Honestly from my experience with people like this you mostly have two choices.
1. Accept his stupid ruling.
2. Leave the campaign.
It sucks, but it doesn't sound like this guy is going to just up and realize he's being stupid.
Search Posts
Hmm..I'm with the other people that's said it already. Generally speaking, I don't like playing humans. I've actually banned players from playing humans because I got sick of seeing them. They can be great characters, but I tend to find them really boring. In the world I created, which is generally the world I DM in, pretty much all races are acceptable. Some may have social backlashes, which I'll always point out. But I almost never tell a player they can't play an exotic race*. * I generally won't let one of my cousin's play anything except for base races because he'll wait till the last minute and want to make a super complicated character. And I got sick of that, so he generally does not have exotic race privilages.
Ya, and Grizzly Adams had a beard. ....Grizzly Adams did have a beard. Hm, I can't believe no one finished that. I got ya covered.
Not that I can remember, but at one point a DM walked out on us. We were playing, and from the get go he got mad at us for various reasons. One I was playing a sorcerer and when told I could have magic items I only took a =3 amulet of protection. He got mad at me for NOT using player knowledge. Then we came across these people that were uneffected by magic. When I asked if they were immune to magic, he said no they just weren't effected by it because they didn't believe in it. Well that didn't make since to me so we started asking him questions. He revealed that this was to the point that magic weapons wouldn't even effect them at all. So we just started saying we didn't believe in whatever he was throwing at us. Not to make him mad, but to try to get him to see why it bothered us. He got mad and walked out on us. He also didn't like three of the characters.
Hmm..yeah I've got nothing. Sorry, the best I can come up with is GM fiat, and I hate that.
Well I've got to go for a bit. Something about cleaning the fridge. I was gonna make some paladin pun involving cleaning my fridge, but I lost my train of thought.
Erastil actually is in the core book, I think--though only in that tiny little table. :P I was meaning with 3.5. That druid was in 3.5 not Pathfinder. But thanks again for the tip.
Yeah, actually what mostly is being argused seems to be more along the lines of the Grey Guard from 3.5. If a legitimate law says no killing. Then the paladin cannot kill the evil person. But out in the wild or deep in dungeons where there usually are no laws. Keep in mind this is suppose to be in the past, not present, where laws rarely carried more then several yards from the edges of town. Unless you employ the use of wandering guards or rangers,lawbringers in the wild not the class...unless thats how you play rangers. So in cities paladin obeys LEGIT lawyful laws. In the wild he is not bond by code to capture and bring evil to trial, he deals with evil as he sees fit. And accepts any concequences if his god doesn't agree with what he just did.
To be fair, some druids can serve Erastil, god of the hunt. A druid might see himself as a member of the food chain--animals use other animals as expendable tools all the time. Cats use mice as toys. Parasites use animals to look after their young. Fungi possess bees to transport their spores (I'm not even kidding, that's a real thing). We don't really wonder to far from the core books. Somehing I'm planning on fixing. But thanks for the input. Oh and the Fungi bee thing, I love that.
I suddenly see why Iron Claw has Honor as a flaw.
But, but those goblin babies could be schemeing some nefarious plans to steal toys from the other babies.
Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but wouldn't gods override mortal court?
lol
I must apologize, I never meant to imply that my scenario would cause him to fall and become an expaladin or a blackguard. I was just trying to express that I felt a paladin should at the very least hold himself responsible for his choices.
If I were your GM, you could hang up your mistletoe, you're no longer a Druid. Even an evil Druid has to revere nature. If you do things that show you lacked that reverance, no longer a druid. I completely agree. It irritated me that the GM let me get away with it.
I'm really starting to enjoy talking with you. I have to ask do you like Punisher? I'm not trying to prove a point or anything, I'm just legitly curious. All of your points are quite valid and the reasons for how long it took me to play a paladin. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts I had a paladin character go against another paladin over that situation. Like I said that was all based on how I view paladins. I meant for my response to be more geared towards the end of responiblities. With how I've always read them, they route out and destroy evil. You have a point that that doesn't have to mean kill. But in my opinion a paladin above the other classes have to maintain that their actions carry concequences. If they don't stop evil when they have the chance, then they must hold themselves responible for what will come of it. And after reading that I suddenly realized the way I view paladins seems to be more in line with the inquisitors, so I guess I should take some time and go through the description again and refamiliarize myself. I always hated that the paladin only detects evil. The power puts it so black and white, they can't look at the other sides.
I want to make this clear, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just replying. In the idea of a paladin(at least how I see them) I disagree. A paladin is not a police officer. It is not his duty to capture bad guys. It is his duty to destroy evil. So no a paladin's responibilty does not end. If he allows an evil person to live and said evil person continues to do evil that is a failure on his part. Once again that is just my opinion. I understand that people will disagree with me and I'm happy they do. Once again, not trying to start an argument and I'm certainly not trying to upset you or anything. Just responding.
He had not said much to Clocker on the trip,he knew that his reticence had frustrated the Velocitronians, who like most of his fellow speedsters talked more or less nonstop. Alex Irvine; Transformers: Exiles.
Another interesting point is that a good majority of Drow and Morlock evil-doing ends up being toward their own kind, or the other nasty races of the Underdark. PC's usually default evil races actions to "they were born to kill the good surface races thus that's all they ever do." Hate to say it, but a good percentage of the time, the great evil befalling humanity is from humanity, even in Pathfinder, and the sub-races have suffered quite a bit at those hands. A ruthless tyrant razing Drow war parties and a Paladin smiting evil probably gets looked at exactly the same in the eyes of the Drow. That too is a good point. I love one of my drow characters, a good guy who considers Pelor(from 3.5 god of healing and the sun) to be an evil god and thinks his worshippers are misguided fools.
I love being illiterate in games. I think it's a ton of fun. However I really do think that player characters would qualify for knowing how to read in that "they are exceptional people" way. Personally I just let them be illiterate if they want to be and later make them pay to be taught to read.
Pretty sure this is straw man in the other direction. Probably.
Very well spoken. Honestly I object to the idea of killing just because something shows up as evil. I just felt like putting that out there. I can be hard to play that class sometimes, but it's totally worth it. I find it fun to try to find a middle point between fighting evil and upholding the code. It's actually why my paladin, Gabrial Kain, refused to kill a couple wood elves he and two barbarians were fighting. That and I've always argued that killing evil because it is evil is a really poor argument. And I've had another paladin go against one of his own order for killing an npc because she pinged evil.
Actually I will. What is it when the Paladin decides to show mercy to said evil critters(assuming they are detecting as evil)and lets them go. Then they regain their health and kill innocents and destroy the lives of good people? It's called foresight when you stop it before it can happen. Just my opinion.
I agree with your position, and understand you sentiment. At a certain point though, it is no longer within our interest to proceed further with this argument. I think both sides have realized that we come from fundamentally and perhaps even diametrically opposed views. I think we can all agree that we are unlikely to change anyone's view here, and to try further is a waste.I wholehearted agree with your sentiments, but I am still baffled as to why it's only the Paladin. As I've said before, Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Cavaliers, Samurai, and Rangers all have a similar code. Why do we never see a Druid used summoned animal to trigger traps, should they fall? thread? I had a evil druid that would do stuff like that..use his druidness to lure animals to him then kill them to make hunting easier and use them to find traps and stuff like that. And yes I know that has nothing to do with the thread, just felt like saying it. I dont want to contribute.
lol
This is one of those fields where I'm kinda lucky to have a mostly outstanding group of gamers. Skipping the boring irrelevat stuff it usually boils down to. 1. the cohort is a loved one of the character and is ok with sharing the gold of the character. 2. the cohort is in a life dept to the character and thus does not demand money. 3. the cohort just kinda doesn't care about the money and is there for the excitement of the adventure. Oddly enough this feat is almost never taken when playing evil campaigns.
