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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Why people don't want to play heroic characters?


Gamer Talk

201 to 250 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Gee, I know my angel-winged Assimar agent of Iomedae(Inquisitor) sure feels like a murdering hobo, when I'm investigating cult activity, arresting murderers, destroying undead abominations, and stopping an aeons-old aberrant old god from returning and wiping out all life on Golarion.

Yep. Just another day as a murdering hobo.


Or maybe you'll end up like me...a (murderous) hobo with a shotgun!

Cheliax

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Well from my over 33 years of playing DnD or roleplaying games I have NEVER seen a group of players that I would call "Heroic".

I have played with a lot of people/players who want "Heroic" characters but their definition of "Heroic" has never been one of actions, it has always been attributed to power levels.

I tend to take heroism more with the real world view I have. Most if not all people are generally some form of true neutral, their main goal is their own or loved ones self preservation, going above and beyond that is usually done on accident or back to their own self needs.


Murderous hobos? I think you guys are playing a different game than I am.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I could have told you that without the hobo reference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

So, you prefer playing non-murderous hobos?

*ducks for cover*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bigkilla wrote:
Well from my over 33 years of playing DnD or roleplaying games I have NEVER seen a group of players that I would call "Heroic".

Anecdotal is anecdotal...

I mean conversely, I can honestly state that in my 30 years of gaming, I have NEVER seen an entire group that wanted to play evil characters...

But that still doesn't represent a majority of gamers, just a majority within our own experiences...

Taldor

bigkilla wrote:

Well from my over 33 years of playing DnD or roleplaying games I have NEVER seen a group of players that I would call "Heroic".

I have played with a lot of people/players who want "Heroic" characters but their definition of "Heroic" has never been one of actions, it has always been attributed to power levels.

I tend to take heroism more with the real world view I have. Most if not all people are generally some form of true neutral, their main goal is their own or loved ones self preservation, going above and beyond that is usually done on accident or back to their own self needs.

Never? That's harsh. I've played in many heroic games, in a multitude of systems. Those that had the least heroic characters were either specifically designed and plotted that way or - and this is more common - the DM did a bad job making the players care about the setting.

If you design a campaign that feels like a video game or museum (which Middle Earth often feels like, sorry), then your players will have a desire to break it. Some will be classy enough not to, but when others give in to those desires, it's not entirely their fault.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even when I made a heroic, melancholic, holy avenger wielding Knight-in-Black paladin, I still found time to commune with my gods through psychedelic mushrooms.

Lord Pelindyr wenched a bit, too, IIRC. He was a widower and it helped ease the pain...


Icyshadow wrote:
I think there's a difference between the petty bandits of the River Kingdoms and the pioneers from Brevoy who establish a Good nation based around the reverse of what the bandits did and planned to do with the area. Sure, both loot things that technically is not their (which is technically legal in the River Kingdoms) and solve things with violence but the heroes are given options to solve disputes with various races peacefully (including the local lizardfolk and kobolds) while the bandits would have probably just killed them too. Kingmaker as a campaign made the party look much more like heroes so far than any other one I've been in, even though it can quickly descend to murder hobo territory with some players.

all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

and all it takes to be a mercenary is to be paid to fight, this could be something simple as a career soldier, a bounty hunter, a hired assassin, or a group of adventurers offered a reward for clearing the orcs away from the hamlet of hillshire.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still, nobody likes being called a murdering hobo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

That seems like a rather weak definition. By that rationale police and SWAT members are bandits too.

.
.

Example:
There is a shootout with drug dealers. Afterwards, any and all drugs, weapons, money, and vehicles are confiscated.

Problem:
The fact that the police are stopping illegal activities, protecting the community, and cleaning up the mess (to ensure those drugs and weapons don't fall into criminal hands) is apparently unimportant under the definition quoted above.

IMO any definition of "bandit" that can draw no distinction between criminals and law-enforcement isn't a particularly useful definition. Ignoring the disservice to such public servants, the other issue is that such a definition actually impedes communication because it becomes too broad and murky of a term.

Taldor

Regardless of the fact that drug dealers probably do consider the police bandits because they interfere with their business. But on the other hand drug dealers are horrible beings who make a living out of the suffering of other people.


