No more heroes anymore


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A quick question to you all are your characters heros in the game in the true sense of the word fighting evil because its the right thing to do risking life and limb to help the common folk
Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit


Man I was really hoping for a thread about trying No More Heroes stuff in pf; over the top bosses and suplexing enemies.

Anyway, I'd say my characters tend toward the former, but there are a lot more motivations beyond wanting to do good and wanting to get paid; it's not a dichotomy.

Silver Crusade

I have one character that's just in it for a good fight, but most if my characters have a noble cause they believe in, my Kingmaker Paladin wants to establish a crusader state to reinforce Mendev in the Worldwound, my PFS characters are all worshippers of Iomedae who believe that with the right Push the Society can be a very stabilizing force for Good in the world.

I like playing noble characters, real life is already full of compromise in grey areas that I find a little respite in playing a bastion of principle.


By no means are "all" of my characters pillars of moral character, but I do tend to lean more towards Paragon than Renegade.

I generally find that a little moral ambiguity helps add more nuance to otherwise bland, generically "heroic" cardboard cutouts. Make no mistake: the questing knight looking for wrongs to right and foes to fight is fun on his own, but so is the slightly-apathetic guy trying to make an honest-day's pay who only keeps getting involved because he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he chose not to do something when he could.

edit: Fixing typos.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I try to make my characters, regardless of class, be the hero. Why? Because it seems like if I don't, there would be no hero. At least with the people I end up playing with. Though it can be tough playing a hero character in a party with 3-5 "murderhobos" who will kill things because they tried to keep them from being a murderhobo, because "that's what Chaotic Neutral does!"

I groan every time I see a player with CN in their alignment. I also see people playing CG that way as well. Hell, I have seen a player have his NG character murder someone for no reason. And I usually have that Jackie Chan look on my face at least once per session (the one where he is squinting, with puckered lips and his hands in the air), and facepalm at least 3 times a session anymore.

I guess people just don't care to play the hero. Since they can't go on murderous rampages in real life, they decide to do so in game. If I wanted to go on murderous rampages in a game, I would play Grand Theft Auto.

Liberty's Edge

Most characters I see built are somewhere in the middle edging toward the heroic, they want to do Good and make whole piles of money while they're at it.

Which is the higher priority unsurprisingly usually depends on Alignment with Neutral characters more mercenary and Good ones more heroic, and I generally see about three Good to every two Neutral characters or so. So call it 60%/40%.

So...plenty of heroes around, yeah.


Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...


Well, I've got two characters running right now. One is a despondent ex-member of a powerful mercenary family who got out done and lost her birthright to her younger brother and is now just looking for things to help keep her from being bored.

My other character is a Monk who believes only in booze and happiness, and will go to every length to protect the happiness of others (so long as it doesn't infringe on the common good).

So... I tend to keep a little variety, yeah. I definitely find it easier/more natural to play towards the more chaotic side and will usually build characters along that route but I'm entirely capable of playing the top-left side of the alignment square... while trying to avoid Lawful Stupid with every exertion possible.


My characters are mostly in the good figth but almost never because of hero! One character atm is on the good side because he is scared of the rest of the party.
The other one is in the good figth because he belive him self to be the center of a great profecy and he is suspecting that he is destined to save the world. Yes he is just a bit self absorbed:) but where the scared guy sometimes try to get away or cheat party he never really goes thru with it because the others is watching him. The self important guy is great because he really belive him self to be good, he even have me convinced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I spent nearly a decade hosting games before I got the opportunity to play an actual player character. As a result of playing villains for so long (and thoroughly enjoying it all the while), I find my DM tendencies often sneak up on me and I end up making a character who is, at best, an antihero and, at worst, a villain whose aims just happen to be aligned with those of the actual heroes int he party.

Even so, I have played a few true heroes in my time.

What follows is a list of currently active characters I am playing at the time of this writing, their alignments, and general concepts.


