Lawful Evil and Drow should, over all, be Lawful Evil.

I also agree Tieflings are lame, but I do have to admit that's partially a personal prejudice in that I've never seen one played well. As a race, the are apparently very attractive to angry teenage boys and men who never grew out of being angry teenage boys because that's about the only way I've encountered them.

In the games I run relationships tend to play an enormous role, though the mechanical aspects of sex are generally left out. But I greatly enjoy role playing the social aspects. Homosexuality comes up on occasion, though I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that the only gay character outside of a game I ran was when one of our female players played a sex crazed fighter in the world's most transparent closet. In her defense all of her female characters were pretty sex crazed as well, though they were also interested in men.

I have played several gay NPC's. Actually my gay hobgoblin warlord is still an easy favorite among our group for NPC's I have run. So far I have not had an obviously gay PC, although the only time my character's sexuality even came into play was when another player decided to "make a man" of my young Druid by purchasing the services of a lady of the evening, and I suppose even so it would not preclude him being bisexual.

I'm confused...is it Rogues that suck now? Or is it still Monks?

O woe, why tis surely blaster sorcerers too.

I don't think anybody said blaster sorcerers suck, per se, just that they are mechanically not the most powerful route you could go with a sorcerer.

Now monks, on the other hand, get all the hate. Although as a GM I hate our monk because she is nigh unto invincible.

spontaneously cast summons vs spontaneously cast heals thats an equal trade.

No way, not even a little. Wands of CLW are cheap, cheap, cheap.

Wands of SNA? Not so much. At least not ones that will be of much use. Plus those spontaneous summons get WAY better with each level (letting you keep them around for more rounds per caster level) whereas Cure spells hit a maximum efficiency pretty quickly. Sure it's a little gimped compared to Summon Monster, but summoning is bar-none the most powerful thing a caster can do low levels.

Wildshape also gives druid a Fly ability before anybody else in the party. That's nothing to sneeze at. It also gives them pounce before even the martial classes. With the proper feats Wildshape is beastly. (Edit: Er, no pun intended of course.)

I think very much in terms of general and selfish. In particular, our groups have problems justifying why these people are even traveling together, so I go generous so my character (at least) will be considered indispensable to the group.

The ultimate generous character is, of course, the Bard. IIRC, there is a Bard archetype that trades the Rapier and Whip proficiencies for proficiency with the Net and Trident. You are the penalty stacking king. The wizard can't hit some ultra-dextrous little bugger because of its high touch AC? Start your bardic performance, use your boffo BAB to hit it with the net, and hand it off to the fighter to hold onto. The rest of the time you're casting Good Hope, or Haste, or Grease, or using wands of CLW and so on. Out of combat, you use your high Bluff and Diplomacy skills to get the best deals on trade goods and lead the party to its next quest.

Some honorable mentions: Cavalier (Challenge makes him basically the game's only effective tank and teamwork feats make for a great buddy system), Cleric (Lots of Buffs and spontaneous cures), and Paladin (just by being near her your saves improve, and she has some great Lay on Hands buffs)

The ultimate selfish character? There are two. The monk. High saves, high AC, moves like lightning, giving you the ultimate in survivability. But he hardly hits, and when he does it doesn't really do enough damage to quickly take an enemy out, which is about the only way most martial types can be generous to the party. The monk can penalty stack, too, but honestly the monk usually has to do it just so he can get a shot in. Out of combat your class skills as hardly useful and CHA is about your only dump stat so prepare to sit quietly or muck it up for the party face.

The second for an entirely different reason is the Summoner. A Summoner IS his own party. Druids might get a little out of hand with their animal companion and summons, but they are at least limited to a weaker summon list and have fewer per day. And an animal companion is far more limited than eidolon. An eidolon can be built to outclass a fighter in combat with a summoner spec'd for healing or blasting. Why is the rest of the party even there?!

I've been in situations like some of you have been describing.

Recently, I've been putting the following in my prep materials before starting a new campaign.

Quote:

I give a lot of leeway about character concept and build. I try to provide a reasonable number of plot hooks and motivations. But if you want to make an anti-social, anarchist, loner, hermit; then YOU the player need to find a reason that he will 'play-nice' with the rest of the team and go on the adventure.

