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

Irontruth's page

5,546 posts (5,548 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,546 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The Permian-Triassic extinction event was 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life, about 250 million years ago.


Hitdice wrote:
What you have to remember is that Sissyl resides in Sweden, where Global warming is a net positive. Look, that's not a dig, I live in New England and would enjoy 40 degree Fahrenheit winters, so there.

It might not be a net positive for Sweden. I don't know how the water situation is there.

For example, India could be totally screwed, not because it'll get hotter in the lowlands, but because the mountains might not be cold enough to cause the monsoon season. If more moisture makes it past the Himalayas, that could be good for western China (in terms of rainfall), but bad for India.

Warmer mountain regions means fewer/smaller rivers. The colder the mountains are, the more moisture they cause clouds to dump as snow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a reminder, scientists can now directly measure how much CO2 is impacting temperature.

I think the importance of this fact has been overlooked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:


Man - Made "global warming" is a myth. Pure and simple.

Are you asserting that human's can't alter the climate?

thaX wrote:


Hurricane Katrina changed a lot of the weather pattern ten years ago, warping the Jet Stream as it made New Orleans into a giant swimming pool. Anyone forget that the tragedy could have been lessened if the levies would have been built to spec to be able to divert water around the city? Those were not built because it would have impacted some tree frog or cricket or something, so it was made into a worse situation because of the very same type of folks that wring their hands and pout about "global Warming" and how man is causing it.

Cause then you go on to assert that human's have altered the climate.

Irontruth wrote:
I'm confused.

Yeah, ^ that.


Epyllion

This is another decent one, but I'd again recommend slightly older. 5-8 y/o could get the game, but I think 10+ will get into the long term themes better. The game is inspired by My Little Pony, but it follows something of a Harry Potter arc. It's easy to start out lighthearted, but it starts to add more serious content pretty quick and moves on to a darker tone.

It's "Powered by the Apocalypse" (it uses rules based on the Apocalypse World game), so the rules are pretty simple and help to actually create a story on the fly. It also fits well into mini-campaigns that last around 40-60 hours of play.

I personally haven't played it with kids, my group for Epyllion is all adults. My GM ran it at a micro-convention for a group of 5-10 y/o kids and they had a lot of fun with it. These were all kids of gamers and had at least watched their parents play games before.

It isn't released yet, but the kickstarter was successful and the company has finished their previous projects.


Little Wizards

I ran 2-hour solo session for a 8 y/o today. We did character creation and got half-way through a mystery where some mischievous brownies have been adding magical pine sap dust to chocolate and it's making people act goofy. I'm running it straight out of the book.

I would say a 4 y/o is probably still too young for an actual RPG. They can listen to a story and tell very simple ones, but there's brain development that hasn't happened yet that's going to make it difficult. I'd recommend just continuing unstructured "pretend" for now. 6 y/o would be the earliest I'd say to try to start introducing RPG's and I'd go with one specifically designed for kids.

An RPG written for use with kids is going to have already done some of the work on adapting the rules and making sure that they feel simple and easy to use. Little Wizards, for example, has simple rules, plus it's full of examples and text that is very "kid friendly". Not just in it's content rating, but text that is specifically geared towards being interesting to kids.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lucky7 wrote:

@Irontruth: You have a right to your opinion, I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it, etc.

I just...man. What did we do to you?

Don't take it personal, you'll grow out of the age category eventually :D


Of all the classes that can cast spells, only those that have access to a full 9 levels of spells get Ritual Casting for free, except for one, Sorcerer.

(Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard)

All the other classes don't get Ritual Casting.


Freehold DM wrote:
It's funny- this whole "pull your weight!" stuff never comes up in my game or any game I have been in. Usually characters that suck on their own merits die on their own merits.

It doesn't come up at my table either. But then again, the worst optimizer at the table always asks me what feat he should take next. I make a short list and let him choose. He gets to roleplay the character he wants while still being able to impact the outcome of combat (in a positive way for the group). Right now I'm the co-DM, but I still don't mind offering him advice.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm referring to sex, not gender, and the biological ramifications of mental maturation, not societal stigmas. In that instance there's still only an XX or XY combination.

If you must insist, for klinefelter syndrome, biological hermpahrodism, or other genetic outliers, I dunno...split the difference with 23?

Just to be safe, 25 for everyone.