  • Anna Grey, LG paladin and reformed pickpocket
  • Hama, NE quadriplegic sorcerer looking to become whole again via lichdom
  • Jackal Maulsons, LN magus artificer and arms dealer
  • Nives Burer, N greedy conman and spy known for his hedonistic tendencies
  • Pollivar Mormont, LG halfling giant slayer
  • Ruel Whealon, N summuner and ship's quartermaster


FanaticRat wrote:
Man I was really hoping for a thread about trying No More Heroes stuff in pf; over the top bosses and suplexing enemies.

Don't forget the lazer swords and humangous mecha and Aww man Henry's Finisher and all sorts of other awesomeness. You know you want a statted out Dr Peace.

Anyways, what I play varies with the campaign. I love playing a knight in shining armor and its whole motif, but I'm also partial to gray morality. I wouldn't say I fall all one way or the other.


K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

Oh, but if that's the only way to be a hero...

My bard had picked up an evil dagger that was a conduit to the Negative Energy Plane and host to all manner of evil undead. Over time, dark shadows and very evil outsiders were contacting him, offering him greater and greater power in exchange for more of his soul. With the guts and calculation of a professional gambler, he carefully did everything possible to make sure that any and all corruption only entered his soul, and didn't infect others. He then allowed for very specific pacts to be made, only to turn around and use his newfound powers to keep the evils trapped within, unable to come out. His body started physically wasting away and decaying because of this. He went from a happy-go-lucky ne'er-do-well with a talent for ending up where he wasn't supposed to, to a cold, grim codger fighting a constant internal battle with dark forces, happy to see another day pass where his friends knew nothing of his pain.

He did eventually find a way to pull himself free of the dagger's grasp and dispose of it. He did make sure that his friends never tasted the corruption. And, it's also why today he's a bard/witch.

But sometimes, the hero isn't a knight in shining armor, but a dirty, gritty gambler who in the end is just as pure.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

Oh, but if that's the only way to be a hero...

My bard had picked up an evil dagger that was a conduit to the Negative Energy Plane and host to all manner of evil undead. Over time, dark shadows and very evil outsiders were contacting him, offering him greater and greater power in exchange for more of his soul. With the guts and calculation of a professional gambler, he carefully did everything possible to make sure that any and all corruption only entered his soul, and didn't infect others. He then allowed for very specific pacts to be made, only to turn around and use his newfound powers to keep the evils trapped within, unable to come out. His body started physically wasting away and decaying because of this. He went from a happy-go-lucky ne'er-do-well with a talent for ending up where he wasn't supposed to, to a cold, grim codger fighting a constant internal battle with dark forces, happy to see another day pass where his friends knew nothing of his pain.

He did eventually find a way to pull himself free of the dagger's grasp and dispose of it. He did make sure that his friends never tasted the corruption. And, it's also why today he's a bard/witch.

But sometimes, the hero isn't a knight in shining armor, but a dirty, gritty gambler who in the end is just as pure.

Hence why I said I like gritty characters or characters thatr are not the obvious shining example of goodness (hence why I dislike Paladins).


"Anymore"? In 1e, the game mechanics stressed treasure hunting as the key to advancement. The more gp you looted, the more xp you gained. Starting in 2e and embraced fully in 3e/PF is the kill-for-gain paradigm in which you gain xp for defeating monsters. Frank Trollman and K recommended an xp-for-completing adventures paradigm, which would encourage you to complete heroic quests and discourage you from farming mooks for xp and/or stealing all the brass fittings in th4e dungeon; for some reason their idea never caught on.

So, "any more" implies some golden age of heroics in the game, which is historically inaccurate and borderline revisionist. Also, "hero's" is possessive; the plural word you're looking for is "heroes."


tony gent wrote:

A quick question to you all are your characters heros in the game in the true sense of the word fighting evil because its the right thing to do risking life and limb to help the common folk

Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit

Most characters I've played have goals or purposes, but usually not so broadly defined as "fighting evil", though of course many of them feel their enemies or antagonists are evil.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
"Anymore"? In 1e, the game mechanics stressed treasure hunting as the key to advancement.

You know this is one of those "good ol' days" nostalgia threads.

You will have a hard time swaying nostalgia-fueled memories of the way it was for the person who is using their memories to make assumptions about how it was for everyone else and how it should be for all of us today.


tony gent wrote:

A quick question to you all are your characters heros in the game in the true sense of the word fighting evil because its the right thing to do risking life and limb to help the common folk

Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit

Most of my characters are non-heroes, but it's seldom just about 'the gold.'

