Season 9 Speculation


Pathfinder Society

101 to 137 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

His later scenarios make him more sympathetic but you only really know that if you GM the scenario. His backstory of how he got burned is horrifying.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Contains some actual dialogue from Rivalry's End:
For me, I think the main thing that makes Torch's dialogue come off as somewhat sarcastic, or at least dismissive, is that he doesn't thank the Shadow Lodge characters for their tireless work to hold the Decemvirate accountable. Nor does he implore them to continue that work. Instead, he thanks them "for trusting in me and diligently helping me burrow my way back into the good graces of the Decemvirate.” He's thanking them for helping him fool the Decemvirate long enough for him to get the information he needs. Not, "I thank you for doing the work the Decemvirate should be doing and protecting your fellow Pathfinders. I hope that you will continue to hold the Ten accountable. As for me, now that I have some information about them, I can achieve our goals more effectively on my own. Forgive me for what I must do." Or something similar.

Aside from the ending, I don't think the scenario is as terrible as it's made out to be. There are some mildly annoying tactics in one of the fights, but other than that, it's ok. It is not the equal of Way of the Kirin, even setting aside the ending. But that is an exceptional scenario by most any measure.

General Shadow Lodge metaphor, especially season 2:
I started playing in Season 3, so the Shadow Lodge was already a faction. But having played a good number of the season 2 scenarios now, the Shadow Lodge wasn't straight up evil, even then. There was a split in the Shadow Lodge, and a portion of it was acting evil. But there were also other prominent people associated with the Pathfinder Society who were members of the Shadow Lodge and who continue to be associated with the Society even now (at least one, anyway). The Shadow Lodge also had vanities and traits that were the first to really encourage helping the party instead of just yourself. That's been surpassed by the Silver Crusade now, but at the time their focus was slightly different. My former Shadow Lodge character has the trait to make Aid Another +3 instead of +4 (couldn't bring myself to make him adopted by Halflings). And he's got the Spirit of the Shadow Lodge boon, so may pick up other vanities yet. Partially due to the way Rivalry's End went, and partially due to not quite having the build figured out (Bodyguard sword and board Fighter who ended up not doing enough damage), he's still only 4th level, so very much still active and representing the Shadow Lodge ideals, now as a member of the Silver Crusade, which I think is a much better fit than Grand Lodge.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
His later scenarios make him more sympathetic but you only really know that if you GM the scenario. His backstory of how he got burned is horrifying.

If we are thinking of the same scenario, (Destiny of the Sands 2), I've always read it as information that the PCs can very well learn if they research, explore, or speak to Sellana.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:


They really need to both retire <ban> that scenario and write it out of existence. Worsf scenario ever.

On the advice of a few of my PFS 'mentors' I am *not* playing that scenario because it apparently takes liberties and does things to NPCs and plot that are at best unwholesome, at worst obscene.

This is based on the assessment of folks whose opinions I trust.

I do not agree with this assessment at all. Just because a plot line or personality development surprises you or doesn't do what you want or you don't like it, does not make it a liberty or obscene.

I thought the developments were appropriate.

Scarab Sages 4/5

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't say that the scenario needs to be avoided. Especially at this point. If you have no strong ties to the Shadow Lodge, it's not really going to feel that different than any other scenario. Just don't go into it with your former Shadow Lodge character expecting a grand, satisfying end for the faction. Other than that, it's probably a 2 or 2 1/2 star scenario. Average or slightly below depending on if your party is prepared for the particular tactics, but definitely not unplayable.

It wasn't the ending people wanted for the faction, and a lot of people hate the scenario because of that, which I understand. But without any real loyalty to the Shadow Lodge, it's just another average one off scenario that fills in a little information from the season 2 and 3 metaplots.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Katisha wrote:


But his final speech is only sarcastic if it is potraied that way by the judge. I take it as strait up. And with no degree of insinuation.

So... people "know" he is a jerk because of what he DOESN'T say - just what they think he ment, because of the way the judge said it. Riiiight....

It is *very* easy for GM personal bias to bleed into characterization.

VERY easy.

I am very guilty of this.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It "surprised" people in the same way that "Rocks fall, you die, no save" surprises people, and then tries to wrap it all up in this very contrived way that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Scarab Sages 5/5

DM Beckett wrote:

It "surprised" people in the same way that "Rocks fall, you die, no save" surprises people, and then tries to wrap it all up in this very contrived way that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It made sense to me.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

Tallow wrote:
It made sense to me.

My only problem with Rivalry's End is the tense. "Made" sense. It was huge and awesome for me when I played it at the end of Season 4.

I just played Shadow's Last Stand Part 2 yesterday. (Finally! Last Season 2 I've been trying to play for years!) I was trying to explain the story to a newer player and realized just how convoluted it was at that point.

I have been playing since Season 2, so for me the plot made sense even if I missed a scenario here and there.

