Lepidstadt Wizard

Fiendish's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 122 posts (130 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope they throw Calistra in, otherwise its Asmodeus, Norgorber, or Lamashtu for me.

I would love to see if a priestess of Lamashtu could make alliances with the goblins, orcs, and ogres of the River Kingdoms.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deianira wrote:
Andius wrote:
They had said earlier they only plan to realease with 9 gods. 1 for each alignment. I don't remember all of them but I'm pretty sure Iomedae, Desna, Cayden Caliean, Phrasma, and Asmodeus were among them.

The best I could find was this thread from May discussing the now-hidden Crowdforger Poll #2. Alexander Damocles' post has the list of gods as of then.

(Edit: Spellhammer's post a little way down has the list s/he copied from the original poll post.)

I think this is the list of Golarion Gods in PFO.


I think Calistra and Torag should be included for the Elves and Dwarves. I know a lot of people also wanted Sarenrae, Pharasma, and Cayden Cailean.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Fiendish wrote:
All the major Golarion gods better be there. I am very interested in religious gameplay. One of my EE characters will be a Cleric.
Now you are just plain scaring me! ;)

Working as intended. ;)

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I consider myself a chaotic person in RL, not evil. I bristle at authority figures. I obey laws mostly out of fear of all the s+~* that comes at you if you don't. Have a hard time working at places that are too uptight with stupid rules. I've move around a lot. I am a total liberal. There is probably more. Not sure if that makes me chaotic but my life certainly feels chaotic a good deal of the time. (This is probably a little TMI)

As for role-playing I honestly have a hard time playing anything but a Chaotic-something. I find lawful characters boring. I actually was toying with the idea of a lawful PFO character, but have already kinda killed that idea.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax JayBrand wrote:

Question 1: How come there isn't a thread called 'Alignment Discussion' stickied here? Would be easier if there was one place to talk about that system instead of 10 different threads that are about other aspects of the game. I'm starting to lose track of which discussion is going on where since each thread starts to look the same a few pages in :/

Question 2: Why care so much about the alignment system?
I am a player that likes to spread myself out across a game like butter on toast...I don't dedicate myself to one aspect 100%. So I like to RP, but not ALL the time. So I like to go on adventures, but not ALL the time. So I like to crush your face just because you looked at my mineral deposit the wrong way, but not ALL the time. And the same goes for the RP side of my characters. I am not one-sided, and neither are my characters.

The thing that I don't understand is the way that some RPers treat alignment. They set CE on a character and play that character like a A4 with a bad guy scribbled on it. They make it seem like an evil character could never do anything good. Why not set your character as L/CN and play him/her in many different ways. At some point you might have feasted a bit too freely on your neighbors, or "forgot" to uphold a deal. The next month you spend your days being a productive Goblin-stew maker/harvester. Your alignment would sway back and forth all this time.

Any Character Investigation spells/mechanisms could return one or both of two things>
1. Core alignment (which would claim you are a Neutral person...a joker or a wildcard)
2. Current alignment (which would claim you are either the Hannibal of PfO or a great cook and goblin killer...depending on the month)

This would give the other player plenty enough info on your character to make a judgement on whether or not to trust you at that given time.

If you plan on being a one-sided evil character that does nothing except eat people, then accept the mechanical disadvantage that comes with or find a settlement that will work...

Question 1: One of the official ones ended up being locked but they don't generally sticky much.

Question 2:

Basically my most favorite character I ever played in tabletop was a Chaotic Evil wizard for all intents and purposes. Even though she was officially Chaotic Neutral, I crossed over into the Evil camp on many occasions.

I was not some homicidal, face-stabbing, manically laughing stereotype. I was charming, urbane, manipulative, witty. I was the party leader, who held together the party together through strength of will and manipulation, but I always put myself first in almost all occasions. I nearly betrayed the party, often made deals behind their backs that only benefited me. Most of the time they never knew. Occasionally I got caught but I was good at talking my way out of things. This character ran for a campaign that lasted 3 real years of consistent playing. So she was no one shot throw away.

Chaotic Evil can be that. A "rules don't apply to me" and a "I put my self first" attitude is what makes chaotic evil. You don't have to be a stupid boor. Bearing in mind evil has degrees like anything else. Evils who want to destroy the world are not evil they are just insane.

