A scientist back in the 1930s could have rolled 32 on his or her knowledge check, and known just how much that dinosaur dragged their tail, and talk about theoretical climates they could survive in, because they were cold-blooded.
Because that was what was known and published, and therefore available to that scientist's knowledge check.
That same scientist today could come to a different conclusion with that 32, because different things are known today.
Knowledge checks don't uncover 'the absolute truth', they uncover 'possible facts known, based on what is generally rumored and your background' and so on.
For this reason, academia remains in pursuit of the works of old authors, and the acquisition/discovery of new, primary sources is a cause for professional backstabbery. Although it's possible to score a 32 on what's known NOW, there's always that much more to uncover and find...the acquisition of which can rocket you to academic stardom.
An academic character may understand that--that the more you know, the more there is out there TO know. That is, a knowledgeable character should realize just how vast the world is.
They may also put two and two together and realize that if, with all their learning, all they're able to come up with is some rumors and conflicting stories, then that makes whatever they're trying to solve more intriguing. More...let's say, worthy of tenure. That professorship.
There is fame in uncovering, discovering the unknown.
It may also point out to them that there may be reasons it hasn't been studied, and they may wonder why that IS. Perhaps they heard of expeditions that died trying to find the truth. Perhaps they heard of an old rival of their teacher's who died after uncovering just what little IS known.
Only intelligent critters would do it. Animals grab and hold on.
Maybe, maybe not? It depends on how you view 'release'. Release could just be letting go fast enough to get a better kill grip as the prey weakens--because you're going to grab them again and again and again from an increasingly better position each time.
When killing smaller prey, a dog might grab, then shake hard. The prey is disoriented, so they quick-release or even quick-drop to shift grip now that they have access to a more tender body part, grab, shake hard, rinse and repeat. Whatever it is will be dead within a few rounds of this.
"Hey, human, look, look! I brought us breakfast! I am the BEST!!!"
"...haha, just kidding! It's all mine!"
<The squirrel stares at you with silent and accusing black eyes.>
All those decomposing bodies use up oxygen as they decompose, but apparently when tutankhamun's tomb was opened by Howard Carter he lit a match at the entrance and discovered that there was air in there.
65. Find a new gaming group. (Seriously, the goblin baby thing is just ugh...and perhaps half the reason you find a lot of CN/CE characters...it's a way of stating: "I don't want to deal with this s%~+.")
It's about welcoming others, reaching out to them, and then not being creepy.
It's about "the isolation factor."
It's damned HARD, because it's social and social means fewer hard and fast rules (though SKR's blog post does an excellent job).
We're hearing more about things like this because gradually, women are in a stronger position to speak out--and therefore do. Older generations have a harder time adjusting.
We can learn from examples like Mudd, who have been successful.
One interesting take on the still increasing numbers of women entering high tech fields is that at pretty much every step along the way, there have been strong detractors claiming that whatever the current state was, was just the natural way of things - most women didn't have the talent for the fields or they didn't have the interest. As the numbers grew, the response stayed the same - now we've reached the real limit.
It's...
...the very silly thing about that view is, programming used to be mostly women...because socially, it was considered "women's work," as you could stay at home and tend the children.
Mudd's example offers us a successful way forward--by addressing the social paradigm.
Illustrations of both male and female heroes and heroines in Core books are part of that, ofc. You're communicating that both men AND women can be part of a thing. That's part of what makes the Mudd study so damned interesting.
I'd like to add in here an example of a methodology that has worked in other areas. Mudd college offers us an example of a successful approach: "At Harvey Mudd College, a private liberal arts college near Los Angeles, initiatives are underway to make the computer-science department more welcoming. As a result, 40% of its computer-science students are women. Harvey Mudd is still working to ensure women feel as welcome and as capable as their male computer science peers." (Quote from readwrite.com)
Their success is due in large part to:
- Altering the "imposter syndrome." Intentional or not, if you walk into an area where it's only 14% or fewer people like you, you feel isolated. Keep in mind that this would be in your education as well as any workplace you applied to within this field.
- Increasing outreach. That is, speaking to girls in high school and communicating with them about the cs field. That is, "this is a possibility for you, it isn't just a male area--even if you'd be 1 out of 10, etc. It's growing."
The approaches were mainly social and highly successful. I would not call this "pandering" so much as opening the door and inviting someone over to dinner. ...and then treating them like a person.
In a bizarre way, in order to get a group involved--socially speaking, you tend to already need members of that group there. Austin, TX is reportedly losing numbers of its African American population because of a general feeling of isolation. That is, there may be only 8% or so within a population--hence, isolation or "imposter syndrome."
I really do not believe you are qualified to decide that men are not qualified to assist in adding diversity. In fact, that smacks of sexism, and that is offensive.
There is no sexism in my comment. Just plain fact. I am a man. If I join a group of other men and we all share the male gender identity, then by definition, I have not added to the gender diversity of that group of people. Thats what diversity means, and in the context of the OP we are talking about Gender Diversity. Now obviously, if paizo hired someone biologically male who doesnt identify as male, that would add gender diversity, but that isnt what I meant, and I dont think thats how you took my meaning.
Can different men offer diversity of experience, culture, heritage to a group? Of course. But if as the OP was we are talking gender diversity, then adding someone the same gender as the others in the group, doesnt diversify gender.
This is a good way to phrase it.
Think of it also as role models for your daughters. Also, your sons who now see more women involved in gaming. Pretty awesome.
Just because we tell our daughters and our sons that "gender doesn't matter," a picture is worth a thousand words, a thousand sets of proof.
Assuming that such an applicant would be "less qualified and do an awful job of it" is also an insult to Paizo, Paizo's staff, and their capability to choose a suitable individual.
So, it seems like your real problem is that the tacit agreement you all had has stopped working.
Step one: figure out what they were, and write down all of the ways in which your groups house rules differ from the written rules.
Step two: announce the problem. Let everyone know that having everyone use slightly different rule sets is causing friction. Let everyone know that consensus is best, and this would really help, even if not everyone gets their way on everything.
Step three: talk it out. Discuss each change as a group, and make some decisions.
You'll invest a whole session on this, but it's worth it.
Hey there. While this is good and well-intended, I wanted to add that following the "write down everything" guidelines too far can cause a worse issue when in this case what is important is the spirit of the game. Your "spirit of the game" isn't to pin down everything and interpret it to the nth degree no matter what.
