His point, Torm, is that you can have low-charisma attractive characters, by having a character whose appearance is not the one of those abilities affected by the low score.
I understand the point, I'm just stating that I don't agree with it.
Tying it to appearance in that manner where it is a MUST that a low-charisma character must be unappealing to the eye is ignoring the other THREE QUARTERS of the description you quoted.
No - I'm saying that a person with a low charisma must reflect that in all quarters of the description. It would be similar to saying a character with a 5 strength can look muscled, even though they're actually quite weak. If you want the RP "perks" of being strong, or charismatic, then put a higher stat in that attribute.
If I want to RP a strong character, he should have an above average strength. If I want to RP an attractive character, he should have an above average charisma.
There's nothing wrong with below average. Not all heroes are attractive.
@ Tormsskull: Rules are guidelines. They are not set in stone. If your player who has a low charisma character wants to play that character as attractive, why not allow it? That attractiveness will last untill they open their mouths anyway.
I agree that rules are guidelines - but I wouldn't allow it because it is not logical. The attractiveness of a character is a bonus - virtually everyone treats attractive people better.
Let's take a look at another stat:
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance.
Would you allow a character with a 5 dexterity to RP his character as agile, even though his reflexes and balance are poor? That doesn't make sense, and the mechanics would then also not make sense. A character is agile but has a -3 on Reflex saves?
I think this idea of RPing bad stats as good stats is from the same view as "its descriptive text - it doesn't matter." I think it does matter.
His point, Torm, is that you can have low-charisma attractive characters, by having a character whose appearance is not the one of those abilities affected by the low score.
Not every low-charisma character is unattractive. Some very beautiful people are vapid, self-centered, cripplingly shy, wallflowers despite their appearance, socially inept, or otherwise devoid of charismatic capability. Tying it to appearance in that manner where it is a MUST that a low-charisma character must be unappealing to the eye is ignoring the other THREE QUARTERS of the description you quoted.
not all three legged chairs are stools, however. I think term might have had experiences similar to mine in that players have tried to use descriptive text to get around a mechanical character flaw.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Torm
So what your saying is that the High orc Warlord chieftan with a high Cha, High Strength, and Intimidating Prowess must also be very pretty?
No, he probably looks like every other orc (Big, green and ugly with scars everywhere) if not probably even more terrifiying, but the thing, his visage carries a air weight. He walks, talks, and acts in a manner that DEMANDS respect and attention, without him having to say it.
For instance, lets take Trump. He is not attactive, he is not exactly handsome. But by god, does he command attention and respect when he walks into a room, and his presence just breeds control.
@Torm
So what your saying is that the High orc Warlord chieftan with a high Cha, High Strength, and Intimidating Prowess must also be very pretty?
No, he probably looks like every other orc (Big, green and ugly with scars everywhere) if not probably even more terrifiying, but the thing, his visage carries a air weight. He walks, talks, and acts in a manner that DEMANDS respect and attention, without him having to say it.
For instance, lets take Trump. He is not attactive, he is not exactly handsome. But by god, does he command attention and respect when he walks into a room, and his presence just breeds control.
There's also an aspect of what people find attractive or worthy of respect. In my games the orc chieftain you described would have a the stereotypical "look of eagles" more so than be ugly or pretty. That said, damn good analogy with trump.
For instance, lets take Trump. He is not attactive, he is not exactly handsome. But by god, does he command attention and respect when he walks into a room, and his presence just breeds control.
DING DING DING.
Funny how people don't seem to mind it when it's this way around, but turn it around so that it's a low-CHA pretty person with no personality and suddenly there's people saying you can't do that.
There's also an aspect of what people find attractive or worthy of respect. In my games the orc chieftain you described would have a the stereotypical "look of eagles" more so than be ugly or pretty. That said, damn good analogy with trump.@Torm
So what your saying is that the High orc Warlord chieftan with a high Cha, High Strength, and Intimidating Prowess must also be very pretty?
No, he probably looks like every other orc (Big, green and ugly with scars everywhere) if not probably even more terrifiying, but the thing, his visage carries a air weight. He walks, talks, and acts in a manner that DEMANDS respect and attention, without him having to say it.