Some are normal people thrust into danger who adapt to it and just keep seeking the thrill and consummate reward.

Some are cynical anti-heroes who do it because it has to be done but who doesn't actually care about 'fighting evil' or 'the common people'

Some are false heroes who believe they're interested in the common folk, but really they're just greedy cowards who- under sufficient pressure- would sacrifice a child to save their own skin.

Then there are the very odd and rare true Heroes which probably make up about 2% of my PCs

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Until shopkeepers start accepting hero cred as payment for magic items, we'll need gold.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Until shopkeepers start accepting hero cred as payment for magic items, we'll need gold.

Shopkeepers sell magic items?

The Exchange

I tend to run characters who are flawed but generally heroic, though I've run occasional antihero characters.

I recognize that the PF system "rewards" behaving like a jerk (turning friendly NPCs into hostile NPCs makes them 'obstacles' that you can overcome to get XP) and a crazed hoarder (so you can plunder as many gp as possible to acquire magic items). Mind you, even in AD&D 2nd Edition there were other means to acquire XP, but most of them were in addition to those two, not replacing them.

If you as a Pathfinder GM are having trouble with characters engaged in 'pragmatic' murder and 'thorough' plunder, you may want to institute mechanics that encourage better behavior. Players tend to respond well to a chance to accumulate points of any kind; Ultimate Campaign's Honor system, or gaining Influence as detailed in the same book's Organizations chapter, or handing out Hero Points exclusively for genuine, classic heroism, are all ways you can encourage and empower heroic PCs. If you're up for a little more house-ruling, part 1 of Skull & Shackles provided an Infamy mechanic that rewarded piratical behavior, and that same system turned upside-down with a little house ruling could provide game benefits for characters who preserve lives, free slaves, give away resources and so forth.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Until shopkeepers start accepting hero cred as payment for magic items, we'll need gold.
Shopkeepers sell magic items?

Yes


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wrong John Silver wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Until shopkeepers start accepting hero cred as payment for magic items, we'll need gold.
Shopkeepers sell magic items?

The mysterious, seemingly-unaging witch who lives at the edge of town and occasionally sells ancient secrets and unique magic trinkets to heroes with more gold than survival instinct does technically count as a shopkeeper.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
Shopkeepers sell magic items?

In Soviet Golarion, magic items sell shopkeepers!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
OP wrote:
No more hero's anymore

Hero's what? Their sword? Bed roll? Tent? Mount?

Or did you mean heroes?

Ninja'd by Kirth, of course :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I am a traditionalist or old-fashioned. I have mostly played the "Boy Scout Do-Gooder Hero". It fits into my personal perspective about fantasy being the age old battle between good and evil; there is no moral ambiguity, you work to better the world or you don't. I'm not talking stupid good, but the type of good that always grants the benefit of the doubt...orcs are not slain, just because they are orcs.

I have played morally ambiguous characters, but they are a rarity, and a tiresome endeavor. Real-life is filled with grey, hell, with the exception of Superman, even comic books have become all about moral flexibility and flawed heroes willing to make the tough choice in the name of the greater good. I call it the Dark Knight effect.


I run my Inquisitor as Robocop.

Serve the Public Trust, Protect the Innocent, Uphold the Law.

Cash and treasure are just a means to aquire items to enforce these three prime directives. He doesn't wear or own any fancy/valuables except for stuff to crush Evil.

"Dead or alive you are coming with me."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gendo wrote:

Maybe I am a traditionalist or old-fashioned. I have mostly played the "Boy Scout Do-Gooder Hero". It fits into my personal perspective about fantasy being the age old battle between good and evil; there is no moral ambiguity, you work to better the world or you don't. I'm not talking stupid good, but the type of good that always grants the benefit of the doubt...orcs are not slain, just because they are orcs.

I have played morally ambiguous characters, but they are a rarity, and a tiresome endeavor. Real-life is filled with grey, hell, with the exception of Superman, even comic books have become all about moral flexibility and flawed heroes willing to make the tough choice in the name of the greater good. I call it the Dark Knight effect.

