Hello, I appreciate with weather and holidays everyone's busy and this isn't an emergency or anything.
But either I have never dealt with a sidecart or when I did it was years ago, and am not quite sure if I have to do anything more for it. I seem to have a bunch of items in my sidecart (I thought I purchased them) but they don't seem to be being sent. Is this part of the slowdown because of the holidays (we were given a heads up about that) or is there another step I need to take to get those products sent to me?
Are numbers available anywhere? Traditionally the RPG industry has been shy about publishing specific sales numbers. The closest I always found was ICv2, which just had a ranking of 1-5 for sales for a quarter and is often erroneously held up as an example of what's the greatest game at the moment. Like the Star Wars RPG pops up there whenever there's a Star Wars movie on the horizon.
However well it's doing, Paizo does seem like it could do more of a social media push, sponsor some/more live play of games and stuff. Those seem to be incredibly popular right now.
I haven't heard much about it but all the fandoms are pretty busy right now.
I imagine once they pull out a Kingmaker-like Adventure Path for 2e (or Starfinder, for that matter) you'll get more talk about 2e. Big old interesting things to draw attention for a bit of time, and Kingmaker's popular enough to do it. Some of the people who come to look will stay, others will find something else. Keep doing it and you've got a fandom.
Numbers don't matter, people will believe what they want, and online you'll always hear more people complaining than saying they like it. Give it some time to stretch and grow.
Villains and villainous organizations. I was kind of disappointed in 1e with how they were pretty isolated in their own spot and weren't big on expanding.
Looks like I need to catch up on 2e's setting changes, sounds like Tar-Baphon is mostly out, so that's a good step.
Basically it all stems from wanting motivations for why to have Character A outside of their homeland. Widespread, international plots are fantastic for it. Religions work really well, especially with the gods more prone to encouraging action upon the world.
“Why do you think Sarenrae is good aligned? She opened the Pit of Gormuz and left it open just so the Tarrasque and his brethren could escape. That means she’s clearly evil.”
Pretty much like the title says. Most of our experience with APs tends to be 'you are a good person, bad things are happening, you're getting pulled along by destiny to be the one who stops things from happening, so that the status quo can remain.' That's a cynical look at it but I'm sure you get the gist, it's standard adventuring fare.
However my players like loot. So their PCs like loot. And they are not a fan of morals. So while some are likely to want to play neutral, others are fine being flat evil. I see there's only one real 'you are evil' AP, Hell's Vengeance, but Skulls & Shackles seems like it might fit in with the moral-free looting.
And it's not just gold they want (though that's a big part of it), they want treasure. Magic items and artifacts. Which APs have increasingly enticing 'That legendary object is somewhere in those hills, and soon you're going to go out there and find it' feels to it, able to lure characters on with promises of power?
If an entire AP doesn't really jibe with the idea, perhaps there's just some that might fit in? A heist or attempt to loot a castle before the enemies break the siege?
Anyways I really appreciate any help directing me towards a satisfying AP (or module, really) for this. Third party ones are fine if they fit.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
It's because vampires have something called a blood bond. While traditionally transmitted orally (someone drinks a vampire's blood), it can be transmitted other ways (injecting like heroin, or sexually). There's no rules for stealthing off a condom, but there certainly are for convincing someone to do something they wouldn't normally want to do, and the sexuality of vampire has been something tied in with the game and the mythos of the creature since their origin, and people being uncomfortable about it is why they have things like X Cards. D&D introduced similar concepts in their 5th edition, as some people are known to take the violence inherent in the game to extreme levels. Though people taking things past the limit of their players consent is something that can appear in all games (notably someone got banned from the UK Expo for doing it with Things from the Flood, sort of a post-apocalyptic Stranger Things).
While you are obviously more than free to not play these games, most of them don't really delve into sexuality the way Vampire does, and that game is influenced by the fears of puritans from the time of Bram Stoker as much as they are Anne Rice and Laurell Hamilton.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
That's...reassuring, I guess?
Well, it means Matt McFarland he has nothing to do with the vast majority of books.
Isn't there a rule in the new Vampire the Masquerade called the "rubber hat" rule or something else relating to condoms? I heard the writing really leaned a lot more heavily into the "vampires as rape allegory" than previous iterations of the game, and part of that was due to his influence. I just worry that if I started getting invested in this stuff I'd metaphorically be stabbing his victims in the back by purchasing something he contributed to...
