|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Personally, I wouldn't use "loonie", shorthand for lunatic, to refer to someone who is mentally ill. Delirious, psychotic, manic, mentally ill, and so on, but never loonie. I guess there is something to be said for using the common parlance, though. However, as soon as someone holds a complete bizarrely stupid opinion, they are quickly called insane, probably because people get comfort in the thought that the idiot opinion people are Something Else. Thus, any word used for them is quickly used as a synonym for mentally ill people, making it not-trivial to refer to them.
People with moronic ideas are most often perfectly sane. The error is not there.
Grappling is not doing permanent harm. It shouldn't be difficult to grapple a rogue. Once you pin him, take his stuff. All of it. Then help the naked-but-for-underwear rogue up. "Just a little fun between friends, right? Ha ha." Give his stuff back. Make no demands and do not refer to this again. Then if the GM tells you that ANYTHING OF YOURS is missing, for any reason, you wait until the next non-dangerous situation and do it again. This time, when it is unattended, smash enough to cost him twice as much as the value he took from you. Then give him back the rest, help him up, and say "Ha ha." Make sure you do this especially if you OOC know that something of yours was stolen by someone else. The integrity of your equipment list is HIS job. Eventually he will understand.
If the GM doesn't allow you to grapple him, ask why. After all, you're not killing or hurting anyone. The answer will tell you what to do.
To me, being a loonie is about having completely absurd views than any sort of mental health issues. I take mental illness very seriously, but there are honest opinions that make you go "bluh... Ummm... Guh...." when you hear them, and having some word for those people is useful. I also think you are wrong about Dante. It is probably a few thousand years older than him, and certainly did not start as a christian concept. Leviticus is just FULL of sweetness, sunshine and joy toward other people.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I'm not asking anybody to change (unless you're around my kids which none of you are), I just don't get the "woe is me, walking on eggshells" aspect of it. Do you really swear so constantly that it is unimaginable to turn it off for an afternoon?
Unimaginable? No. It simply means I have to consciously think about what I say EVERY. SINGLE. SENTENCE. It takes energy. It means I won't be able to relax. You wouldn't have that problem, but everyone else is not you, and you don't get priority because you don't like to hear it. As long as your only solution to the conflict of interest is "that is no problem, just don't swear, it doesn't even take effort to do it", I am not going to see any reason to adapt to your wishes. If you were ready to ask me politely, taking care not to tell me in front of others, ignore the ones that do get through, and acknowledge that it takes a sincere effort for me, we'd have a better position to get to an agreement.
My point was that it's not one side's job to adapt to what the other side wants in this conflict of interest. It is completely irrelevant that you think it's easy for the other side to change, the only part of it you CAN change is YOUR part of it. You don't get a free pass because you consider swearing an ugly, uncouth, barbaric, stupid, moronic, uncomfortable, uncivilized, blasphemous or otherwise disagreeable behaviour. Just like swearing, it is your choice not to see it as the above or not, and if you do, you put the entire onus of change on the swearer. As TL says, if you want to be around that person, it's not a good method.
Seriously? I have a hard time seeing them lose in any but a complete surprise attack. They only need to get some loot to get started, then all bets are off. They have charm magic, buffs, oodles of hit points, unbelievable combat training, and now they will have armored vehicles and full combat gear. It is a scary thought.
If I am expected not to use profanities so that I do not annoy others, they will have to inform me of it (which in itself would go a long way toward convincing me not to associate with them more than absolutely necessary), and they would also need to respect any preferences I have, such as not listening to anything dealing with a person's religion, faith or spiritual feelings without putting them up for criticism or debate. I am a kind person, but I have a job that requires great care in how I express myself (not just regarding profanities). It takes its toll, and I absolutely don't want to spend my free time watching my tongue as well. Doing so wrings me out. When someone comments on it, I will be extremely clear that I WILL not adapt to their preferences. Some have given up on me because of that - I consider that a good measurement of their interest in spending time with me.
