Fizzygoo's page

It's mostly, nearly all, Pathfinder rules. Last 5 or so episodes have been set in the Forgotten Realms, 11th level characters, traveling the Gray Wastes.

It's here for anyone interested; Impromptu Touch Attack :)

I guess that for some people the war will never end.

Yeah. It's still out there. It's minimized and relegated to the outer reaches of the society, but it's still there. Both the friends I mentioned still, to this day, even though they're nearly 40 and nearly 50 years old do not, under any circumstances, bring up RPGs or D&D to their parents. One of them has even come out to his parents as gay...but not as a D&D player. Homosexuality, which is specifically mentioned in the Old Testament as being "an abomination", he's been able to reveal to his parents but a RPG player, never mentioned in the bible, he has not.

In this day and age, where LotR and the Hobbit are blockbusters, where MMORPGs span the globe, and fantasy elements creep into every aspect of modern life...table-top pen-and-paper (descriptive titles that were not needed 20 years ago), while RPG players born after 1990 are largely (but not entirely) inoculated from the horrors that was the 80's view on gamers, many gamers still live in fear of their community or family finding out.

Sure, today, one can be called a dork, nerd, weirdo for playing D&D or Pathfinder or any other P&P RPG, but in/those-from the 80's; added to those current titles was "Satan-worshiper that would either end up killing themselves, seriously the game is going to make you, force you to commit suicide, and/or kill/murder your friends and family."

Here is Michael A. Stackpole's 1989 paper/response to the anti-RPG (RPGs are satanic) movement.

I'm on the older side of the RPG fence [begin silly over-the-top old-man voice with cane waving from porch (though statements are still factual)]. I started playing D&D when I was about 7, 1982-83. I had several friends that said they couldn't play with me if we played D&D (only after telling their parents "I'm going over to his house to play D&D") and a few that could not play with me at all because I now played D&D. I later (much later, well after voting age) found out that my mom had taken verbal assaults from angry mothers telling her that she was a bad parent for letting me play in addition to all the "evil" and "going to hell" issues for playing "the devil's game."

I currently play with two guys who, in that same era (early 80's), didn't have as intelligent of parents as mine. One was told specifically that it was evil and that he wasn't allowed to play so he hid books under his bed, only played at other people's houses, and had to constantly hide it from his parents (which he still largely does...the not-telling his parents he plays, not the hiding under his bed, he's all adult living on his own, successful, constantly hit on, etc.).

The second player had it much worse. His parents found his AD&D books, took them, and burned them. Burned them. Because the game was evil, immoral, and threatened his chance at positive afterlife.

I remember watching the 60 Minutes episode on D&D when I was about 9 (1985). Adults were saying that the game I liked to play was going to make me kill myself or others...because of the Devil and demons. Those things that my character kills, in a game, these people believe are real. I certainly felt like I was under attack at that point. Losing friends because of it, big-adult-news-show denigrating it. Sure, I was very young and lacked full cultural context, but it was a cultural war. It may have been the equivalent of Republic of Molossia attempting to violently annex Reno, NV...culturally speaking, but it definitely felt like a psychological/cultural attack.

After about 1988, in my experience, it was pretty much over. Small pockets of "resistance" still exist, randomly attempting small-scale terrorist attempts (largely causing causalities only amongst their own), but the cultural war is over.

tl;dr: You youngin's don't know how goods ya'gots it, dagnabbit!

[end silly over-the-top old-man voice with cane waving from porch]

Personal blog post

I ran a six year campaign, 1st to ~16th level, multiple minor plot points and one major story arc flowing through it since around 4th level. After completing a significant side plot the PCs had some down time, hanging out with some elven deity avatars getting questions answered (or pointed in the right directions for answers). That session, I went over the multiple options for following up on the major story arc, along with mentioning minor unfinished plots, as well as offering the 'strike out in your own direction' option. Then I asked the players what they wanted to do. I got blank stares. Then, I got mundane endeavors requests; hang out with the spouse and kids, teach at the wizard college, oversee family business, etc. I told the players to take a couple days and get back to me on what adventure plot(s) they wanted to pursue next. A couple days went by, no reply. So I ended the campaign; wrote up a long "if the PCs chose to do X then Y" email that wrapped up all the loose threads as I had planned and revealed how the PCs 'retired.' I took a couple years off from GMing and then started back up when they began requesting that I do so.

Obviously this was my fault, I failed. A. They weren't interested in following up on my plots, and B. I should have pushed/railroaded them a bit to get the back on track if they were just needing more time to process (instead of just disliking/not-caring about the plots).

The main take away was "never expect your players (the people, not the PCs) to do anything you even remotely hope they will do." Never plan an adventure where you create a bottleneck that depends on the players making a specific decision. But if you do, create actions/events that forces the players to make a decision (even if it's not the one you originally planned for them to make).

For the wish with a negative effect scenario; planning on the players wanting to get rid of the negative effect, making sure that option is available, is good. But if the players don't care then you have to come up with something else, the wish event becomes just that...an event in the campaign history that the players are fine with letting their characters live with. Making the negative effect harsher may have worked, but it also may have made the players more happy to play their adversely affected characters or just give up all together and not trust you as a GM.

You could have an agent of the dead friend-NPC's deity come to the PCs to "right the wrong" and go from there. But if the players don't care...then it's off to slay a dragon or raze a village or two.

This is my overall campaign plan that I do my best to follow (but more a guideline than anything):

I played with a player (as well as GM'd for him) for about a decade; a player who is a magnificent roleplayer. But over the past two years or so it began to change course to the point that he was no longer focused on the group story/adventure but instead on mundane "real-life" like concerns; roleplaying situations that have no use for a character sheet.

His Star Wars pilot was just interested in taking vacations on uninhabited planets, sight-seeing, and flirting with random "background" NPCs (while the whole of the party was reliant on his character having the ship, his character being the 'Han Solo' but lacking any impulse to propel the group's adventurous story forward).

His bard PF character was more interested in hanging around his house and playing instruments, entertaining his PC friends, than anything else. His druid character would avoid, at almost all costs, hanging out with the rest of the party when they were in town while focusing on courting a nearby farmer's daughter.

And during this 'descent' time period, OOC, he would express his boredom with adventuring -"because it's all we, as a group of real-world people, ever do"- and then express his non-adventuring desires (though never in a disruptive way and mostly 'off-table').

The flip-side problem was that if he wasn't the center of the GM's attention, then he would talk over player-GM conversations and usually with non-game related content.

So that was an instance of "too much roleplaying" but only because it was so, consistently, off-focus from the group's story line. And ultimately it lead to that player leaving the group (along with some other personality issues between me and him).

But on the other hand... I consistently feel that I fail at roleplaying NPCs, especially tavern owners and bar-maids/lads. Unless a central antagonist, I feel that every tavern owner or bar-maid/lad essentially comes across as identical individuals...and I've yet to make one a central antagonist. So I always feel I have roleplaying aspects to work on an personally make better, especially as a GM.