I was in a moderately successful guild in WoW, way back when. We had an 18+ policy for recruitment, though I regularly joked (not really) that if I had my way, it's be 25+.

90% the problematic people (unreliable attendance, drama) came from those who were 20 or under.

One thing that helped weed some people out was that we had a yearly guild event. We'd get together for a weekend, rent a very large cabin and party for 3 days. Since there was alcohol involved, you had to be 21+ to attend, plus it cost money and involved traveling.

If I had a lawn, I'd yell at kids to get off it.


How do I handle rollplay vs roleplay?

I keep playing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately there's a certain amount of truth in it. There are good basketball players out there. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority.

Unfortunately there's a certain amount of truth in it. There are good car mechanics out there. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority.

Unfortunately there's a certain amount of truth in it. There are good doctors out there. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority.

Unfortunately there's a certain amount of truth in it. There are good oyster floaters out there. Unfortunately they seem to be in the minority.

The majority of people in any given profession are average, or worse.


Crimeo wrote:

Irontruth, there are at least a dozen different things that trigger on affect. Maybe two, three dozen, maybe 100, I don't even know. It seems to be all over the place. It's not any specific one of them I care about. I'm writing up a set of house rules for a game I will be DMing, and want to nail them down as much as possible before beginning, due to past bad experiences.

Flaring spell actually doesn't talk about affecting creatures I don't think. Disruptive spell does though and then specifies target too. Bouncing spell specifies target, but you still have to evaluate whether an "effect" occurred in order to know if it bounces or not. The core rulebook concentration check mentions "interfering or distracting in some way"... And so on, they're all a little different. But rather than FIND, then sift through every little circumstance and solve individually, I was hoping for one meaning of affect so that anything that comes up could be objectively decided on the fly with only the pre-posted rules. Ideally.

Again, you're still missing the trees for the forest. To continue the analogy:

You: I need a generic rule that tells me how tall a tree is.
Us: What kind of tree do you have in mind, they come in many sizes.
You: I don't want to talk about specific kinds of trees, I just need to know how tall ALL of them are.

The answer is IN THE SPECIFICS. If you don't want to look at the specifics, you aren't going to see the answer.


Are you asking if Flaring Spell works on things like Prestidigitation or Fog Cloud? If so, perhaps you should reread Flaring Spell.

Flaring Spell - link

Quote:
Benefit: The electricity, fire, or light effects of the affected spell create a flaring that dazzles creatures that take damage from the spell. A flare spell causes a creature that takes fire or electricity damage from the affected spell to become dazzled for a number of rounds equal to the actual level of the spell. A flaring spell only affects spells with a fire, light, or electricity descriptor.

What spells it works with is pretty clearly defined. The definition also very easily rules out Prestidigitation and Fog Cloud, neither of which have the proper descriptors, nor do they do fire or electricity damage.

Wall of Fire would work, but again, you can see in the description of the feat exactly when it apply, when they take DAMAGE from the spell.

Much of this thread reads like you can't see the trees, because you're too busy trying to look at the whole forest. The answer is smaller than you're expecting.

As for Disruptive Spell, the operative word you keep glossing over is "targets". The spell has to TARGET them. If the spell doesn't TARGET them, then Disruptive Spell has no effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I kill characters, sometimes I don't even require that they get a Raise Dead spell. I ask players "do you want your character to die?"

If they say they are ready to move on, they make a new character. If they want to hold on though, I give them the opportunity, at a cost.

My favorite cost is for some divine being to approach them in the afterlife and offer them a bargain. Promise to do X for me and I return you back to your body kind of thing. It's always something to do with the character's story, but sometimes represents a hard choice or doing something in a different way. The cost is that the character's story starts to become dictated by outsiders (literally and figuratively). They can of course refuse and make a new character.

This is currently particularly relevant because we're playing E8. Raise Dead is a ritual, but a Cleric can only cast it 4 times in their life, each time it becomes harder and more costly. The 5th and following times the ritual can fail and/or the Cleric can die. Clerics only use Raise Dead on people who are REALLY worth it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

I would love to run a game set in a world that has a big anachronism split between the usual pseudo-medieval techs and modern-day or even futuristic techs. I take a core fantasy rules-set (like Pathfinder, ignoring Technology Guide and whatnot) and anything I don't have to create rules for can be as advanced as I want (a train, for example, doesn't need rules because it can be treated as a moving piece of scenery; TV similarly) and anything I would have to create rules for gets chucked in favor of the good old pseudo-Olden Times rules (cars and cellphones stay horses and yelling).