Discuss as the poster said, yet focus more on outlining your house rules in general, then follow with a conversation about how to interpret rules in the future (RAI versus RAW, etc.). It will likely require more than one conversation before he "gets" it. However, and this is important: ensure that the player knows he will not be screwed over. ...and that you encourage discussion, but that railroading the game into a rules argument that takes over an entire session is not just bad behavior, it's unwelcome at the table.
How you respond should be within the spirit and intent of how you intend to play.
Just be sure he isn't punished for not knowing...and that he understands your group's expectation of behaviour at the table.
I would probably also set a limit to how objections are handled, as well as lawyering. That is, it may be brought up once in session and must be brought up politely. Details are reviewed after session whenever possible, and if the DM says no, accept it and move on, or find another table.
I can see a use for this feat. Most of them involve sneaky ways to encourage a kid (or yourself) to get better at math.
- A kid might try it because you told them "man, no one can do this!" just to prove you wrong
- A kid might try it because "it was the most powerful of powerful wizards ever"
- A kid might try it, because if they could you would buy them pizza afterwards, and they get a super-powerful wizard on top of it
...etc.
Result: Kid learns better math concepts, and gets immediate benefit
I didn't take from Caedwyr's posts that it promoted mod-access to non-employees.
Now I haven't reads the linked posts, but I thought Caedwyr was talking more to the lack of "community manager-focus" in the moderation by Paizo staff.
If there are steps in community building and community building that can be implemented, then there will be less moderation needed, or the nature of moderation will change as the community moderates itself - not through hard-code and ban-hammering (regardless of who does it), but through etiquette, mindful behaviour and subscription to social tenets more conducive to positive and creative discussion.
Pretty much this. From what I've seen and what I've read by some of the community managers/moderators for some of the more successful communities, there's a lot of thought that goes into things such as atmosphere and the nature of the community. As Pathfinder grows and becomes more successful, if Paizo is going to continue to have forums, they will need to decide what direction they wish to take or their community will develop in a direction they don't want and their ability to influence the community will be lessened.
I just wanted to add to this in a somewhat tangential way. Kirk Hamilton recently reviewed Kotaku's own policies and approach, as well as reviewing a related Wired article on the topic (handling internet trolling).
Quote from Wired Article wrote:
This process led them to a surprising insight—one that "shaped our entire approach to this problem," says Jeffrey Lin, Riot's lead designer of social systems, who spoke about the process at last year's Game Developers Conference. "If we remove all toxic players from the game, do we solve the player behavior problem? We don't." That is, if you think most online abuse is hurled by a small group of maladapted trolls, you're wrong. Riot found that persistently negative players were only responsible for roughly 13 percent of the game's bad behavior. The other 87 percent was coming from players whose presence, most of the time, seemed to be generally inoffensive or even positive. These gamers were lashing out only occasionally, in isolated incidents—but their outbursts often snowballed through the community. Banning the worst trolls wouldn't be enough to clean up League of Legends, Riot's player behavior team realized. Nothing less than community-wide reforms could succeed.
Some of the reforms Riot came up with were small but remarkably effective. Originally, for example, it was a default in the game that opposing teams could chat with each other during play, but this often spiraled into abusive taunting. So in one of its earliest experiments, Riot turned off that chat function but allowed players to turn it on if they wanted. The impact was immediate. A week before the change, players reported that more than 80 percent of chat between opponents was negative. But a week after switching the default, negative chat had decreased by more than 30 percent while positive chat increased nearly 35 percent. The takeaway? Creating a simple hurdle to abusive behavior makes it much less prevalent.
...there's more there, including how the focus on and treatment of an online space as a "community, so act like it" is one of the more effective measures you can have against negative behavior, combined with "those solutions which defuse the Internet’s power to amplify abuse but also encourage crucial shifts in social norms."
6 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
When I was looking through the Plant Shape spell, I started wondering if while it was being written, the author might've put down "Regeneration" when they'd meant "Fast Healing."
Since some plants have fast healing, and none (to my knowledge, though this might have changed) have regeneration, this seems like a reasonable conclusion.
So, is Regeneration really meant to have been Fast Healing in the Plant Shape series of spells?
I'm not proposing a debate or argument about the effectiveness of the spell. This is just me wondering if A had been meant to be B.
Sometimes being concerned with how everything hangs together at the table is the biggest, most important thing...
...and that's a purely OOC issue.
I've met some fairly quirky characters...if there were issues though, it was rarely with the piece of paper, but the person who had written on it. A good person you can work with, generally.
And generally...you try to fit everyone in and to make it work. That isn't always possible though, despite every attempt otherwise. Usually, it comes down to OOC issues, as to whether whatever is going on can be resolved.
Sometimes, it also comes down to management of the table. A good DM or group can help mitigate some issues or help someone incorporate, but there's a reasonable limit here as well and a table is no place for a therapy session.
So in the end...yeah, I've run into some quirky PCs. I remember the person behind the paper more, though.
There is absolutely a middle row between the playstyles, here.
1. Treat some of them as a hazard, not a trap. Or/and,
2. Allow DD to function as a knowledge roll in some instances, such as complex or multi-part traps. For example, let the player roll...then based on the roll and type of trap:
A: Roll is successful: Disable a trap, or obtain detailed knowledge about the trap and potential disarmament
B: Roll is unsuccessful: Well, it is not.
Benefits of a multi-part trap: A trap becomes a process which can involve coordinating several party members and a sequences of challenges as opposed to a single roll. For example, when allowing the rogue to use DD on a trap to analyze it, a DM might say: you recognize you can disable this device, but it would involve... (outline a loose process that includes some challenges).
Done well, the latter method can help the rogue feel like McGuyver, as well as involving the other party members in the challenge.
How often in a story have we seen the scout come back and say: there's this trap, guys. ...but I'm going to need your /help/.
And then it becomes a more interactive challenge and larger part of the adventure.
You don't want to do this every time, but it could offer you a middle ground.
I've also pretty much reiterated what other posters have said. Best of luck to you, and don't worry overmuch about the roll versus role arguments. Those things are bound to come up and the only really solution there is to work things out OOCly with your player(s). That said, a solution like the above can help both styles play nicely.
A champion of freedom as I would have it would include things similar to, for example ... Gaining powers similar to those of the liberation domain. Instead of divine health implement a strong resistance to, or immunity to, mind effecting spells or spells that force the character's will. Etcetera.
How is Divine Health Lawful but not Chaotic?
Alternately, I could say, why are you so insistent it HAS to be the paladin, only the paladin, exactly as is with no changes PERIOD!!!