Fizzygoo wrote:

This. Coupled with when humans are confronted with facts that challenge their ideologies they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts rather than incorporate the new evidence and adjust their ideology appropriately (across the board, all humans tend to do this regardless of the actual ideology being held).

Which is why the greater the intelligence the person has the better skilled they are at finding rationalizations to hold on to their ideology(ies) even when those (or aspects of those) ideologies have been repeatedly proven as false.

To say that everybody, or even most people, are like that is simply nowhere near true - and the ability to deceive oneself isn't intelligence, it's the opposite.

This depends largely on "what side of bed people get up on," except for their whole life rather than one morning, so to speak. If people are taught to defend ideologies, they'll behave as you say - up to a point. Forced to face enough evidence (it usually has to be traumatic, unfortunately), most people will break out of an ideology. Consider a few cases: David Brock, Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Bruce Bartlett, Bart Ehrman, and Daniel Everett.

Perhaps I should ask: How do you define an 'ideology?' Does everyone have one? Must they? The biggest problem with what you say, however: What about the people who aren't "rationalizing," but simply right - or at least are onto something? Does that statement, perhaps, imply stasis or finitude to you? It doesn't have to.

As a clarification in response to your response of my agreement-with-you-coupled-with-additional-thoughts post, I said "they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts" which doesn't outright prohibit an individual from changing their stance in light of new facts (as evident in the individuals you cite)...only that according to recent research (which could be proven wrong or at least faulty...but I haven't found credible evidence supporting the alternative), on average, a person with an emotionally invested interest in a belief/ideology will likely ("likely" but not "certainly") dig in and find ways to rationalize their view in spite of the evidence presented (as indicated in the article and sources from my previous post on this thread). And this would occur more often (but not absolutely) for individuals who have not been exposed to the very idea that in having an emotional investment in an ideology/belief one will default to rationalizing against evidence showing their ideology/belief as false than for those who have been taught/are aware of logical fallacies in general, and that specific point in particular.

As for "How do you define an 'ideology?' Does everyone have one? Must they?" I used ideology loosely so as to include any political, religious, sociological, etc. point of view, assumption, assertion. Everyone has one or more (some have consciously thought about it while others have been indoctrinated from a vary young age, and others sit somehwere within the spectrum between the two extremes). And "must they?" ... yes. Though it may be wholly unconscious and only exposed upon in-depth questioning or it may be accurately and precisely thought out (and therefor better in-line with reality...or not).

Concerning "the biggest problem with what you say, however: What about the people who aren't "rationalizing," but simply right - or at least are onto something?" my statements don't support nor deny those who are "simply right." All that my post pertained to is for people who 'think' they are 'right' when they are confronted with facts that prove they are, in fact (by definition), not 'right.'

And that reveals the insidious danger of the "backfire effect." If the facts/evidence support your 'ideology' then it should be easy to rationalize the facts/evidence to support you. If the facts/evidence do not support your 'ideology' then it will be difficult to do so...but the more intelligent you are the better equipped you will be to rationalize the facts/evidence in ways to support your (wrong) point of view. Which then negates your opening statement of "the ability to deceive oneself isn't intelligence, it's the opposite." where in fact the more intelligent you are, the better equipped your mental faculties are for deceiving you; especially if you have a deep emotional investment in that belief/ideology (but it says nothing about those trained in skeptical self-reflection on one's emotionally held beliefs/ideologies or those who hold a reality based view [even if they came to that view via non-rational means).

Good stuff.

thanks. Yeah, best part is that because I was already controlling the absent player's character (the one that got dominated) the GM allowed me to play him dominated (trusting that, me being the other GM in the group, I would do as directed and follow his secret text messages of 'mental communication' as intended). Oh the glee I had at basically being able to become evil...against the party...with another player's character. I did my best to make it memorable, hehe. My group had never seen me so excited, hehe.

Firstly, I generally consider anything the PCs are willing to use is fair game. These are spells I dont use, and dont allow others to use:

-Dominate and other mind control: that is just annoying for a player.
-Wish/limited wish/miracle: too unpredictable, only allow it for "basic" uses (IE inherent bonuses, reproducing lower level spells).

I also houserule a number of spells, but that's neither here nor there.

Dominate hehe, yeah. Here's the story of my game group's last encounter with dominate.

Part 1
Part 2

Fizzygoo wrote:

This. Coupled with when humans are confronted with facts that challenge their ideologies they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts rather than incorporate the new evidence and adjust their ideology appropriately (across the board, all humans tend to do this regardless of the actual ideology being held).

Which is why the greater the intelligence the person has the better skilled they are at finding rationalizations to hold on to their ideology(ies) even when those (or aspects of those) ideologies have been repeatedly proven as false.

To say that everybody, or even most people, are like that is simply nowhere near true - and the ability to deceive oneself isn't intelligence, it's the opposite.

This depends largely on "what side of bed people get up on," except for their whole life rather than one morning, so to speak. If people are taught to defend ideologies, they'll behave as you say - up to a point. Forced to face enough evidence (it usually has to be traumatic, unfortunately), most people will break out of an ideology. Consider a few cases: David Brock, Gil Alexander-Moegerle, Bruce Bartlett, Bart Ehrman, and Daniel Everett.

Perhaps I should ask: How do you define an 'ideology?' Does everyone have one? Must they? The biggest problem with what you say, however: What about the people who aren't "rationalizing," but simply right - or at least are onto something? Does that statement, perhaps, imply stasis or finitude to you? It doesn't have to.

I'll just point to this pop article that references the studies and has links. You can be the judge.

If you chose to kill someone even after taking the time to think clearly and carefully about it, wouldn't that mean you're much more likely to have actually had a good reason? It's like the act of murder is ultimately less frightening than simple intelligence....

This. Coupled with when humans are confronted with facts that challenge their ideologies they're more likely to dig in and try to rationalize their position in light of the contracting facts rather than incorporate the new evidence and adjust their ideology appropriately (across the board, all humans tend to do this regardless of the actual ideology being held).

Which is why the greater the intelligence the person has the better skilled they are at finding rationalizations to hold on to their ideology(ies) even when those (or aspects of those) ideologies have been repeatedly proven as false.

This is why I fall back to killing is evil as a default baseline. While the overall good accomplished from the act of killing may far outweigh the evil of the killing, and therefore in total be a good act, the killing part is still evil and for those of good alignment; killing should always be the last (perceived last, objectively last) resort.

But as far as the barbarian rage vs. drunk driving analogy; it's at best a false analogy:

Why, on average, does a person drive a vehicle? Why, on average, does a person drink alcohol? Why, on average, does a person who has consumed alcohol get behind the wheel of a vehicle? No one can reasonable answer those questions with "because they intend or are predicting a violent altercation."

