Joana wrote: For "above and beyond" RP, like in your second example, it's a good place to offer an in-game reward from the people the party has helped. Maybe after the townsfolk are rescued and return home, they remember how kind the PCs were and the party can buy stuff in that town at a substantial discount from now on. Maybe one of the rescued NPCs had a great-grandfather who was an adventurer and has inherited a magic weapon of some kind that's been sitting in the attic for generations, and they give it to a PC. I had a PC in one of my games that encountered a non-aggressive ghost that was basically just there for flavor in the haunted smithy in the ruined town. The PC took the time to find out the ghost's story -- that he had died before finishing forging a sword for his son -- spent a rank in Craft when he leveled up, and finished the sword to lay the spirit to rest. Afterward, the ghost appeared to him to thank him and asked him to carry the weapon which turned into a ghost touch sword. This is an extremely awesome RP story -- kudos for coming up with such a story-focused reward, and kudos to your player for being conscientious enough to use a skill point to see it through. Sounds like a great time!
I'm not sure how applicable this is to your RotRL game, but I'm currently GMing a Pathfinder homebrew with three players that started at first level: a human magus, an elf rogue and a dwarven ranger. Yep, no ostensible tank or healer in this bunch, just like yours. When I brought this up to my players, one grudgingly suggested that he'd be willing to switch to a pally -- but I could tell that he really, really wanted to play his beardless, chaotic neutral dwarven ranger with a crossbow -- it's an RP-heavy campaign -- so I rolled up a cleric that I'm running as the party's healer. The last thing I wanted was a player saddled with a character he didn't really want to play. So far, it's been going pretty well. I've never ran a character while GMing before, but it's not been as difficult as I thought it might be. Plus, it's allowed me to add some RP elements to the campaign that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to provide. This cleric is rather klutzy and physically a mess, which, in a campaign that started with military training requiring plenty of Str- and Dex-based DCs, was pretty hilarious. :) Anyway, my point with all this is that running a character as a GM for the sake of party balance (and to avoid those awful TPKs) might not be a bad idea. It's more fun than you might think!
Drejk wrote:
I think we would have to ask our esteemed GM/OP whether this would constitute as "consuming all three at once." Dogbladewarrior, ruling please? :P
Dogbladewarrior wrote:
Spoiler:
Spam dipped in Dew slathered with mayo. BAM! Instant godhood ... if it doesn't kill you, that is.
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Seconding the plea for some links to online Slavic mythology material! The more I hear about the Slavic mythos, the more badass it seems -- also, reading loose source material before getting into the meat of a gaming product is a personal obsession. :D
If your player is dead-set on playing a full-blooded orc, for the simple sake of balance I'd suggest these stat bonuses: +2 STR, –2 INT, –2 WIS, –2 CHA. Within sensible limitations, I can think of some pretty cool options for an orc PC. As a GM, I'd also require a very specific character concept, as others have suggested. If the player just wants to play a lootin', plunderin', stereotypical orc, and you have more of a heroic campaign in mind, I wouldn't change the whole tenure of the campaign to accommodate one player's request. On the flip side, if you're running a more morally ambiguous campaign, even though the orc PC still should have some depth, there's probably more room for savagery. In fact, I could see an orc PC filling a niche role that could be very entertaining for you and your group. One last thing, and this is just what I'd do personally as a GM. If you're going to have your orc PC and its party interact in "civilized" cities, towns, or general societies, I'd keep the general rule of thumb that dwarves, humans, etc. consider orcs monsters to be killed. To counteract this, I'd also require the orc to take a certain number of skill ranks in disguise and bluff (an orc rogue would be cool), and perhaps also in diplomacy, depending on the character concept. Even with these skills, it's going to be tough going for an orc. A LOT of NPCs are going to take swings (or worse) at an orc, so make it fun and dangerous for the orc to interact in town, and give the party incentives to help the orc hide his identity. Maybe the orc actually ends up getting captured and your other players have to facilitate the orc's escape. Maybe the party has to make a decision to leave the orc outside the city gates so they can accomplish a key part of their mission (sucks for the orc player, so you should let him or her know this might happen in advance). In short, I don't think you should let a player play an orc exactly as they appear in most bestiaries, but neither should it not be an option. With some creativity on the part of you and your character, it could be a really fun time.