Because its a holy champion guy with smite and divine grace and a four level spell list with litanies?
This just suggests to me that the non-archetype side of the debate wants it for crunch and not concept, which may be indeed, where the dividing line is.
All this really means in the end though, is that a well-made archetype or two would quickly spin these opinions on their head and result in a rapidly changing tune.
...you'd still get the anti-alignment arguments though, which is a large part of what this is, too. It's just that one class was made the poster child for it.
An alternate paladin could be fun--with appropriately reflavored abilities. A Freedom Warrior needs a freedom of movement ability swapped in for something else at the very least. Probably also the ability to pick locks (opening slave cages, etc.), Mercies that end domination and enchantment effects, to remove fatigue from the oppressed, and so forth.
Those who are arguing for a reflavored version are those who are seeing it as something unique and flavorful and deserving of that attention--and also something different, flavorwise, than the core chassis.
It does not need to be "up to the DM." I imagine a 3PP would be willing to take it on, and if not them, another member of the community.
Alignments aren't going anywhere, and an archetype would be a way to address most concerns and pack in some great flavor.
In short: ask for an archetype and you'll get more interest and in the end, a more interesting product. Argue versus alignments in general, and it spins in circles and goes back to the same tired commentary and turns more people off. For the latter you need an alternative version of PF which Paizo isn't interested in.
When it doubt Common Sense and Rules as Intended are far more important than following the letter of the rule (RAW).
The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).
Personally, the rules as intended are more important than anything else to me.
Exactly this. The words on paper have but one purpose: to convey the author's intent. The words aren't the professional game designer. The professional game designer is, and it's their intent that matters.
The problem being that, barring official statements/errata/FAQ, it's rather hard to know what the designers intended the rules to be, other than looking at what they wrote down (and most people class errata/FAQ as part of the RAW). Otherwise, it's less RAI and more "Rules The Way I Personally Think They Ought To Be." (RTWIPTTOTB?) Not helped by the fact that reasonable people can disagree about where the dividing line is between exploiting loopholes in the rules and working cleverly within the rules, or what the clear intended function function of a given rule is.
The more you deviate from what's written down, the harder it is to maintain a consistent and transparent rules set (Harder, not impossible; you can always keep a list of house-rules and such). Now, obviously this doesn't mean that stuff like the fact that rulebook doesn't say being dead prevents your character from taking actions is legit (unless you're in an undead campaign), but I generally expect that if I have a rulebook for a game, the rules in said book apply.
Many RAW arguments come up because "I want to." Some are legitimate questions, though the majority are the former.
Many of them can be solved by looking at the intent of the person bringing the argument.
This does not mean that some of them do not need addressed.
Unfortunately and unintendedly, PFS' emphasis on RAW has pushed the "because I want to" RAW-fights to the forefront, since DMs are unable to disagree with it. Therefore, instead of working things out at the table, there is a benefit (and almost requirement?) to running to the developers and starting a very long forum thread over even the smallest aspects of the game.
Gaming at Tabletop is a social exercise. Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though threads like this become an attempt to step outside of that exercise, to call on developers to make decisions for us to either contain or sometimes enable munchkinism when we ourselves need to be the ones stepping up to do so.
I'm not claiming this thread is, mind, it's that some of, or perhaps what appears to be an abundance of, these threads make it seem that way.
Do some rules questions need addressed? Absolutely.
That does not mean all of them do, though, and does not mean that we may be relying too much on developers when what is really needed is a good thump on the head and a "knock it off."
For folks in the US, there's the Oregon Trail: "On the Oregon Trail, one in every five women were in some stage of pregnancy. Nearly all married woman traveled with small children." (Source)
Or: "It's estimated that 40,000 of the emigrants were children, one of every five..." (Source)
...not to mention travel in other cultures at different times, especially more nomadic societies. At least in Golarion, you have your party and magic to help you.
Craft a papoose and purchase a wand of endure elements for the tyke, and a similar one of prestidigitation for the diapers. Perhaps a low-level hireling to stand off to the side and hold the child during combat.
However, the bible and Christianity was never simply for certain people, but for all men. It's a point that I think is missed by those who are both extremes of the spectrum (for various reason).
This is where beliefs diverge, very much. I've been told that because I follow a largely non-theistic faith that it is not a real faith.
I believe it to be a lack of understanding on the part of the speaker--that is, simply not having been exposed to a nontheistic faith in full, and perhaps unable to comprehend how one would work...or even how it /could/ be a faith at all.
Education and understanding is key. I felt I should point out what appeared to be an assumption, however. You may believe your faith's teachings were meant for me.
...and I would be free to suggest that mine were meant for you.
I don't say this combatively, merely an expression and hope for the future that the talking, and understanding continues...not just for faith, but for LGBTQ and many other areas, instead.
On a similar topic, (or perhaps tangent, so please bear with me) NPR covered wonderful program the other day--they're doing a series on tribalism. The idea of who belongs and 'what we believe' is strong among tribal peoples because it's also equated with safety. That is, everyone would have the same tattoo, or the same rites of passage which then come to identify an 'us.' Anyone outside that 'us' (without the tattoo, or rites) was likely a raider or other, threatening individual.
I'd propose that to some degree--wanting others to conform to our views is also a kickback towards safety, /wanting/ things to be similar, or to provoke a similar worldview. That, wanting everyone to share a similar faith, outlook, or tattoo--could be a measure of that tribal circle of safety.
Again, I am not meaning to insult. This is more academic wandering, and I'll tie it back into LGBTQ in a moment. :)
At our tribal level, what we don't 'know' becomes defined as 'other' and 'other' becomes 'threat.' I do not think this invalidates the studies Jessica and others mentioned--I believe it adds to them because if a person possesses these tendencies (a liking for men where their culture declares gay to be evil) then they fight not only themselves but their fear of becoming a nonmember of their culture. An outsider, and something they've long been accustomed to viewing as 'evil.'
This would imply that those who cannot 'put a face' to someone who is LGBTQ and see how these 'other' peacefully fit into their lives fall into a pattern of fear/hate/etc. The same is for different faiths, outlooks...it's at its basis, and perhaps more crudely said, 'they who do not possess the same tattoo are different and a threat to my tribe and my way of life.'
It's possibly why talking and education breaks down those barriers, because it expands the 'tribal circle.' The 'other' becomes a 'possible us.' ...and why certain hate groups are so against a broader education to begin with.
For example, I once had a deacon level his finger at me and declare, in thunder and lighting, that because I'd taken the time to experience other, Protestant, faiths that my own was then 'weakened' and I risked going to hell.