You might be the victim of misinformation here. While I'm not much of a fan of Masquerade, there is no 'rubber hat' rule. There's an appendix in the back that deals with Considerate play, including a variety of approaches to it, from the 'Lines and Veils' system where you state out what you're willing to and not willing to deal with in the game, or the 'X Card' where there's a piece of paper with an X on the table and if someone feels uncomfortable they can tap it and things will stop, no questions asked, as well as others to avoid people getting into uncomfortable situations. They attributed the creators of them, too, apparently.
I understand that because of this they've taken a lot of flak about making the game 'too safe' or whatever from people angry about games trying to make themselves more considerate to their players, which might have been where a comment on 'rubber hat' rules came from.
Also, as an artist who worked on completely different projects (they're on steam, though I forget their names) and hasn't been hired by White Wolf since you wouldn't be supporting him by getting an unrelated game like VtM 5. But Zak S is a pretty vile person so I can appreciate wanting to avoid an association.
I got into this thread because we've had a lot of 'edition warring' over the different games, so the prospect of older editions getting updated has been pretty tense, especially with some things gathering more steam on the social-media front. It would be like if Paizo started publishing 3.5 stuff and Dungeon and Dragon and opening a section of the forum. Entirely different issues than the metaplot issue, but the only solutions I have for that (that don't involve breaking the bank and reading profusely) are reading up on 'canon' stuff in synopses like I mentioned. Though, really, if people are talking down to others because they don't know that that the ruler of one city is elected and not based on open succession they're gatekeeping, and probably best avoided.
While McFarland worked on a lot of stuff it was pretty much all Demon the Descent, Beast the Primordial, and Promethean the Created (2e, which is a shame because 1e was received so well). Though people seemed to like Demon a lot, most of the complaints being that the demons don't resemble media depictions of demons (its technognostic robot demons, rather than sin and batwings).
Games like Vampire the Requiem and Werewolf the Forsaken were developed by different people (Rose Bailey and Stew Wilson, respectively) with nice groups of freelance writers from all over. And seem to like the stuff that's come out since he left, like Changeling 2e (I preferred 1e) and Geist 2e (massive improvements over 1e).
Also Zak S was hired by White Wolf to make some visual-novel type games for old World of Darkness stuff, and didn't actually work on books like Vampire the Masquerade.
All that said, regarding the 'metaplot' you could always find a thread with people who are focused on that stuff (pathfinder society and adventure paths seem to be the things with changes) and ask for a synopsis. It's how people have managed to get back into oWoD stuff, though I'm sure the companies would be pleased if you just bought pdfs of every first edition book there was.
Gah! Thank you so much, War for the Crown sounds exactly like what I'm looking for, if only I thought of this in seven months.
Is Jade Regent really hands on with the helping the heir?
I'm probably being too specific with this but I've only been off and on with Adventure Paths in the past few years.
From what I know Kingmaker is about building a Kingdom, and I know Curse of the Crimson Throne is basically about taking down a ruler. I have the first Jade Regent but from what little I've heard the rest is more of a babysitting mission than acting as champions for an up-and-coming noble.
Are there any adventure paths that revolve around helping a ruler, like of a downtrodden place, build the place up, or at least get their enemies off their back and reassert their rule?
Sad to hear it go.
I remember being so bummed when Dungeon and Dragon were being cancelled, especially after the awesomeness of the Age of Worms and Savage Tide. When Paizo went on their own, I thought it would go the way of all the OGL spinoffs. Instead they made something great and it kept getting better.
I've never been so pleased to have been wrong.
1. Yes, because it balances out the extremely varied power of their class abilities.
2. Traditionally, wizards have been involved with long years of study and Discworld's Sourcery (and the other discworld books), as well as the various depictions of magic in Glen Cook's universes and even the Vancian books make it somewhat clear that magic is a part of the universe, it requires training to use or abuse (somewhat like science) and thus you need guides and blueprints to do so, which are what spellbooks are. There are other tales (Merlin, for instance) that involve learning magic through a patron, but I imagine the game would become unfair if Sabrina was able to bring her demon lord patron down to a fight whenever she needed help, so having it brought through a pet is probably more fair. Also in various mythologies, where people have learned wisdom from animals or gods or gods wrapped in animal-bodies.
3. I'd be pretty disappointed in the system that did it, and probably wouldn't play it. I know there's a lot said about crunch and fluff, but in the end it's a game of storytelling. If you want to just put your coins in, buy your upgrades and have an ever-increasing power creep, there are games for that. And RPGs aren't one of them.