VonElric wrote: Is there a good site that converts the Paizo Adventure Paths to the Forgotten Realms setting!? Thanks! Let me also throw this wrench into your question: Are you looking to play in 3.5 Forgotten Realms, or the post-Spellplague, 4.0 Forgotten Realms? I really hesitate to say this (because overall I didn't like what 4.0 did to FR), but trying to stick something from an AP into a Plaguelands area might have some neat implications for you as the GM. Or, it might just cause everything to go up in giant, blue-tinted flames.
Starbuck_II wrote:
For what it's worth, the rules also say the paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such "an unusual alliance," meaning that either way, the paladin would need to atone at some point. It's just a question of whether the GM considers using an evil object for good the same as allying with an evil character for good.
Alzrius wrote: In other words, yes, your paladin committed an evil act when using an unholy longsword, and would suffer the consequences for doing so. I would tend to agree with this assessment. It's an inadvertent, rock-and-a-hard-place evil, but because any weapon imbued with unholy power is automatically evil-aligned, using an unholy longsword should still be considered an evil act for a pally. I don't think you can interpret the rules any other way. (Unless, of course, the GM wants to make a house rule to the opposite effect -- that would be a pretty specific and technical house rule, though, and probably would smack of favoritism as far as other players are concerned.) That said, I think the whole situation as outlined is going to cause the paladin to break his code. (I agree that a smite evil unarmed isn't going to do much damage here.) If he doesn't use the evil sword? Clearly that's a violation of the paladin's code, which requires him to aid those in need. Using the evil sword? Well, see the above. To me, even if the GM is willing to allow the pally to wield an unholy weapon without it being considered an evil act (and breaking the paladin's code), for roleplaying purposes most players I've been around would want to have their character seek an atonement spell anyway, even if they don't technically need it. I mean, think about it: Saving an innocent or not, the pally still was forced to wield the same weapon that an evil creature once used as their own. Or, at the very least, an evil creature created it for some nefarious purpose. That association alone would repel paladins -- you know, the folks whose entire existences are dedicated to wiping out such influences. So, basically, to me, the choices for the GM are: Allow the pally to wield the evil weapon without violating his code of conduct (and therefore not requiring an atonement spell), or go with the rules and wipe out the pally's spells and class features until he atones. I think the latter option stays more true to the paladin's concept -- where every act is either right or wrong, and there's no gray area -- but, of course, ultimately it's up to the GM.
JiCi wrote: Another request: that each and every monster published in the adventure paths that haven't yet made the jump into a bestiary gets added into the 4th one. Yes. This. I'm always paranoid I'm going to forget about a cool monster I saw somewhere in an AP because they're not in my bestiaries.
Dragonamedrake wrote: I have had several DM's have 1's do horrible things from hitting allies to broken weapons, and yes weapons that go flying. Yep, I had a DM do this, too. The stuff he would come up with for the 1s was always hilarious -- unless it was happening to me, and even then I appreciated the creativity. A particularly memorable moment was in a party with a minotaur who fumbled ... the DM essentially had him fall on an adjacent PC. Cue the "cow tipping" jokes. Even though the icrit/ifumble decks are available now, I still think I prefer homebrew flavor in this arena, because DMs/GMs (aka your friends) also can come up with material they know everyone will react to best.
Hobbun, I share your concern about the Gen Con registration. Last year, I was in the same boat: There were a couple of events our group absolutely HAD to get into. We waited for registration to open, submitted our list, and BAM! Gen Con's servers locked up. We eventually got into some of the events that we wanted, but the whole situation was pretty frustrating. This probably had to do with the fact that, later, Gen Con announced it drew something like 36,000 attendees in 2011 -- the most in its existence (and certainly the most in the six consecutive years our group had gone!). With those kind of numbers, you'd think Gen Con would boost its servers a bit this year. Sadly, I don't think this is the case. When badge ordering opened this year (I think it was on a Friday), I know we weren't actually able to get our order processed until that Sunday night. F-R-U-S-T-R-A-T-I-N-G! I'm just as happy with the PF/PFS events this year, but if the con's website is any indication, it's a toss of the dice whether we'll actually be able to get into the events we want. Don't know about you, but I think all we can do is hope and wait that May 20 won't be another registration disaster. |