An interesting game would be "all of the humans died out long ago and now all the other races are exploring the world they left empty". Think of how much space humans occupy in most standard fantasy settings. Now imagine all that space has been depopulated for a long time. And since there aren't any humans anymore it has to be adventured in by elves and dwarves and all the other racial choices and how their stereotypes will color that. No lazing back on the bland choice!

I just finished a 22-page guide for a campaign I'm starting up next week. The 20,000 ft view (or 20,000 millennium view), is that an ancient race colonized the galaxy untold millions of years ago, but something happened and they all died out. One world was used for biological experiments and even though the ancient race is long gone, their machinery is still working, or at least some of it is.

Recently the machinery has reset the planets atmosphere to be more conducive to life again. Various species are coming out from underground safe-havens (the labs they were kept in) and populating the surface again.

The ancient race discovered ways of utilizing the fundamental forces of the universe and somehow converted them into physical form, a sort of loose Dust. This Dust is the essence of life, elemental energy, can manipulate gravity, pretty much whatever you can think of, as long as you know how to do it (it's not nanites, or anything else that I even want to really try to explain). All magic exists, but it's just different traditions and methods for using Dust. Dust is so pervasive and useful, it's even used as the fundamental currency.

Due to the time crunch (we decided last night I should run a campaign and had to be ready by this Thursday) I cribbed the setting from a PC strategy game. The cool part is it comes with a bunch of art and blurbs for lore that I can steal.

The only "standard" human race are nomadic merchants who build their cities on the backs of enormous beetles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
Yeah, like, Col. Mustard almost never collects $200 for passing Go whenever I play Clue. ;-)
In my games, if you land on him, he goes back to that players pool that still needs to make a circuit, but they can take shortcuts if they manage to connect 4 in a row, but only if they have enough country cards to buy spaces equal to the armies they would normally get.
What happens if you roll a yahtzee?

You lose a factory.


SmiloDan wrote:
Yeah, like, Col. Mustard almost never collects $200 for passing Go whenever I play Clue. ;-)

In my games, if you land on him, he goes back to that players pool that still needs to make a circuit, but they can take shortcuts if they manage to connect 4 in a row, but only if they have enough country cards to buy spaces equal to the armies they would normally get.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I have always wanted to run an all dwarf game...

But I have the type of players that will be super enthusiastic say yes what a great idea then turn up with a character sheet with elf written on it...

"hey Bob why are you playing an elf?"...
"um yeh, he is adopted, the dwarves found him after some orcs killed everybody in his village..."
"You don't want to play an all dwarf game do you Bob?"
"I'm sorry no....."
"Why didn't you say so in the first place don't you know how much effort I put in".
"I could make my character human or halfling.... I don't like halfings much though".
My head hits the desk at that stage....
"Ok guys standard fantasy game be what you want I will get a module out because I can't be arsed anymore".

We had a mostly dwarven adventuring group once. I think 4-5 out of 7 were dwarves. It was fun.

I was the only one that fully committed though, I wrote my character sheet out in dwarven runes. I'd occasionally steal other people's sheets and rewrite things in dwarven for them.

That was also the campaign where I invented the Dwarven Door Game.

Another meme that entered our group was that dwarves live a really long time, so we'd offer up solutions that would take months or years to finish. Taking a month to finish up a simple task means less when you live 400-500 years. Also, a lot of solutions now involve tunnels.


As Landon says, I'd zoom in more on the area you're setting the campaign. If you're going to be globe-hopping, a Golarion-wide list of icons is appropriate. If you were going to set the game in the Kingmaker AP, it wouldn't make as much sense.

The 13th Age base setting is relatively small compared to the Inner Sea. The Midland sea is about 700 miles at it's longest, while the Inner Sea is about 1700 miles. The scope of movers and shakers encompassed is much broader in Golarion.

Any influential NPC over 15th level could be an Icon IMO. They might require a small boost to their "portfolio" as it were, or increasing their influence and power some. But the same goes for monsters, anything over CR 15 that's intelligent and wants to destroy/save the world could be an Icon.