4. Yeah. 3.5, made it so wizards had to find spellbooks or scrolls to get new spells, rather than being gifted a couple upon level-up.
Hi, I had two questions. I tend to ramble too.
1. In my first Pathfinder game one of the players chose to be an Oracle and I found I really liked the class, especially the aspect-worship rather than the individual god worship. So I was wondering if it would be possible for an oracle to (I hate to use the word since it seems more in tune with paladins) fall? Like, if an oracle of battle became so disgusted by fighting he tosses away his weapons and becomes a preacher of pacifism? If so, mechanically, should it be handled like a paladin, where they lose access to their powers, or would they always be waiting? Obviously as a GM I could do whatever I wanted but thinking of an NPC and wondering if it's a feasible idea as oracles were intended.
2. Is there likely to be an evil book, in the vein of Evil and the Book of Vile Darkness? I really enjoyed Paizo's handling of it in the 2002 Dungeon and Dragon Magazines and in Lords of Chaos.
Creating a world and encounters and dungeons is hard enough in 2d. Once you add the element of the third dimension then things start getting more difficult to manage from a GM's point of view. In some cases something might have been overlooked. Or plans might go astray (lets say there's this big forest between you and BBEG's lair, and GM has the forest so you can get some experience before encountering her as well as find hooks for side adventures, now he has to come up with a series of flying random encounters).
When encountering this sort of thing some GMs are going to freeze up and not allow it, and some will improvise on the spot. Some will take either possibility out of the equation by banning the spell.
Frankly it just seems like something you should talk about to your GM. I've never known anyone to ban it from use and in more than a few years of GMing haven't ever banned it myself (though I have occasionally let out an exacerbated sigh).
While you may be right, I think the one after Jade Regent is pirates.
You'll forgive me for not linking it, but the AP after Jade Regent is Skull & Shackles. The one after that is Shattered Star (maybe? its what I heard but I have no reference for it) which is supposed to be a loose sequel to the Runelords thing. Maybe it's a space thing, though.
I don't see why you couldn't do it.
I'm fairly sure there's no rules specifically for grafting golem hands to people, but there's no reason you should let that hold you back. It's a game of imagination and having fun, after all. So as long as they don't overwhelm the game and make your character over powered (at least not without a drawback, I imagine you'd lose some manual dexterity and the sense of touch), it seems like it could be cool.
Deals could be made, especially if one is influential enough, to arrange it. If not the monk could just be a victim of a magical experiment.
Are those other folks who appear a lot in depictions of classes iconics?
I noticed in Ultimate Combat there was a sort of brutish-looking warrior who I thought appeared a lot. Also the guy in the Inquisitor archetypes (the Asmodean inquisitor), though he didn't appear in other artwork as far as I saw (without really looking for him).
There was a silver haired woman who was (I think) in the Inner Sea Guide that someone said was from one of the Adventure Paths.
Are they considered iconics or just...characters?
Alignment is easily one of the most debated topics in roleplaying, and straddles the line between descriptive element and rules element. How it is treated varies wildly; for some GMs it’s merely a two-letter description, while for others it’s a web of permissions and restrictions. Sorting out how this system works is important; it determines how players portray their characters, and how you as GM adjudicate certain aspects of the game.
Alignment exists primarily to define and summarize the moral and ethical tendencies of characters in a game, for both PCs and NPCs, and finds its roots in the fantasy literature that inspires most roleplaying games. Many characters in such stories easily fall into the camps of good or evil, but others straddle the line and seem good in one instance and evil in the next. Additionally, the relationship and outlook of these characters toward matters of law, justice, freedom, and anarchy further divides them. Just as one character might ignore society’s rules in order to do what he knows is right, another might work great evil by manipulating laws to his own ends. Alignment interpretations are endless, and ultimately lie with you as the GM at a mechanical standpoint, and with your players in how they define their characters’ morality. Some gamers favor strict alignments and black-and-white judgments, while others prefer a gritty, “realistic” game in which morality is relative, and well-intentioned “good” characters are capable of terrible atrocities.
Many of the debates spawned by alignment arise as the system moves beyond mere description to taking on a role that affects the game’s rules. While no real-world humans can say they’re entirely good or law-abiding, there exist creatures in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that are fundamentally good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and some magic depends on judging a character by its alignment. Because game effects are associated with an ultimately subjective system, you should make sure your players understand your interpretation of alignment ahead of time. The following are a few ways you might handle alignment in your game or use it to help players develop their characters.