He feared 'other' becoming 'us.' (And I say this not to condemn a faith--my Catholic friends were a little shocked, too).
Kickstarting is serious business. It takes time to craft one and then run it successfully, and then coordinate the follow-up...not in terms of a month or two, but a year or two.
Most gamers are not managers, or trained in business. ...it's a big leap between running a gaming table towards business management.
Many of the old MUDs and so on back in the day floundered or exploded because of this difference. Same is true for gaming publishers. "Hey, I love playing with my friends...why not make something everyone can enjoy?" Or, "Hey, I can design xyz better than...why not make some money doing what I love?"
So I wish the owners of Frog the best, and suggest there's a growing market out there for how to run and manage a successful Kickstarter from the gaming angle. Or better than that...courses and classwork combined, and it's never bad to hire the occasional consultant.
If their rulings can't be trusted unless they're in a FAQ, and their FAQs can't be relied upon because they're subject to change, there's nowhere to go for reliable rulings.
...this and previous posts more read to me as though you've a horse in the race (haha) and have gotten a little focused on it to the point where not just "one" thing seems wrong but...the whole system now is. Stepping away from this for the rest of the weekend would not be a bad move.
I don't mean to be insulting, Ss. I mean that more, from this keyboard, the posts seem to be spiraling and beginning to sound...like a break might be a good idea.
It's partly an era issue. I believe we're running into a "gotcha" to where we're expecting more well-rounded classes and characters. This newer expectation runs heads-on versus the old system, where 2 skill points per level was, previously, fairly acceptable because it wasn't a fighter's role. ...likewise, your rogue wasn't a nerfwhingyterribadawful (according to the forums), because they had their own role.
In the new and more generalized style, the class with 2 skill points per level has no place. The fighter as a /concept/ has even less place, because, going with the idea of "everyone has a way to contribute, just differently," every class should have a combat advantage and capability--just a different one.
Likewise, under the new style which has been emerging, the rogue as its concept exists has no place.
The inquisitor, witch, and similar classes personify this new style and new era. They're flexible in a multitude of areas. I imagine were Paizo able to rewrite the core classes, many of them would take on more robust, "new style" flavors.
This is in addition to points other posters have made. It is fairly easy to get a skill boost. When it comes down to it, a skill is just a number, which makes the idea that 15 ranks equals an epic level of discipline harder to swallow.
If we wanted skills to have a greater impact, they would need to be more robust, and bonuses to skill rolls would need to be more limited and controlled.
Finally, we would also need to re-adjust older classes, to bring them to the design preference of the newer era.
Name it the Martial Maneuvers pool, and I imagine you'll get quite a few converts.
I wouldn't focus on damage as much as options. For example:
- Spend a point to gain extra movement
- Spend a point to perform a maneuver you know along with an attack
- Spend a point to perform a maneuver you don't know
- Spend a point to assess the battlefield and better strategize (...no idea what this would actually do, but it sounds good!)
In this sort of situation there's always going to be a lot of "hidden cost" involved. This does not mean it feels any less frustrating when we feel our questions aren't given "the nod" or we feel they're ignored. I don't believe this is Paizo's intent. They wouldn't be answering this thread, otherwise.
On the other hand, I (and apparently a number of other posters) do not feel that the issue is as wholly visible from outside Paizo as inside of it. However, I work in similar situations every day and I'm sure there are others here who do as well. :) So let me see if I can shed some light on a part of it.
I saw for example, that a queue question should only take 5 minutes or so to answer. This isn't true. Given how complex Pathfinder is, let's assume that an employee at Paizo is given leeway to research and thoroughly look into a question. This involves reading all of a poster's concerns, and looking into the context. This clearly takes longer than a few minutes. After all, we /want/ them to spend time on our question, and to consider the ramifications.
So allot 1 day to do this.
Now, as we've seen from some threadsplosions, it will take 1 day to 1 week to address replies and explain the decision. After all, a number of people had been concerned...why wouldn't they have questions afterwards?
Yet...it's starting to look like a larger iceburg, isn't it? And, much of that theoretical Paizo employee's time, and need, is driven by the time taken to respond and /communicate/ with individual fans. That is, /we/ are taking up the queue time. Yes, we. If there are 100+ queues, it means that it then takes an average of 2-8 days per question, when the follow-up queries, explanations are included.
We become our own worst enemy to seeing queues resolved.
It would be nice if Paizo could simply "post an answer," wouldn't it? However, people (like the OP) want explanations. They have questions. ...and so, instead of 5 minutes, it takes a day, because the system is complex and we would like our opinions considered. Instead of a day, it takes two to a week because we want to discuss the result.
At minimum for the current queue, then, we're looking at anywhere from 200-800 days of an employee's time, and that is only if we dedicate that person to the current queue...and ignore any questions which come up later.
We demand a community--want one, in fact, and we appreciate the interaction Paizo gives us. We've all seen their staff on this thread, for example. However, what does it cost Paizo to engage with us, to answer official questions which require carefully worded responses?
We can determine a rough cost. Assuming 200-800 days, we're also looking at paying a salary of...okay, assume 40k per year and about 250 business days per year.
...so there is our starting salary, and our average salary cost per question. ...I'm not going to do the math, there. Everyone here is capable of it, and my numbers are rough. Not only that: I'm about to expand on them.
Anyone who's worked in project management, editing, or publication knows that we can NEVER assume "just" salary cost. We must also include:
- Paizo's basic operations cost. That is, the basic cost which it incurs per employee, including share of: electricity, utility, and all general services which Paizo relies on to run. Although this might seem silly to mention, it is absolutely important.
- The cost of removing a team member knowledgeable and with authority enough to consider and respond to these queries. What is the cost to the rest of the team and Paizo's development schedule?
- The cost of the time of project managers, editors, page setters, and publishers involved in re-editing, publishing, and re-preparing published material based on the employee's research.
- The cost incurred by 3PP on receiving the rules updates for the same.
- The overall time investment and the amount it subtracts from the available pool (a pool shared with APs, future releases, and so forth)
Given time and research, we could likely put a number on this and round it out to the "cost per question."
What I am saying is: nothing is as simple as "go erase the one line." Or, "just take 5 minutes and respond." As this thread illustrates, we ourselves require engagement, responses, and thoughtful replies...on top of the research we clearly, and should, expect before an answer is given. Too, we must include the "time cascade effect" is pushing these errata onto editors, publishers, and project managers.