It's in The Story so Far but just in case:
Shadow Lodge is a group of infiltrators trying to discredit the Society for personal gain, Torch sells out the Shadow Lodge to the Decemvirate and gets made a Faction head. He does that for a couple of years while he gathers information and personal power, then eliminates some rivals strikes out on his own in an even more advantageous position.

But in the jumbled order that most people play older scenarios nowadays, you don't have a couple of years to adjust to Torch as a faction head and the Season 2 backstory on how that came to be.

Scarab Sages 5/5

I don't disagree with that Kevin. But even after playing out of order and trying to make sense of it all, take g everything into context with also the Destiny of the Sands info, the story all falls neatly into place. It just requires looking at everything in the proper context rather than your own personal timeline.

Like would you be pissed if you started watching your favorite show in season 3, and your favorite character betrays everyone in season 4? Maybe, but that's more motivation to go back and binge watch 1 and 2 so you can try and determine the motivation.

The only real issue with this analogy is that you have to wait for season 5 to realize the true motivation. But at least 1 and 2 show what a complete bastard the character really is, and actually the altruistic union head is the lie.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have yet to see any plausible reason for torch to burn the bridge instead of just telling the pathfinder "see you next union meeting, your turn to bring the doughnuts"

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I have yet to see any plausible reason for torch to burn the bridge instead of just telling the pathfinder "see you next union meeting, your turn to bring the doughnuts"

Simple answer: He is a man driven by a personal vendetta against the leadership of the society which means he might not act complete rationally.

Getting what he considers his personal triumph and savoring the moment was more important for him than keeping up the deception.
I think working with people he despises took a lot of effort and he was happy he no longer needed to do that.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

torch stuff:
And he gets that by showboating in front of a bunch of lower level pathfinders and tipping his hand to the 10.. how? thats not irrational thats stupid and counter productive.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I have yet to see any plausible reason for torch to burn the bridge instead of just telling the pathfinder "see you next union meeting, your turn to bring the doughnuts"

Spoilers for Rivalry's End:
It comes down to Dorianna Ouidda and the secrets she has. Once he gets the information Torch flat out kills her to keep anyone else from learning the secrets. If he's the only one who has the information, it's immensely valuable. For Torch with his vendetta against the Decemvirate it's more valuable than remaining a trusted member of the Society. Waiting for the PCs to leave and then killing her would be cleaner but he doesn't know when other Pathfinders - particularly Guaril - will be returning so he may not have much time. Once he kills her the bridge is well and truly burnt.

The assumption when you play a PFS scenario is that the PCs will win. But "Torch's assumption" is that his bodyguards will succeed in driving off the PCs and can then dispose of the body in ways that will make magic far less useful.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Coffee and doughnuts would take the exact same time as what he did.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Real people make very complicated decisions for complicated reasons. They don't always make complete sense if all you use is logic or the best possible thing to do.

With that in mind, I'd rather play a game where the personalities I interact with make imperfect and complicated choices rather than simply being caricatures that always min max thier choices.

That being said, why can't his decision be a min maxed choice if he accomplished his end game. If he doesn't need the society anymore and it is viscerally distasteful for him to interact with them, why would he choose to do so except for purely manipulative reasons (i.e. Destiny of the Sands)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Another very key point about his motivations is that he doesn't hate the Pathfinder Society. He hates the Pathfinder Society's leadership, because they DotS2 reasons.

Dataphiles 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As stated Torch is complicated. His main goal was to get his revenge on the Society's leadership, but as long as he was there he was alright with standing up for the rank and file. Sure part of the reasoning was self serving as it won him trust, but I think he genuinely wanted to prevent a repeat of what happened to him. My former Shadow Lodger would be perfectly fine with working with Torch again. I don't agree with everything he's done, but after what he went through I don't blame him for wanting to get even.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
But at least 1 and 2 show what a complete bastard the character really is...

Citation needed. I can't think of a single scenario in either season where he was worse than a standard PC.

Kevin Willis wrote:
The assumption when you play a PFS scenario is that the PCs will win. But "Torch's assumption" is that his bodyguards will succeed in driving off the PCs and can then dispose of the body in ways that will make magic far less useful.

And it's a damn stupid assumption, since most Pathfinders would have gladly stabbed her for him and then asked when the celebratory bar crawl starts. Most of the people I know looked at the GM and asked "why exactly are we rolling initiative?"

Shadow Lodge 4/5

We should probably get back on topic. :)

I know its largly my fault.

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
But at least 1 and 2 show what a complete bastard the character really is...

Citation needed. I can't think of a single scenario in either season where he was worse than a standard PC.

Kevin Willis wrote:
The assumption when you play a PFS scenario is that the PCs will win. But "Torch's assumption" is that his bodyguards will succeed in driving off the PCs and can then dispose of the body in ways that will make magic far less useful.
And it's a damn stupid assumption, since most Pathfinders would have gladly stabbed her for him and then asked when the celebratory bar crawl starts. Most of the people I know looked at the GM and asked "why exactly are we rolling initiative?"

