Comrade_Bear's page

In Australia the State of Queensland refuses to have daylight saving.

They claim it is because the extra sunlight fades their curtains and makes the grass grow to quick so they have to cut it more often.

In reality we know its because they are lazy sods that refuse to get up an hour earlier.

Actually its more to do with health concerns. Most children’s outdoor activities, such as school lunch breaks, sports matches, physical education and travelling home, are still concentrated mostly between 1 and 3 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST). On daylight saving, these would be automatically shifted forward — well into the day’s peak UVR period, and at the hottest time of the year. Using the UVR graphs published by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety agency, this shift in time doubles the UVR exposure risk.

edit: I'm a queenslander living in the north of the state and you can take your daylight savings and shove it haha

Brisbane, Australia

I remember one event that happened in everquest. The dark elves of neriak led an invasion of the commonlands and then onto freeport, and my dark elf necro was there leading the charge. Was a wild battle between the forces of evil and the local town. A similar event happened a few years later in kunark where the force of evil took over the main port town for the forces of good, permanently. Was alot of fun running beside members of lore that were being controlled by GMs in the assault.

If raising the undead is a heinous act, and in order to be able to raise the undead you need to be taught, wouldn't having a building in your settlement that is training people to raise the undead make your settlement heinous?

Comrade_Bear wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.

Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.

Even less logical. When a player, puts up his money to put a bounty on someone. The player is putting his money up, specifically to inconvenience and make things worse for the person who killed him. This already borders on petty, with risks of the target losing less from his death than the bounty is worth, with no actual gain to the placer, but then adding in an option to collect the payment for the bounty, while inconveniencing the person who the placer wants revenge on even less?

This would essentially make the bounty system entirely worthless, and move all business of this nature to assasinations, which will have greater penalties then normal kills to the target.

If by apprehending them you are causing them to respawn, much as they would if they had fought and died, but at a jail/guardpost, losing all stolen equipment, with the possibility that it would be returned to the victim, or at least some sort of fine how is this incoveniencing the bounty target less? It is essentially the same result as killing them without the associated murder and mayhem

Comrade_Bear wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.

Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.

I mentioned in another thread, a while back, that there should be subduing damage. This would allow you to loot, collect a bounty or apprehend without having to kill the target.

Problem is, Ryan Dancy has already posted that there will not be Non Lethal pvp, so in that case subduing damage is currently off the table.

Since it maybe something we can all see a benefit of having, perhaps we can push the issue a bit more and do that together?

Totally agree it should be in the game, I mean I mentioned in the non lethal duels thread that there are a multitude of methods for doing non lethal damage in the PnP game, feats spells etc that it shouldn't be too hard to include it as an option

Just as another example of deities promoting a more violent form of justice, Sarenrae, who has the portfolio that includes Sun, Redemption, Honesty and Healing also understands the need for violence.

"Yet there are those who have no interest in redemption, who glory in slaughter and death. From the remorseless evil of the undead and fiends to the cruelties born in the hearts of mortals, Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary."

So even if violence isn't in the portfolio good gods see the need for a more final form of justic.

The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.

Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.

Theres plenty of mechanics in pathfinder that allow for non lethal damage. Half orc paladins can be a "redeemer" which changes their smite evil to do non lethal damage. Theres a spell that specifically does only non lethal damage, and a fair amount of it at that. Feats that take away the -4 for rolling to do non lethal, metamagic feats to make it non lethal. Its not like there aren't mechanics floating around that could be incorporated in to make this happen.

The difference in a politician and a bandit is that the bandit is actually honest about his occupation.

That and the bandit is more likely to stab you to get what he wants

Maybe there could be a means to deal subduing damage, knocking out the targets. Which would not trigger the flag or other consequence systems.

Your thoughts.....

I would have thought even using a stand and deliver method of stealing would still flag you for criminal activity, because, well you ARE still performing a criminal act aren't you?

Aven Galan wrote:

Yea, I guess you have a point. Cavaliers can be CG right? Just want to know because I want to have a knight type character that is CG. Also, regarding the blog post I have a question: From what they said, it sounds like the only people who will be flagged are "evil" people. If I am (lets say) a paladin and I see a necromancer who is minding his own business walking down a road and I jump out and attack him (because he is evil and I am a freakin paladin) I would then get flagged as an attacker (right?) then once he is dead I would be flagged as a criminal? Or am I just missing the obvious which is "good guys would not attack people randomly, even if they are evil"?

According to other posters above there were 3.5 non-lawful Paladins though I do personally think that goes against the original idea of a Paladin fanatically enforcing the rules/laws of his god.

I suspect the answer to your other questions might be "yes you would get flagged as an attacker if he was not in the act of committing Evil but no you will not be a criminal/thief".

As far as a Knight goes there is no mounted combat yet and no pets hence no bonded mount. However, in terms of core classes, it is possible to play a fighter or cleric as mounted knight like characters. Assuming you can get hold of non-metal plate armor you may even pull off a druid/knight mounted on his animal companion. Bearing in mind there is NO mounted combat and NO animal companions yet.

Pretty sure there were paladin variants, paladin of freedom, paladin of tyranny? in 3.5 that allowed you to stray away from LG.

Sorry for the flippant response, its midnight and i'm operating on 2 hours of sleep, shouldn't be an excuse for my rudeness though. Anyway i just don't think the pessimistic attitude of it will be too hard so don't try is a healthy one, you can never succeed if you don't give it a try after all.

Comrade_Bear wrote:

I just dont think saying that buying a light source as a reponse to darkness should really be calling it trivialising the mechanic.

In a tabletop game, no. Are you imagining that logging in to PFO will involve driving to Seattle?

Ok so working out lighting is too much work, why stop there though? What other aspects of gameplay could we trim out of the development budget in order to reduce the strain on the servers, cause i mean if we are cutting out something that is occuring half of the time in game surely there are things that occur less that can be cut. Mapping the path of shadows due to the sun? I mean you could trivialise that by surround yourself in static lighting, no change in the direction of the lighting means no change in shadows.

It all comes down to what you want out of the game in the end. I would love to have meaningful night times, regardless of whether or not having a torch or other light source would reduce it effect, the ambiance of walking through forest with nothing but the ring of light from my torch to buoy my spirits should be something worth trying for to me.

I just dont think saying that buying a light source as a reponse to darkness should really be calling it trivialising the mechanic.

A highly-detailed implementation of this cantrip with all of its ability to move about would trivialize the highly-detailed implementation of darkness.

Couldn't the same be said about an involved implementation of hunger and thirst being solved by simply buying food and drink? I dont think having to buy torches trivialises night being dark, i think its an appropriate response to the night being dark.

What about the fact that the half-dragon template is CR+2. How would that be worked out mechanically.

The term "pet" definitely implies a roleplay item that is not useful to the game mechanic.

Considering how often Animal Companions are accused of being overpowered it is a poor choice of wording.

I dont understand where this thinking comes from. Pets in everquest for example were definitely not a roleplay mechanic, they were integral class mechanics.