From here, the cost and time cascade well, cascades. Each employee costs a greater amount than just a salary. Each project costs a greater amount than the time given on its sheet.
It is remarkable that Paizo has done what it has accomplished. To clear out the queue more quickly would take more staff and more overhead than they currently possess. It would then involve the delayment of other projects.
This is largely a problem of perception. We see the iceburg, but it's hard to see underneath. Instead, we feel hurt because our questions aren't responded to. We don't receive that handshake when we feel we deserve it--or worse, we feel overlooked.
...and we get really, really upset.
However, at this point, we owe it to ourselves--and before we make our next demands--to understand what the bottom of the iceburg looks like.
I could well imagine, if this does not happen, that someone might demand that one of the Paizo staff be willing to submit a rough work schedule for a day, and ask the forum how they might prioritize...just to illustrate the types of decisions made each day. It may not be a bad idea.
...though on the flip side, if we've gotten to the point where anyone is informing a Paizo employee of /how much time they have/ and /what their priorities should be/...then...
A t-tex strolls into the room, his stride wide but sedate, stompy, yet gentlemanly. "GOOD SIRS," he booms, his teeth clacking together most ferociously, for which instance he covers them, demurely, with a cloth--lest someone should think he's here to devour the goblins.
"GOOD SIRS. I HAVE STOMPED FORTH FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE JUNGLE, I HAVE STOMPED FORTH PAST HORRORS VAST AND UNKNOWN, PAST THE TRICERATOPS' J-POP BAND, PAST THE KOBOLDS OF TUCKERSTAN, ALL TO COME FORTH, TO PRESENT BEFORE YOU THIS GREATEST OF MESSAGES AND MOST PONDEROUS OF QUERIES."
...says the gentlemanly t-tex. Then he doffs his hat, and adjusts his monocle. He says, "FOR BEHOLD. ...I BRING EVIDENCE OF BELEAGUERED TACOS."
He pauses. Dramatically. Dramatically, of course, to let the gravity of the question take its course. To set the stage. To wait, kindly, for the audience (and for surely an audience it must be) to catch its breath regarding this solemn beleagurement of tacos.
"BELEAGUERED," he then continues in his booming voice, "FOR THE RULES ON PAGE 297, SUBSECTION C AND SUBPARAGRAPH 92 COVER NOT THE ABILITY OF DIGESTION WHEREWITHIN THE PLAYER CHARACTER SITS SO NEATLY ATOP A VOLCANO WHILST BEING BOTHERED BY BEHEMOTH RHINOCERI WEARING NOT A SEVEN-PIECE ARMORY BUT A SIX-POINT-FIVE. THE DIFFERENCE IS ASTRONOMICAL. I PRAY YOU, GOOD SIRS, AND ESPECIALLY MOST APPROPRIATELY THE DEITY SEAN K REYNOLDS..."
"...SAVE THESE TACOS AND MEND THIS INCOMPLETENESS IN THE HOLY BOOK OF RULES MOST HIGH, BEFORE AND LEST OTHER TACOS BE BELEAGUERED INAPPROPRIATELY," says the t-rex, his teeth snapping together politely with a great, breathy sigh, and his voice booming dramatically as he stands there in his three-piece suit.
He bows, then, and takes his leave, having left behind a proper SASE with attached postage.
...that is how you talk with Paizo.
PS I only giggle at the intensity at which we geeks can get to. It is a thing which all of us are prone to doing. Sometimes it does us good to honor the great Pratchett or Monty.
PPS You are all awesome. Let's go play some Pathfinder.
As many as you like or your players wish to invent. The one caveat that I'd avoid is having any singular god be the sole proprietor of an "Unbeatable" concept. For example:
- Freedom good!
- Undead bad!
My examples are a little tongue-in-cheek, but I hope the concept comes through. In terms of hard to defend concepts, never put all of your eggs in one basket.
That is, have at least two deities who stand against undead, for example. Don't have a single deity who is all about ending slavery...and have that be all that they're about. Make two who are.
These concepts on their own are too easily an "I win" button in the social sense.
This is less of an issue with a single table top group, though, granted. If you're designing for a larger group with a greater number of players, it does become a thing.
I ran into this a while back. I forget the original author:
THE CODE OF THE ORDERS
Elyoen embodies all that is Good. The Saints personify His Wisdom and Grace. The Blessed Clergy act as teachers and counselors for this Wisdom, guides and agents for this Grace. The Blessed Paladins are the special guardians of the faithful, the champions of the innocent, and the bulwark against Evil and all who delight in wickedness.
The Paladin swears obedience and loyalty, diligence and sacrifice to the ranks of an Order. And by doing so, to the body of the Blessed Clergy. And by doing so, to the Celestial Saints. And by doing so, to Elyoen.
The Paladin is trained in the skills of the Order's Precepts. He is educated in the Wisdom of the Saints, as taught by the Blessed Clergy's Priests, through prayer and observance, and through enlightened by the Grace of the Celestial Saints. He is empowered by Elyoen through his Celestial Saints, strengthened by his faith.
The Paladin is charged with reflecting the Good of Elyoen's in appearance and action. His life serves as an example of the power of Elyoen’s Grace.
He is an encouragement to the faithful, a shepherd to the lost, a defender of the weak, and a champion of Good in all of its incarnations.
The Paladin's behavior shall thus be governed by strictest adherence to the following code:
1) He shall act with compassion and humility, mete justice and offer hope, for these are the cornerstones of all that is Good.
2) He shall deny hatred and arrogance, eschew selfishness and elude despair, for these are the tools Evil uses to undermine all that is Good.
3) He shall endeavor to follow the laws of society and the authority of its rulers, for civilization is the soil in which the weak can thrive. Only with great cause and in the service of Good may he violate the laws or challenge the rightful rulers of a land.
4) He shall work to bring down the reign of savagery and wrest order out of chaos, for the mayhem of anarchy is the mire in which Evil grows.
5) He shall protect the gentle from the exploitation of the powerful. He shall protect the innocent against the debauchery of the depraved. He shall protect the kindly from the abuse of the cruel. He shall protect the righteous from the injustice of tyrants. From these are drawn those destined for Elysium and they are his charges.
6) He shall battle against Evil wherever he finds it. He must not befriend those who are Evil nor shall he cavort or travel with those who are Evil. He is the enemy of Evil and must not enjoy its company and must be beware the wiles and trickery of Evil and not fall for its charms.
7) He shall battle and destroy devils and demons, for their place is not in this world and their presence will only corrupt and hurt.