For instance, lets take Trump. He is not attactive, he is not exactly handsome. But by god, does he command attention and respect when he walks into a room, and his presence just breeds control.
My personally he would look ugly, but he would have a sort of powerful and demanding look.
@Torm
So what your saying is that the High orc Warlord chieftan with a high Cha, High Strength, and Intimidating Prowess must also be very pretty?
What is attractive for one race is not necessary attractive for another race. A positive appearance for an orc may be just as you described (scars, etc.) But it is still a positive appearance.
So, in other words, he is "orc pretty".
Would you allow a character with a 5 dexterity to RP his character as agile, even though his reflexes and balance are poor?
Yes I would. In fact, I'm doing something like that right now. My dwarf tinker Fionna has 8 DEX and is RPed as a bit of a klutz, constantly tripping over her own two feet, crashing or bumping into things and people, and otherwise being a little ball of destruction... except for her fingers. She can fit tiny little puzzle-pieces of gearworks and technology together just fine, and it's one of her favorite hobbies. Clumsy and disaster-prone, but if she can be sat down at a table to work on her little projects, she can churn out a masterpiece.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that a person with a low charisma must reflect that in all quarters of the description.
So you don't allow your players to play characters that are poor at 3 of the quarters of charisma but competent at the last one?
Would you allow a character with a 5 dexterity to RP his character as agile, even though his reflexes and balance are poor?Yes I would. In fact, I'm doing something like that right now. My dwarf tinker Fionna has 8 DEX and is RPed as a bit of a klutz, constantly tripping over her own two feet, crashing or bumping into things and people, and otherwise being a little ball of destruction... except for her fingers. She can fit tiny little puzzle-pieces of gearworks and technology together just fine, and it's one of her favorite hobbies. Clumsy and disaster-prone, but if she can be sat down at a table to work on her little projects, she can churn out a masterpiece.
not to nitpick, but dex 8 and dex 5 are a ways away from each other.
I'm saying that a person with a low charisma must reflect that in all quarters of the description.So you don't allow your players to play characters that are poor at 3 of the quarters of charisma but competent at the last one?
Not generally. If a player had a really good reason, I suppose it is possible. I'm just not seeing why the better alternative of putting a higher stat into Charisma wouldn't be the default to remedy the situation?
not to nitpick, but dex 8 and dex 5 are a ways away from each other.Would you allow a character with a 5 dexterity to RP his character as agile, even though his reflexes and balance are poor?Yes I would. In fact, I'm doing something like that right now. My dwarf tinker Fionna has 8 DEX and is RPed as a bit of a klutz, constantly tripping over her own two feet, crashing or bumping into things and people, and otherwise being a little ball of destruction... except for her fingers. She can fit tiny little puzzle-pieces of gearworks and technology together just fine, and it's one of her favorite hobbies. Clumsy and disaster-prone, but if she can be sat down at a table to work on her little projects, she can churn out a masterpiece.
While true, I don't think my point would change, other than intensifying the character's clumsiness at everything except the one skill she's really good at. Instead of just being occasionally bumping into everyone and tripping a lot, she'd be more having trouble walking in straight lines, regularly mistaken for drunk, prone to tripping just from standing up, and such like. The basic RP pattern wouldn't change, just the intensity of the handicap.
I know? I never disagreed with him, or even showed in the slightest that i did. I'm not an imbecile. I simply asked how much he knew about aspergers.His point, Torm, is that you can have low-charisma attractive characters, by having a character whose appearance is not the one of those abilities affected by the low score.
Not every low-charisma character is unattractive. Some very beautiful people are vapid, self-centered, cripplingly shy, wallflowers despite their appearance, socially inept, or otherwise devoid of charismatic capability. Tying it to appearance in that manner where it is a MUST that a low-charisma character must be unappealing to the eye is ignoring the other THREE QUARTERS of the description you quoted.
That's why my post was addressed to Torm, aka Tormsskull, not Thomas =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not generally. If a player had a really good reason, I suppose it is possible. I'm just not seeing why the better alternative of putting a higher stat into Charisma wouldn't be the default to remedy the situation?I'm saying that a person with a low charisma must reflect that in all quarters of the description.So you don't allow your players to play characters that are poor at 3 of the quarters of charisma but competent at the last one?
