|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What if you had absolutely no doubt about the veracity of the promise. I would still doubt that veracity. And if they released them preemptively and demanded I comply, I still would not.
Don't look at me, I axed Spellcraft and use the appropriate knowledge type for each caster. (Arcana for arcane, Religion for paladin/cleric, Nature for ranger/druid.) 
FIEND: Where are you companions? The pain will end when you tell me where they are hiding? PALADIN: Why do you want to know? FIEND: So I can destroy them and all they have wrought; surely you know this 'paladin'. PALADIN: So you can ambush them and catch them unawares and attempt to defeat them through trickery and deceit and dishonor. [Smiles a weary smile at the fiend] It will not serve your purpose, fiend, but I shall answer you question anyway. FIEND: I expected that you would last longer, 'paladin'. Where are they? Tell me and I shall end this. PALADIN: The companions with which I adventure, you foul beast, you stinking pile of offal that even a Otyugh would turn up his nose at feasting upon; those companions are men and women of valor, of honor, of integrity. We have scoured evils worse than you from a hundred battlefields and sent them shrieking back into the fires of the Abyss. We have stood together through calamity and tragedy, through triumph and victory. We have mourned our fallen, and avenged those who were unable to defend themselves against your ilk. FIEND: Cease your riddles! Answer my question: where are they? PALADIN chuckles, which turns into a laugh, despite his pain. PALADIN: Need you even ask such a foolish question fiend? They are en route here--to free me and finish you. They will not abandon me to a fate at your hands, no more than I would them. Or did you think that I, a Paladin oath-sworn to the Gods themselves, would associate with fools that would abandon and betray me at their whim? FIEND raises a glowing taper. FIEND: You should have told me, mortal. I shall enjoy digging the answer from your flesh. WIZARD: Ahem. He already answered you. But since you would easily break your oath to preserve your own sorry life, I can see how you might not believe him. Take him, lads! SUMMONED CELESTIALS: AARRRRRGH! FIEND: IEEEEEEEE! ROGUE: Just let me pick the lock, mate; we'll have you out of here in a jiffy. CLERIC: And allow me to staunch thy wounds, noble crusader. PALADIN: What took you so long? RANGER as he slices the fiend with his sword: We stopped for lunch! If you are done lying around, I could use some help! Unless all of you want to gossip some more! PALADIN: Do you have . . . ROGUE hands the Paladin a sword. PALADIN: Thank you. [SMITE EVIL] And now, fiend, you will witness for yourself, the power of my companions and my Diety in full. FIEND: NOOOOOOOOO! Or something like that. :) Master Arminas 
Taken from Memorax's link:
During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind. For example, we created subsystems that worked like other systems, so that if you knew how one worked, you'd find the other one easier to understand. But I digress. And there you have a very definitive reason why a LOT of people shrug their shoulders about his departure. From my own experience, system mastery, or more precisely the added gains of system mastery is a horrid step in the design process. Now he just stats that it's beneficial to people for the uses of going from one sub-sytem to another, yet it's much more than that as he stated in anothe article about feats that weren't very good (for example, Toughness). Frankly there are some people who, for whatever reason, can't put THAT much time into a system. And because of that, they get hosed because they don't know that X, Y, and Z combo does 1,000 damage on a Charge attack or that Such-and-Such spell can be used continuously throught a character's career, or that in combination with obscure item from BLah-Supplement makes a Dwarven Fighter immune to all acid damage and gives him DR 10/—. Hopefully Monte realized how unpopular this method of design was since he did the "Ivory Tower" and "Looking at 3.5" articles and understands that D&D isn't just for people who live and breath it; it's for your average gamer, a gamer's spouse or partner, a gamer's friend who's never played before in their life, or even something to pass the time in Study Hall or Detention. Point being is that System Mastery, while great for those who spend countless hours pouring over the game, shouldn't "break" the game for those who don't know all the little nuiances or rule-lawyering. If anything, mechanics should be easy and simple yet immersive to a point so a player can pick a few options to get his ideal character in 10-20 minutes at character creation time. And I really hope that's the way it is with the next iteration of Dungeons and Dragons. 