8) He shall battle and destroy the undead, for their time has come and gone, their remains must be returned to the grave or scattered as dust to the wind.
9) He shall promote the teachings of the Saints, encourage faith in Elyoen, and promote Good wherever he goes. He shall reach out to those not in the faith and support the faithful through deed and word. He shall practice the observances and rituals of the faith as an encouragement to those around him and invite their participation.
10) He shall properly maintain his person and equipment. A slovenly appearance bespeaks a lazy spirit and presents a poor impression of himself and his Order.
11) He shall behave honorably, even when not treated thus. He shall not lie, shall not steal, shall not be craven in his dealings nor be vulgar in speech, shall not fight through trickery nor subterfuge nor deceit, and shall not torture.
12) He shall keep his mind and his spirit free from intoxication, free from impairing fatigue, and indeed free from all distractions that delay his purpose or distract him from his duties.
13) He shall recreate in activities that relax the body, soothe the spirit, enlighten the mind, or advance his skill. He shall avoid activities that hollowly stimulate his senses, excite his emotions, or compromise his character in the eyes of others.
14) He shall eschew excess wealth, and refrain from pursuing it. He shall be plain in dress and equipment; bestowing all extra wealth to the Church or upon the needy. He shall not carry more weapons or armor than he needs. The pursuit of material things is enticing and can lead one away from the path of Good, even when it seems that such pursuit is in the service of Good.
15) He shall remain chaste and avoid situations that might lead to impropriety. He shall not seek a spouse nor encourage the attentions of those seeking a mate. Marriage is a sacred pact between a man and woman, blessed by the Grace of Elyoen, which cannot help but make demands upon the loyalty of those who are wedded. Such a pact endangers one’s ability to fulfill their obligations to their Order.
16) He shall make only those oaths he intends to keep and is capable of fulfilling. He need only accept oaths from those who have proven themselves capable of fulfilling them or who will prove themselves thus capable as part of their oath.
17) He shall not ask of others that which they cannot do or that which he can do himself. He shall not willingly accept more upon himself than he can do well.
18) He shall show courage and confidence in all situations, especially in the face of Evil. He shall not, however, forget his responsibilities and must not confuse courage and confidence with bravado and arrogance. Victory is often not found in battle.
19) He shall give quarter when asked, accept surrender when offered, and spare those who lie helpless at his feet when they might be redeemed. Those thus taken are in his charge until they are given over to those with the authority to judge them. He shall not spare those who cannot be redeemed or promise mercy, but kill that which is Evil by nature, for only through the waters of the Lethe might they be redeemed.
20) He shall look after the well being of others, both his charges and companions, before seeing to his personal needs. He shall look after them in the order of their need, helping the most needy first. Only when the safety and well being of other depends on his needs, should this be abrogated.
21) He shall share his deeds, his hopes, his sins, and his fears with the Blessed Clerics of Elyoen and his superiors in his Order. They will keep him on the path of Good, away from the temptations of Evil.
22) He shall, upon death, remain within Elysium. He shall not drink of Lethe, and shall not return to the world except if called upon to do so by the Blessed Clergy of Elyoen, by the Blessed Saints, or by the Angels that reside in Elysium on behalf of Elyoen.
As one of the boards grognards, I need to remind the OP that adventures set outside the standard adventuring world into weird stuff have been part of D&D since it's inception.
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - 1980 , takes place on alien spaceship. One of the highest rated D&D adventures of all time.
Isle of the Ape 1985- travel to a demiplane which is very similar to Skull island to meet a monster quite a bit like King Kong.
In a very early Dragon magazine there is a adventure pitting the party vs nazis in tanks & such.
There's also the Gygax adventure Dungeonland, set in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
Obviously, D&D, which requires a rich and fertile imagination, is not for the OP. May I suggest a nice game of checkers? Normally I suggest Candyland, but since that does require a suspension of disbelief, it may be too much for his stunted and feeble imagination.
Second this, aye. I've no beard, but at this point I would pat it proudly. :3
Also, dang, son. Dang! Courtesy is a thing, ya know, son, ya know!
I've said this many times over the years, as this old, beaten horse occasionally gets dragged from its blood stained death bed.
The most consistently naked character in all of Fantasy is Conan. A male.
Where are the rage/hate demands to see HIM get dressed up like a proper gentleman? And how stupid would that be? Very.
Look, there's exploitative crap out there, and always has been. That can create a bad impression, sure. But there's room for sexy, too. And frankly, there have been plenty of times in human history when people did not wear much. Our ancestors depicted same in their art over millennia. Fantasy often reflects those past times.
And, finally, naked can be artful, too.
My advice? Don't try so hard to be insulted. It blocks your brains from actual thought.
I've seen arguments like this one...yet when I physically open a book and begin looking through it, these arguments fall apart in the sense that:
- Characters such as Conan are often in empowering positions and poses
- The red versus black marble theory: in a sea of 100 black marbles, if 1 marble is red, then we remember the red marble more often...even though it was 1 in 100
These are very, very simple things. Paizo has done much better than a number of other companies and it is a big reason I purchase and promote their products over say, other options (the other reason is their community attitude). I have a full collection of their hardcovers and some softcovers, which I purchase /because/ they do the things they do, and assist in plots and Pathfinder-based activities (which promote the game itself), well, daily.
If I could suggest one thing, it would be that I'd more like to see continued (and improved emphasis, not that it is bad, but improvement is always desired and possible) on female characters in action poses and in "doing things" poses. That is key.
The importance of the pose is a difference that should not be so difficult to perceive and yet somehow, is. In this way I do not see improved wardrobes as "regressions." Wardrobe is often intrinsically tied to pose, which is tied to characterization. Does it have to be? No, but it often is, as a wardrobe reflects a character's thoughts, character, personality, and general activities. Wardrobe or "costuming" then, is a powerful visual prop or tool when it comes to artistic representation of a character's intent.
Should we illustrate a character who acts often as a wallflower, this character would be depicted in muted tones. In "plain" clothing, with few interesting lines or cuts. These techniques are what any beginning animator learns, any illustration artist, or any set director.
Cheesecake has an issue. I say this, not saying that cheesecake is bad, but because of what it IMPLIES. Historically, cheesecake has been detrimental to the very goals I listed above because women in these poses are often limited to...passive poses. Noncharacter poses.
Therefore, you have an artistic tool which has for decades been employed to suggest a limited role.
It is very, very challenging to depict cheesecake in a way that does not focus the character around a more limited role.