I wouldn't like a game like that myself. I would hate to be limited to "all good looking characters MUST be charismatic".
I wouldn't be opposed to it. Heck, I wouldn't even make my players roll for it, or take it out of their point buy. I'd just tell them to assign a stat to it depending on how attractive/unattractive they want their character to be. (They can if they WANT to, some players enjoy that randomness aspect of character creation. To each their own.)
As is, I typically place a lot less emphasis on that portion of the Charisma description anyway. History is full of unattractive people who were disarmingly charismatic and pretty people who were as enticing as wallpaper. No reason our game characters can't be the same.
Where we come to the problem of stat agregation. If charisma and appearance were separate stats, it would be much much simpler...
It might be simpler, but Charisma is kind of hurting as a stat right now anyhow. It is THE dump stat. Taking more away from it (even attractiveness, which is minor) is not appealing.
Sometimes it is fun to play the really attractive character, other times its fun playing the hideous character. Average can be fun too.
|
Not generally. If a player had a really good reason, I suppose it is possible. I'm just not seeing why the better alternative of putting a higher stat into Charisma wouldn't be the default to remedy the situation?I'm saying that a person with a low charisma must reflect that in all quarters of the description.So you don't allow your players to play characters that are poor at 3 of the quarters of charisma but competent at the last one?
Because some players don't put much stock in ability scores beyond the basic bonuses and penalties those entail. What if a player wants to play an attractive/pretty character who is also woefully uncharismatic? You're just going to say "nope, them's the rules, put moar in cha"?
I mean, isn't the goal of this game for people playing it to have fun? All of us?
And all you're doing by disallowing this tiny thing to your player is diminishing of their fun and probably bitterness.
Where we come to the problem of stat agregation. If charisma and appearance were separate stats, it would be much much simpler...
It would just add a(nother) dump stat to the game.
There's a value to parsimony. Having too many stats is like having too many skills: a lot of added complexity for no gain. Especially with something with vague and ill-defined boundaries like the mental stats. When is something willpower versus force of personality?
I wouldn't like a game like that myself. I would hate to be limited to "all good looking characters MUST be charismatic".
It would seem that in a game where attractiveness is not connected to a stat at all, it would become basically meaningless. There's no mechanical support for it.
If all the PCs describe themselves as dashingly handsome and stunningly beautiful, then aren't they just all average?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not generally. If a player had a really good reason, I suppose it is possible. I'm just not seeing why the better alternative of putting a higher stat into Charisma wouldn't be the default to remedy the situation?I'm saying that a person with a low charisma must reflect that in all quarters of the description.So you don't allow your players to play characters that are poor at 3 of the quarters of charisma but competent at the last one?
And it doesn't strike you as a bad and wrong approach to roleplaying to say this character concept is off-limits due to how the different abilities are defined? It would be okay in a system where leadership capability was a separate stat, but not Pathfinder. Doesn't it strike you as absurd to say that how a system breaks up attributes determines what character concepts are allowed?
I wouldn't like a game like that myself. I would hate to be limited to "all good looking characters MUST be charismatic".It would seem that in a game where attractiveness is not connected to a stat at all, it would become basically meaningless. There's no mechanical support for it.
I'm okay with that. Really, character appearance is for the most part irrelevant statistically, IMO. It's a personal preference thing. Like whether or not my character has dark or light skin (both in terms of race as well as tan vs. pale) or what color hair and eyes.
If all the PCs describe themselves as dashingly handsome and stunningly beautiful, then aren't they just all average?
Average among the PCs maybe, sure.
I think the main difference here is I don't care how pretty a person's character is. If they want to play a super pretty character, sure, whatever. If they want to be terrifyingly ugly, that's okay too. Skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate do better at reflecting that than the scores themselves, I think. A high Intimidate makes all the difference between horrendously, terrifyingly hideous (or overwhelmingly, mind-numbingly pretty, IE certain depictions of fey, etc.) and simply pitifully ugly. A character with high diplomacy knows how to make the difference between being stunningly gorgeous on the make everyone in the room hand over their souls to you level, and just being another pretty face.