Most people call it the nineties, and that ended for comic books a long time ago. Maybe not for comic book movies, but certainly for a lot of mainstream comics. It may be a sharp contrast from the Silver Age, but the stories have become more nuanced. Now the Right Decision is more important because it's actually a decision. A more nuanced form of storytelling gives more opportunities to show just how exceptional a Hero is, and how that exceptional quality makes them both awe-inspiring and terrifying. Superman is awe-inspiring not just because of his vast array of superhuman abilities, but because he is incorruptible and always does what he believes is right. And that same quality makes him terrifying. In a world where there isn't a clear distinction between right and wrong, all a person can do is what they believe to be right. For a normal person, that means the occasional compromise. It means letting some things go because you can't do anything about them. To that sort of person, someone who unhesitatingly does what's right isn't just following their own beliefs, they're telling the world that their way is the correct way. Maybe they don't think it's the only correct way, but they know that what they do is right with the same conviction and certainty that we know the sky is blue. In such a setting, a Hero becomes like a god: powerful, different and, in many ways, alien and inhuman.

Stories didn't just become more morally-ambiguous. A more nuanced and realistic setting gives more allowance to show just how far-removed the heroes are from the rest of the world.


GoldEdition42 wrote:

I run my Inquisitor as Robocop.

Serve the Public Trust, Protect the Innocent, Uphold the Law.

Cash and treasure are just a means to aquire items to enforce these three prime directives. He doesn't wear or own any fancy/valuables except for stuff to crush Evil.

"Dead or alive you are coming with me."

I have a Paladin modeled after Judge Dread.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
GoldEdition42 wrote:

I run my Inquisitor as Robocop.

Serve the Public Trust, Protect the Innocent, Uphold the Law.

Cash and treasure are just a means to aquire items to enforce these three prime directives. He doesn't wear or own any fancy/valuables except for stuff to crush Evil.

"Dead or alive you are coming with me."

I have a Paladin modeled after Judge Dread.

On the flip side, I played a Paladin of Irori before there was Champion of Irori and Paladin of Irori. Kind of an interesting concept, but definitely fits the hero role. Defend civilization from the fringes and be an inspiration for others to reach their own enlightenment.


Neurophage wrote:
Gendo wrote:

Maybe I am a traditionalist or old-fashioned. I have mostly played the "Boy Scout Do-Gooder Hero". It fits into my personal perspective about fantasy being the age old battle between good and evil; there is no moral ambiguity, you work to better the world or you don't. I'm not talking stupid good, but the type of good that always grants the benefit of the doubt...orcs are not slain, just because they are orcs.

I have played morally ambiguous characters, but they are a rarity, and a tiresome endeavor. Real-life is filled with grey, hell, with the exception of Superman, even comic books have become all about moral flexibility and flawed heroes willing to make the tough choice in the name of the greater good. I call it the Dark Knight effect.

Most people call it the nineties, and that ended for comic books a long time ago. Maybe not for comic book movies, but certainly for a lot of mainstream comics. It may be a sharp contrast from the Silver Age, but the stories have become more nuanced. Now the Right Decision is more important because it's actually a decision. A more nuanced form of storytelling gives more opportunities to show just how exceptional a Hero is, and how that exceptional quality makes them both awe-inspiring and terrifying. Superman is awe-inspiring not just because of his vast array of superhuman abilities, but because he is incorruptible and always does what he believes is right. And that same quality makes him terrifying. In a world where there isn't a clear distinction between right and wrong, all a person can do is what they believe to be right. For a normal person, that means the occasional compromise. It means letting some things go because you can't do anything about them. To that sort of person, someone who unhesitatingly does what's right isn't just following their own beliefs, they're telling the world that their way is the correct way. Maybe they don't think it's the only correct way, but they know that what they do is right with the same conviction and...