By narrowing focus to a region it's also easier to see how each Icon might relate to at least 2-3 other icons, creating a web that will help push forward stories, similar to what you'll get from 13th Age.


The three most important factors in home design are location, location and location.

If it's a place that gets either very cold, or has long winters, homes will be larger, but livable space will probably still be small. Heating the home requires energy, so the smaller the family space, the more efficient it becomes. The not heated space allows for more storage, either of things like various crops that can be stored, or for livestock.

In a subtropical region it is warmer but still seasonal, livestock will probably be able to survive outside during the winter. There might still be storage buildings, depending on types of crops grown, but these buildings will be near the house instead of part of the house.

Tropical regions don't have winter/summer seasons. They have wet/dry seasons. Since temperature doesn't change that massively, whatever can survive outside can usually do so year-round. Homes will be smaller, used primarily to provide shelter from heavy rain.

If you want the homes in your game to feel real, give them design features based on where they are. How have the people adapted to the environment around them?


alexd1976 wrote:

I would always treat the damage dealt as having dice involved, regardless of whether or not actual dice are listed.

If something is listed as dealing 1 point (not 1D1 or 1D4-3 etc) then enlarging it or using Lead Blades literally does NOTHING.

That's dumb.

A cursory glance at the chart on this entry for Lead Blades doesn't sustain this interpretation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I want to make d20 rules somehow work for my eotenhām/be3t 6th century scandinavia setting.

It's not d20 unfortunately and it's a couple centuries off, but Saga of the Icelanders is a game set in Iceland, approximately 9th or 10th century. You play the early inhabitants who have fled the mainland (or a generation or 2 later) as they try to carve out their existence.

The system it uses plays great for 1-shots, or for a campaign of roughly 8-12 sessions (4 hours of play to a session, so 36-48 hours of play).

This PDF is not free unfortunately, I think $10. I haven't played it yet, but it's been highly recommended to me.

From the website's blurb

Quote:
In Sagas of the Icelanders you play as one of these settlers between the end of the 9th and 10th centuries, also known as the Saga Period. You need to weigh between upholding your honour, your freedom, or the lives of you and your family. Challenge harsh social norms, get drawn into bloody feuds, and fight to survive another winter. Tell the stories of the settlers’ families, their lives, trials and legacies. Build a new society from scratch and discover or change history as you forge a veritable Saga worth to echo through time.


Another option is have the player re-write some of the background. Stuff that hasn't been addressed yet in the game, like details and facts about their homeland that haven't come up in the game.

Tie the civil war into the greater cosmological conflict. Maybe someone is pulling Razmir's strings, or he's part of a greater conspiracy. The civil war in this other nation isn't directly related to the what the PC's have been doing, but when greater connections are discovered, natural alliances and enemies are identified.

There are lots of options. General theme can be maintained, but specific details can easily change. Especially anything that hasn't actually come up in the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:

  • Thieving Guild: Just a straight up, "build your own thieving guild" urban campaign. Gutter rat to kingpin.
...

Two new rpgs are coming at some point.

Blades in the Dark is all about the group of thieves. You start off as a lowly street gang, focusing on your specialty. You do jobs, fight for turf and build your gang up. It has plenty of action, but moves through heists pretty quickly and has more of a macro focus. Written by John Harper, so I expect he'll keep roughly on schedule and release in a few months.

It handles the gang so well that you can do troupe play as well. As your gang expands you can hire sub-gangs or specialists. Need a second story man? Hire one. Then you can either issue him orders, or someone could play him. It also works well for characters dying, retired or thrown in prison.

Project Dark is more focused on the action. Also, it has stealth rules that will make you realize you've never actually seen stealth rules in an RPG before. The basic mechanics of the game are very elegant and really do a good job of making it feel like a stealth game. It really is the RPG equivalent of Thief, Dishonored, Tenchu and Metal Gear Solid. Written by Will Hindmarch. He's making progress, but a long ways behind schedule.

The game is so good at doing stealth, that it actually works just as well with 1 player as it does with 4. I've GMed the same scenario with a single player as I did for 4 players and it worked just as well. It had a different feel to it, much more discreet, but mechanically it worked just fine.


I want to play a campaign of Burning Empires.


Mike J wrote:
Minotaur with levels in paladin.

I played a minotaur cleric once. One of my favorite characters ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Get the PDF, it's free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, you should check this game out. It's a game about killing gods. The default setting is "mythic norden" a not-quite-but-almost pre-Christian Scandinavian setting. It's not terribly accurate, or intended to be accurate.