Laithoron wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

That seems like a rather weak definition. By that rationale police and SWAT members are bandits too.

.
.

Example:
There is a shootout with drug dealers. Afterwards, any and all drugs, weapons, money, and vehicles are confiscated.

Problem:
The fact that the police are stopping illegal activities, protecting the community, and cleaning up the mess (to ensure those drugs and weapons don't fall into criminal hands) is apparently unimportant under the definition quoted above.

IMO any definition of "bandit" that can draw no distinction between criminals and law-enforcement isn't a particularly useful definition. Ignoring the disservice to such public servants, the other issue is that such a definition actually impedes communication because it becomes too broad and murky of a term.

Greed doesn't have to be the primary motive, Greed just has to be a motive in there somewhere for that to apply.

the main difference between a police officer/SWAT member and a bandit is what side of the axis they work on.

police officers can be considered a form of good aligned government sanctioned Bandits, they still do the bandit thing, but they have a good motive, maintaining order and reducing crime.

not all bandits are evil. even if the police don't always kill in their shootouts, they are still using violence to control a valuable resource out of their desire for whatever it is that makes them work as a police officer. which in some cases, would be greed. or greed would be a part of it.

greed need not be entirely for wealth, it could be for power, feelings of accomplishment, or even a better world. greed and desire are one and the same. for greed is just excessive desire.

the moment you use force to get something you desire, you have committed banditry. even in the mildest of forms. whether that something is material or not.

whether one is a bandit or a hero is in the eyes of the beholder.


Hama wrote:
Regardless of the fact that drug dealers probably do consider the police bandits because they interfere with their business. But on the other hand drug dealers are horrible beings who make a living out of the suffering of other people.

that too is banditry in a way. the drug dealers use suffering (not just harm or murder, but they tend to be freuqnetly included) to control the flow of a resource to satisfy their desire. so drug dealers are bandits too.

banditry doesn't differentiate whether you are harming innocents, or another bandit. and is completely in the eye of the beholder.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laithoron wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

That seems like a rather weak definition. By that rationale police and SWAT members are bandits too.

.
.

Example:
There is a shootout with drug dealers. Afterwards, any and all drugs, weapons, money, and vehicles are confiscated.

Problem:
The fact that the police are stopping illegal activities, protecting the community, and cleaning up the mess (to ensure those drugs and weapons don't fall into criminal hands) is apparently unimportant under the definition quoted above.

IMO any definition of "bandit" that can draw no distinction between criminals and law-enforcement isn't a particularly useful definition. Ignoring the disservice to such public servants, the other issue is that such a definition actually impedes communication because it becomes too broad and murky of a term.

That anology doesn't work. Police officers are expected to return the drugs, arms and money to the state for evidence, redistribution or destruction. Police that keep and profit directly from the contraband they recover are cited as examples of corruption or organized criminals, which is just sophisticated banditry.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You and i have a very, very different definition of the word bandit.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I think there's a difference between the petty bandits of the River Kingdoms and the pioneers from Brevoy who establish a Good nation based around the reverse of what the bandits did and planned to do with the area. Sure, both loot things that technically is not their (which is technically legal in the River Kingdoms) and solve things with violence but the heroes are given options to solve disputes with various races peacefully (including the local lizardfolk and kobolds) while the bandits would have probably just killed them too. Kingmaker as a campaign made the party look much more like heroes so far than any other one I've been in, even though it can quickly descend to murder hobo territory with some players.

all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

and all it takes to be a mercenary is to be paid to fight, this could be something simple as a career soldier, a bounty hunter, a hired assassin, or a group of adventurers offered a reward for clearing the orcs away from the hamlet of hillshire.

1) Does the motive have to be looting or is it sufficient to loot after you've killed them for other reasons?

2) That's a very broad definition of mercenary. Including among others all modern military and police forces. It is very definitely not common usage. In standard usage national military and police are not considered mercenaries. In fact, I suggest not using the word to describe them in their presence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll add that you probably shouldn't call the police bandits to their face either. They won't like that. Explaining you idiosyncratic definition of the word probably won't help.

We use language to help us communicate. It only works when we have common definitions of the words. If you use your own definitions that are only loosely related to other peoples, don't expect them to understand what you're talking about.