I am a bit surprised by my internal reaction to reading your perspective. Even after letting it sit for a 10 minutes and reading it a second time, I am having almost visceral dislike to the part with which I disagree. I agree the stories have become more nuanced, but not in the same way. You say that it shows how exceptional and terrifying a Hero is...this is where I have the almost visceral disagreement, I say it presents Heroes as being more human - flawed and trying the best they can with what is before them. For me, the more Human something is, the less exceptional and extraordinary. It is definitely a perspective founded in how stories were presented in the 80s and early 90s when I was still a snot nosed kid.


When were there ever truly good characters? The ones of my group now are only good via technicality and only not considered mass murderers because of who they killed. Yeah, they'll level a town in the process of trying to save it... but they still save it.

Then again, they do often try things that are very imaginative that heroic characters wouldn't do. Like altering catapults to be acid-resistant so they could launch gelatinous blobs into the middle of an evil army's ranks.


Depends quite a bit. Out of the ones that could be considered good:

One character hunts evildoers with little concern for much else, he's doing it mostly for his own self-satisfaction and the bounty money.

One fight for good to redeem his sinful past. Would have made him avoid violence, but the campaign he's in is just a dungeon romp with little to do asides combat and difficult combat at that (one character already died, twice) so... hands tied.

One wants to be a hero for the recognition hand getting stories written out of himself, though he also does it just to help people. He helps, but isn't 100% altruistic and tries talk rather than violence (asides one time the main villain had just killed his father, so he was pissed and was then tricked to also killing his best friend)

One robs people blind and always reserves the biggest share of the treasure, but also helps the downtrodden since he used to be one and knows how it feels.


Almost all my characters are heroes, even when they are evil... then they're just fighting for the wrong side.

I have had "righteous" PC's who like "the ends justify the means', true.

Everything being "Dark & gritty" is just a a phase, and one which is already outmoded.

Liberty's Edge

K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

Except that that's far from the only way to play a Good character. Batman's easily as Good as Superman, and a much more intriguing character. Ditto a dozen or a hundred other possible examples from a host of fictional works.

Lincoln Hills wrote:
I recognize that the PF system "rewards" behaving like a jerk (turning friendly NPCs into hostile NPCs makes them 'obstacles' that you can overcome to get XP) and a crazed hoarder (so you can plunder as many gp as possible to acquire magic items). Mind you, even in AD&D 2nd Edition there were other means to acquire XP, but most of them were in addition to those two, not replacing them.

Uh...by the rules, making allies of someone also counts as 'overcoming' them for xp purposes. So while hoarding is rewarded, being a jerk not so much.

MagusJanus wrote:
Then again, they do often try things that are very imaginative that heroic characters wouldn't do. Like altering catapults to be acid-resistant so they could launch gelatinous blobs into the middle of an evil army's ranks.

That's ingenuity, not being un-heroic. Heroes often demonstrate loads of ingenuity.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The vast majority of my characters are Good, whether paladin or barbarian or anything in between. The entire money/loot/treasure aspect of the game honestly just gets in the way more often than not. The "kill things and take their stuff" aspect has never appealed to me.

has angered some players in the past by giving wealth away to those in need and focusing on saving people rather than our own convenience

does not play with those people any more

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I also expected this to be about another Travis Touchdown game...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tony gent wrote:

A quick question to you all are your characters heros in the game in the true sense of the word fighting evil because its the right thing to do risking life and limb to help the common folk

Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit

Like there's no middle ground between the two?

Shadow Lodge

tony gent wrote:

A quick question to you all are your characters heros in the game in the true sense of the word fighting evil because its the right thing to do risking life and limb to help the common folk

Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit

Yes.

Truthfully I like to play the type of hero discribe in tbe first part of your post.


I've had characters fight the good fight for no other reason than they were told to do so, others because "it's the right thing to do", others because the rewards are big enough to take the risks, and even others because they relish the thrill

they were ALL heroes, in the true sense of the word. Just look up the definition of the word "hero"


Note to Self: Next PF character will be Travis Touchdown.

I haven't played a character in a while, but I think my last character was a Tiefling Paladin that was, like a poster above, very Robocop. He was a bit gruff, but he was still good. He didn't do the hole questionable ethics thing. Before that, two evil characters, a neutral character that was really mean, some good characters.