I ran several sessions at GenCon this year. Typically I have the players face off against Odin. This time Odin was a former mythender who was a woman, so it was the All-mother that they had to face.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Zilvar2k11 wrote:
Please explain you position more fully, because I feel like you're conflating the concepts 'injury' and 'damage amount' in a confusing fashion, or I have -completely- missed the point.
Please take the "what are hit points" discussion to another thread. Reading debates about abstractions makes my eyes bleed.

What % of your HP would you describe that as?


Unless he's saying you stack an archetype on top of the class without swapping abilities.


What with the Internet and all, I don't even read books any more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ankles and feet are my problem.

I had a badly broken leg as a teenager. No permanent damage from the break directly, but the 6 months of immobilization has impacted my ankle.

In boot camp, on the other foot, I had a badly ingrown toenail. I had medics cut it out several times but kept coming back. Wouldn't go away for about 2 years, so that impacted my walking gait for a long time.

I've always enjoyed sports, so I still play basketball in my 30's. I enjoy it, but I've slowed my game down to avoid rolled ankles and (knock on wood) I've avoided them for a few years. Mostly now I just jam my fingers, which sucks but I can tolerate.

I want to do the Appalachian Trail, I'm just not sure my ankles and feet will hold up.


alexd1976 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Again, murder means unlawful and/or unjust killing.

You can argue about whether the States laws are just, but any execution is not inherently murder without said context.

Really, this conversation is lost in the details and specifics. People talking past one another and vehemently denying any similarity between positions. I bet most people are MUCH closer to agreeing on this than we are to disagreeing, except for a few minor details.

I think the real question is this:

Can you design a situation where a paladin should punch a baby?
With enough specifics and context, yes, but generally they shouldn't.

Edited to add some things.

If the baby is evil, no problem.

What if it's a goblin baby? ;)

See, you're adding specifics and context, which was entirely my point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, murder means unlawful and/or unjust killing.

You can argue about whether the States laws are just, but any execution is not inherently murder without said context.

Really, this conversation is lost in the details and specifics. People talking past one another and vehemently denying any similarity between positions. I bet most people are MUCH closer to agreeing on this than we are to disagreeing, except for a few minor details.

I think the real question is this:

Can you design a situation where a paladin should punch a baby?
With enough specifics and context, yes, but generally they shouldn't.

Edited to add some things.


Bloodrealm wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Somehow we've got a new generation of DMs who think that putting Paladins in no-win morality traps is the way to develop their street cred as "edgy".

I don't do it all the time. In fact I have 2 paladins in game right now that I haven't threatened with falling once. The game just has different themes (in fact it's an issue they're exploring indirectly, as other NPC paladins have done heinous acts and not fallen). One NPC paladin even used it as his defense after slaughtering a village. He didn't lose his powers, so obviously the gods approved of his actions. I won't get into all the details, but we have specific cosmological reasons why this happened, not all of which the players have discovered so far.

I think it's interesting space to explore though. In fact when I play as a paladin (one of my favorite classes) I'd love if GM's pushed more traps on me. Either I'll figure out a way to get through it, or I'll die valiantly losing. That's my favorite space for paladins to exist in. Of course, I also enjoy a good heroic last stand for my characters.

One way I think about it, if a Paladin isn't presented with moral ambiguities and bad choices to choose from, the class feels like a poorly written superman comic. I don't see the traps as traps, but rather opportunities for the players (when I'm GM) or me (when I'm the player) to define what paladinhood means. The worse the situation, the more chance there is to shine.

If you have specific cosmological reasons, then you're playing with different rules than the norm and therefore are outside of the discussion, since there is an outlying reason for an exception. That's perfectly fine; it's just not applicable to the argument here.

If it's happening constantly, it stops being interesting. Not everything with a Paladin involved should be a huge moral/ethical dilemma with the Paladin struggling on the edge of falling.
What people mean by "traps" is things like the OP's presented situation: If...

If you're trying to have a discussion with me, you should start off by at least accepting the premise that I'm allowed to speak my mind.

We're not in the Rules section by the way. We're allowed to discuss non-RAW things here, particularly in regards to roleplaying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Somehow we've got a new generation of DMs who think that putting Paladins in no-win morality traps is the way to develop their street cred as "edgy".