Why, on average, does a barbarian enter rage? And make no mistake, entering rage is a consciously willed act as "A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength [to enter rage]". There is nothing (short of against-one's-will magical mental compulsions to change emotional states) that will force a barbarian to become enraged...it's up to the player to determine when and where (hopefully based on the role-playing aspects of the situation [but that's my bias showing through]).

The analogy just doesn't work. The barbarian isn't out peacefully raging (drinking) only to get carried away by picking up an axe (start driving) where he then unintentionally starts severing limbs on the dance floor (crashes into other drivers killing and/or maiming them).

I would very much like to know where in the RAW this is stated.

Yeah...it's not stated. The player (and hence by extension) the barbarian willfully determines when to enter rage, willfully determines which enemies to attack (an can thereby intelligently use tactics such as moving to flanking positions, etc.), and can willfully end their rage as free action.

The fluff in the barbarian class section makes them into whirlwinds of passionate slaughter though, and there's nothing wrong with a player deciding to play their enraged barbarian as if all reason has fled from their violence-soaked brains. But it's not RAW.

... since the alignment system is pretty black and white.

Yeah, the simple three-step alignment axes (good-netural-evil and law-neutral-chaos) has always tickled me like a purple worm licking my popliteal fossa. What with then kobold-evil = Asmodeus-evil.

Which was why I liked the introduction of the Ultimate Campaign's alignment spectrum.

Hrm, I think you missed the point I was implying, which is fair since I wasn't really clear. In the paladin's code we have the following line:

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act."

Thus my comment that if all takings of life are evil...

Ah! Hehe, yeah, now I understand where you're coming from.

Yes, applying that sentence in the Paladin's code of conduct section within the framework I set out absolutely would not work.

So it becomes up to the GM (along with input from the players) as to how deal with this; especially since one may be gaming with gamers that have different ideas on the idea of evil/good, morality, etc.

I never explicitly stated it in my previous posts but to expand on the good outweighs the evil part; if the good done from the result of killing "equals" the evil from killing then that would balance it out to be 'neutral' (but a complex neutral that is composed of good and evil, rather than lacking either). And if the good "outweighs" the evil of the killing then the net value of the act is good, etc. So the net good of a paladin killing a deer to feed himself (an entity that can do more good in the world than the deer) and his good-aligned party far outweighs the evil of killing the dear and the net result of the act (taken in context with all the complexities that come with it) is good.

I prefer to set a ground level morality for good/evil (which then works for determining and adjusting all PC and NPC alignments) and then expand/change/modify that one code of conduct sentence rather than treat it as immutable.

And before all that, I come to the table with the desire to make sure my players have the opportunity to have fun. Which includes making sure the paladin (or barbarian, or monk, or...) is a viable class option for them if they want to play it.

So... Paladin's are mighty screwed in your campaigns then huh? I mean if any willful act that ends another living thing is evil, Paladin's can't even hunt for food. I'm sorry but I don't think this is case and that some takings of life are not just neutral but good.

The nuance of my post you're referring to seems to have gotten lost somewhere.

Taking a life is evil...but should be compared to why it was taken and what other options were available.

Paladin's are the life-taking arm of their deity. So long as they are working towards the greater good (and law) of their deity then the evil done by killing will be far outweighed by their good deeds. If the LG deity's tenants say that all thieves, even beggars stealing bread, should be put to death and the paladin follows that tenant then I, as a GM, wouldn't punish that paladin. I just wouldn't be GM in a campaign that had such a deity getting away with being defined as good. If I were a player in that campaign world then I would keep my grumblings about how that's not a good deity off-table and OOC.

The code of conduct for a paladin states "punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Which gives the GM and player a lot of leeway to decide guidelines for how the paladin should appropriately deal out punishment which should be guided by the specific deity/order the paladin follows.

So again, by default, at the baseline; killing is evil. But the good of saving the lives of others from a murderer/assailant far outweighs the evil of killing said murderer/assailant. Such that, at least when I GM, the paladin would never be in danger of 'falling' for doing so.

I do my best to come to each post in every thread in the forums with the base assumption that the poster is being genuine, forthright, and honestly seeking to understand, explain, and/or clarify the issue they're posting about.

I have no way of knowing if the poster is 8 years old or if they're 50 with big thumbs typing their post up on a over-zealous auto-correcting smart phone. Nor do I care.

If I think I can help, I'll post. If someone else has posted what I consider a good response, I'll try and remember to like that response. If I don't think I can help or I can't see any way to read the poster other than being disingenuous, then I do my best to just move along. It doesn't mean I won't try and defend my position but I'll do my best to keep it to defending the position rather than letting my comments leak into the attacking-the-poster realm. Standard base-level forum ethics. :)

The Barbarian didn't kill without qualms. He met people who were willing to kill/imprison him in combat. Had he killed them without reason sure he'd be evil, but that's not the case here.

Again, it is unlawful in society for a criminal to kill the cops to avoid being arrested. Evil though? I can't imagine so. They are simply opposing forces at that point. Otherwise every revolutionary ever would have to be evil and that just is not the case. That doesn't make it good to do so of course, mind you, just neutral.

I found this interesting because it illustrates a point where it feels like the opposing views in this thread are talking over each other (or at least where I should clarify myself).

For my posts, I have been talking about the act of killing rather than the person doing the killing. And I'm only discussing individual alignment, not societal alignment.

And I'll clarify, my stance, that just because a character (or person in real life) does an evil act it does not necessarily mean an alignment change is in order.

For sentient creatures with morality and ethics; taking the life of another living thing is evil. Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Not just murder, but killing; the taking of a life.

Any willingly-committed act that ends the life of another, where the acting individual is aware that by so acting a life may be taken, is an evil act. But it's determining how evil that is important for GMs and players when considering alignment.

Taking the life of a person who jumped out of the shadows actively stabbing at they grapple you is far, far, far, less evil than killing a paladin that is arresting you at the point of a sword which is less evil than murdering townsfolk in their sleep.

The more options that you have to allow you not to take a life makes the taking of that life more evil. The grappling attacker has left you with no (or almost no) options. The paladin encounter has far more options (just kill the horse and run, let your party speak for themselves first, take a -4 penalty to hit to deal nonlethal damage, etc.) And murdering townsfolk in their sleep; well there's nearly an infinite amount of other options to use your free time for.

The evil act must be weighed within the full context of the situation as well as against past actions in order to determine if the individual has become evil.

But by following the 'all killing is evil' guideline it prevents players from being able to use "my character has a low Int so I can get away with murder" excuse...so long as the GM doesn't abuse GM authority, of course.

In the case of the OP; The act was evil, but well within the barbarian's CN alignment by protecting/ensuring his and his friends freedoms and liberties above all else. But as the original poster continued to give information about the event it became far more clear that the real issue lies between the player and the GM.