Nope, because all other people are not dashingly handsome and stunningly beautiful. Just the PCs. And the world isn't filled with just PCs....
DING DING DING AGAIN.
I have absolutely zero problems with letting players be "the best of the best" and being leagues ahead of the rest of the world, in appearance as well as physical and mental capability, skill, and potential. If that's the kind of character you want to play, go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where we come to the problem of stat agregation. If charisma and appearance were separate stats, it would be much much simpler...It might be simpler, but Charisma is kind of hurting as a stat right now anyhow. It is THE dump stat. Taking more away from it (even attractiveness, which is minor) is not appealing.
Sometimes it is fun to play the really attractive character, other times its fun playing the hideous character. Average can be fun too.
I'll grant the point when paizo stops publishing monsters with high charisma that are ugly, and when they stop publishing NPCs with Charisma 3 that are described as beautiful.
AKA when the system actually matches what you claim.
Where we come to the problem of stat agregation. If charisma and appearance were separate stats, it would be much much simpler...It might be simpler, but Charisma is kind of hurting as a stat right now anyhow. It is THE dump stat. Taking more away from it (even attractiveness, which is minor) is not appealing.
Sometimes it is fun to play the really attractive character, other times its fun playing the hideous character. Average can be fun too.
I'll grant the point when paizo stops publishing monsters with high charisma that are ugly, and when they stop publishing NPCs with Charisma 3 that are described as beautiful.
AKA when the system actually matches what you claim.
DING DING DING ROUND THREE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because some players don't put much stock in ability scores beyond the basic bonuses and penalties those entail.
Yeah - that's not the way I play. You can't be physically strong with a low strength score or beautiful with a low charisma score. The bonuses or penalties tell you how the stat affects the game mechanics. The description of the stat can tell you a lot more.
What if a player wants to play an attractive/pretty character who is also woefully uncharismatic? You're just going to say "nope, them's the rules, put moar in cha"?
In a much more polite and friendly way, yeah.
I mean, isn't the goal of this game for people playing it to have fun? All of us?
Of course. If I'm the player that put a high stat in charisma because I want to play an attractive character, and the GM tells another player they can dump stat charisma and also be very attractive, that's going to ruin my fun. As such, having a consistent ruling seems to be the best way to handle it.
And all you're doing by disallowing this tiny thing to your player is diminishing of their fun and probably bitterness.
I've yet to run into a player who is disappointed that their character can't be "pretty" because they have a low charisma.
Doesn't it strike you as absurd to say that how a system breaks up attributes determines what character concepts are allowed?
No - no system is perfect. Character concepts are limitless. There's so much flavor that you can put into a character from a million different angles. Having a few constraints (stats that define your character) aren't all that encumbering to creativity in my mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I was! Those are the actual real meaning of the words I used! I went to Websters and everything!Are you feeling some acrimony, Abraham?
It's a perfectly cormulent piece of pedantry to be sure. After all if by a ingenious use of synonyms and badinage we can take guacherie and play it for a farce, then the fruition of the exercise is wholesome.
I am not merely flippant with the rules, I am fortifying them with wit.
|
It's a perfectly cormulent piece of pedantry to be sure. After all if by a ingenious use of synonyms and badinage we can take guacherie and play it for a farce, then the fruition of the exercise is wholesome.But I was! Those are the actual real meaning of the words I used! I went to Websters and everything!Are you feeling some acrimony, Abraham?
*slow clap*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No - no system is perfect. Character concepts are limitless. There's so much flavor that you can put into a character from a million different angles. Having a few constraints (stats that define your character) aren't all that encumbering to creativity in my mind.
So everyone in your settings with divine powers has great common sense? Doesn't that strike you as ridiculous?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I was actually hoping I'd find something on which to disagree with tormskull cause I was worried I was starting to feel sycophantic.
I find it entirely possible, and even logical, for a character to have a generally weak stat in which they have a very narrow talent, as in the klutz with good crafting hands above. However, two points still ring true here: first, it needs a good, compelling reason, which is something subjective and uncommon in players. Second, it should be the exception to the rule, and when ignoring mechanical deficiency is as good as securing advantage, it can be hard to convince some players to play the hand they've dealt themselves, so to speak.