I guess I just have a mix. If I ever get a chance to play, my next character is going to be an almost naively good Druid sword fighter. There's always room for solidly good heroes.


I very seldom get to play as a player (something I mean to amend).

My last 3 long term characters were a CN XAositect (Planescape hedonist).

A LE monk (homebrew) who was cruel, manipulative and utterly honorable in everything he did. Selfish and greedy in a way but brutally honest and not unwilling to share the burdens of his friends. The party was already evil heavy when I joined (my first experience with this long term, where it was more than a joke).

And recently a Paladin of Sarenrae. This character is heroic but in a way that is unusual. The DM is female and really dislikes the class. We discussed the character before I joined the group, which was well established with one evil member and several "morally ambiguous" types. The class fit with the goals of the storyline but it was requested that I not play a Dudley Do Right or a sermonizing cliche. I basically picked out the personality of the Eagle Scout you grew up with, but never really hit it off with who later joined the US Army and made Special Forces in less than 8 years. He's somewhat myopic in worldview. I played him just slightly sexist (we have a very vocal feminist in the playgroup, the DM suggested this) as a counter to the parties Abjuror, who he sort of pairs off with in combat oddly. His level of Moral Certainty makes him a little frightening but his tendency to account for the group's actions personally has been an enjoyable experience.

I'm not sure that Heroic has always been common place with the groups I've played with. It was when i was younger, but its slowly eroded some with time. As a DM I prefer storylines that promote choices that have ramifications in the greater scheme of things. Making those choices in a way that changes how a character views himself/herself is sort of my goal as a DM. I do recognize that sometimes a good ole' Dungeon Crawl is what's best for everyone but across a campaign Arc, there needs to be some Moral or Ethical undercurrent as these are the enemies that are actually a challenge for adventurers.


I pretty much always play the heroic types, but they're rarely the perfect knights in shining armor. Even my Paladins get pissed off and make enemies and form grudges and can be petty.

Partially why I play the hero is because I can't think of a way to have a character in Pathfinder/D&D and have them be all about the gold and getting money and have it make any sense. I mean, by the time you finish that first dungeon (or, at the latest, hit level 5) you've got so much money you could never work another day in your life and still be fairly comfortable. To me, that means there needs to a be a deeper motivation than "I want money" even if it is just as selfish.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
tony gent wrote:
Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit

I actually have to focus myself to NOT roll a noble hero unconcerned with remuneration for his deeds.

When the party ninja was dragged unconscious underground, I forgot my bard was CN and leapt into the hole in an attempt to save her. A number of painful rounds later, the ninja was dead despite my best efforts. It was a foolish thing to do, but as the motivational poster claims, "Chaotic Neutral: Might save your life, might steal your car".


TriOmegaZero wrote:
It was a foolish thing to do, but as the motivational poster claims, "Chaotic Neutral: Might save your life, might steal your car".

Or both!


might steal your car in order to save your life, 'cause you're to drunk to be driving it anyway?

Sovereign Court

I generally play people. Mostly CG. So my characzers will help those in need.
No heroes though.


Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
might steal your car in order to save your life, 'cause you're to drunk to be driving it anyway?

Might steal your car as payment for saving your life.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
might steal your car in order to save your life, 'cause you're to drunk to be driving it anyway?
Might steal your car as payment for saving your life.

Might steal your car because you saved his life. You know, because.


TOZ 's example is what i mean about a hero going in to danger regardless


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. I'm fully aware of how CN is "Might save your life. Might steal your car." But then there's the horde of players of "CN" characters who are "Will steal your car. Probably won't save your life. Totally random! Who knows what will happen?"

If I have to deal with that, I think I might show up with sealed envelopes to a session. If I can successfully predict what the PC is going to do at multiple points throughout the adventure, inside the sealed envelope... Woohoo! You're not CN!


My last do gooder hero was actually LE tiefling, who tried to make proof that she is not what she looks like. Fun to roleplay and she did gave quite brain hurt both GM and the one playing paladin.

It wasn't her fault, that she ended being a lover-toy of queen of Korsova. It was result of running into final battle without plan or preparation. Never try end the game when you running out of time and energy.

1 to 50 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / No more heroes anymore All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.