THAT is why it is often decried. It has everything to do with wanting heroes and villains to be depicted as a person and to have their props (the visual wardrobe) support the depiction of their role, their character, who they are...and the props which support this artistically, and are used to convey this message.
It is subtle.
Perhaps because I have both a background in art, this makes sense to me, and I can only hope I expressed it well. I likely did not.
It has little to do with the straw man arguments thrown about that say, "but you're demanding ALL cheesecake go away!" This is, in the great words of Monty Python, being very silly.
Sticking every other race with a monoculture is one among many reasons.
Love having fantastic races in my fantasy, and I love them being portrayed as people. Part of that is giving them a wide spectrum of possibilities rather than sticking them with a hat and being done with it.
Personally not at all a fan of the "all the other races are dying out because HUMANS #%€£ YEAH" trope either. Find it equally unappealing as the "elves are just better than you" approach.
Pretty much this. I've run human-centered settings and non-humancentered ones (hcs and nhcs?). My favorites tended to be the second set.
Now, what I do dislike are the misunderstandings--that either interest set plays x or y because they're "lazy." That's silly and we shouldn't say these things.
What I've found instead is that people who play humans do so because they're 1. More comfortable, 2. It allows them to more closely fulfill a fantasy. I am cool with both of those reasons.
The ones who play different races tend to want to: 1. Explore something different and fantastic, or 2. Want that extra separation that allows them to sit back, relax, and enjoy the fantasy tale. I am cool with those reasons, too.
Looking at the alignments historically may illuminate some ideas. Back in 1e, alignments were were part of philosophical and cosmic forces, so much so that they possessed their own languages. They possessed them, because according to Gygax:
Gygax on Alignment Languages:
As D&D was being quantified and qualified by the publication of the supplemental rules booklets. I decided that Thieves' cant should not be the only secret language. Thus alignment languages come into play, the rational being they were akin to Hebrew for Jewish and Latin for Roman Catholic persons.
I have since regretted the addition, as the non-cleric user would have only a limited vocabulary, and little cound be conveyed or understoon by the use of an alignment language between non-clerical users.
If the DMs would have restricted the use of alignment languages--done mainly because I insisted on that as I should have--then the concept is vaible. In my view the secret societies of alignment would be pantheonic, known to the clerics of that belief system and special orders of laity only. The ordinary faithful would know only a few words, more or less for recognition.
Lawful Good Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: While as strict in their prosecution of law and order, characters of lawful good alignment follow these precepts to improve the common weal. Certain freedoms must, of course, be sacrificed in order to bring order; but truth is of highest value, and life and beauty of great importance. The benefits of this society are to be brought to all.
2nd Edition: Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of the people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed. When people respect the laws and try to help one another, society as a whole prospers. Therefore, lawful good characters strive for those things that will bring the greatest benefit to the most people and cause the least harm. An honest and hard-working serf, a kindly and wise king, or a stern but forthright minister of justice are all examples of lawful good people.
3rd Edition: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
Neutral Good Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: Unlike those directly opposite them (neutral evil) in alignment, creatures of neutral good believe that there must be some regulation in combination with freedoms if the best is to be brought to the world - the most beneficial conditions for living things in general and intelligent creatures in particular.
2nd Edition: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a neutral good character.
3rd Edition: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: While creatures of this alignment view freedom and the randomness of action as ultimate truths, they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great. By promoting the gods of chaotic good, characters of this alignment seek to spread their values throughout the world.
2nd Edition: Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society. A brave frontiersman forever moving on as settlers follow in his wake is an example of a chaotic good character.
3rd Edition: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society. Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Lawful Neutral Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: Those of this alignment view regulation as all-important, taking a middle road betwixt evil and good. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world -and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.
2nd Edition: Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy. The benefits of organization and regimentation outweigh any moral questions raised by their actions. An inquisitor determined to ferret out traitors at any cost or a soldier who never questions his orders are good examples of lawful neutral behavior.
3rd Edition: A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
True Neutral Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be.
2nd Edition: True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention. True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.
3rd Edition: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.
Chaotic Neutral Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder. Good and evil are complimentary balance arms. Neither are preferred, nor must either prevail, for ultimate chaos would then suffer.
2nd Edition: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision.
Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing
about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
3rd Edition: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society’s restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
Lawful Evil Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.
2nd Edition: These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that benefits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws out of fear of punishment. Because they may be forced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given, they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legally, within the laws of the society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a devious, greedy merchant are examples of lawful evil beings.
3rd Edition: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
Neutral Evil Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.
2nd Edition: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the everyman-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.
3rd Edition: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Chaotic Evil Throughout Editions:
1st Edition: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.
2nd Edition: These characters are the bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible.
Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to
cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by
anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.
3rd Edition: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
I would not say that any specific interpretation is correct or incorrect. More, looking at their progression (or regression, going by other views) can show us different ways they've been interpreted and from there, different ways they may be challenged.
Anyhow, spoilers added because dang, that's a lot of text. I figured a person would only want to examine pieces at a time, as well.
Here are a few bonuses:
Alignment Description of Chaotic from Greyhawk:
Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless buddy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that -- chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted actions against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given.
Moderating and adminship are tough cookies. Every place is going to have a flavor to it because it is run by people, not machines. There is no "neutral godhead" that oversees a forum or community or website, there is no "universal."
What there are, are people. In addition to being people, they are people who own the website or service.
This results in different flavors based on where you go. A place like 4chan will be different than someplace else. A place like MuzzyPetz for Kidz will have a different flavor and feel, and moderation, than say, Honda Racing Mods. I've never minded these differences as much because the internet is a wide place.
Also, context is very, very important.
I've found myself disagreeing with say, SKR from time to time. However, I absolutely respect his efforts and what he goes through. He does not have an easy job, and bottom line, he's human, too.
On the flip side, I would hope he'd say the same even though he'd likely disagree with me on a number of things. However, were he to come to my home, so to speak, I'd also expect him to be respectful to those there.
DM: "The temptress barmaid leans over the table." Here the DM gets up and leans on the table, before continuing, "You can see into her cleavage," he wiggles his stomach/chest seductively. "She looks deeply, DEEPLY into your eyes..."
Player: "...forget the Appearance score. If we're going to roleplay this, I need five or six more beers!"
Player2: "I have the camera and this is going up on Youtube."
If I was the paladin, I'd try for diplomacy, but failing that, I'd slay that angel where it stands. It's for the greater good, and greater good should come before all else.
Paladins aren't actually greater good above all else. That's neutral good. Neutral good will put good above all else. They have no other moral compunctions or guidance, they seek only good.