I checked out the languages needed to talk to the various summoned creatures. Turns out, it was pretty simple: You need the elemental languages (of course), celestial to talk to a large variety of creatures not including the celestials who all have true speech, abyssal to talk to the greater demons who do not speak common. Infernal gives you only the hell hounds, and sylvan gives you only the blink dogs. So, for six languages, you can talk to almost all the creatures. This was done before the Summon Neutral/Evil Monster feats and the rings of summoning affinity, so there's that, but it's still interesting how few languages you need.
To be honest, I remember the rules lawyering discussions as even worse than the ones I've been through recently. Not only that, the "Why don't we get enough magical stuffz?", "should we really fight such creatures at our levels?" and discussions related to WBL and CR, were also worse back then. I'm old enough to call myself a grognard proudly, but really, things were worse in the bad old days.
You could make the Neutral deity abhor strongly aligned magic, if you want to build on that mechanism. The clerics would ban summoning non-neutral creatures in any way, and be quite suspicious of any aligned spell. Add in a few historical events where proponents of these types of magic have been dangerous to the world, to magic, and to the deity's church, and you have a perfect explanation for their mistrust and bans.
While it's true that you can change your active skills more than the set ones in D2, the differences were not that big between the different ones available. In D2, you could build very different characters through your skill choices. *shrugs*
The new loot system sounds good. I do think, however, that there is too much single-class loot around in D3.
Having played D3 single-player a bit, I would say this: The graphics are far better than D2, of course. They bloody well should be. The story has its ups and downs, but that has always been true. The bosses are... well, losers. The gameplay is decent, but never reaches the level of D2. The characters are okay, but lack the complete customization of D2. The random rewards are not where they should be, I felt. All in all, it feels like a glitzed-up sequel that Doesn't Quite Get It, but is sort of competently done, if that makes sense.
You do not, though, HAVE to play with others, use the auction houses (if they have them at all nowadays), or delve into the MMO:ness, if you don't want to.
Just saying that in a setting which includes CR 54 dragons, CR 40 liches, chosen of evil gods, and so on, it's not going to be pretty unless someone is around to hold off the heat, at least until the heroes can get to it. It is a question of having high level threats in the setting at all. If PCs being level 15 is as far as the setting goes, there shouldn't be CR 30s, fine, but FR always aimed higher than that.
Well, option C is always there for the taking. A powerful NPC isn't going to explain what they are up to to anyone who asks. And as for B-team, it's easy to deal with: First, realize that a level 2 adventurer group isn't going to be the world-shaking A-team. A threat they can reasonably fight isn't going to threaten the entire world. Second, even a relatively powerless group can become the focus of the action if they are the ones present and communication is difficult.
The alternative is a world without ANYONE else fighting against evil with a chance of success, without allies that could affect anything, without anyone able to reward the players, without any good magic items the players did not craft, without any safe places the PCs may rest and relax... isn't that kind of boring?
"Super NPCs need to die in a fire.", usually said about the Forgotten Realms.
Consider the believability of the world. It is a setting that has countless massively powerful villains, simply because they are needed to provide a challenge to higher level players. Without good counterparts, is there even one sensible reason the powerful villains would not have taken over completely ages ago? Not that I can see.
Further, such NPCs are a subset of a greater type of good individual, one that includes good creatures in total, from blink dogs to metallic dragons and solars. Some of these are also extremely powerful, should they also die in a fire, to leave the PCs as literally the only people in the setting with a CR above 3 that have a good alignment?
As a final point, nobody seems to complain in this way about the good deities. Still, they are the literally most powerful good NPCs around in any setting. Should they too die in a fire, because the PCs might end up in some sort of contact with them?
Yes, I understand that it's a particular style of wankery for GMs to focus only on their favourite super NPC. Perhaps the FR setting is too suited to this. That doesn't change the fact that powerful good NPCs are not in and of themselves a problem. It's about how they are played.