< From the Gamemaster Guide.
Also, the Pathfinder SRD is open and available to all at http://www.d20pfsrd.com
I can appreciate that OP likes Dexter so wants to see the best in him, but the guy only follows the Code so he can fit in, and his struggle is mostly about not wanting to fit in.
Bald face lies to friends, family, 'loved ones', coworkers, killing people through dishonorable means (he ambushes them with drugs, then they wake up in a kill room, frequent (especially in later seasons) abuses of the 'Code of Harry,' including beating a random man to death because he was angry.
If he was a paladin, he would have fallen before his tv show started.
Yes, the alignment system is flawed. Mostly because, I believe, as the game has become more widespread it has gone beyond 'Go deeper into this dungeon.' So things are more complicated than 'killing evil is good, killing good is evil.'
And maybe it should be updated, but until something comes out that can satisfy everyone as to 'What is evil.' (ha) while also maintaining the Fantasy aspects of Good vs Evil, I think the current system is pretty easy to follow in terms of what is most likely to occur in the game.
Fear The Boot interview 17: Ryan Dancey is working on a fantasy MMO based on a successful hobby game property
CCP bought out White Wolf (the company that makes World of Darkness) a few years ago. This allowed White Wolf some slack in their publishing, with the understanding that they didn't have to put out as many books as they were putting out (a problem for some) and CCP would use the IP for whatever they wanted.
They announced a World of Darkness MMO a couple years ago. It is using the Vampire: the Masquerade setting, and as far as it is planned it is only going to be Vampire based.
They have kept specifics to themselves, but like in CCP's other MMO, EVE, they plan on the game being mostly run by players and the game revolving around player economies (economies of blood?). Also the graphics are supposed to look spectacular, and they've done a lot to allow for customization and fashion. There's some links on youtube you can find that will show some of the modelling and how fashion designers have been brought in to help or something.
And with a harsh DM, a Chaotic Good Paladin could theoretically fall for NOT lying. The problem is not with the paladin, but the DM.
I'd say the problem is the idea of the code of conduct. If a LG paladin could fall for lying (under a harsh GM), or incessantly disrespecting legitimate authority (under a more fair GM) a CG paladin would need something of similar magnitude.
And if you just inverted the code it wouldn't fit for chaotic good. But what would?
I wouldn't say love, but:
Evil's foothold in the world. It's a great start. Lovecraft's influence. The Runelords. Geb (the place and the man). Intellect devourers and phase spiders. The darklands. Cheliax. The Red Mantis. The aboleth and Azlanti. The Mwangi Expanse and Ruthazek. The daemons having some story and method behind them, despite the silly name. The Serpentfolk. Zon-Kuthon and Lamashtu and Norgorber. The death of Aroden.
Gnomes, I never liked gnomes until Golarion. That there's so much left unexplored. The Iconics (no one's mentioned it but the Inquisitor of Asmodeus in Ultimate Combat is so cool looking). Abadar and his priesthood just seems to make sense. Pharasma and her psychopomps. The geniefolk and their ilk and influence. The abundance of tropical areas. The other planets (which I suppose technically aren't about Golarion). Iomedae taking up the slack of her predecessor/god and being a paladin god. The Starstone.
Lawful Good Paladins only lose their powers for committing Evil acts. I don't see why Chaotic Good Paladins should be any different.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features.
With a harsh DM, a paladin could theoretically fall simply for lying (as that's counted as dishonorable).
Tyranny can also mean just abuse or arbitrary and unrestrained use of power. Which does not necessarily mesh with the usual Lawful Evil.
I've been primarily arguing against a Neutral Paladin idea, actually.
But yes I have gotten into it with the chaotics, so should probably respond. While I agree with you that freeing people from oppressive systems is tough, is a chaotic good paladin's code of conduct as restrictive as a lawful good paladin's? Forcing them to always have to free people from an oppressive system? Do they always have to disrespect legitimate authority as well? What about the lying/cheating?
Jeranimus Rex wrote:
And a neutral good or neutral evil one could be immune to many of the effects out there (protection from, dispel)
Incidentally I brought up the Code of Conduct because it was said "paladins weren't even close to Lawful." I wasn't suggesting it as a mechanical benefit.
I feel a lot like Zapp Brannigan here.