Hoping to kick up discussion on how best to fit these two classes and what they bring to the table into the Golarion setting(or in the case of the Juju Oracle, to expand their reach). Hopefully some of this'll be useful to folks that want these elements in their Golarion. Basics First, a quick rundown for those unfamiliar with the Juju Oracle or the White Necromancer, both Charisma-based full casters capable of bringing non-evil undead into being, which makes them special in the current PF paradigm as far as RAW goes. The Juju mystery for oracles was introduced in Pathfinder #39 : The City of Seven Spears. These divine oracles work with (somewhat loosely defined IIRC) wendo spirits tied with Mwangi traditions for all manner of reasons, some good, some not so much. Their relationship with the wendo allows them to call these spirits into vessels to animate them, drawing upon a different animating force than most undead. Juju oracles can be of any alignment. The white necromancer was introduced in Kobold Quarterly #19. These arcane casters are masters of manipulating both positive and negative energy, and many of their healing and protective abilities hinge on putting their own lives on the line. Necromancers also work with the spirits of the dead rather than enslaving them. Where evil necromancers force the state of undeath upon others, white necromancers actually have to use diplomacy to request the aid of the dead, and often this is a two-way bargain that must be respected. White necromancers can be any non-evil alignment. The big thing about both of these classes is that due to the way they both create undead(specifically through means that remove the [Evil] descriptor from the relevant spells), their mindless undead are always neutral while their intelligent undead always share the alignment of their creator. In the explicit case of the white necromancer, their intelligent undead are also not in any way beholden to their creators by any magical means, and there is often the understanding that this undead state is a temporary affair that will end when whatever task that needs to be completed is done. In Golarion So, how to fit these into the Golarion setting(and other worlds, especially when one considers Eox)? Juju oracles are already present in the Mwangi, but their influence is largely confined there, at least in the form written into their article. Expanding on the basic idea of wendo spirits to a more generic form of spirits(background nature spirits, ancestral spirits, etc) makes this approachable for many other cultures in other regions. The presence of these two classes(or at least the precedence they set) enable a lot of concepts that would otherwise be locked out: The Eternal Charge that has been going on in the Worldwound since the first Mendevian Crusade, eternally loyal and vigilant mummified paladins guarding over the necropolis of Rahotep, Pharaoh of Tomorrow until his returns from his rest in Nirvana(thanks so much for that plotseed Todd Stewart!), to self appointed safekeepers of Black Blood focused on keeping that stuff away from the living and from seeping into non-corrupted Darkland environments by any means necessary. Now of course Pharasma would get frowny-faced about this. That's what she does and that's okay. We all have our pet peeves. But what about the setting beyond her? How do the other gods and cosmological forces view juju oracles and white necromancers, and how do they react or put them to use? How does Sarenrae consider the deeds of a good-spawned undead weighted against the sins commited during a natural lifetime, if at all? What cultures tolerate them? What cultures might even embrace them? How do they in turn affect these cultures that they may or may not be a part of? What organizations react to them? What organizations might be born from or because of them? Mwangi Expanse is easy enough to find possibilities in for Juju oracles and white necromancers. But right next to that we have Osirion with who-knows-how-many cities of the dead. Some of which need protecting from that ghoul civilization lurking underneath the surface... Reverence of ancestral spirits among the Shoanti and Kellids could give a reflavored variant of the Juju a foot in the door with some tribes. Barbarian cultures don't necessarily lock out arcane white necromancers either, since it's portrayed as a more "don't think, feel" approach rather than an academic approach; that is, it doesn't require any colleges, it requires people skills and an understanding of respect, which is what the white necromancer lives and dies by. And then there's the notion of Nexian undead agents infiltrating Geb... JO/WN-made Undead There's also another issue: The way juju oracles and white necromancers make undead of any alignment while using non-evil variants of animate dead, create undead, and greater create undead raises the question of just what these undead are. We know that they're either vessels for (wendo) spirits or undead made from willing souls, but how does this affect the finer details of what they are? For example, would a NG ghoul look the same as a standard ghoul? Would they share the same hunger? And this is the trickiest part: What about their spawning ability? Personally, while I would like to avoid making up new creatures to be alignment appropriate analogues for each undead on those creation lists, I do like the idea of reflavoring them a bit. Admittedly some are more problematic than the others in that regard, one in particular. On the matter of spawning, perhaps one alignment dependant way of viewing it(besides the easy answer of "good undead just don't spawn") is that good-aligned undead made by Juju oracles or white necromancers can possibly infect those they slay with their own spiritual essense(and alignment). It could be seen as inflicting a massive dose of empathy and guilt in those sorely needing it. For some, it may be like the "Thirty hours of pain all at once, all for you" scene from The Crow. For others, it might be an explicit pact communicated on a spiritual level, offering a sort of Ragman-ish deal to the victim. Both cases and other possibilities could result in good-aligned undead born from evil(or evil leaning) mortals that are now truly repentant and seeking what absolution they can with whatever time has been offered to them. Perhaps it will ease the burden of their souls when they finally go before Pharasma, perhaps it won't, but most would push on as far as they can go anyway with or without the promise of a pardon. Of course, only evil beings with a spark of goodness would even be possible to spawn as good undead. There would have to be something salvagable present to begin with. And that's just for good undead. There's also the added bonus in offering an alternate explanation for why evil undead are the vast majority, if spawning does indead inflict some of the spawners essense upon the spawnee. Variants Back to alignment appropriate undead, this is by no means complete, so any other ideas on how to flesh this out are more than welcome(ie: please halp!): Skeletons look the same out of the box regardless of the alignment of their creators. Any further aesthetics are going to have to be applied directly by their creators. Zombies work largely the same regardless of the alignment of the spirit animating them. Except in the eyes. All zombies have dead stares, but there's a hint of something in some of them. While all zombies made by Juju oracles and white necromancers are truly neutral, some spark of personality or emotion that marks either where this spirit came from or where it's going. Some have the eyes of dreamers(CG), some absolutely serene(NG), some determined(LG), some absolutely wild-eyed(CN), some impossibly stoic(LN), some impossibly crazed and twitching in their sockets(CE), and some in absolute pain and abject hopelessness(LE). Ghouls....I have to admit, I love the new aesthetic introduced in one of the early adventure paths. There's something unsettling about that clean, bone-white appearance. I'd largely want to keep that for all alignments, but feeding habits should probably reflect alignment. But they should also still be unsettling. Perhaps they have to devour flesh in order to recover from their wounds. Mummies are easy to see going any number of ways by culture and alignment, particularly lawful ones big on respecting the dead(Osirion!). Mohrgs, not so much. These guys might be worth heavily reflavoring for other alignments and aesthetics. The big problematic one on standard creation lists, and this is one of those undead that I personally never even consider as an option when discussing non-evil undead along with the demilich, is the devourer. Maybe it's just my personal bias, but I can't help but see purposefully destroying souls as anything but the worst of the worst. If there's an unforgivable sin in fantasy land, that's pretty much it for me. But. they're on the creation list. One could just say "just don't use them and ignore 'em". But let's go nuts. Whatever the non-evil(I'd go so far as to say non-NE) answer to the devourer is, it has to do something similar: place the souls of their victims beyond the easy reach of their allies without destroying them. This softened approach also makes these souls easier to recover through means other than miracle and wish, though they can still be quests in and of themselves. There is a lot that can be done with this concept:
LE variant - Hell Mason - This towering humanoid figure of flesh and stone has a burning fire within, exposed through stove-like openings dotting its body, the largest in its chest. When it draws the soul of a victim into itself, the fire and pressure within spike to horrible extremes. The screaming soul within is cooked and compressed until it is nothing more than a brick of the same flesh/stone hybrid material as its slayer, a single pained eye left to mark what it once was. Once the cooking process is complete, it disappears in a puff of brimstone, instantly teleported to Hell where it is place into the wall of one of Dis' many prisons. Recovering this brick allows for the vicitm to be raised without wish level magic. Special Zon-Kuthon-specific variant - Augurmould - This horrible amalgam of flesh and iron is the manifestation of an absolute sadist who has seen what rewards await him in Zon-Kuthon's realm and has desperately tried to avoid it. This being has been allowed (temporary) respite in this undead state, which it can only maintain by sending others to eternal torment in its place. The augurmould is fully aware that whatever torments it inflicts in this form will be visited upon it a thousandfold, giving them a sadistic choice between calling it quits or going on another day and building up a greater debt of pain. This being's chest cavity opens up like an iron maiden, with multiple hooked chains ensnaring victims body and soul and drawing them within. Once the chamber is closed, the victim is physically and spiritually mutilated, their blood spraying from the joints of Augurmould until the chamber opens once more, releasing a new Augur Kyton upon the world(see Bestiary 3). Capturing or destroying this new augur allows the victim to be raised without needing wish level magic. CE variant - Amalgam of Souls - This blank-faced figure has flesh and skin akin to melted wax having just hardened, with multiple muffled, screaming faces pressing outward just under the skin. Souls drawn within to its mass manifest as their full living figure writhing underneath the skin of the creature's flesh. This figure slowly melts away until it's just one more maddened face screaming along the creature's surface. Slaying an amalgam of souls and completely destroying the body allows victims to be raised without wish-level magic. N variant - Walking Gateway - This grim, majestic "angel" of bone, looking like the walls of Sedlec Ossuary given roughly-humanoid form, has a hollow torso. Within is a spiral of planar energy, a whirlpool that leads to the Walking Gateway's rightful spot in line at the Boneyard. Essentially, any souls drawn within the whirlpool are fasttracked to judgment. Recoving the soul's newly born petitioner form from whatever plane they would be sent to allows them to be brought back without wish level magic. CN variant - Priests of Potential - Unstable in form, these somewhat humanoid figures of flashing light and shadow and opposed elements are aimless unless guided by those with stronger wills. The souls they draw into themselves are assaulted by chaos, battering their sense of self and identity until finally they are something else entirely. These souls are eventually released, reincarnated as any number of things, be they humanoid, animal, plant, mineral, or even something as abstract as a song. Restoring these souls ranges wildly in difficulty, depending on what they've become. NG variant - Chorus of Regrets - This wispy figure seemingly composed of tattered silks hanging about a constantly obscured emaciated humanoid figure is always shrouded in mists which seem to flow out from within its folds. These mists and silks seem to form mournful faces from time to time, lamenting ancient tragedies and regrets. Souls of the wicked that are drawn within are shouted down within, faced by the admonishment and guilt of the faces and voices within until they are made to see their own corrupted soul for what it is. These souls are eventually lost to a mysterious, misty isle of repentance somewhere in Nirvana(see The Great Beyond). Finding that soul and forcibly dragging them back from their self-inflicted purgatory(and possibly eventual redemption) will allow them to be raised without wish-level magic. I'm sorely tempted to swipe Set's idea for Desnan celestials for a CG variant, it's that awesome. It would also present a notion that restoring victims of good-variants would require evil deeds(as in, each of those butterflies would need to be captured and then pinned alive to a humanoid effigy). Any other ideas? Culturally/setting-wise/variants/etc? edit-added Chorus of Regrets after thinking over that last sentence, also edited for readability because words words words 
I've made players roll a save for no reason. My favorite I've done was a will save, later to be revealed as a "Will Save vs Paranoia". 
To me, "any combination" would be any number from any of the various weapons at your disposal, so long as the total adds up to the correct number of attacks. That means all with one weapon, or some with one weapon and some with another, or one weapon and one head butt and one kick and so on, or whatever. ANY combination, in other words. If it had been meant to work EXACTLY like TWF (i.e., two weapons required), then they should have simply given monks TWF as a bonus feat and been done with it -- there is no need for a "flurry of blows" ability if it works exactly the same as an existing feat. Compare the following: Eschew Materials: A sorcerer gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat at 1st level. vs. Shun the Pouch (Ex): A sorcerer not in possession of a materials component pouch can choose to cast certain spells without using the needed material components. An attempt to do so works the same as a normal spellcasting attempt, except that blah blah blah blah... We meant for it to work exactly like the Eschew Materials feat. Ignore the several paragraphs of text we wrote, OK?
My problem with limiting it is that the example given is that a monk can always make his or her full attacks regardless of how many of her limbs etc. is impaired/unavailable. If that is true, how can it not be all the attacks with any of the monks many weapons...I always thought of it as monk hits you with numchuks, swaps them to other hand and hits you with that hand, rinse repeat...it fits the genre of the kung fooey classic imo. 