I don't do it all the time. In fact I have 2 paladins in game right now that I haven't threatened with falling once. The game just has different themes (in fact it's an issue they're exploring indirectly, as other NPC paladins have done heinous acts and not fallen). One NPC paladin even used it as his defense after slaughtering a village. He didn't lose his powers, so obviously the gods approved of his actions. I won't get into all the details, but we have specific cosmological reasons why this happened, not all of which the players have discovered so far.

I think it's interesting space to explore though. In fact when I play as a paladin (one of my favorite classes) I'd love if GM's pushed more traps on me. Either I'll figure out a way to get through it, or I'll die valiantly losing. That's my favorite space for paladins to exist in. Of course, I also enjoy a good heroic last stand for my characters.

One way I think about it, if a Paladin isn't presented with moral ambiguities and bad choices to choose from, the class feels like a poorly written superman comic. I don't see the traps as traps, but rather opportunities for the players (when I'm GM) or me (when I'm the player) to define what paladinhood means. The worse the situation, the more chance there is to shine.


Scythia wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

+1 on recommending The Culling of Stratholme. Blizzard really had an awesome thing going in WarCraft III.

As for the fall of a deity, this has happened at least once, although we don't know for sure that an Outer God is responsible. Note that if a deity falls, Paladins tied to that deity may have a hard time resisting even if they want to.

IMHO, Arthas was totally justified in the culling of Stratholme. Those people were already essentially dead. It's just a matter of whether they're dead and slaves to the enemy or dead and free. Given the way undeath under the command of the dreadlords was presented, I'd be hard pressed to rule Arthas' actions in Stratholme as anything worse than Neutral and I'd dare say borderline good.

There's a difference between a tragic hero and a sympathetic villain. Arthas was a Paladin when that meant something. The heroic choice would be to try to save the people. Find a way to use the power granted to a champion of the Light to overcome that evil. It might be difficult, and it might be a doomed effort, but that's what a hero does.

He chose the expedient way, the way that can be justified with enough rationalization and self-deceit, the way that required the mass murder of innocent individuals, the way that saved no one. That's what a villain does.

Voluntary mass murder of the innocent is a clear marker that a choice is not heroic (and good), but rather it is villainous (and evil).

For the most part I agree, though I think a Paladin can be forgiven if they have to make the choice for the greater good, but for that to be true it must be something that is many orders of magnitude greater. For the cost of one family, the paladin better be saving a medium sized metropolis. And that's only after ALL other possibilities have been exhausted.

Even then I'd probably require Atonement + quest.

Really, Paladins are just better off throwing themselves at the Evil in the vain hopes of winning and not surviving to see the aftermath.


Usual Suspect wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I did that one year. After GM'ing for 10 hours on Saturday, I happened across a game of Werewolf about 11:30PM (the mafia game, not the RPG). Luckily I had no events scheduled for Sunday, because I didn't get done playing until about 5:30 PM the next day.

I got really good at Werewolf that day.

What year was that? I helped run Werewolf last year and the year before; working the midnight to 4 AM shift (which never ended before 5 or 5:30).

2012. Note, I said 5:30 pm. I played werewolf games for about 18 hours (I took a break to go take a shower and eat some food)... after GM'ing games all day Saturday.

Liz Courts wrote:
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Rule #1, Liz is always the werewolf.

LIES AND SLANDER.

>.>
<.<

If I come to PaizoCon, can we play Werewolf?


I did that one year. After GM'ing for 10 hours on Saturday, I happened across a game of Werewolf about 11:30PM (the mafia game, not the RPG). Luckily I had no events scheduled for Sunday, because I didn't get done playing until about 5:30 PM the next day.

I got really good at Werewolf that day.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Black and white morality of PF is kinda annoying sometimes...

The alignment system essentially requires it unfortunately. If you want to use alignment in a mechanical sense, you (the real life people at the table) must determine what subjective method you will use to determine what is objective within the alignment system of the game.

The game is not the real world and the real world is not the game. A basic conceit of the game is that if alignment is mechanical, it HAS to obey certain rules and creates certain situations. The answer to those situations can (and should) differ from table to table, but within the game's world itself, the decision of what is good/evil should be considered objective.

The method of determining what is good and evil in the game doesn't need to make sense in the real world. It just has to be something everyone at the table can agree upon as a method.