The evil of killing a BBEGs is far outweighed by the good done in stopping said BBEGs evil acts from continuing in the world. But outside the fanatical ideology-driven BBEGs examples, when the PCs take a life they end all chance of that life redeeming themselves through good works and paying restitution to the parties they've wronged.

Killing can't be chaotic because it robs liberty and freewill from the killed. It can't be lawful because it prohibits the killed from seeking honor (or redemption) in the society. It can't be good because good is the promotion of life. And it can't be neutral because it is making a choice about another person's right to existence.

Killing is evil.

Short answer to "at what point have I created too many": When creating the next one doesn't bring any fun or depth to the setting for you and/or the players.

Longer answer (more just considerations to think about and use or discard as you see fit):

Depends on how powerful each of the gods are. If they are omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent then there's really only room for one. But if there's a god of wine (just wine) and a god of grapes (just grapes) then you're looking at the possibility of having a god for every thing and a god for every idea of every thing.

Depends on how many church hierarchies/structures you want to have to flesh out (which in and of itself doesn't have to be directly tied to the number of deities). You could have a church for every deity which in turn means creating all the things that go alone with such socio-political organizations or you could just have a single church with separate departments/factions/etc.

Depends on how much game-mechanic overlap you want (probably the most important consideration for pantheon(s) in a game setting). How many domains will each deity grant to their clerics (on average)? Can there be only one deity that grants a specific domain, or will multiple deities grant access to the same specific domain?

Depends on how set-in-stone (cosmologically and theologically speaking) you want your pantheon(s) to be. If things are mutable (gods can die, be born, steal-borrow-gift domains from/to each other, mortal heroes can ascend to godhood) then that might mean there should be more deities. If the gods are truly immortal in addition to being immutable then there may be less gods. Though the reverse could be true in both cases, depending on what you want.

Flowing from the previous consideration concerning mutability: Leave yourself room to grow or adapt the pantheon(s). Ask your players, the one's that want to play clerics, paladins, etc., what kind of deity are they interested in having their character(s) follow. Even if it's just "what domains do you want your character to have access too?" Flesh out the one's the PCs are interested in first and then expand from there...detailing the likely deities of the bad guys. And lastly detailing the gods that neither the PCs nor the bad guys are interested in (at the moment).

Again, just considerations, no real hard and fast "n number is too much."

May your creative juices flow like Godzilla stomping through fields of ripe watermelons. :)

Answer: He wouldn't. He'd chop the guy and is horse in half, then intimidate the survivors.

Which is evil.

Whether you're playing the dumb barbarian or evil mastermind, if the character's initial desired response to a situation is to take life, to kill...to murder...that' evil.

"Dumb barbarian" doesn't get anyone off the hook of being evil for killing people.

Pointing a longsword at someone and threatening them is an act of war.

That is a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what "war" is.

...

And to add to that:

It's a pretty smart barbarian that knows the details of the town's legal system.

It's an exceptional governmental system (for a standard medieval fantasy setting) that makes use of written warrants.

It's highly enlightened society (for a standard medieval fantasty setting) that gives any rights to anyone in the population other than the nobles, clergy, and the royalty.

Well, stealing the sword in the first place is a (minor) evil act and solidly chaotic (assuming just a standard theft and not something more ethically complex like someone hired the party to get it back for them and the party was led to believe it was stolen from their employer, etc.).

Then there's the killing of the guards and we enter into a seven layer dip of complexity (due in part because of the lack of full context in the OP).

The short answer, killing guards that are justified in arresting you; yeah, evil. Replace "Barbarian" in the last statement of the op with "bank robber":

Why would a bank robber care what these people wanted. The cops point their guns at me = They are dead.

Yup. Evil. Not murdering children at the playground and wearing their innards to freak out the parents kind of evil. But more evil than stealing (or; it's the worst theft of all...someone's life).

But then there's just the inherent nature of the game itself where some GM's just accept that when an NPC/monster is reduced to 0 hp, it's dead, instead of applying when hp drops to negative Con or greater as for the PCs and checking if the NPC stabilizes.

And far worse is when GM's don't give an indication of the running status of enemies' health levels when in combat...and don't play NPCs realistically. When those NPCs drop to less than half their hp and don't start running, giving up, surrendering, etc., especially if it's becoming clear they are on the loosing side, then the player is not being given the appropriate level of information to make informed choices for their characters (especially where it concerns playing one's character's alignment).

If there's one guy who beats the crap out of the first 6 guys...the other 4 are going to start questioning their current plan of attack. Well, in general, anyway.

But then there's the massive question of what is the overall theme of the campaign itself and the alignment-nature of the two settlements (the one the sword was stolen from and the one where the guards + paladin attacked). If the barbarian had nothing to do with the original theft of the sword then what is the common "legal" outcome for individuals that associate with thieves? If it's known that in most cases anyone traveling with a thief will be executed then this quickly starts to move into the self-defense area (even if it's self-defense against the state).

On the other hand, if the authorities of the two settlements are know for being just and fair then killing guards who are doing their jobs moves firmly back into the evil category.

But then there's the question of what exactly happened, what was the rest of the "evil party" doing, and what is the reputation of the party? If it went down like...

Paladin: There! They match the description, detain them!
Guards: Halt! You're wanted for questioning!
Evil Party: *Fireball*, *Spring Attack*, *Rage*

Then, yup...evil. But the only description given of the party in the OP is that it's "evil" so this fits and it would seem the CN barbarian should be having more of an issue with the party than the guards or just "barbarian-up" and go evil instead of avoiding it.

But if it went down like...

Paladin: There! They match the description, detain them!
Guards: Halt! By order of this Paladin you are to be put to death here and now! Present your necks for our blades to cleave them!
Evil Party: *Fireball*, *Spring Attack*, *Rage*

Then, meh. Definitely self-defense...but self-defense only because they stole something so it's a situation that is a result of that original evil act...expect the consequences of an evil party's actions.

Which of course just leads into the "is associating with evil itself evil" quagmire. For me it's just a matter of how long. Defending your friends isn't evil. But defending your friends against those seeking retribution for their evil acts...yeah, now it's making you evil.

Say you're friends with a guy since kindergarten; BFFs sharing decoder rings and making pillow forts together every weekend. Then in 8th grade your friend starts bullying people at school. You don't, but you still hang out with him. Then one day he steals some lunch money off a 6th grader and that kid gets a bunch of his friends together the next day, surrounding your friend and demanding his money back. If you jump in and start wailing on 6th graders then you've become an evil schmuck...because you're defending the original evil act of your BFF.

So yeah, looking at it, all around I'd say the barbarian engaged in some level of evil action. But it's an evil party so...cool.

Based on the poster's second post...it's just as possible that the GM was upset because he had planned some kind of adventure that would occur after the party was taken into custody (and hence all that work gone down the tubes) as being upset from seeing an planned NPC go down like a gelatinous cube diving into a black hole (off-topic thought...dragons soak gelatinous cubes in alcohol for g-shots). Just as the sword may have some history/background to it that makes it important (whether it is or is not magical).