So with 4th edition edition announced, we can finally begin speculation on 5th edition (hey, you clicked the link to get here, not me). So after another 4 years, 2012 will see the release of 5th edition. Here's what I predict: After another crop of game designers take over after doing all the sweat work for 4th edition, they begin to cross-check their own "House Rules" and realize that if house rule A and House rule B replaced canon, and if 4th ed. mechanic was tweaked, just so, they would have a vastly superior game. Like any good Game Designer, they begin hosting D&D sessions (online of course via the DI) with fellow WoTC employees. Sure enough, their players are hooked and soon the buzz of 5th edition leaks and within a few months it is announced at the 2012 Gen Con. What does this new edition entail? It recognizes that the D&D game is best when customizeable. In older editions, when there wasn't a rule, the DM "winged", and if the DM was good at their role, all were happy. So 5th edition will invilve "Game Pieces" that you mix-and-match to create the game that you and your players wish to play. Pieces like (martial combat system) or (Low magic system) or even (character advancement system). In fact, D&D has multiple versions of the same piece so you can truly customize in a plethora of ways. For example you can use the (vancean magic system) or the (spell point magic system) which brings us to where the complexity of 5th edition comes in: Some pieces are exclusive of each other. That is you cannot have both pieces in the same game. Some pieces are inclusive (if A then B), etc. You see, these game designers realized that the player base is not only capable of designing their own game, it is pretty much a given that no two games are alike. The only constant is the language we use (to hit rolls, Armor Class, and Magic Missile). 2012 becomes known as The Year D&D was Liberated from the New Edition Cure-All caused by Sagging Sales Syndrome (a common malady for book publishers - What edition is your copy of "Lord of the Rings"?) This Parady was brought to you by the makers of Slurm! Slurm, get your fix today! 
One of my favorite examples of good undead that i am planning on using a variant of later on in my own game is that of the ghost paladins from order of the stick. every paladin who has died in this countries defense joins the founder of their order as a ghost with all of the paladin levels they retained in life including the ability to smite evil. Indeed i could even see some good dragons purposefully becoming a lich (or the paizo equivalent of) to guard a artifact or possibly even another evil dragon lich/ variant who was sealed away from the world. I think that this would be an awesome story of how the two dragons fought each other in life and when the evil dragon became a lich the good dragon rather than task its descendants to fight the evil lich, under went its own process to become an undead and now stands in eternal vigil in one of the vaults of orv ensuring that its nemisis can never again see the light of day. 
Adventures do contradict the rules but they are not rules. They are known for breaking the rules actually (something that bugs me) with the excuse of telling a story. Heck, we had a Dev in here basically say that instead of give us good rules for telling stories we want, we get messed up rules so they can break them for story purposes later (though this was of course worded differently, though with the same result). We have Paizo sanctioned and printed adventure paths that have benevolent undead (in Golarion no less!) so their giving us inconsistent rules doesn't even mean much as far as Golarion is concerned; because if they want to, they will just overrule the core rules and do what they want. They have said and done this before. We've seen that Paizo won't even follow their own rules with their own adventures; as is evident by the monk's unarmed flurry uproar. It is not uncommon for adventures to take liberties that are not supported by the rules. So yeah, anything in an adventure that directly contradicts the core? Yeah, I'm going to take as a literary liberty and nothing more. Then you get situations like what we're talking with undead. Some adventures go from the premise that undead, even mindless ones, are all evil. Others go from the premise that it's more nuanced than that and the mindless ones are neutral. And this doesn't even get into the question of how an intelligence 0 brain-eating zombie is evil but an intelligence 1 rabid riding dog is still neutral. They pretty much act the same. Just 'cause I'm anal about specifics and nitpicky (please forgive me) an Int 0 zombie wouldn't be eating any brains even if they had to eat because they would be comatose. An "Int -" zombie however would be perfectly fine; but I still don't see them as eating any brains since they don't eat, sleep, or breath. Sorry for being nitpicky. At some point you're going to have to look at the story you want to tell and figure out which of the rules need to be adjusted to do that. Even the most "setting neutral" rulebook is still going to go with some basic assumptions, some of which may be wrong for any given story. My problem can be summed up like this: Paizo already ignores both their own rules and their own attempts at establishing standards the moment it suits them. Since they are already going to take liberties with their stories, NPCs, and even combat mechanics; why can't they give us the Pathfinder core rules without inconsistencies that are supposedly excused by their desire to flavor their RPG-setting a specific way; especially when Pathfinder is sold as an RPG system for playing fantasy RPGs of all kinds. It's not "The Golarion Roleplaying Game". Why sell us intentionally inconsistent rules that force us to house rule and modify stuff and hand out additional notes of changes to the core rules just so we can eliminate some of the logical problems, if they are just going to ignore what they want in their adventures anyway, and then tell us they don't care how people run Golarion at home? 
Paizo Fans United. What exactly is it? A company? A secret organization? A front? Paizo Fans United (PFU) is a banner for fan-based products produced under Paizo’s Community Use Policy. Rumor has it that Paizo needed something to put the Wayfinder issues under in their store, and "Paizo Fans United" seemed to be a pretty apt name. Since then, Wayfinder Fanzine issues have been loaded under the PFU name, and recently the Pathfinder Chroniclers’ Anthology was added. But, the PFU banner has come to mean a bit more. These are not just any fan-made materials. These are products that are inspired by Pathfinder content and by Paizo’s quality. The result is a highly professional look that makes readers question, "this is by fans?? Wow." THAT is what the Paizo Fans United banner means. But, despite all that, when people ask for a logo for PFU...well, there isn’t one. :-/ After nearly a year of discussions about how to come up with a suitable logo for PFU came up with no ideas, Hugo (butterfrog) Solis proposed this: A CONTEST. And so it shall be! We call upon the Paizo fan community to design a logo for Paizo Fans United! This logo should be the best representative image that symbolizes professional quality content produced by Pathfinder fans FOR Pathfinder fans. We will be accepting your interpretations and designs until April 16, 2012. Then, a panel of judges from the Paizo Fans United representatives will select their TOP 5 choices from the pool of entries, to be announced on April 30, 2012. At that time, the contest will be open to the public to vote for their favorite logo from the top 5 choices. Voting will close on May 15, 2012. The end result, of course, is a fan-created logo for a fan-based content banner chosen by the fan community! PRIZE: The designer of the winning logo will not only receive the accolades of the fan community, and get to see their logo representing the Paizo Fans United banner, but they will also receive:
Submission Instructions [list] • DEADLINE: April 15, 2012, 11:59 Pacific. Any questions can be asked here in this thread, or email your questions to: wayfinder.fanzine@gmail.com 
This player to me would be no better than the guy whose first level character runs up on his first troll and yells "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" having had no reason to think fire was a good idea.
It's not about making players do what you want. It's about them playing characters who don't do what they want. I'm not the one having this problem. I don't run into situations where my players have their characters do crazy things. My players aren't metagamers. They're willing to play their characters as characters and not just avatars of a player, which is the cause of this problem. It's no different than if they made a swim check and failed but then told you they did it anyway, or a climb check, or a jump check, or a knowledge check, or any kind of check. Imagine if the situation was switched. The player rolls a bluff versus an NPC's sense motive... GM: Sorry he saw through your bluff.
Or... GM: You successfully bluffed him, but he doesn't believe you anyway because... well just because. Oh and you smell bad.
Or my favorite:
You know ... I've been thinking about it, and I have an odd comparison.
I've been lucky with the character, and have always appreciated those who were willing to play with a character that could complicate things, but always felt especially fond of the players who went out of their way to make a good story with me, even if it was inconvenient. 
This still just boils down to the fact that neither the imp-friended wizard nor the oath-bound paladin would be extended an invitation to the society in the first place. The decemvirate and Venture-Captains would not knowingly bring characters in that, they know, will be unable/unwilling to cooperate on future missions. Honestly, if I were the GM and this specific arrangement occurred, I would give the two players a few minutes to figure out a solution for themselves. If not, I would just ban both characters from the table. It's not fair to the other players to be forced to deal with the issue, and it's definitely not my problem to decide which, technically legal character, has more merit and should be allowed to play.
It's easy to see why a Fanatic Paladin would be a problem with the Society. But what specifically makes the Wizard an issue? He's lawful NEUTRAL. The Imp? he has it under orders to behave. Probably one of the prime alignments the Society would look for. (Is there really any doubt that the Society is NOT a "good" organisation?) No, the society is not a good organization, nor does it advocate evil. The fact that the wizard willfully and openly deals with devils and makes pacts with them should draw a warning flag from many of the leadership, not necessarily just from the Silver Crusade. Humans (demi-humans, whatever) are know to foolishly think they can contain the evil that is a demon/devil and bend their wills. Just because a fiend is currently "under control" does not mean it is not conniving to free itself, and subtly trying to corrupt it's controller. The point is, both characters are legal for play, so by saying that either one has more/less merit than the other is a douche move by the GM. The first course of action is to let the two affected players determine a resolution. Lacking that, the GM has to make a fair decision and that has to be in favor of the entire table, not just to one player or himself. The only fair resolution IMO is to deny both characters from participating. Hopefully, the players have alternate characters that can play the scenario. IF you create a borderline, incompatible character, as a player you should be prepared for times with the character will not mesh with the other players at the table, and/or the GM, and have an alternate character. 
The Wizard however is ... not making a choice that mandates who he travels with. Yes he is. If A and B each make a choice, and the combination of their choices doesn't work, it's no more one A's fault than B's (or vice versa). They each made a choice, and if either's choice had been different, there wouldn't be an issue. The issue is the result of BOTH players' choices getting combined, not because of one or the other alone. You're just playing favorites. 
Sorry for my strong opinion on this, but when I GM if this situation happens ...
PFS says he can play with an Imp (evil companion) but I haven't found anywhere where it says he is immune from evil alignment changes. Bringing an evil imp into play with any PFS group is bring an evil imp! You bring evil, you be evil. I hope PFS changes this so there won't be evil groups playing in Pathfinder. I can picture the newspapers writing about a group of six children playing six wizards with their evil companions in Paizo's Pathfinder games. What would the legal ramifcations be? The imp bringer is the "Pre-Meditated Griefer" here. 
I'm on the Paladin's side here. To say "You can play this legal archtype. But expect to get hosed after 7th level because people think Imps and Quasits are cool." and not say "You can take this legal feat because Imps and Quasits are cool. But expect to cause problems at the table whenever you encounter a Paladin in the party." That's the issue. As others have pointed out, the Paladin can change his oath. Yeah? The Wizard/Sorcerer can leave his critter at home. So which is more disruptive? Making the Paladin change his entire concept, or making the wizard leave one of his class features 'at home' for one adventure? And yeah, my good characters are definately going to "Dark Knight" an imp toting wizard "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you either." Being a jerk? No more than bringing an imp. 
Well "the problem" is that players are allowed an evil companion when they themselves can't be evil. And when players exploit this to get da uber Familiar, then they expect the Paladin to just "grow up" and "be a mature player" with the very real expectation that since they are legal then its the paladin's problem. It shouldn't be. The guy who brought E V I L to the table? yeah, its his problem. The Paladin shouldn't be made to leave or swap characters, the dude with the E V I L familiar should be. or to leave it at home, or whatever. You design a character knowing that every good aligned PC will have an issue with it and *knowing* that one of the classes already has rules leading them to have serious issues about what you are doing built in- even disregarding this oath- and quite frankly its you who should swap character or walk if someone has an issue with it. "but the rule say". The rules say don't be a jerk. The rules say get along with others. Forcing someone else to leave because you just have to have the bestest familiar? Yeah. Being a jerk. Not getting along with others. If you bring an Imp to the table, be prepared to leave the table. Don't go expecting to have others leave the table because you decided to have an EVIL OUTSIDER follow you around. Clearly this is my opinion, and is not rule or law or binding on anyone, nor am I attempting to bind it on anyone. It is and shall remain my opinion, however. I Know I probably come across as a jerk and vehement, but in reality I have no dog in the hunt. I'd play neither a paladin (much less one with that oath) or a wizard with an imp. It just seems that in an RPG that stresses folks are the good guys and heroes going out to thrwart evil and do good, right wrongs, save kingdoms, and be heroes, that the single most Goody Good Guy is being expected by nigh on everyone to take a bench so some twit in a pointy hat with an imp can go and further his vile and evil ways. That just strikes a bad chord with me.
-S edit:
another HORRIBLE POST. example i am playing my rogue i dont want to scout ahead because i think theres a good chance i get wtf pwnd. cleric says eh you scout anyways roll a will save. i fail my character gets taken from me. even if you tell me what you want my character to do u just took away my free will. you better plan on keeping that dominate up for the rest of my life. and the first antimagic field or dispel magic i swear to go any player would kill the s&~@ out of that cleric. its not RP. role playing is fun this is bullying. look at all the posts before yours. if you are the only person saying "yeah that sounds like a good idea" chances are you have nto been bullied in a game before. this whole conversation sounsd like little kids new to gaming saying "why cant i play with all the toys" and all teh adults saying "chill out and play with the one you brought"
My apologies if the tone of this post offends you. It is not my purpose, just me stating my opinion about this. I am a good roleplayer and I like to play in character as well. If I have a curious character, my chracter asks NPCs a plethora of random questions just for the sake of asking. If I am playing a hotheaded character the slightest insult has my character challenging the offender to duels. The reason I play my Pathfinder characters. Is so I can play my Pathfinder characters. It would deeply disturb me as a player if any other group member including the GM took control of my character. Your cleric wants to control NPCs? That's fine if that's your character's style that's cool. But as soon as you start trying to control my character then we would have problems. I think it is extremely arrogant and insulting to say as a character or player that you know better than my character on what I should do with my character. Hiding behind a curtain of "Oh but I'm roleplaying and that's what my character would do." Is a huge cop out in my book. It's one thing to roleplay a character, but to detract from other player's fun is deeply disturbing. There are two aspects of playing any RPG with a group of people. One is the roleplaying the other is the group. We have a saying in our group, "Roleplay to your heart's content, but don't be anti-party." This rang true even in our evil campaigns. The group did not backstab each other even if it seems a proper roleplaying choice. Why? Because it is just a game however people do take the personal time and energy to come up with their own character concepts that they think are fun to play, and everyone makes mistakes in battle. You may call it meta-gaming for the players to be upset that you are trying to control their characters, but honestly as a long long time DM if a player ever came up to me and said, "Everyone else is meta-gaming because they get upset and won't let me control their characters." I would laugh at the player. First of all I would house rule that whatever spell you tried to control another player with would be completely optional against other players. You'd be able to use the spells as RAW against NPCs I don't care about that, but the other players would 100% get a choice to let you use the spell on them and they could cancel it as a free action at absolutely anytime they feel like it. The whole thing sounds to me like a selfish little kid who's brother is playing with a toy he wants to play with and tattletales to his parents because the brother is not sharing. I think it was an excellent move for the GM to tell the other players what character concept you were planning. In my games all character concepts are public knowledge to myself and the other players. And if you feel some inherent need to control other people I would definitely suggest you play some solo rpg video games that way you have complete control over the entire party like you want, but you shouldn't involve other people's rights to free will just because that's how you want it. What you want isn't anymore or less important than what they want. And when they sit down to play Pathfinder, they want to play their characters, not you play their characters for them. And if that's the type of Pathfinder game you're looking for, talk to your DM about maybe making a special campaign for you where you can control 5 characters at once so you can get the experience you want. In summary players want to play their characters and in-character roleplaying is no excuse to be anti-party. Happy gaming.
So ... Here's a rules oddity that I just thought of because of reading this thread. ... And it's a genuine question, so, I'd like to hear opinions on it ... If a wizards familiar or Druid's companion is considered part and parcel to the character for the "No PvP" rule (and most other considerations), why isn't it considered part if the character for the "No Evil PCs" rule? 
1970Zombie
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Battles Case Subscriber)
Should the PFS rule about no evil characters extend to familiars and animal companions? Could the imps in question not be neutral versions of the creatures shaped by their master's nature rather than the racial, societal norms? (nature vs. nurture) If this tweak were implemented, this issue, not all paladin conflicts, should go away. Now a summoner or caster summoning evil outsiders with Monster Summoning would be another issue all together ...
But I DO play wizards, and the Imp is, in my opinion, hands-down the best familiar option around. Oooooh, I bet we could turn this into "the Paladin player needs to accommodate my optimization choices"!
Another thought on low CHA: • If 8 CHA means a mental disorder, then presumably 8s in other stats represent deficiencies of equivalent severity.
Therefore, either the entire population of Golarion has a mental disorder or equivalent disability, or 8 CHA is not actually that bad. 
Well, by default everyone has a Starting Attitude. Does the bartender really give a flip about your CHA? Really? 'Cause I think it's a total waste of time for the DM to give the low-CHA crap via the kind of NPC. It's truly petty and vindictive. You want the guards at the gate to give the low-CHA PC some crap, well, okay... But again, they're really just NPC's who are doing their job, so why go overboard? Let the player have his "minute" already. And don't handwave things just because you don't like CHA-dumping.
Mind if I use you as an example? :D See, this would be a perfect example of a REASONABLE and RESPECTFUL statement of his own preferences. Doesn't bash anyone. Just says "here's how I play". There's maybe a touch of bitterness behind a couple of lines, but all in all, pretty nice. So when I talk about "roleplayers" instigating fights, I am NOT talking about posts like Alitan's. Conversely, if our friend Alitan here posts a build and asks for advice, and someone sees that he has no stats below 12 and says "you should probably dump your CHA and bring [STAT] up to X", that's also not an attack. (I sometimes get the impression that such statements are counted as attacks by certain parties.) Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I mention "roleplayers" throwing the first punch: Original Poster: Here's a build for critique. I don't like having dump stats, so here's my array: (lists stats with nothing below 10)
EDIT: Oh, and this type of example is from the Advice section. I'd be curious to hear how other people see the arguments starting, and in what sections. 
People who have a problem with it are asking the wrong question. They're saying, "Why would you choose to have a DR that is only weak against the one thing you will want to fight the most?" But DR isn't something you choose; it's a part of the nature of the world around you. Just like a fire creature has vulnerability to cold, so a celestial creature is vulnerable to evil-aligned attacks, and vice versa. Those are the attacks that are most designed to hurt them, that they are in strongest opposition to. This makes perfect sense. 
So Paladins are being played wrong for not being suicidal or handing over everything with no real guarantee that things will be better? Let's say for instance the Paladin and everyone else give up, throw away all their stuff, and hand themselves over to the BBEG to let the children go. BBEG could now slay them all with ease (since they don't have their magical gear and are likely guarded and bonded) and in the mean while have one of his guys burn down the annoying village since the pesky, interfering "heroes" are out of the way. BBEG doesn't even have to break his word, he just needs to use the loopholes (which the demand was full of) just like any devil would. The biggest problem here is that you placed them with an "impossible" choice that requires thinking out of the box. If your players do not show signs of constantly coming up with clever ideas and doing so enthusiastically, then you're only frustrating them. By frustrating them, they will frustrate you with their actions. They'll give up and take the easy way out along with it consequences and both sides of the screen will be frustrated. Before you fall into a wreck on why your player's did this "heinous thing", you should probably spend some time with your players and see what they actually enjoy. If you wouldn't enjoy running what they'd enjoy playing and they don't enjoy what you enjoy running then this will end in a train wreck. 
Dabbler's got some good points there. Why should the DM punish the players for driving them into such a desperate situation in the first place? Why didn't the DM take a moment to think about this?! The DM has only himself to blame for putting the players in a "hopeless" situation!! As an example of DM mentality conflicting with PC mentality, I knew my players really were more roll-players than role-players last time I was DM, so I didn't bother them with "trivialities" after the first four times they said "GET ON WITH IT" instead of actually going along with the narrative. However, I didn't act like a childish **** (unlike some DMs) and go backstabbing them out of frustration for them playing the game in a way that they liked and I didn't. Adding to this, most DMs I know (including myself) don't do Saturday Morning Cartoon type villains (goblins and some ogres are possible exceptions), but actually menacing, effective ones. Only a bumbling moron would give a surrendered party a chance to get away, and bumbling morons don't make for good BBEGs, right? 
Everyone once in while a person will present a proposition. For whatever reason and through various means such as mathematical analysis, theory craft, and actual gameplay the community(90%+) will basically disagree. The poster then wants to get upset, and accuse the dissenters of being power games, being upset, or always wanting to be right. If you are going to post here accept the that people might disagree with you. If they provide valid, and logical responses then address the responses. Otherwise there is no point to the discussion. I had several PM's with a poster who did not know the rules well, nor had a good concept of balance. Not being able to counter any statements they got upset. Other times people will be in a post and say ____ is broken, only to countered by idea X, Y, and Z. Instead of saying "thanks", or trying to present a counter they get upset. While everyone likes to be correct the point of the discussion isn't to be correct, but to share ideas. If I am correct as an example then good for me. I have probably just educated someone. If they are correct then good for them. I just got educated, and I am now a better gamer for it.
One thing that drives me nuts: the supposed equivalence of beefcake and cheesecake. Beefcake is first and foremost a male power fantasy.
They are both unrealistic and have their place in fantasy art, but they are not equivalent. 
Though not the target demographic there is one that always bugs the crap out of me. I always hate that the iconic s for spell casters are either old guys or young girls, as a twenty something male I never really identify with either and always wish there was something more aimed at me as I feel like my options are to be either gandalf or sailor moon. Hell I would even like to see an iconic old female wizard now that I think about it just something to break up the trend. Also as someone mentioned before glasses, male, female, either would be awesome on characters and are badly under represented. Also also (such bad grammar) Goblin, top hat, monocle, sword cane, nuff said. 
You walk down the meandering street searching for the Beer and Pretzel Inn. Eventually you spy the well described by the beggar. Looking left you spot a faded sign board with mug and pretzel carving. As you approach the building, a half orc sails out of the doorway and lands on the cobblestone street. That particular text, while evocative, does something that we avoid doing in read-aloud text in our adventures: telling the players what they themselves are *doing*. That removes the players' ownership of their characters, even if only subconsciously. By all means, get descriptive about what they see, smell, hear, taste, and touch, but they'll respond better if you let them tell you what they *do*. Contrast:
The latter provides immersion; the former harms immersion by subtly taking away their control.
MyTThor, your reading assumes that the Pathfinder rules are edited by technical writers with legal training, alert to what the rules actually say, vs. what they're intended to mean. That's a constant point of great confusion for those of us who deal with contracts, permits, regulations, and so on IRL. Once you resign yourself to the fact that the rules are in fact written be people who say "close enough, you can pretty much tell what we're getting at, anyway," then interpreting them becomes a lot easier, because you know up front to simply skim for the big picture and not try to parse the actual wording. 