One thing I did to save money this year is purchase some stuff called soylent. It's a powder mix that's a complete meal replacement. Costs $10 a bag and each bag is about 1 days worth of food. I still went out for dinner, so I used the soylent for breakfast/lunch.

I don't describe the stuff as a pleasurable experience, it's completely utilitarian. It's not bad, just inoffensive and bland. I only went through 2 1/2 bags worth, including the drive down and back. So for 5 days, breakfast/lunch combined cost me ~$25.

You don't have to go that extreme, but purchasing simple, cheap foods you can prepare in your hotel room for breakfast/lunch/snacks goes a long way to keeping costs down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

For those who say that motives matter more than actions, what if we flipped the alignments?

Someone has Good thoughts/mentality, but they only ever commit Evil actions. Would you consider them a Good character?

I played a CG barbarian once. He talked up how he wanted to steal everything, murder this person or that person, burn villages, etc. But if you took the measure of his actions he never actually hurt anyone who wasn't already engaged with combat. He regularly provided aid to the poor and indigent and constantly sought to right wrongs in society. Everyone (people at the table and characters in game) expected the worst from him, but he never lived down to that expectation and surprisingly held up to a very high standard.

Consider every villain who ever felt justified in their actions. Being "justified" should be considered Good, as the word implies bringing about justice. But just because someone thinks they are imposing justice does not mean they actually are. This gets to the fact that Good/Evil are not subjective in the game. Otherwise all societies would be Lawful Good, because they would all be following what they consider appropriate and good rules of conduct.

In real life, alignment is subjective. What is considered Good/Evil will differ from table to table, but as game terms they become completely useless if you consider them subjective within the game itself.

The bolded is why I'm seriously considering houseruling out rules/mechanics depending on alignment in the game, and leaving alignment solely as a general guide/flavor text than a rule.

the problem is that Good and Evil are subjective concepts by nature, but, as you say, in the game, good and evil is objective. if so, what is an objective good or evil?

Note, I'm going to say this as someone who is NOT a fan of alignment.

It's one of those things you have to buy into. It also works particularly for games that are going to deal with black/white issues (assigning the grey areas to Neutral). The cosmological reality of the game doesn't need to reflect the real world. You and your group just need to define the morality that you want to use.

That said, I think the game works fine if you abandon alignment. You can keep it as a more fluid, suggestive concept, or abandon it altogether.

I sometimes write N on my character sheet. Technically it stands for Neutral, but I read it as None.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For those who say that motives matter more than actions, what if we flipped the alignments?

Someone has Good thoughts/mentality, but they only ever commit Evil actions. Would you consider them a Good character?

I played a CG barbarian once. He talked up how he wanted to steal everything, murder this person or that person, burn villages, etc. But if you took the measure of his actions he never actually hurt anyone who wasn't already engaged with combat. He regularly provided aid to the poor and indigent and constantly sought to right wrongs in society. Everyone (people at the table and characters in game) expected the worst from him, but he never lived down to that expectation and surprisingly held up to a very high standard.

Consider every villain who ever felt justified in their actions. Being "justified" should be considered Good, as the word implies bringing about justice. But just because someone thinks they are imposing justice does not mean they actually are. This gets to the fact that Good/Evil are not subjective in the game. Otherwise all societies would be Lawful Good, because they would all be following what they consider appropriate and good rules of conduct.

In real life, alignment is subjective. What is considered Good/Evil will differ from table to table, but as game terms they become completely useless if you consider them subjective within the game itself.


I find the problem with mana point systems that are mathematically similar to Psionics in 3.5 are that you can basically exclude casting 1st level spells in order to get additional higher level spells. This shifts the power balance in favor of casters IMO because it just opens up more options and gives them additional uses of their most powerful abilities per day.

I've seen it once where someone flipped the math and I quite liked it. Instead of a swiftly increasing mana pool, you instead focus on the cost of the spells.

Imagine a 1st level wizard starts with 15 spell points. 1st level spells cost 7 points to cast. That's 2 a day. When they advance a level they get 1 additional spell point (it helps expanding the pool slightly to give you more room for your math). At 3rd level, the cost of 1st level spells goes down to 5 and now 2nd level spells cost 7. Eventually as you go up in levels, low level spells become free. In terms of power, a 17th level wizard having unlimited 1st level spells really isn't game breaking (or you could keep the minimum cost of 1 spell point if that bothers you).