{I may need to add shop keeper in there also.}

I will definitely work with a player. But I've had too many players/PC's that just constantly say "my PC wouldn't care about that." As far as I can tell, they really expect me mind read what they want and then to re-write everything for just their character. Without any regard for the other players at the table.

We had a guy like that once. It came to a head when the party had opened a gate to a pocket dimension that was obviously leading to the next part of the story.

(Spoilered for convenience)

Pendagast wrote:

I dont like the rule that doesn't prevent guys from playing chicks.

Sounds like you had some bad experience. And I understand there are players like that, but there are also people who do an admirble job at playing a character of the opposite gender. Some are better at it than playing their own gender.

Actually the most frustrating thing about playing the opposite gender...

1st Player: "I turn to Honora, Favored Daughter of Emerisk and ask him-"
2nd Player: "Her."
1st Player: "Yeah, her. I ask if he would-"
2nd Player: "She."
1st Player: "I ask if she would be willing to assist us after the noble's ball."
3rd Player: "I ask Honora to accompany her as her date."
1st Player: "Dude, why are you hitting on this guy?"
4th Player: "Wait, Honora is a chick? I have to change my notes."
2nd Player: "Screw it. Honora is now Phallus the Masculine, of the Testicular Clan."
4th Player: "Wait, so is Phallus a dude? Because I don't want to write this down again."

I always play my C/E and N/E characters as unflinchingly polite and supremely likable.

If you're going to be doing some horrible things, it helps a lot if you're able to make people like you so they will have a hard time squaring the circle of this nice guy being an utter sociopath.

One of my favorite story hooks are the unpopular heroes trying to defeat a beloved villain. It prevents the typical, "Kill, loot, rinse, repeat" mentality of so many campaigns by requiring the players to first reveal the true nature of the big bad.

Bard, hands down.

No full BAB? No problem, because I can buff/penalty stack. Haste+Inspire Courage+Grease = Extra attacks and bonuses for the whole party against the enemy's flat-footed AC.

Spell list? Not much for blasty, but no problem, because blasting is for chumps. I get some of the best utility spells in the game, including being the only class to get Glibness. With my natural Charisma I can make the NPC's believe I'm the deposed king and build my own army.

I may not know as much as the Wizard about Arcana, but I'll come damn close, and there's not a knowledge I don't have a chance at. PLUS, while I may not get the same amount of skill points as the rogue, I get to roll some of them up into my highest ability modifier and condense them, effectively making me the best skill monkey in the game.

And if I want to get down and dirty like a fighter, or mix it up with some traps like a rogue, there are so many archetypes which give me sweet bonuses as well as my awesome bard spells/inspire courage.

You just cannot beat the bard for all around versatility, effectiveness, and utility. People complain about the Schroedinger's Wizard who is only god-like because of lenient DM's----every Bard is Schroedinger's Bard. There's not a feasible situation he could not be of some use in.

ES...

Just because somebody is cursed with berserker rages doesn't make them chaotic. I'll grant you that Logan is rather iconoclastic, and VERY touchy about taking orders. But I can't see dubbing him chaotic. He's not nearly random or whimsical enough for that. Imo.

To be clear it is not the rage part that makes me think Wolverine is chaotic (although the restrictions on Barbarian alignment seems to indicate that Paizo and WotC think so). I think Wolverine is chaotic because his spot on the team is always as the The Lancer, a person whose role is to challenge the established leader.

To clarify, I also don't think that's bad. This is necessary, and any GOOD leader will have one and afford him great respect. Leadership needs to be challenged. But to constantly challenge authority and do your own thing is the very essence of a chaotic character.

Furthermore, in those instances where he's not on a team, he's usually a disaffected loner with few close relationships who never stays in one place, and makes a point of remaining unpredictable. Everything about the character screams "Chaotic!"

I'd have to disagree there. I've never bought the notion that "Good" characters in most fantasy RPGs can't or won't kill a whole lotta bad things in the course of their adventures and likely not shed many tears over it.

For the record, it's not just that Wolverine has killed. He's killed SEVERAL people who, while perhaps not innocent, did not pose an immediate threat. The justifications ranged from reasonable to flimsy, but it was usually vengeance of some sort. Since morality it not a Zero Sum game, and motivations matter, I would place this at squarely neutral in most stories, good in others, and occasionally downright evil (vengeance extending out to those who were only tangentially related to his previous victimization.)