Of course I could still play that way in PFO but there will be no purpose in setting your alignment at what your character really is. Just game it and give yourself the highest score on both the axis (7500, 7500) that way you have the farthest to fall. Alignment choice is meaningless. That is what we are lamenting. The alignment system is not really an alignment system, it's a bad player punishment. Unfortunately however it screws anyone who wants to RP a proper villain, treating them as nothing more than the equivalent of someone they don't want playing their game.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Some portion of people will want to play a Role with an alignment limit, mostly Paladins but maybe Monks. Some of them will not know there are alignment restrictions for those Roles and they'll either have to grind alignment changes to get to where they need to be, or they'll start over

Will clerics be expected to stay within the accepted alignment restrictions of the deities as per the tabletop rules?

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jazzlvraz wrote:

I can see the Evil's going to have some sort of "intimidation" structure, in order to bring that high starting Unrest under some measure of control. It may take the form of a temple selecting "random" folk for human sacrifice (although good luck getting that past international censors), a training hall for very large, very mean NPC guards (these pointed at the population, not enemies outside the walls), a headquarters for the secret police (encouraging everyone to report on their neighbours and families, or else face imprisonment or execution themselves), or any other thing pariah states have tried in our long ugly human history.

Please fill in your own favourite horror story.

Mmmmm, all those sound delightful.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sepherum wrote:
My main, my DT and the chartered company myself and my friends will form will be LE. This seems as good a place as any to state that more and more I'm coming around to the view of Proxima Sin: If I choose a character and my core alignment is Chaotic Evil, why does the mechanical anvil fall on my head when I haven't done anything? I presume I would start with a 1000 reputation like anyone else-why is it assumed I will immediately start RPKing and following around people making real world insults? If I'm a CE Barbarian raider-a role which should be completely supported and would generate a lot of fun content-I don't expect to stroll into Fort Riverwatch and buy a Cinnabun but why would the training at my warcamp be any worse? I don't expect the barbarian horde to have a settlement with high DI structures-that makes sense-but I am saying that training for low rep evil characters shouldn't be less powerful or harder to get, it should be different. So, yes, it should be difficult or impossible for our CE raider to go get Fighter or Wizard training based on his low rep, but rage powers? Fiendish sorcerous bloodline powers? Negative energy channeling? Sneak attack training at Thornkeep? I gotta raise my reputation to get those? A CE player expects to travel to dangerous places to learn dark secrets, and understands he/she will never be welcome at Brighthaven. I realize a CE character will engage in unsanctioned pvp; probably hoping for some nice loot; and I understand that by their very nature griefers will probably end up CE with reputations of -5500 or worse, but that someone who roles a CE character is automatically a griefer who will commit actions that will cut them off from npc settlements at -2500, who made that rule? Heck, you could just worship Rovagug, declare a feud against a good chartered company and start the killin'. Completely under the rules.

Yes, and another example that came to my mind lately was Drow. A completely Chaotic Evil society but I doubt anyone would call them uncivilized with inferior training. The lack of training in Chaotic settlements does not make sense.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think the solution to CE militias will be LE mercenaries. I think that if there are a lot of CE militias, there will be an overwhelming number of LE mercenaries.
I'm curious why you feel Lawful Evil is the natural or most likely enemy of Chaotic Evil?

I think Lawful Evil will be the preferred alignment for large, cohesive, successful mercenary companies. I think that becoming a successful Lawful Evil mercenary will require a character to whack a lot of opponents. Whacking opponents while remaining relatively high in reputation and remaining Lawful will require a lot of dead CE bodies. By design, the LE mercenary companies will see CE characters as a harvestable resource for Achievements which will unlock character abilities to make them bad ass.

A CE character in accessible territory is going to be like blood in the water to LE mercenaries.

So Lawful Evil can only maintain being Lawful Evil by whacking Chaotic Evils? If that is the case they need to rethink the whole system as that is so frustratingly limiting, and nothing like Pathfinder p&p.

This tells me there are not going to be any evil schemers/manipulators in the game because since they are not actively killing people they drift towards good. Even though they may me causing all kinds of damage in other ways.

Does it not seem dumb that the current way is no one who doesn't participate in active killing can be evil?

Maybe they should not let you change your core alignment freely when you pick it (but maybe a cost of some sort will change it) , and instead of calling it "Active" alignment, call it "Perceived" alignment. As in that is how you seem to others though you may be rotten to the core and are a good actor? Classes with alignment restrictions like Paladins need to keep up appearances and keep their Perceived and Core alignment equal.

Hopefully there is more to than what Ryan just said because that seems a bit limited.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Well, they do. In the River Kingdoms, the Hell Knights basically ignore the River Freedoms and all the problems it causes with the locals. Their rules are more important than the local kingdoms' rules, and the people who don't like it kinda just have to deal.

Doesn't that just bring a smile to your face? No? Is that just me?