Using your definitions, all D&D pcs are bandits and most are mercenaries. Using the standard English definitions the vast majority are not bandits, though some are still mercenaries.

Taldor

I'm pretty broad with my definition of banditry. Basically it's any means of non state/crown/town sanctioned extortion. If you go around beating up people and taking their stuff without first getting the the government's (and in some sense the people's) okay, then you're a bandit. Maybe a bandit with some vigilante moralism, but still.

In D&D that's fine, everyone can be bandits. It's a wild west mentality - might makes right. What makes you good is that you fight evil, not that you yourself are morally observant or particularly kind. You can define yourself by who you kill. It's wacky, but I think this attitude is hard baked into the game, and reflected in a lot of campaigns.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The dictionary's definition disagrees with you Lumiere Dawnbringer...

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:

bandit

(băn'dĭt)

n.

1. A robber, especially one who robs at gunpoint.
2. An outlaw; a gangster.
3. One who cheats or exploits others.
4. Slang. A hostile aircraft, especially a fighter aircraft.

Definition: thief
Antonyms: law, police

It even goes so far as to say that those who enforce the law are the exact opposite...

Sorry Lumiere Dawnbringer, but I'm siding with the dictionary on this one...


Where is Frederic Bastiat when you need him?


thejeff wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I think there's a difference between the petty bandits of the River Kingdoms and the pioneers from Brevoy who establish a Good nation based around the reverse of what the bandits did and planned to do with the area. Sure, both loot things that technically is not their (which is technically legal in the River Kingdoms) and solve things with violence but the heroes are given options to solve disputes with various races peacefully (including the local lizardfolk and kobolds) while the bandits would have probably just killed them too. Kingmaker as a campaign made the party look much more like heroes so far than any other one I've been in, even though it can quickly descend to murder hobo territory with some players.

all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

and all it takes to be a mercenary is to be paid to fight, this could be something simple as a career soldier, a bounty hunter, a hired assassin, or a group of adventurers offered a reward for clearing the orcs away from the hamlet of hillshire.

1) Does the motive have to be looting or is it sufficient to loot after you've killed them for other reasons?

2) That's a very broad definition of mercenary. Including among others all modern military and police forces. It is very definitely not common usage. In standard usage national military and police are not considered mercenaries. In fact, I suggest not using the word to describe them in their presence.

1. looting has to be one of the motives. not neccessarily the primary one but it has to be there someone.

2. it is a broad definition.


Digitalelf wrote:

The dictionary's definition disagrees with you Lumiere Dawnbringer...

American Heritage Dictionary wrote:

bandit

(băn'dĭt)

n.

1. A robber, especially one who robs at gunpoint.
2. An outlaw; a gangster.
3. One who cheats or exploits others.
4. Slang. A hostile aircraft, especially a fighter aircraft.

Definition: thief
Antonyms: law, police

It even goes so far as to say that those who enforce the law are the exact opposite...

Sorry Lumiere Dawnbringer, but I'm siding with the dictionary on this one...

well, i am not very well versed in the ways of the world due my inherent lack of awareness.


thejeff wrote:

I'll add that you probably shouldn't call the police bandits to their face either. They won't like that. Explaining you idiosyncratic definition of the word probably won't help.

We use language to help us communicate. It only works when we have common definitions of the words. If you use your own definitions that are only loosely related to other peoples, don't expect them to understand what you're talking about.

Using your definitions, all D&D pcs are bandits and most are mercenaries. Using the standard English definitions the vast majority are not bandits, though some are still mercenaries.

Player Characters.

Bandit; Motivated by greed. i haven't seen a single non-greedy PC who doesn't appreciate the spoils of his efforts. some PC go after others just for the spoils. the PCs who kill the dragon (in part) because they want to loot his horde are bandits.

Mercenary: also motivated by greed. does a dirty job with the expectation of compensation. usually in large amounts. the PCs whom were paid to clear the orcs out of hillshire were mercenaries.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Bandit; Motivated by greed. i haven't seen a single non-greedy PC who doesn't appreciate the spoils of his efforts. some PC go after others just for the spoils. the PCs who kill the dragon (in part) because they want to loot his horde are bandits.