It's generally bad form to assume, and out right make statements declaring that assumption, of the reasons for other people's emotions. Unless the GM explicity said "I'm upset because you took down the paladin so fast," then it could be anything. And the fact he did state that he expected a negotiation leads me to think that it was that that is more at the root of his frustration.

But it's the same on the other side...when the GM starts expecting the PCs to act one way or another well, it rarely works out that way. Best for the GM just to plan for how the NPCs will react to a wide variety of PC actions and reactions.

As for why the barbarian would care about what they wanted...well that's up to the player. But low Int certainly justifies playing poor reasoning and logic (which the barbarian definitely showed by rushing in like that). But average or better Wis would certainly let the barbarian know that killing guards and a paladin, doing their jobs, would be unwise if the barbarian didn't want even more trouble from the two settlements because now not only has the barbarian aided thieves but he has become a murderer of town guards...and a paladin (and those people tend to have this whole church/order/organization thing backing them that tend to be well organized, thorough, martially skilled, and brimming with smite evils that they just love to let flow from their righteous bodies). The barbarian might not connect all those dots with a low Int, but an average or better Wis would certainly let him understand that he's digging himself a deeper pit in killing town guards.

Ah! Hehe, based on poster's 3rd post here...yeah...that's evil. Low Int or no. If a paladin says "lay down your sword, you're under arrest" and you just hall out and kill him...yup, evil. If instead you say "no" and let the paladin instigate the attack (ready an action if he charges you) then you're in more neutral ground. But again...playing in an evil party...the longer a non-evil character keeps hanging around them the sooner your characters going to become evil (or show them the "errors" of their ways, hehe).

And as for a town sending guards out after a magical sword...well it's explicitly stated in PF that commoners earn 2 gp per month. So a magical +1 longsword represents the total wealth gained from a commoner working for 96.46 years! So just based on that, such an item would be the equivalent of being worth $1,108,306.

Fizzygoo wrote:

The first sentence of the ability is "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell." Since it ends there, this is how it is brought into being. At will (but a standard action as per SA abilities), as the spell.

Second sentence "A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds." Which indicates that once activated then the paladin can do this.

I don't think the second sentence indicates anything. Lacking indication that the second sentence is tied to the first, to me, says that the second sentence stands on it's own.

I agree there. I'm just defaulting to; since the second sentence doesn't explicitly say something like;

"Instead," which would refer to the first sentence, "a paladin can activate this ability and then" which would change the default of the standard action needed for spell-like abilities "a paladin can, as a move action..."

...that it means the paladin has to spend a standard action to activate and then, at any time while it is activated, the paladin can make a move action against a single target to detect evil as if they've concentrated for 3 rounds on it. It's a separate, self-contained, second sentence that isn't worded as to override the first sentence nor the inherent standard-action requirement of spell-like abilities.

But it's vague enough that the alternate interpretation seems valid.

It never occurred to me that there was another interpretation.

Yeah, I've never DM/GM'd a paladin in 3.0 through Pathfinder, and have only played with one in a current Pathfinder game, so it never crossed my radar until I read through this thread (no need to rule-layer the paladin at the table, hehe). Then was semi-surprised that I interpret it differently and I figure some clarification will prove me wrong at some point, but till then just "shrug" and do my best to pleasantly discuss the topic while avoiding "arguing" about it.

I have several favorites, but I'll limit myself to two, related, PCs here.

Simon was a selfish, self-centered, (NE) Damaran (Forgotten Realms, this was 3.5 era) wizard with ranks in Craft (Cooking), a raven familiar, and a heavy stutter. He came into the game at about 2nd or 3rd level and he was a coward; afraid of pain, afraid of being singled out, afraid of not being liked. He hooked up with the party as caravan guards, but he just paid the caravan coin to let him travel with them and he cooked their meals as it was the one thing he knew people would like him for. Spellcasting tended to scare people in the Great Dale region. Also, his real name was Igan, but he traveled under an alias as he had stolen from a thieves guild and didn't want to call attention to himself while escaping the region. When attacked on the road, his favorite spot was under one of the wagons. He would hide there and wait for an opportune moment to shoot his crossbow or, if no one else was watching, cast a spell.

Well, 4th edition came, our GM wanted to run it, so he dropped the previous campaign, did the 100 year timeline jump in the Forgotten Realms, and we "rolled up" new characters who were all distantly related to the previous campaign's PCs. My first character in that "died" (a whole other favorite character and story) and then, when we dropped 4th ed, and began using Pathfinder for the same setting/characters, I made a Wizard (6th level when introduced, now 11th).

Norok, an eighth-Damaran, LN, organized, well mannered, knows 19 languages, cautious-bordering-on-cowardly, has a heavy stutter, and is overloaded with equipment like a human-sized Nodwick. He also has a raven familiar, well, an imp familiar that rarely shows its true form but strangely, oddly, this "raven" is a really good cook and bothers the party paladin to no end. Seems old Igan/Simon met his end and ended up "making the grade" from lemure to imp in the ~100 years interval, and came to his great great great grandson to help "guide him." Norok gets to be the voice of reason and intelligence in the party, withholding spells until absolutely necessary. Norok also is a dabbler in alchemy (well, 11 ranks at 11th level, kind of dabbling). And he collects everything; he has samples of the party's paladin's blood and hair, the monk's blood, the sorcerer's dandruff, bits of medusa flesh, shards of a mirror of clones, dust from Hades, etc., etc., etc. Only the paladin and monk are still unnerved to see him, after a battle, take out his traveling alchemical kit and start collecting samples of the slain enemies and spell residues.

Neither of the characters appear useful on the surface. Eccentric, odd, spaced-out. But currently Norok is saving the party as they walk through the Grey Wastes/Hades by casting mirage arcana over their camp sites so they can minimize the risk of being attacked while resting.

Well, I'm going to throw my two coppers in, just based on the text in the class ability and standard Spell-like Ability rules.

But I really don't mind the way it is considered in the majority of this thread, and the Duke's example is mega-boss.

So yeah, as has been pointed out, using a Spell-like Ability is a standard action unless stated otherwise.

The first sentence of the ability is "At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell." Since it ends there, this is how it is brought into being. At will (but a standard action as per SA abilities), as the spell.

Second sentence "A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds." Which indicates that once activated then the paladin can do this.

So in one round a paladin can activate detect evil as a standard action, then as a move action concentrate on an individual person or object and gain all the information about that individual as if they had been concentrating on them for 3 rounds as per standard spell rules. Then as a free action the paladin can yell out "EVIL, PURE AND SIMPLE, FROM THE 8TH DIMENSION! GET 'EM!"

This gives a nice buffer for the paladin player to think long and hard (until his/her next turn) about what action should be taken.

But gain, I wouldn't consider it broken if the paladin just needed to move action to bring the spell-like-ability into action and have a standard to rush into something they may not have taken the time to think through. Works for me, either way, but if one of my players makes a paladin I'll let them know I'm going with the standard+move interpretation...barring any future errata, FAQ, better-arguments/etc., of course. :)

Short answer, create the base monster + templates and that's your final monster CR, go from there.

And as Eridan points out, knowing the specific race and template (and even the class) would definitely help (as, what CR 1 monster wouldn't add HD?)

Following the Monsters as PCs:

Base Monster Race 1 CR
Template +2 CR
Final Monster Race (MR) CR 3

"Normal" PCs Average Level (PAL)

PAL --- MR
3 ----- CR 3 + 0 PC levels
4 ----- CR 3 + 1 PC levels
5 ----- CR 3 + 2 PC levels
5.5 --- CR 3 + 3 PC levels
6 ----- CR 3 + 4 PC levels
7+ ---- Advance as normal as you only gain the bonus-every-three-levels-level a number of times equal to 1/2 base MR CR, round down. So, the example monster PC will end up having 2 PC classes less than the rest of the party from when the party reaches 6th level and there after.

When the Monsters as PCs section says "It is recommended that for every 3 levels gained by the group, the monster character should gain an extra level..." I take it as assuming the monster character started adventuring at their final calculated CR...because that's the earliest it should be introduced in order to maintain party level balance. So one should count the "every 3 levels" from that base, not from when actually introduced into the party. Doing it this way allows the GM to calculate how many PC levels the monster character should have when introduced into an existing party.

In other words, looking at the minotaur example. If you calculate the 'extra level every 3 levels' after introducing the minotaur character into the campaign; then if introduced to a 10th level party, the minotaur would only have 6 PC levels. But had the minotaur been introduced when the party was 4th level then by the time the party reaches 10th level the minotaur would be 8th level. Since the intent is to help balance out monster PCs at higher levels, then calculating from the monster's start of gaining PC levels is the way to go.

While on one hand, since templates do not often add HD to the creature, many templates bestow more powers/abilities/etc. as HD increases. So as the character gains levels they will gain those abilities from their template (unless it's specifically stated they're gained from racial HD) which is essentially why base CR + template CR should form the basis of the monstrous PC's CR when determining all else.

The caveat, of course, is if I've missed something somewhere that would go against this...or GM prerogative.

I... I don't know whether to love this or hate this :D

:) Then I shall simultaneously give you my thanks and deeply apologize.

Interesting, in your example of attacking you said the attacker needed sixteen because a +2 defense card was played. I would have thought a 14 was needed.

Danka, it has been fixed. :)

Crap, was supposed to be posted in Gamer Life - Gamer Talk. If moderator can move it there, much appreciated. :)

Rules modification here for playing monopoly like hormonally surging gamers. Enjoy.

Was the player playing the bard one of the new players or an experienced player?

If newer player I probably would have gone the non-power attack route just to give him a taste of how dangerous it can be for his character to enter melee (or at least I'd feel bad for forgetting to go a little softer). For an experienced player, nah, PCs can die.

I am personally completely split between what I like in my head versus what actually happens in my games on this topic.

In my head, I like the idea that PCs can and will die. Not a lot, but one PC per level or every other level maybe. Maybe that's too much, hehe, but "now and again" anyway...to help foster the idea of why most of the people of the land don't just run off every day searching through ruins for loot that will make let them live in opulence for the rest of their lives (unskilled laborers make 2 gp/month (UC, Downtime) so with 1,000 gp they could live their normal lifestyle for 40 years and not have to work).

In reality, however, I've found that even throwing in a CR equal to APL+3 they tend to do just fine. And death tends to occur to only one player (in my campaign and another DM's) so much so that the other players will jokingly point it out now and again. But the other DM and I are pretty sure it's because this player makes anything but melee-tanks yet he plays his characters like they are (generally). So with that player, when he's about to do something that I, as the DM, think is clearly going to get him killed I try to make sure his character has all the appropriate-for-its-level knowledge of the situation (like the time he wanted his sorcerer/rogue to insult-then throw his dagger at the lead, of three, beholder "diplomats" when the CR was waaaaaay over the APL. "These are beholders," I said. "I know." "Like, they can disintegrate, stone-person, anti-magic." "Yeah." "What's your character's intelligence and wisdom?" "Both over 11." "Okay, yeah, your character's 99% certain these things could kill you, real quick." "Ah, okay, I don't do that then."). There are times he listens, and there are times he doesn't and it's turned out when he doesn't listen to the DM warnings those are the times his characters die (though he pleasantly surprises me when doesn't die :) ).

On that note, a Merfolk should never be allowed as a Paladin, because they can't fall if someone tries to trip them.

Shhh! My DM's not going to let me keep playing my giant centipede paladin if he figures that out!

This tickles me like a stirge sucking the marrow from a gelatinous cube's humorous.

Expanding on the temp player option:

Ty Ferfel of KotDT started the Gamer Temp Corps for these situations. But, if I remember correctly, the Corps in general, and Ty specifically, followed a clearly defined and high-caliber gamer ethical code that prohibits the temp gamer from attempting to derail the campaign or, if assuming control of an absent player's character to follow any and all guidelines as set by the absent player.

And that's the core of the issue. As long as you're open and honest about the position at your table being a temporary situation, and they accept that, then all that you need to worry about is how ethical the temp will be. There's the risk that they may see a temp game as something to derail, ruin, or just take less seriously than you would prefer.

Additionally, feelings change. In the beginning the temp may be happy just to get the chance to play, but they then, over the course of the campaign, may come to feel a sense community, friendship, camaraderie, etc. all of which can be very hard to severe with even among the most mature of human beings. So finding temp gamers that have an external reason to leave at the end of the time span (such as they are moving out of the area at a set date) is a good idea as both sides will have a reason to stop playing together.

Otherwise, for temp players, a couple of animate dead spells could do the trick but the authorities tend to look down on that (as do neighbors, co-workers, etc.).

Yeah, only thing I can find follows MattR1986's suggestion of taking the 3 Blind-Fight feats (Blind-Fight, Improved, and Greater)...if the barbarian is 15th level (requires 15 ranks in Perception as a pre-req.).

Or...the barbarian had access to something akin to a wish or miracle spell and wished for blindsight (see below)

As GM this is what I would do...

Give the bad guy blindsight (not blindsense), which states "Using nonvisual senses, such as sensitivity to vibrations, keen smell, acute hearing, or echolocation, a creature with blindsight maneuvers and fights as well as a sighted creature."

That covers all your requirements in one (sensitivity to vibrations = tremorsense, keen smell = scent, echolocation = echolocation, etc.)