This keeps high level spells always eating a large portion of the spell pool, while low level spells reduce in cost. You can also have items/feats/class abilities that reduce cost. Like specialist wizards might pay 1 or 2 less for their specialty, and double that amount for their opposed school.

I've played a high level caster with the increasing pool/static cost method and I just pumped out 7th to 9th level spells all day. It had it's charm of always launching my big, powerful spells, but at the same time there was no decision making on my part of when to use them or not. I just always used them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bdk86 wrote:


Now this has my interest. I definitely think this has great use in pick up play with strangers. I'm trying to think how it might be received in PFS (if only because my ability as a GM to alter the content is limited. For example, I can make sure Miss Feathers (my perennial example of problematic content) is role-played/presented in a way that is respectful/sensitive, but I can't remove her entirely from the scenarios where she appears.

I agree, PFS presents it's own hurdles, because the content is largely determined ahead of time. The x-card is typically used in more free-form games where nothing has been determined ahead of time. In a completely improvised game, it's easier for the GM to move past certain content.

The concept could be modified or some other method adopted for PFS though. It might look very different from this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mandy H. wrote:


I've seen this before, and I do like the idea... but honestly my main "issue" so to speak with it has to do with the immediate reaction to it that erupts every time I've seen it brought up. Which is to say, that in all of the places I can think of where it would actually be a useful tool, its usefulness is completely mitigated by the fact that the people who need to respect it won't, which is why the card was needed in the first place.

Oh, the card is by no means a solution unto itself. Sometimes it's helpful just introducing the card and talking about what it means. By helpful, I don't mean "solution" but rather at least helping broach the subject in the first place.

The card isn't perfect or useful for all game tables. I'm sure someone will come up with an idea that works better for other situations.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I've known about for a while and mentioned in at least one or two other threads on the forums is the x-card.

Link to the X-card google doc.

It's something that's strongly encouraged at Games on Demand (the event I GM at during GenCon), to help make games safe places. Everyone has different comfort levels with different kinds of content, and creating/talking about the x-card is a useful tool to help create boundaries, particularly at a convention where most people don't know each other.

While it's more geared towards strangers playing together, having the conversation and/or the actual tool at a regular game isn't bad either. People can be friends for years without realizing that they're stepping on each other's toes. Having the conversation that allows people to establish new boundaries makes it explicit that it's okay to speak up.

Anyways, just thought I'd toss this in here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
As a devotee of Thor who practices reconstructionist Germanic heathenry, that is also descriptive of me.

Not LGBT related...

As of about 2 years ago, the Hammer of Thor was accepted as a religious icon for use on headstones in national cemeteries. It's #55 on this list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a great time. Most all my time was spent GM'ing.

I had a great conversation with Tracy Hickman. I first met him in 2001 when I was in the Navy, he came on our ship as a VIP. He's always been extremely friendly and generous with his time. In 2012 I helped bring a friend who was dying of cancer to GenCon (his first and only as he died shortly after). Tracy was extremely generous and gracious, so I made a point to stop and thank him. He graced me with a story of the last time he got to play a game with Gary Gygax. So that was pretty cool. If you're ever at GenCon and Dragonlance influenced you at all, I highly recommend stopping at his booth. You don't even have to wait in line to talk to him.

I had dinner at St. Elmo's and it was everything I had hoped it would be. I dropped a pretty penny, but it was worth it.

Met up with an online gaming friend. He didn't attend the convention, but was local, so he'd stop by late in the evening to play board games with our group.

I GM'ed four 4-hour sessions between Mythender and Dark. Every session was good and a lot of fun.

I had a lot of good conversations. In fact, during the drive back on Sunday, I realized I didn't have a single bad conversation. I had a few extremely short interactions with jerks, but they were all short and easily forgettable. All in all, my interactions were all positive. I estimate that I had conversations with roughly 50-60 people and I enjoyed all of them.

I bought a couple posters and several dice, otherwise no games though. That was the one slightly disappointing thing about the convention, there didn't feel like there was any big release. A couple board games were the new "hotness", but nothing really new, big or groundbreaking.

Oh, and I nearly lost my voice by Thursday night. I drank a ton of tea and went through almost whole pack of ricolla.

1 to 50 of 5,546 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.