Just because you take something from a fallen foe, and then have the audacity to enjoy that item does not make you a bandit...

Nor does a good aligned party seeking out an evil dragon (knowing full well dragons have extensive hoards), make that party bandits...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Bandit; Motivated by greed. i haven't seen a single non-greedy PC who doesn't appreciate the spoils of his efforts. some PC go after others just for the spoils. the PCs who kill the dragon (in part) because they want to loot his horde are bandits.

Just because you take something from a fallen foe, and then have the audacity to enjoy that item does not make you a bandit...

Nor does a good aligned party seeking out an evil dragon (knowing full well dragons have extensive hoards), make that party bandits...

it does the moment that the spoils become a major motive for doing so. even if not the primary major motive.

banditry is in the eye of the beholder.

one Faction's "Heroes" are another Faction's "Bandits"


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Bandit; Motivated by greed. i haven't seen a single non-greedy PC who doesn't appreciate the spoils of his efforts. some PC go after others just for the spoils. the PCs who kill the dragon (in part) because they want to loot his horde are bandits.

Just because you take something from a fallen foe, and then have the audacity to enjoy that item does not make you a bandit...

Nor does a good aligned party seeking out an evil dragon (knowing full well dragons have extensive hoards), make that party bandits...

it does the moment that the spoils become a major motive for doing so. even if not the primary major motive.

banditry is in the eye of the beholder.

one Faction's "Heroes" are another Faction's "Bandits"

Moral relativity? In a game with defined Good and Evil.

Bandit is a well defined term. It is not this thing you are speaking of. Even more so in D&D.

Taldor

Banditry is a well defined term, the reasons behind said banditry is where things get gray. I think that's what Lumiere is getting at. It's not hard to imagine bandits who have Good reasons for what they do (capital G), yet are at odds with other people who have Good reasons of their own.

Two Lawful Good kingdoms can go to war, and it can be bloody and protracted. They can both be right. Moral relativism.


Selk wrote:

Banditry is a well defined term, the reasons behind said banditry is where things get gray. I think that's what Lumiere is getting at. It's not hard to imagine bandits who have Good reasons for what they do (capital G), yet are at odds with other people who have Good reasons of their own.

Two Lawful Good kingdoms can go to war, and it can be bloody and protracted. They can both be right. Moral relativism.

correct. just what i was getting at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Selk wrote:

Banditry is a well defined term, the reasons behind said banditry is where things get gray. I think that's what Lumiere is getting at. It's not hard to imagine bandits who have Good reasons for what they do (capital G), yet are at odds with other people who have Good reasons of their own.

Two Lawful Good kingdoms can go to war, and it can be bloody and protracted. They can both be right. Moral relativism.

correct. just what i was getting at.

But there's a difference between it's possible to imagine Good bandits (Robin Hood, hey that was easy!) and all adventurers are bandits. That the very nature of D&D gaming is banditry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay...

See, from an ecological perspective, MOST adventuring parties are the PRACTICAL equal of a plague of locusts: their moral or not-so-moral imperatives DON'T MATTER. The RESULTS of their presence are the extermination of the local ecosystem of apex predators and the siphoning off of valuta.

In a less-flattering mode, most adventurers behave like a band of roaming Kender.

"Kender will take anything that's not nailed down, and Kender with claw hammers will get those, too." [Or words to that effect... been a while.]

Watching a Pathfinder/D&D game in progress is like watching Knights of the Old Republic over somebody's shoulder: everything of value, or potential value (via salvage) is stripped out of the location, the critters that live there are slaughtered, and the "heroes" wander off calling themselves Jedi.

So, yeah. The very nature of the game is organised, sanctioned banditry.


Alitan wrote:

Okay...

See, from an ecological perspective, MOST adventuring parties are the PRACTICAL equal of a plague of locusts: their moral or not-so-moral imperatives DON'T MATTER. The RESULTS of their presence are the extermination of the local ecosystem of apex predators and the siphoning off of valuta.

In a less-flattering mode, most adventurers behave like a band of roaming Kender.

"Kender will take anything that's not nailed down, and Kender with claw hammers will get those, too." [Or words to that effect... been a while.]