I would then describe the bad guys actions in, and out, of combat as using these aspects "he sniffs the air as you take your five-foot step to close on him." "As the wizard flies up in the air above him, he cocks an ear in the wizards direction." "When the cleric steps over to the pillar you see his toes crunch-up, clawing like, on the floor."

As GM you're not bound to standard character creation rules. It's not "homebrew" to create interesting NPCs and everything in the game other than the PCs are GM discretion at some level (It's GM discretion to throw the 1st level PCs up against a pit fiend, just a normal 'book-backed-up' pit fiend). The only thing you have to be concerned about is making sure the encounter is fun, exciting, and memorable. Oh, and deciding if the loss of sight and the gaining of blindsight justifies an increase in the bad guy's CR or not.

Essentially the bad guy is gaining the magical-item equivalent of something between Goggles of the Night (12,000 gp value) and a Lantern of Revealing (30,000 gp value, though more limited as only he gains the benefits from it and not all his minions within range); but it's not magical (can't be dispelled) and it's inherent (it can't be removed and it's not treasure the PCs can get from looting the body). Within range, the bad guy doesn't have to worry about invisibility (but still worries about ethereal), darkness, deeper darkness, etc. And he doesn't have to worry about sight/gaze-based attacks.

To mitigate, you could give the bad guy weakness to sonic based attacks, as well as things like stinking cloud (-2 or -4 to saves based against spells and spell-like effects that target his good senses). Then leave hints for the PCs to pick up on.

For mental abilities, I homebrew the following for "average humans" (adult/age-of-maturity mental stats of 10 [Int, Wis, Cha]):

From about 3-5 years old, all mental stats are 3.
From about 6-pre-puberty, all mental stats are 5.
From puberty to pre-maturity, all mental stats are 7.
At maturity, all mental stats are 10.
At middle age, all mental stats are 11*.
At old age, all mental stats are 12*.
At venerable age, all mental stats are 13*.
* assuming no age related degenerative diseases.

So then setting to Pathfinder ages, where "adulthood" is 15 years old, then...

Age 03: Mental Attributes 3.
Age 04-05: Mental Attributes 4.
Age 06-08: Mental Attributes 5.
Age 09-11: Mental Attributes 6.
Age 12: Mental Attributes 7.
Age 13: Mental Attributes 8.
Age 14: Mental Attributes 9.
Age 15-34: Mental Attributes 10.
Age 35-52: Mental Attributes 11.
Age 53-69: Mental Attributes 12.
Age 70+: Mental Attributes 13.

Which gives a rough frame of reference so if a player dump-stats Cha to 8, then I say "your character has the force of personality of a 13 year old...overly self-centered and generally lacking in empathy...a mini-semi-sociopath." Etc.

I just watched the movie "Amazons and Gladiators" on Netflix.

It was suggested to me because I had given 3 stars to Deathstalker and Barbarian Queen.

The dialog is epically terrible and the acting is like melting a bad thing over a thing that is bad in order to create a double-layered bad dip...and you forgot the chips (U.S.)/crisps (U.K.).

But it has a theme of female empowerment throughout and also makes use of the virgin-mother-crone motif.

The virgin is essentially the hero of the story. The mother is the martial matron that instructs the virgin in her skills. And the crone is the bardic biographer of the virgin's story.

It's refreshing in that that Amazon's are nearly fully clothed or clothing-appropriate for a cold-season temperate climate. But there are many instances of pandering to the hetero-male throughout (though far less-so than the ~20 years earlier Deathstalker/Barbarian Queen movies).

One can extrapolate a couple/few decades on the mother-figures and twice that on the younger female characters to get various personalities and dispositions of old-age/venerable category women (all with a general martial focus).

But did I mention the terrible dialog and bad acting? Yeah, it's really a terrible movie that it goes right past becoming the good kind of bad and delves into the weird lacuna of the liminal Nicolas Cage.

But it's only a pseudo Cageian cenote as it's really mostly bad. Bad, bad.

Slightly off OP:

I say feed upon the desires of your players. Look at their backgrounds, see what their motivations are, etc.

So they escape the temple, but where to they end up, where did they leave off? Just outside in the wilderness? At a farmstead? At a village inn? A Town? City? If they inform the people where they currently are that they escaped and defeated in battle the clergy of that temple, will it matter to those people? Have they heard of the temple and are then thankful for the PCs dealing a blow or are they now fearful that the temple will send servants out for revenge on the PCs and all who give them succor?

Either way, if the PCs to tell their tale, some NPCs might think, "oh, these guys should go and do-good at the ruins/temple/swamp/cave/etc. of the nasty-evil-thing that's been giving our settlement, or nearby settlements, grief." If the PCs turn down the quest then then NPCs can respond with, "well, those Zon-Kuthon were wrong in thinking you were special, now weren't they." And if they agree to the quest then "Well, it's clear why those cultists thought you were special enough to fear and needing to be sacrificed."

Do the players want revenge on all who serve Zon-Kuthon or are they interested in making their own way in the world, just leaving the temple experience as a bad memory?

Also, since they were kidnapped, will their friends and family be worried? Will they want to head back to hearth and home to let them know they are okay?

One way to go about it is ebb-and-flow with the Zon-Kuthon. Now that they've escaped, give them an unrelated quest/adventure; save the village from the goblins, rescue the farmer's horses from the ogre, protect the young noble on his/her diplomatic travel to the next village/city.

After that, give them another unrelated-to-the-Zon-Kuthon-cultists quest but have Zon-Kuthon elements show up; rumors of assassins looking for the PCs in the city, slain NPCs that resemble one or more of the PCs with a Zon-Kuthon calling card at the scene, etc.

Then at the end, or near the end, of that adventure have the assassins show up and, if defeated, with signs of which temple they're working for (a rival to the one they escaped, a subordinate cult to the one they escaped from, etc.?).

All in all, depending on exactly where the last session left off, it seems like a good point to go over PC histories, motivations, and what they said (in character) during the "opening" adventure to help craft the next adventure to be one that all the players will be interested in.

Either that or just attack them with a host of great wyrm red dragons with the advanced and fiendish templates and 20 levels of barbarian each. ;)

Pierce: Now you can all hang out in suspended humiliation (time stop) and think about what you learned today. 1. Don't screw with me. 2. Invite me to your crap.
Neil (playing Ducane): Is it my turn?
Abed (DM): Yes, but you can't move.
Neil: That's fine. For my turn I feel sorry for Pierce Hawthorne.
Pierce: Pfff, save it.
Neil: No, I really do man.
Pierce: Good. For my turn I rape the Ducane family. Again.
Troy: Geeze.
Britta: For my turn, I pity Pierce too.
Pierce: Trust me kitty, I'm having the time of my life. I won. I won Dungeons & Dragons...and it was advanced!
Jeff: I pity Pierce.
Pierce: Knock it off.
Annie: Yeah, you really out-did yourself this week. There's a lot of pain in you. I seriously feel bad.
Pierce: Feel sorry for you new fat BFF.
Shirley: No we're done doing that. He's going to be fine, aren't you, Neil. You, Pierce, I really worry about. At least for my turn, anyway.
-Community (S2E14)

Or in other words, a form of peaceful protest. "For my turn, I do nothing but point out the sexual harassment of Aaron's character." And if sexual harassment continues and you're playing a cleric then, "for my turn I do nothing but point out the sexual harassment of Aaron's character in honor of the goodness of my deity." If the DM says you must not withhold healing on Aaron's character, then "I'm sorry, but my deity would not allow me to heal rapists who are going to continue on their evil paths. Only after she atones for her sins, will I heal Aaron's character." And the no-healing until atonement clause resets after every misdeed.