I have just such an example of a low-cha character who I've described as "a waste of good looks," but she's fairly shy, lacks in assertion, and is very reactive, rather than proactive. She'll disagree with the plans of the group if she finds them to be an abhorrently bad idea, but unless queried, she'd be hard pressed to present any of her own, at least at this point. the campaign's still relatively young, but I've done my best to play it to the hilt.
Unfortunately, not nearly all players put forth the effort.
This conversation has officially tipped over the irritating and infuriating edge and into the land of the ridiculous.
Thanks Tormsskull for the laughs. I think though I've had my fill. I'm going to leave this thread while it still has me in a good mood, and before it has the time to sour once again
Nobody's convincing anyone to change their minds anyway. This is the internet, after all.
So everyone in your settings with divine powers has great common sense? Doesn't that strike you as ridiculous?
How do you define "great"? If you mean better than average, then no, that doesn't strike me as ridiculous.
This conversation has officially tipped over the irritating and infuriating edge and into the land of the ridiculous.
People that disagree with you infuriate you? I'm just stating the way I view the rules & implement them in my games, not baiting anyone.
Thanks Tormsskull for the laughs. I think though I've had my fill. I'm going to leave this thread while it still has me in a good mood, and before it has the time to sour once again
Thanks for contributing. Happy holidays :)
I'm not a fan of separating appearance from charisma due to a lot of the stupid I encountered in my white wolf days. Some swear by it though.
|
|
Because some players don't put much stock in ability scores beyond the basic bonuses and penalties those entail.Yeah - that's not the way I play. You can't be physically strong with a low strength score or beautiful with a low charisma score. The bonuses or penalties tell you how the stat affects the game mechanics. The description of the stat can tell you a lot more.
Again with that. You must separate physical and mental stats. And, by and in on itself Charisma is a separate stat from the rest. I've met some gorgeous people whom i coudln't talk to because they were complete asses. Still great to look upon, but no social aptiture whatsoever.
What if a player wants to play an attractive/pretty character who is also woefully uncharismatic? You're just going to say "nope, them's the rules, put moar in cha"?In a much more polite and friendly way, yeah.
How very nice of you. Also, how very close minded.
I mean, isn't the goal of this game for people playing it to have fun? All of us?Of course. If I'm the player that put a high stat in charisma because I want to play an attractive character, and the GM tells another player they can dump stat charisma and also be very attractive, that's going to ruin my fun. As such, having a consistent ruling seems to be the best way to handle it.
If you put a high stat in charisma because you wanted your character to be pretty...well...Ieh
Plus, if that player dumps charisma it will affect his character mechanically, and even though he has good looks, he will still suffer socially whenever he opens his mouth.OTOH, i disallow dump stats.
And all you're doing by disallowing this tiny thing to your player is diminishing of their fun and probably bitterness.I've yet to run into a player who is disappointed that their character can't be "pretty" because they have a low charisma.
I have. More than once.
No - no system is perfect. Character concepts are limitless. There's so much flavor that you can put into a character from a million different angles. Having a few constraints (stats that define your character) aren't all that encumbering to creativity in my mind.Doesn't it strike you as absurd to say that how a system breaks up attributes determines what character concepts are allowed?
System is far, far from perfect, but it is robust and well thought out.
Also, character concepts have nothing to do with the system whatsoever.|
|
I don't mind the game's definition of balance. I quite like the average statistics of a given CR across all its members. I don't like when PCs throw off this curve and treat DC 22 saves at level 10 as nothing.
I missed this. PCs are supposed to be special. And at level 10 a DC 22 is laughably easy to beat, even unoptimized.
How do you define "great"? If you mean better than average, then no, that doesn't strike me as ridiculous.
It doesn't strike you as ridiculous that there no are clerics with below-average common sense? Have you never heard of the trope of the cloistered priest who doesn't understand the outside world?
1. pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed, will build diplomacy over time
2. a Tsundere (i will be cranking that intimidate in this case)
3. a Himedere (i will be cranking up that intimidate in this case as well)
4. an OCD individual with Aspergers whom keeps quiet because she is too focused on the arrangement of the furniture (expect a high wis and a decent int)
5. a highly paranoid individual with a few delusions and bad habits
6. a cute character with a weak presence that is easily ignoredI wouldn't accept these. 1 and 6 both mention positive attractiveness, but if we read the Charisma stat, it says:
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
The way I read that, if you have a 5 charisma, your character should be less attractive than the average person (15% if you want to put a game mechanic to it.) The exact reason for that can be up to you, but you can't spin it into a positive. Saying your character is "pleasing to the eye, but shy and easily embarrassed" is a way of minimizing the Charisma stat, which is already minimized for a lot of classes.
Your PC can THINK they're "pleasing to the eye", but all of the NPCs would react as if your PC is less attractive than average.
I have no idea what 2 or 3 is, 4 I'm not qualified to speak on, and 5 I'm not sure how charisma relates to.
Keep in mind, you're never forced to have a low charisma. If you want to play an attractive character, put a higher stat in Charisma.
Those are anime terms. Not sure what they mean.
In my mind, a #1 or #6 is a PC with a 10 CHA (low average) certainly not a 7. I think you can easy justify a 10 as below average in some parts of what makes up CHA, and better in the others. As you get further and further from the mean this gets harder. 9? Ok, maybe. But I think playing a 5 as strikingly beautiful but with a flawed personality is stretching things too much.
Remember, the average among standard NPC's is 10.5. Among adventurers, leaders, etc, the average is 12.
No standard NPC has less than a 8 without racial adjustments. Thus a 7 stat is extremely exceptional.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what I am getting is that in order to have the dashing prince character you have to have good Str (because he is strong), good Con (he is a combatant), a good dex (otherwise he would be dead), AND a good Cha? Without dumping something else? Nice...
And for those who can't imagine a pretty person with poor Cha, just look at that attractive blonde bimbo who makes your brain cells commit suicide every time they open their mouths. or that stupid Guido Jersey guy who is ripped and looks hawt, but makes you want to jump off a bridge when they try to start talking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else remember the substat system from 2nd edition?
I will typically use an informal version of that for my games. Informal in that you still only have one stat modifier.
How do you define "great"? If you mean better than average, then no, that doesn't strike me as ridiculous.It doesn't strike you as ridiculous that there no are clerics with below-average common sense? Have you never heard of the trope of the cloistered priest who doesn't understand the outside world?
They aren’t spellcasters and adventure ring clerics. They do support, they are NPCs. Some of them even have a 8.
Some may even turn to the path of the paladin, whose skill with weapons is more important that Understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what I am getting is that in order to have the dashing prince character you have to have good Str (because he is strong), good Con (he is a combatant), a good dex (otherwise he would be dead), AND a good Cha? Without dumping something else? Nice...
The elite array is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8- or STR 14,13,12,10,8,15. Strong, agile, healthy, good looking, not terribly bright- and somewhat foolish when young. Very standard trope.
How do you define "great"? If you mean better than average, then no, that doesn't strike me as ridiculous.It doesn't strike you as ridiculous that there no are clerics with below-average common sense? Have you never heard of the trope of the cloistered priest who doesn't understand the outside world?
I don't imagine clerics fall into the cloistered priest trope:
Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods.
I think knowledge of the outside world would be more accurately reflected by intelligence (and knowledge skills.)
Common sense is different:
sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
So deities cannot favor common-sense lacking, cloistered priests with spells?
Also, why would a cloistered priest become a paladin? They are all about understanding, not swinging swords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you define "great"? If you mean better than average, then no, that doesn't strike me as ridiculous.It doesn't strike you as ridiculous that there no are clerics with below-average common sense? Have you never heard of the trope of the cloistered priest who doesn't understand the outside world?They aren’t spellcasters and adventure ring clerics. They do support, they are NPCs. Some of them even have a 8.
Some may even turn to the path of the paladin, whose skill with weapons is more important that Understanding.
Cloistered Cleric disagrees with you. There is a very legimate reason why a cloistered cleric may be adventuring for you. It would be for the exactly the same reason that a lot of wizards adventure, to look for lost lore and sacred artifacts.