As you say, NG is "good above all else". However, a valid interpretation of LG is "greater good above all else".
LG will struggle to bring the most utility to the largest number of people. A NG character will work do to what is good in the immediate sense.
For example, a LG character might perform a callous act in order to prevent a greater evil whereas a NG character may refuse to do the same because they would never stray from good even in an individual case.
There are many ways to interpret alignments. But LG as "greater good" is a pretty common one.
This I don't agree with. LG is doing good. within your code (or law).
In the example of Tar, If the paladin knew all future outcomes of letting that child live. He would let the child live, because it is either against his code, or against the law, to kill the innocent child. NG would whack the child then and there.
Note that Rank and Rule don't appear until you get to LN. In contrast to Neutral's rank and rule, Good has duty, responsibility, and the first paragraph of its description specifically refers to them as easily becoming martyrs. It's easy to imagine someone taking an oath of duty to a greater cause. Or, a parent working so hard because of a sense of responsibility. In all cases, they're acting towards an ideal (their country, their children) which is greater than they are.
This interpretation calls on such fantasy classics as the wandering knight sworn to protect the innocent and meek, or the honorable soldier.
Any of the above may easily be an example of putting others before yourself. Even "responsibility." That is, if protection of the weak and the upholding of the good is your responsibility and duty, then these are concepts greater than you, and you're also driven towards their fulfillment.
I'm not saying your interpretation is incorrect, more that it's possible to see alignments in more than one way. Personally, it's nice to see the gradual evolution away from Law = Absolute Legal Law and Chaos = Freedom/Captain America.
There is more nuance than we give it credit for.
To the OP: It's perfectly possible for duties to conflict. It's the classic tragedy, a classic case of heroism in fantasy. Your duty versus mine.
Shed a tear, a brotherly armlock...and draw your blade, brother, for we stand at odds this day.
She never heard of it until we met. And was quick to tell me, "You're a dork, honey, but thank God not a mega-dork like those weird Star Trek convention people!"
6. None. Mrs Gersen says, "We should have them so you could teach them to play!" (Thus keeping them out of her hair and giving me players, all in one fell swoop! Or so she assumes.)
I had negative experience with female players that played in my group. I GM-ed for a few and I played with a few. And, universally, they treated the game as a dumb game where there was no point and purpose, and were there just to mess around. So I'm a little biased towards women. I know it's not nice, but hey.
And yet, the male GMs I know who had bad experiences with male players somehow avoid becoming prejudiced against men.
Every male player i had a bad experience with, I have never played with again, and refuse to bring them to the game or go to a game they play in. It's just my experience thus far. Maybe i just had female players that were annoying brats. Once i have one that behaves like a player, i will treasure her as i treasure every male player ho plays well.
One other thing I noticed. The "RP" camp tends to focus more on the numbers on the Character sheet and tend to be more bound to what their character sheet says than most other people...
Because part of role-playing a character well, is playing within the constraints of what is reasonable for that character to achieve.
That means that it matters form a roleplaying perspective if the character has strength 9 or strength 16, because it affects everything from appearance to the manner in which they go about tasks such as gathering wood.
Except the game mechanics already establish that. A character with 9 Str have a LOT lower strength check roll AND carrying capacity that a character with 16 str. The numbers on your character provide bonus or penalties when the need to roll arises, but should not pigeon hole your playing method (9 str is just BARELY less than average).
I had to step in here with a quick "this bothers me" when I hear it. I agree that 9 is just below average. What strikes me though is seeing arguments stating that a negative stat is enough of a penalty and shouldn't be burdened with roleplay penalties...while at the same time seeing arguments for roleplaying a high-int wizard intelligently and/or the benefits derived thereof.
KC, I am not saying this is your argument, merely that the statement reminded me of a more extreme statement I'd run into.
At the end of the day, the most important rule is: Don't be a jerk.
I didn't see this thread as being about rollplay versus roleplay, but about the problem of social pressure.
I'll always remember this one post I'd run into. It was about a guy who was a minmaxer/op guy, at a gaming table where a DM was trying to introduce the game to some new players.
The minmax guy would twitch and fidget, and kept wanting to correct these new players because their choices were "less effective." The DM made it clear that they should be let to learn the system, that ideas and clarification were fine but telling them how to play outright was not.
So he would twitch and fidget. He had a physical response to these players not playing "effectively." He even had some heated words with the DM.
When it would get to be too much, he'd get up from the table from time to time, walk for a while, then come back.
My guess is that the OP is referring to a mindset similar to that. It was great that the guy enjoyed the numbers. However, someone else had to step in to make sure that said behavior kept within the boundaries.
In the end, we're not talking about "ability." We're talking about a social issue.
I sometimes feel as though rollplay versus roleplay arises more because of how we express our preferences and respond to them than any actual underlying problem.
It really does come down to: don't be a jerk. Behavior and/or social issues can exist on both sides of the fence.
The issue exists in the fighter, but is broader than the fighter.
DnD/PF is a game which was rooted in providing a set of rules around miniatures. It has a high combat focus, which affects its design philosophy. We saw this with the recent playtest--most of the comments and discussion focused on "what does this class do in combat?" Or, "how well does this kill?"
To offer significant options and abilities outside of combat, PF released Ultimate Campaign. That is, an entirely new rules system.
So the fighter has issues with few to none noncombat abilities being baked in, but that's also inherit to the system overall. PF is slowly transforming, and including greater focus on these options, though it will likely always be a combat-oriented and focused game.
That Pathfinder is so combat-oriented, however, leads to a second issue. That is, it becomes a requirement for a class to be "combat effective" in order to be fun and contributive...if the focus of the game is combat.
This is the same as saying: if the game is about combat, then whatever I play should be able to contribute to combat.
Consequently, there is a lot of toe-stepping.
It may be that the fighter is too much of a concept, as opposed to a class, when placed within a game where combat is so primary. There needs to be a better way to express that statement, but at least I tried.
1) Hero Points. Players each get a pool of spendable points with which they can fudge their own results, cheat death, etc. Points are earned on leveling up or performing challenging, heroic deeds and/or particularly good RP. This can also be used to average out disparate play experience and/or rolled stats as an experienced player or a player with high starting stats has the bar set higher for what qualifies for earning points while a less experienced player or one with particularly low stats has much more leeway.
Another vote for this. I've always appreciated a 'drama' mechanic ingames. That is, a subsystem that allows you to add in the heroics when it really matters...but at an expense of some type.