I had one group that drew weapons and ... covered the exits (windows and door), so that GMT could get away safely. They "covered his withdrawal". They were sure they were going to be attacked by forces loyal to the Spider there to recover the body and bring her back from the dead. After all, GMT had teleported away, and the Faction Leaders always do that before "the final fight" so that the PCs get to fight it alone.

Saw another where one of the players was really p%$#@d off, "How come he gets to kill her instead of me? You mean I could have wacked her myself? D*&^'it! GMT stole my kill!"

But those games are more than balanced by the ones where one or more of the PCs play the entire scenario openly antagonistic to Grand Master Torch. Insulting him (and his body guards) during the briefing, and trash-talking him to the other players during the rest game.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
But at least 1 and 2 show what a complete bastard the character really is...

Citation needed. I can't think of a single scenario in either season where he was worse than a standard PC.

This is incorrectly making the assumption that the standard PC is not also a nasty piece of work.

but I can think of Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch where he really is a nasty piece of work. The backstory in that one is enough for me to realize he's not in this to help Pathfinders at all, but rather to line his own pockets with power and wealth at the expense of others.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, not as I read it. Add in the fact that he had no reason to help Pathfinders back then and I find his evolving character makes perfect sense up until Rivalry's End.

Your view of PCs also does not align with mine. Murderhobos are far less common at my tables than your standard "is there something in it for me?" character.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Guy who makes living selling information wants to be paid for information...

that bastard! Doesn't he know we're the PCs?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
But at least 1 and 2 show what a complete bastard the character really is...

Citation needed. I can't think of a single scenario in either season where he was worse than a standard PC.

The one with the minotaur was pretty bad. It was worse than your average pc, probably at "that one "not evil" guy at the table level bad.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Tallow wrote:
But at least 1 and 2 show what a complete bastard the character really is...

Citation needed. I can't think of a single scenario in either season where he was worse than a standard PC.

The one with the minotaur was pretty bad. It was worse than your average pc, probably at "that one "not evil" guy at the table level bad.

One of the last faction missions ever was basically 'here put this on there so I can spy on the deciverate'

5/5 5/55/55/5

Thomas Graham wrote:


One of the last faction missions ever was basically 'here put this on there so I can spy on the deciverate'

That's more smart than evil...

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


One of the last faction missions ever was basically 'here put this on there so I can spy on the deciverate'

That's more smart than evil...

Not when you consider what he did the next month.. he's looking for ways to do the same thing SOMEONE else tried to do.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


One of the last faction missions ever was basically 'here put this on there so I can spy on the deciverate'

That's more smart than evil...

Isn't that mission the one where you are supposed to put it on an evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil item? Its really not even that smart of a tactic because if the Decimervate isn't up to evil themselves he can't really scry on them because it would be locked up in 20,000 layers of security.

1/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MadScientistWorking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:


One of the last faction missions ever was basically 'here put this on there so I can spy on the deciverate'

That's more smart than evil...
Isn't that mission the one where you are supposed to put it on an evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil evil item? Its really not even that smart of a tactic because if the Decimervate isn't up to evil themselves he can't really scry on them because it would be locked up in 20,000 layers of security.

I'm not familiar with the situation, but putting a tracing bug of some sort on something that is really bad so one can monitor who is using the something that is really bad seems like really good sense, imo?

Liberty's Edge

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

Season 4 best season so far.

We really need a repeat. Super great end of the year Mod (Krune!)

Super great AR's. Ton's of flavor, and great over all arc.

Mimic this season for greatness!

Agreed. Then again, I love everything Runelords.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want the inevitable return of Torch to be a Tier 7-11 so my Shadow Lodge paladin can take part in it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
I just want the inevitable return of Torch to be a Tier 7-11 so my Shadow Lodge paladin can take part in it.

When all you have is a shovel and a dream...

Silver Crusade 4/5

TOZ wrote:
I just want the inevitable return of Torch to be a Tier 7-11 so my Shadow Lodge paladin can take part in it.

If it's a 12-15, then my level 14 Shadow Lodger will come out of retirement just for that. Of course, then I'd have to actually level him up to 14 - I have no idea where I left off with that one mechanically, since it's been 4 years since I looked at him.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clearly, we must kung-fu fight to determine who gets the honor.

(Actually, Tier 12-15 would let my Shadow Lodge Life Oracle dress him down for his actions.)

Scarab Sages

Mark Stratton wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
Wait. Are we back to tying the season's theme to an AP? I thought we got away from that.

It's back!

According to the Paizo Banquet Preview dinner we are interweaving the PFS plot-line directly with the AP plot line "for the first time."

I think this means it won't just be the same theme or support but to get the full story of the war for Taldor you'll have to play the AP, PFS and the PACG Organized play season.

If so, that now requires a much greater investment of time to do all those things. I barely have enough time to play the RPG. So, if I can't play the AP and the ACG, for example, I can get a portion of the full story but not the whole thing? That's...disappointing.

Good question. Is there a spoiler summary for each Adventure Path, somewhere on the internet?

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

On the Adventure Path page, perhaps?

101 to 137 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Season 9 Speculation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.