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Deacon wrote:

Slavery is a mechanic that is more viable to lawful alignments than Chaotic alignments.

I see your argument that Chaotic/Evil is weaker and shunned, as something as moot. Seeing as these mechanics will be favored by Lawful/Evil settlements, such as Golgotha.

But in regards to slaves and undead only being able to build basic structures, have you heard of the Egyptian Pyramids? It is fairly easy to put something together once and architect designs it. There are intelligent undead as well. Going into Faerûn also presented a country that used intelligent undead as the backbone of its military machine after they found a way to bring them intelligence in mass.

The acts in question are Evil, no doubt, but the Chaos vs Law argument can be argued for an eternity. Raising undead is not a chaotic act unless the lands you raise them in have forbid them in their laws. The same can be said of slavery.

However it is Heinous and that is what bothers me in this argument. The Heinous flag is unnecessary as I see it. I have said this before, it serves no point other than to grief evil role-players. I can't role-play evil without doing some (many) evil acts. If those evil acts get me a Heinous flag everytime I do them then it puts me in a state of constant random ganking or it limits me from playing my character fully by making me limit how often I do certain things.

As far as I see it, if slavery or raising the undead are illegal in a certain land then yes you get a criminal flag. But if they are not then no foul. As I see it though I will be running around with a Heinous flag in my own evil city. It makes no sense.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How will I erect my temple to Asmodeus without slaves? The temple requires 9 slaves to be sacrificed during its construction. A virgin's blood is needed just for the groundbreaking!

I don't make up these rules people, so does that make me Heinous? No I think not. I am just a humble woman who seeks to bring order to a small corner of the world.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The heinous flag sucks. Sorry no other way to say it. It seems unnecessary to me. It breaks immersion, and role-playing for evil characters.

If a good person sees someone doing something evil why can't they just flag themselves Champion and have at it?

Does it make sense that I am in my house chastising my demonic butler for breaking my favorite gravy boat and then I leave my house (to buy a new gravy boat) and a magical flag appears over my head letting everyone know I have been naughty and can now killed with no penalty? No it makes no sense! No one even witnessed anything!

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still seems like that heinous flag is too harsh and unnecessary. Basically you still can't perform any heinous act in your own city, even though it may be perfectly legal to, without getting attacked by everyone around you. So no using slave labor in an Asmodeus worshiping lawful evil city.

Yes that makes total sense. /sarcasm

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Cheney wrote:

In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.

So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.

Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties. Making it a general system seems better, as that means we're not putting in something that only paladins get to use, but as the discussion above has noted we may eventually want to make it more directed if it does result in weird evil-on-evil dynamics.

It is likely that we'd let your LE settlement make it a crime to attack a character just for being Heinous, and this would be true in Fort Inevitable. Choosing whether to break a law that protects evil is just the kind of moral quandary a paladin in Fort Inevitable or similar environs should have to face. And the oncoming Criminal flag might cut down on the number of your evil peers that are interested in jumping you just because they can.

Ok I can live with that as long as your last paragraph is implemented; then I don't see any problem.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Yes, I want limits on the heinous flag or even removing it as I feel it could be handled by individual territory laws. I just want the developers to know that those of us who want to play a more sophisticated evil above and beyond just a bandit are against a universal heinous flag that makes us a target for every player in the game.

Slavery can't be considered universally wrong if it's a major practice in Cheliax, one of the most powerful nations in Golarion. As GrumpyMel has stated, places like Fort Inevitable and territories allied with them should not see that as a crime.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
yoda8myhead wrote:

Several questions:

1) Since there's no mention of where in Golarion this location is, what have people been doing to tie it in with the rest of the world? I'd love to establish it as existing in a specific location so players can return to it, especially if they get it up and running again (which I can more than see them doing.)

Actually I found this in the Blog from Jason Bulmahn (emphasis mine)

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Uncover the ruins of the flying city

Legends speak of an ancient culture that drifted through the clouds atop immense floating cities. These same tales speak of a horrible catastrophe that brought them low, but no one has discovered the true cause. Now, a mystical compass has been discovered that seems to point to an unexplored valley, one that just might hold the secrets of this lost empire. But will the same catastrophe strike again?

Crucible of Chaos is a journey-based adventure for 8th-level characters compatible with the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game. This adventure contains details on the valley containing the crashed sky-city, including the natives who live there, as well as information on those who brought about the city's downfall.

This adventure is set in the unexplored reaches of the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, one of the nations in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, but it can be easily adapted for use in any setting. For more information on this area, check out the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer.

Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager