|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Which is all the best as the adequate commoner is soon out
Pathfinder, Witcher class (or Ranger archetype), plus related Prestige class. Share, comment and enjoy.
Cap. Darling wrote:
The Queen is trying to Break The law by killing of the usuper without the trial that is his rigth. She need the paladins help to remain a lawful monarch and not become a tyrant that regard herself as being above the law. This is a Classic start on a slippery slope. First they took the usuper and no nobody protested, then they took the halforcs and still nobody protested, and so on.
The whole point of being king is to craft new laws and ignore old ones. There is a reason democracy was created after much bloodshed you know ?
just saying ...
I believe a large part of the problem in my case, is too much focus on the rules, and less on the character development / story.
I mean, with all the options available today, any moderately experienced group is going to have everything covered, and surprises don't happen. This is bad. Memorable games are the ones where you are surprised by something new, and win anyways after lots of effort.
The difficulty level does not scale up with the abundance of new rules options, because the authors do not follow in the arms war, and do not use situational modifiers to the fullest.
That, and a portion of the audience whines whenever the heat turns up.
I agree with the general consensus that a pro-House Thrune adventure would be Evil-Only.
That's because the world of Golarion as written is defined way too much in black and white, and it carries over to everything.
Still, why could we not have an adventure set in Cheliax, where the PCs must navigate between two evils, manouvering one against the other ?
Example : an army of "chaotic monsters" is staging a guerilla war against the empire in a province. They burn villages. Hellknights intervene and sack villages of alleged "sympathisers". PCs must balance between the two factions, and solve the monster problem so that the army goes back to its barracks.
On a related note, it would be interesting to have a balkan-like scenario someday.
There is a map Golarion from a campaign that shows Arcadia being partially conquered by Cheliax, with two different colonies at least.
I like the idea and intend to steal it.
There is a problem too for Andoran colonies : Andoran ships need to go through the Arch of Aroden to reach Arcadia, meaning that in case of war, Cheliax can cut them off the mainland very easily.
French English and Dutch colonies did not have that problem with the Americas.
Interesting question : the thing is that while all these magic options exist, they are not commonplace enough (emphasize the enough) to have much of an effect. All the spells require spellcaster of a sufficient level, and if you look at the pictures, there are not so many around.
Also, in the real world, innovation was often not that much restricted to specific areas. Many people were ahead of their time in knowledge or equipment. But if it cannot be mass-produced or easily transported, or if it is perishable, then it does not spread.The human factor of popularity, and impressing the masses, counts a lot too.
Said in another manneer : escapist fantasy is okay with me too, but not at the expense of the believability of the story.
The other extreme is just as bad for me as well : "misery porn" is not really my cup of tea either : the heroes must shine. But I find they shine better when they crush the real evil guys, not the orc who stole the pie.
You have my sympathies, and no ill intent.
I am with you, except for the part where this leads to writing adventures where you have to remind yourself why the heroes want to fight the bad guy, as you have trouble finding out just in what he is evil and deserves death at swordpoint. Or spellpoint.
I prefer strong villains, and villains that you grow to hate - with good cause. If everybody is friendly and enlightened, why fight them ? And no random monsters that just want to eat you do not fit the bill.
Feel free to disagree with me, and once again, YMMV
No, CoT does NOT require you to be sympathetic to the regime.
Maybe I am biaised, but I do not even recall the play being sexist. then again, I have a pretty real harsh view of our own world, so I do not look at my fantasy with rosy lenses. nor do I want to.
Even though that may be the case that the module might maybe be less than optimal : IMO, being a hero is ALL about being anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti- what have you, but definitely not about dodging issues.
Dodging real life issues in your fantasy is even worse than IRL cowardice.