I'd say find grown ups to play with, but that would probably considered rude, so I'll just not say anything. ditto
This made me think of one of my favorite screw ups. The players were being stalked by these people trying to turn them into lycans for a ritual of mine. Well they killed one of them and recovered his dagger of lycanthrope(fort something or other or contract lycanthrope).....well one of them repeatedively stabbed himself until he contracted it...well he used it from time to time but mostly ignored it..the characters were all evil and so deals with devils weren't uncommon..well after a particularlly evil acted the arch devil Asmodeous contacted them and offered to make deals with them...the lycan of the group who I had forgotten was a lycan because he hadn't used it in some ten sessions..made a deal to acquire a vorporal bite...deal was made and signed and i immediately spit out profanity and facepalmed myself for forgetting that. We all laughed and after a few fights for the fun of it we back tracked and removed the bite and lycanthrope because he had grown bored of it.
Zerth Cenobite Yeah, sorry about that. Hope you Dm oks time bending punches though, really cool power and fun.
So, what's wrong with using a wizard as a necromancer? I mean I remember a correctly focused cleric is better. But do you really believe it's so much better to disregard a wizard?
I love this thread type because it doesn't make much sense to me. I mean the A is better then B or the problem with (insert class) thread. I've played all the base classes and of course one class will be better at something then another class. They're all fun, they all have their own advantages and disadvantages. And on the fighter try playing one in 3.0 or 3.5 you literally have only the feats and a high bab..no bravery nor weapon training no armor traings just your feats and bab and every weapon and armor in the game aside from exotics. all my likes and dislikes are based on flavor I guess. I like arcane over divine, clever over strong, etc. though paladins are hard for me to play because I tend to see them as self righteous hypocrits, though I'm playing one currently and having fun with it.
sorry remebered another good moment. not actually a one liner because no words were spoken but still made people laugh. I was playing an Evoker, loved Disintegrate.
So we're fighting a really cocky fighter who keeps dodging and handing our arses to us. Cenobite finally lands a punch and sends him five rounds into the future. Me-will he appears where he was standing?
One campaign I ran had the players all playing teens and pre-teens. One player(the co-creator of my campaign world) was playing a hyper-active 12 year old who got his hands on a flint lock. Named Monte Dew. My Dmpc was a sorcerer and oldest of the group, acted as a guide and voice of reason. Two of the best moments. Fighting two crocodiles whom Monte has yet to see.
Having seen my sorcerer cast magic missle and having never once missed with his pistol.
Another time same player is now playing a Master of the Unseen hand( spell caster focusing on telekinetic spells for those that don't know)
A character of mine(one time i wasn't dming) Wizard/cleric/true necromancer in the middle of combat while everyone is fighting this giant barbarian/frenzy berserker. my character is nelt on the ground saying a prayer and casting a spell suddenly jumps up and points at the giant.
Get 'em turned into one of my main catch phrases whenever i'm using someone who can produce swarms of creatures.
I miss the Rage Mage, if PF rewrote it in a book please tell me what book it is in. And no the Rage Prophet does not count. The only reason for it not counting is I prefer arcane over divine. I had a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue once. It was in dnd but I dont think the character would be all that much different. Few things scare me more then a raging sneak attack. Maybe not the stats, just the idea of it.
I wish I could game with some of you. These forums on rogues having trouble or sucking confuse me. The rogue my groups make never have trouble. One of my best fight style characters is a rogue focused on combat. They only time he actually has trouble is when he's out numbered. Even then that was only at low levels.
That's a valid point, there's a more infinite combination of ways that coversation can go then character and world concepts.
As of now it's Johnny Cash with Highway Man, but mostly it's a mix of music ranging from classical to heavey metal and most everything in between coupled with the sound of my brother in the next room over trash talking and yelling at New Vegas.
I don't really use house rules and if I do then it is run by my Co-DM(as I've said in another thread my world is actually co-created and run by another player). We work out any changes we want to make and usually it's just to fix stuff that doesn't make sense to us.
LOl. Actually Arbane, that's mostly what our argument was. I was playing a cleric so when he suggested that I use a cure spell on one of the npc's I said no and reasoned that there was no way I was risking wasting a spell on an npc that might not get healed by it.
A DM once ruled that in his world(I honestly don't know if it was his world or some weird campaign world I'd never heard of) that there was this group of people that were unaffected(is that right?..I have trouple with the effect/affect useage)by magic. Note that they were not immune to magic just unaffected by it due to the simple fact that they did not believe in it. This meant that magic weapons were useless, summoned creatures useless, if you used magic to cause a chain of events it wouldn't intereact with them. Every player in the group argued with him until he said f*ck it and got up and left. Someone else took over and we played for the rest of the night with no arguements. Oh and even constructs wouldn't hurt them. He refused to say they were immune as a matter of fact he argued that they were not immune but simply did not believe in magic and thus forth it didn't interact with them.
FireCrow - Submit! Even if you don't get published, it's a great way to learn via the feedback and hone your craft! Plus, you never know - perhaps you're actually really good and can deliver a great module! Give it a shot! Thank you for the encouragement. It will be submitted in just a few minutes. Edit: and submitted
I've never once ran something in a premade campaign world. The first time I decided to Gm I sat down a few days and started my world and over the years it has evolved. When I started GMing for a friend he started talking about his world and merged the two cosmos' together and have our shared game world. If either of us GM then it takes place in our world There have been some people that complained and as long as it didn't screw anything up we adjusted our world to suit, though between the two of us we pretty much allow everything. And to clarify our "world" is actually more of a system of worlds, planes, and dimensions. We tend to involve plane hopping early on in games.
With my groups it usually depends on the characters. We work alot of stuff out in game so it varies from different groupings of characters, and not always on alignment. though we'll usually do the norm of equally splitting gold and the like then split magic items. We generally ignore the idea of who can use what better and just split the items. After everything is split the characters then haggle and trade with each other for magic items, more gold, gems, and such. This is done for two main reasons; 1. we all tend to make frequent use of the use magic device skill, so every generally is decent with magic items. and 2. we usually are more likely to have an arcane caster then a divine so what is useful and valueable greatly depends on the character.
I hate the concept of GM is the law/god. I've been running games for just around a decade now and have never once given that as a reason, even when players are bothering me. Gm may be final arbitor but that doesnt mean he/she should disregard what the players think. That said I do believe the Gm has more say because he/she doesn't have to worry about just one or two characters, but an entire world or cosmos.
not being able to use it flat footed is why it levels up, if you expect danger cast it then if you do spring a pit trap or otherwise fall it kicks in and saves you...also it slows you so if you fall during a fight you can switch to ranged attacks and not worrying about getting hurt badly in the fall
one thing i'm having trouble with...is this suppose to be just 400 words or less of describing what the adventure would be...or should i write out a 400 word or less excerpt from the adventure or does it not matter as long as i get the idea across?
I don't have the book the grenadier information is in, please tell me the name of the book, but from the information you gave. I'd say yes they are weapons for the purpose of feats so they are weapons for the purpose of the class feature. In my opinion they are all three weapons, splash weapons, and alchemical weapons. The bomb class feature says they are weapons for the purpose of weapon feats, they use the thrown splash weapon rules, and they are alchemical in nature. So to put it simply, in my opinion, the answer to both of the questions is yes.
this is reaching back to 3.5 so you may need gm approval but any class that gives you magic to animate and command undead as spells or special abilities coupled with leadership and undead leadership...or just undead leadership..cant remember if leadership is required first..but then you have your magic controlling undead and in addition amassing a secondary group seperate from your magic oh and undead leadership is found in the libris mortis
Continuing the Link is not lawful good statement, and if this was pointed out sorry I skipped ahead, in Link's Awakening you could actually steal any item from the shop. You would get killed if you returned and try to ignore the that was a dream aspect of the game.
just found this today and now i'm trying to figure out if i should go ahead and do up a adventure i've been working on...i mean chances of winning are low and all that..but still that possiblity of getting an idea like that published |