For the record, both of my nonlethal characters were actually non-good. The monk was trying to intellectualize what he couldn't understand intrinsically, and the other was chaotic evil character who simply saw death as they end of his fun. My good guys will kill if it comes down to it. But I do think violence, to a good character, should be the last resort and never something he seeks out. I don't think a Paladin killing a bad guy in self-defense is an evil act. I do think a Paladin trying to find a bad guy who was currently minding his own business so he could pick a fight and smite him to death would be.

Bard. The answer is ALWAYS Bard. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.

So, in 88 posts I've had one response to my request for an example of how to do evil that is

a: not boring
b: not oh-noes-emotional-trauma

Maybe I just didn't grab anyone's attention and we all got exciting about people twisting words like bandit and greed but I'd still really like to read some examples.

I don't know what's considered boring to you, but I am currently playing an evil character who's not traumatized. He's a CE Fey-blood Sorcerer, so as you could imagine it's heavily focused on enchantment. My challenge was to be as evil as possible while never directly killing a single innocent.

So far he's managed to rack up a higher kill count than most mass murderers simply by using some well placed words and spells.

He fooled his cousin, a well respected public official, into killing his wife and best friend. He tricked a jewelry shop owner into leaving him in charge, razed it and burned it to the ground, and then pinned the blame on a recently freed slave. Then sold the stolen gems back to the jeweler . . . you know, so he could get back on his feet. Currently he's working for both a LE General of an opposing army and a CE pirate lord who are trying to kill one another. And since he couldn't resist, while on the base of the LE general he went ahead and turned half the guard staff against the other half by convincing them there was a traitor in their midst. Didn't even have to roll a bluff check on that one since there totally was. And most recently settled a dispute over 50 gold by polymorphing the other person into a turtle and making it the party mascot. Going to use the gold he got from that to get a druid cast "Awaken" so he can be sure his new friend is 'enjoying' every moment of his new life.

But nicest guy in the world. Totally friendly, talkative, and always quick with a kind word. Has a sort of obnoxious love of puns; just about the only trait I share with him (I hope). No tragic back story. Actually had a pretty good life, idyllic small town, lots of friends, close with his family . . . well, except the ones he framed for murder anyway.

I think the best way to play evil for fun is to remember that being evil isn't about always being evil all the time. It doesn't mean you have to be an anti-social jerk. In fact, it helps if you're not. Be a villain with good publicity.

Firstly, why do people assume every Nader vote would've gone to Gore? For that matter, if Gore was so worried about it, maybe he could've made some concessions to the progressive wing of the party the way the Democrats have moved further to the right after every failed (and victorious) election of the past 20 years.

• that support or opposition to abortion rights doesn't matter to you

Granted, abortion rights are a major difference between the two candidates. (Not so much the parties as there are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats who are just horrible when it comes to women's reproductive rights.)

that support or opposition to campaign finance reform doesn't matter to you

that the minimum wage doesn't matter to you

that the way government taxes small businesses doesn't matter to you

that how we approach strong economic rivals like China doesn't matter to you

that support or opposition to union rights doesn't matter to you

This is where Democrats have the weakest argument. Obama has embraced SuperPACs, and no Democratic candidate has taken a hardline stance on the minimum wage, and Obama lackeys like Rahm Emmanuel have shown exactly how much Democrats care about unions. Democrats and unions are in an abusive relationship wherein the Democrats mistreat and ignore unions and cow them back into submission about what will happen if they leave.

that support or opposition to women's workplace rights doesn't matter to you

Granted.

that how the country deals with criminals doesn't matter to you

that support or opposition to curtailing defense spending doesn't matter to you

etc.

How many Wall St Criminals have been persecuted by the Obama Administration? How much reform have the Democrats pushed to empty our prisons of nonviolent offenders and end the whole sale privatization of prison system? Clinton and Obama both increased defense spending, and Obama's plan will increase defense spending AGAIN. Meanwhile, the Democrats are parroting plans the Republicans offered in the 1990's.

These things matter very much to me. Which is why I don't vote for two major parties that have made it very clear it doesn't matter to them.