Watching a Pathfinder/D&D game in progress is like watching Knights of the Old Republic over somebody's shoulder: everything of value, or potential value (via salvage) is stripped out of the location, the critters that live there are slaughtered, and the "heroes" wander off calling themselves Jedi.

So, yeah. The very nature of the game is organised, sanctioned banditry.

Your game maybe.

Not everyone's. Not mine.

Do you count the part where the "heroes" stop the resurrection of the ancient undead lord who would have flooded the countryside with his minions slaughtering every living thing?

I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.


Alitan wrote:

Okay...

See, from an ecological perspective, MOST adventuring parties are the PRACTICAL equal of a plague of locusts: their moral or not-so-moral imperatives DON'T MATTER. The RESULTS of their presence are the extermination of the local ecosystem of apex predators and the siphoning off of valuta.

In a less-flattering mode, most adventurers behave like a band of roaming Kender.

"Kender will take anything that's not nailed down, and Kender with claw hammers will get those, too." [Or words to that effect... been a while.]

Watching a Pathfinder/D&D game in progress is like watching Knights of the Old Republic over somebody's shoulder: everything of value, or potential value (via salvage) is stripped out of the location, the critters that live there are slaughtered, and the "heroes" wander off calling themselves Jedi.

So, yeah. The very nature of the game is organised, sanctioned banditry.

There are many examples to the contrary. One Eberron campaign I ran ended with the paladin pc sacrificing his life to save a couatl and pretty much the world. The pc was rewarded after a fashion for his heroic act (became the equivalent of a mythic guardian), but the player didn't know that and chose to do it because it was in character. As for wealth, he had none, wandering the world as a pilgrim, aiding and inspiring others.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.

You're certainly not alone in that. I'm rearranging how wealth is gathered in our Shattered Star games to work mostly off a stipend system because I'm absolutely sick of the murderhobo metagame.

For more general campaigns, this might be of some aid to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played in a game with an Apostle of Peace. Vow of Poverty. Buff said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
Where is Frederic Bastiat when you need him?

The same place he's been for the last 150+ years...mouldering in a basilica in Rome.


Bandits: The Musical Interlude


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Selk wrote:
Laithoron wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
all it takes to be a bandit is to kill something with the motive of looting it's valuables. even if that motive isn't the primary one.

That seems like a rather weak definition. By that rationale police and SWAT members are bandits too.

.
.

Example:
There is a shootout with drug dealers. Afterwards, any and all drugs, weapons, money, and vehicles are confiscated.

Problem:
The fact that the police are stopping illegal activities, protecting the community, and cleaning up the mess (to ensure those drugs and weapons don't fall into criminal hands) is apparently unimportant under the definition quoted above.

IMO any definition of "bandit" that can draw no distinction between criminals and law-enforcement isn't a particularly useful definition. Ignoring the disservice to such public servants, the other issue is that such a definition actually impedes communication because it becomes too broad and murky of a term.

That anology doesn't work. Police officers are expected to return the drugs, arms and money to the state for evidence, redistribution or destruction. Police that keep and profit directly from the contraband they recover are cited as examples of corruption or organized criminals, which is just sophisticated banditry.

Haven't spent much time with narcs, have you?


Hama wrote:
1) He wasn't paying them. They were part of a ranger company. Yuo should seriously stop calling everyone's PCs murdering hobos.

That's it. I'm actually going to get on the phone and call everyone's PC an MH just to give the wild allegations in this thread some credence.


Josh M. wrote:

Gee, I know my angel-winged Assimar agent of Iomedae(Inquisitor) sure feels like a murdering hobo, when I'm investigating cult activity, arresting murderers, destroying undead abominations, and stopping an aeons-old aberrant old god from returning and wiping out all life on Golarion.

Yep. Just another day as a murdering hobo.

Yup.


thejeff wrote:
Alitan wrote:

Okay...

See, from an ecological perspective, MOST adventuring parties are the PRACTICAL equal of a plague of locusts: their moral or not-so-moral imperatives DON'T MATTER. The RESULTS of their presence are the extermination of the local ecosystem of apex predators and the siphoning off of valuta.

In a less-flattering mode, most adventurers behave like a band of roaming Kender.