Hell, I'd hit it.Just so you know Mikaze is a male.So, I'll put a bag on his head, and paste a photo of his smexy avatar. Wow, for the first time ever we have a tie for "Win the Intrawebz" game! :D 
I like that but does show what a sticky wicket they are that basically you have to give them away to get a non society group that "meets" semi- regularly to use them. Aside from the ones along with LOTS OF OTHER FEATS *cough PA,CE cough* that should be actions(call them "Stunts"), or combat maneuvers. Basically instead of each book having a big chapter on feats it should have a smaller feats chapter and a chapter on combat with a revised actions chart with all the new actions/ stunts do they provoke and which book they are in, and the systems for enacting that action/maneuver. Yes having to pour through multiple books is not ideal, BUT we do it for spells feats and archetype abilities already... Yes I am stating the opinion that Paizo is developing the game in a way that is a "hidden trap" by focusing on making so many feats rather than the more accessible actions/ maneuvers that you lose the ability to be dramatic because somebody will say, "You don't have the feat to be able to do that." 
The point is it should be something anyone can attempt It should not be a cavalier/inquisitor only ability. It's not a crappy feat because it codified something people have been house ruling for years/ editions. It's a crappy mechanic because of how it was codified, as a feat. Even worse as a teamwork feat.Swap Places from the APG. Its a teamwork feat therefore a feat tax on 2+ players and should have been a combat maneuver. It wouldn't be so stupid if it wasn't a teamwork feat. All teamwork feats are on the list for crappiest feat award. Teamwork feats just seem like they were feats that required some sort of action from an ally so someone came up with the bright idea that "hey, let's make them BOTH take the same feat to pull off the action, that way, it inspires group dynamics and teamwork!" No, no it doesn't. This is like saying bad guys would need feats to perform combat maneuvers on them. "If your enemy has 'Get Bullrushed', you may push it back with an additional 5' for every 5 you succeed on your check."
Protection from MealyMouthedness/WishyWashyness
This spell functions as Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, only it targets those without the intestinal fortitude to actually take a stand on something. =} 
Anything that makes print and looks great but either doesn't do anything.
Or anything that causes a tactic to be illegal by entering the game.
I'm ok with the Paladin's smite evil overcoming a creatures inherent DR (though their ability to give it to everyone in the party is pretty nasty), it's when it overcomes something like Stoneskin or Adamantine armor that I have an issue. I mean, stoneskin suddenly doesn't work because a creature is evil? Adamantine armor is no longer adamantine because it's wearer is evil? In fact the next time I run a campaign I'm probably going to limit it to the creatures inherent DR. It's still very powerful, and there aren't that many sources of outside DR.
Players shall not tell natural die result instead of total roll result unless the natural roll value was asked or it was natural 20 on an attack roll or saving throw. Bugs me too. But I try to grant some leeway for people who think out loud with their math. Which brings me to one of mine: Thou shalt write down thy normal attack bonus, rather than making us all wait while you add up your STR mod, BAB, and weapon enhancement bonus on every single attack. 
I don't know what sort of "modern" fantasy you're reading, that this is the case. It would have been expected in some old R. E. Howard tale (though even those had their own share of tough women). R E Howard's Red Sonya of Rogatino is nothing like the abomination Red Sonja created by Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor-Smith.... Set historical Europe and In the story, Red Sonya is a gun-slinging warrior woman of Polish-Ukrainian origin with a grudge against the Ottoman sultan. R E Howard also had Agnes de Chastillon but she may be less to your partners taste as she had to undergo some hardships.... As for the women in Conan you must make a distinction between the stories that Howard wrote and the stories modified or written by other writers (Poul Anderson, Leonard Carpenter, Lin Carter, L. Sprague de Camp, Roland J. Green, John C. Hocking, Robert Jordan, Sean A. Moore, Björn Nyberg, Andrew J. Offutt, Steve Perry, John Maddox Roberts, Harry Turtledove, and Karl Edward Wagner to name but a few). Even female writers tend to have their female protagonists suffer a few of the things you mention - Julian May, Anne MacCaffrey for example. Cherrie Priest's Boneshaker (Steampunk rather than fantasy) is about a mother looking to get her son back. She hasn't suffered anything of a sexual nature. Then again the whole purpose of the hero's journey is to transcend the extraordinary hardships and succeed. Otherwise fantasy stories would be boring ie: Aryiel the elf had a lovely time growing up, her parents were nice. Orcs didn't attack and destroy the kingdom in fact they all took up flower arranging and became vegetarians. The nearest dragon was friendly and liked to make tea. Aryiel attended Elfland University where she was happy and secure in her sexuality and never had any unwanted attention from the opposite sex. Once she graduated she got a job as a chartered accountant and married Bob who was a Quantitative Surveyor and they lived happily ever after the suburbs of Elfland. The end. Boring........ Now if her parents were distant and judgemental and one or both of them had died in the orc/dragon attack on the kingdom and she had been enslaved and beaten only to kill her master and escape. Then while training with other refugee elves so that they could take back the kingdom she had to deal with unwanted advances from fellow recruits. Also it turns out that Bob is short for Bobbi a female dwarf and Aryiel now has to deal with the pressures of a same sex interspecies relationship, within a group of racially pure violet eyed blue haired militant elves. In the end Aryiel wins the victory but she has to live on the fringe of the kingdom because her beliefs and the person she loves does not meet the standard norms of elven society........... Far more interesting.
Don't forget that he killed D&D with the OGL. Yes, he's one of the most hated men in gaming. And also one of the most beloved. And, by the way, what happened to White Wolf would have happened whether he was hired at CCP or not. As for the other thing, I'm wondering if you're talking about the decisions that CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson has claimed full responsibility for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