Jeranimus Rex wrote:
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
I think the first two support the lawful side, plus the spells, but yes. While I wouldn't say that paladins are not even close to lawful evil, I would definitely say that the good part trumps the lawful part. Which fits (laws being different as you move from city to city, but the 9point alignment system being pretty clear about what is good). Even the antipaladin: An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals. That's pretty forcefully evil but definitely chaotic, not the type of person who's going to fit into an ordered society.
Obviously the entire alignment system is wonky, but it fits for the games and the events likely to come up inside the games that it was made for. It's a shame that Lawful Good has become 'ultra good' and Chaotic Evil is 'ultra evil' simply because they are on the far ends of the scale (which is also a shame as it's not meant to be a scale type system with lawful being more good and chaotic being more evil).
Some classes focusing more on the law and chaos side of things I could see. They have it in the Hellknight prc, and maybe as some sort of extension of the Inquisitor.
I mentioned barbarians and antipaladins because you referred to chaotic gods, not just neutral ones.
And yes, being immune to more extreme attacks is a bonus of being neutral, and one of the additional costs you live with for playing evil or good.
My opinion is this: Having special paladin brands for every alignment wouldn't fit and would be unnecessary. Paladins are holy warriors, lawful good, their counterparts the antipaladins are unholy warriors, chaotic evil, and these represent powerful extremes of alignment. They've made choices, they cannot do the things everyone else does because it would not make them pure good or evil, but in turn they get benefits of those powers flowing through them.
What does a neutral person give up? What restrictions do they live by that suggests they should be empowered with the essence of neutrality?
That said? I think if someone really wants a neutral champion, that makes perfect sense for something that's home brewed, a house rule for your own campaign, but it doesn't seem like it should be forced in alongside the base classes as part of the core rules or something.
Druids, barbarians, antipaladins.
Frankly, most games reward picking a choice over neutrality, because it's harder to be good and be evil constantly rather than picking and choosing as time goes by.
Maybe it should be changed, sure, but surely not so they can have paladin abilities. As it is neutral-aligned folks are immune to more than a few things simply by being neutral. Someone pointed out above, smite evil is worthless against neutral opponents, and there's protection from good/evil/chaos/law, but not neutral.
The lack of progressive evil.
The primary evil nations of Cheliax, Geb, Irrisen and Nidal are all working on internal things or settled and don't seem like they're going to be out and invading in any foreseeable future.
Most of the great evils are contained or otherwise unable to act, an actual demon lord has made a presence in the Worldwound but is locked in, Rovagug is imprisoned, Tar-Baphon is locked away. The Runelords are asleep.
I realize these exist so you can make plot threads with them, but maybe I'm just too used to a metaplot or something. It just seems like the world is...static.
There was an old Dungeon adventure with an imp that did this. He dropped it on people passing beneath him. But I think he held it while he did it.
Also I should add, I always thought, perhaps due to the name, experience points were due to learning and thus experiencing different things. If there is a catch-all way to kill everything that involves coming into little danger, and it is used over and over again, then not getting experience points for using it makes sense.
Yeah. Curse of the Crimson Throne was built with 3.5 rules. So if you're using the Wail of the Banshee death effect of 3.5, you should be using the death ward effect of 3.5
In Pathfinder, Death Ward does give you a +4 morale bonus to saves vs death effects. But in Pathfinder, Wail of the Banshee also only does 10 damage per caster level (which can be impressive at levels 17 and 18) but isn't a death effect.
But to me, its silly in a game with warriors and gods and martial deities to not have the ability to play a paladin of a non LG alignment.
I believe the point of the paladin is that you're sacrificing a lot of the freedom of role play in order to get a lot of extra powers.
Paladins are, intrinsically, a strong class. Without even looking at smite and their auras, they can fight like fighters and heal themselves like (lower level) clerics.
In turn they have some restrictions in how they play their game. Sure there's many different ways to portray a paladin, but in the end you're not going to be lying or stealing and killing 1/3rd of alignments is frowned upon. And if you do these things, you lose all your abilities.
Whereas if you decided to be, hey, a chaotic neutral paladin, you are suddenly imbued with all the powers of a strong class, while also able to do anything you want. And sure, most people recognize that CN isn't just a free reign to play crazy or whatnot, but you have literally nothing holding you back. A chaotic character does not have to obey the law, but he does not have to break it, he can fit in anywhere, lie, cheat, steal, tell the truth, give to the poor and massacre orphans and orcs alike.