"Kender will take anything that's not nailed down, and Kender with claw hammers will get those, too." [Or words to that effect... been a while.]

Watching a Pathfinder/D&D game in progress is like watching Knights of the Old Republic over somebody's shoulder: everything of value, or potential value (via salvage) is stripped out of the location, the critters that live there are slaughtered, and the "heroes" wander off calling themselves Jedi.

So, yeah. The very nature of the game is organised, sanctioned banditry.

Your game maybe.

Not everyone's. Not mine.

Do you count the part where the "heroes" stop the resurrection of the ancient undead lord who would have flooded the countryside with his minions slaughtering every living thing?

I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.

Maybe a better question would be how do you handle enemy gear falling into the player's hands in your games?


Mikaze wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.

You're certainly not alone in that. I'm rearranging how wealth is gathered in our Shattered Star games to work mostly off a stipend system because I'm absolutely sick of the murderhobo metagame.

For more general campaigns, this might be of some aid to you.

Wasn't there something similar in Dragon a few years ago? I like this, however, it's interesting.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Where is Frederic Bastiat when you need him?
The same place he's been for the last 150+ years...mouldering in a basilica in Rome.

"Mouldering, my special ability is mouldering" - said in Dexter like voice, but seriously, I hope he is done mouldering by now, otherwise, ewwwwwww.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.
Maybe a better question would be how do you handle enemy gear falling into the player's hands in your games?

It's a mechanics problem. You can't really handle it without a serious rewrite of the mechanics. In a game system where less of the power is in the gear, it's not really a problem. In a game system where the power curve isn't so steep you don't have to worry about upgrading your gear so fast.

Within the existing rules you can play characters who aren't focused on extracting every last gp of value from everything they encounter. On the metagame level the players can trust the GM to keep them on track for WBL and thus not have to "take anything that's not nailed down".

Edit: This lets both the characters and the players focus on goals and motivations beyond the loot. You still take the loot, that's what it's there for, but it's not the point of the exercise.


Alitan wrote:

Okay...

See, from an ecological perspective, MOST adventuring parties are the PRACTICAL equal of a plague of locusts: their moral or not-so-moral imperatives DON'T MATTER. The RESULTS of their presence are the extermination of the local ecosystem of apex predators and the siphoning off of valuta.

In a less-flattering mode, most adventurers behave like a band of roaming Kender.

"Kender will take anything that's not nailed down, and Kender with claw hammers will get those, too." [Or words to that effect... been a while.]

Watching a Pathfinder/D&D game in progress is like watching Knights of the Old Republic over somebody's shoulder: everything of value, or potential value (via salvage) is stripped out of the location, the critters that live there are slaughtered, and the "heroes" wander off calling themselves Jedi.

So, yeah. The very nature of the game is organised, sanctioned banditry.

That is a horrible analogy. Locusts don't kill apex predators, they kill crops and vegetation. Sure, the apex predators may starve due to their own prey dying out. So your analogy is wrongheaded from the beginning.

And I've yet to see an adventuring group which behaves in the way you've described.


Mikaze wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.

You're certainly not alone in that. I'm rearranging how wealth is gathered in our Shattered Star games to work mostly off a stipend system because I'm absolutely sick of the murderhobo metagame.

Hm, how do you handle the magic stuff the enemies leave behind? Simply let them not have any and use higher level NPC's?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I do agree that the gear based part of the game encourages a heavy focus on looting. It's one of the things I don't like about the system.

You're certainly not alone in that. I'm rearranging how wealth is gathered in our Shattered Star games to work mostly off a stipend system because I'm absolutely sick of the murderhobo metagame.
Hm, how do you handle the magic stuff the enemies leave behind? Simply let them not have any and use higher level NPC's?

If I remember correctly from Mikaze's earlier posts, all gear taken from foes is turned in to higher headquarters for processing. PCs can apply for ownership and have the cost deducted from their stipend.


Sounds doable for that particular campaign. I don't see it working as well for campaigns with other set-ups, though. It still is an interesting premise.

Seems like I need to check Mikazes post history again for the awesome. ^^

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mikaze's post history is FULL of awesome.

201 to 250 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Why people don't want to play heroic characters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.