[ Begin overly obtuse philosophical rambling for Comedy's sake ]

Rarely is there ever a black and white conclusion when it comes to judging the merits of dialectical exchanges between human beings within a predefined play-space that are not related to the play-space.

A detailed contextual framework is needed in order to increase the accuracy and precision of assessing inter-social dialog breakdowns as adjudicating an assessment based solely on 'was it an error in judgement that two parties engaged in a non-play-space related argument' is in itself prone to drawing false conclusions; especially if further information on the event is included at a later date.

Key aspects of the meta-event that should be included include, among other things;

1. Is the social group engaged in the play-space bound with long-standing social ties that extend outside the play-space itself or are the individuals within the group relatively unfamiliar with each other, their primary, if not only, foci being located within the play-space? With long-standing socially tied groups, non-play-space discussions often occur more regularly as a form strengthening and re-establishing said social ties but unfamiliar groups, where the individuals are unaware of commonalities between each other, the inherent social contract lies, reinforced, within the play-space itself.

2. Was the event emotionally charged by one or both of the individuals engaged in the discussion? The inherent ambiguity of the term "argument" leaves open the possibility of; either an emotional-negative discussion, an emotionally neutral discussion from opposing points of view, or something in between the two.

3. What was the temporal ratio of the event itself to the totality of the play-space session and how does that ratio compare to other non-play-space interruptions such as declarations of impressions of social-media events, gastrointestinal duties, and sidereal meme contagions?

In conclusion, even if points one through three above are fully addressed, an accurate and/or precise conclusion of the event may not be concluded, even in lengthy and long drawn out conclusions such as this.

[ End overly obtuse philosophical rambling for Comedy's sake ]

even if you were married, Aaron would force his character's advances upon you.

On one hand I'm feeling bad for Aaron; given the description of him and how hard it must make his life especially socially.

But that is no excuse for his behavior.

he tries to sleep with every NPC and PC ... if you character refuses, his character will force you.

I feel for you, Umbriere, that is by far the worst player story I've ever heard.

I used to watch the show with my daughter and I enjoyed it a lot. For Christmas, 1999 I think, I got her talking plushies of the ppg's (squeeze them for a random quote) and 14 years later they still talk. :) I haven't seen any other than the original show though.

Fizzygoo certainly isn't wrong, though I think there's a time for compelling, tragic villains and a time for a villain who's just an a*&#%!*. It's good to balance the two without going all in one direction.

I like your thinking, KC :)

a*&#%!* NPCs are great all around, including avoiding cartoonish evil villains.

In the campaign I'm running currently, for the first couple of months, I kept having townsfolk and merchants mention how horrible and terrible this bandit, the Ironhide Kid, and his troupe is, always raiding caravans coming to their city but never often enough for authorities to get a fix on the bandit's location. With the lieutenants, a vicious gnoll fist-fighter, named Zengyek, and a dwarven gunslinger, the people were afraid of the bandits even though they had never robbed anything in town. But overall the info the PCs are getting indicates that these bandits are well above their level.

"Bad isn't that bad when you're doing it to bad girls." - Shirley Bennett giving in to the corruption of power (Community S2E7).

As many have previously stated in various ways; evil NPCs are only evil by their actions...in the game. It doesn't matter what their race, species, class, etc., are, that's all flavoring to the main course.

Writing "Alignment: [Something]Evil" on an NPC's sheet doesn't truly make them evil. Sure, if they're powerful enough to have an aura they'll register as evil when a detect evil spell is lobbed in their face but it's still a bland dressing on the undiscovered meal.

None of the OP examples have any action seasonings (evil or otherwise), save the drug war example but nothing in that example has the overpowering taste of evil: The wizards corner the market on potions. Hemp is outlawed...even though it's nearly eradicated. The only hint of non-good in the whole example is that people have been made to fear the sea god as a farce by the temples. But no explanation for why the temple is doing so. Any number of ingredients could be included that would actually make the wizards, or the druids, or the temples evil or good or neutral.

In creative writing terms, the OP is an example of telling, not showing.

It's the difference between;

"The landlord was an evil man."
and
"With a final stroke of his pen, the landlord ensured his pockets would be filled and the orphanage would be torn down by the end of the week; sending hundreds of children into the winter-frozen streets of the city."

What is it that the tieflings, goblins, ratfolk, and fallen angels do that makes them evil...or at least makes the "normal" peoples of the world think they're evil...or are those just cultural examples for the campaign in which to work in order to form evil villains?

Each one of those first four entries should have a sentence that starts with "And now they are..." describing how they fit in (or don't) with the rest of civilization, describing what makes them evil.

For example...

"And the tieflings, in their rage against evil foreparents, strike out unmercifully against cults in the capital city at night, caring not if innocents are slain in the process."

"And the primate goblins have been stealing small children from the border villages to use as sacrifices to their ancestor-god."

"And the ratfolk view the civilized humans (or what ever) as debauched and barbarous, the monks seek out to convert the humans by any means available to become second-class citizens in their society."

"And the fallen angles seek redemption through the honor of mounted combat with all who encroach upon their territory as they think by reaching a specific number of "honorable" kills can they regain their wings."

With something like that, you now have the base ingredients to draw upon to make less-cartoony BBEGs and their minions, along with good NPCs within those groups that can help the PCs; traitors to their kind as they see the evil being done, opposition parties, etc.

As for the Wizards/Druids/Temple situation. If the wizards have formed an "alchemical guild" that ensures the quality of the potions and ingredients used to make them...then far from evil. If they use the power of their monopoly to kill independent potion-makers then we're moving in the "right" direction for making an evil organization. Who made the hemp illegal and why? Was the whole city using it far more than recreationally in the past, causing the populace to stop working and just feed off the fish they fished from the fisheries which caused the temple to grow angry that all they got was fish bones in the collection plates so they made hemp illegal and paid the druids to eradicate the plant, paid them with fish until the last boats fell to ruin so now the druids are turning to making potions in opposition to the alchemical guild?

Worst DM, for me, lately...

Then, a long time ago...

Worst DM leading to a Worst Player Moment:

Long time ago, I was a "worst DM" (and still could be but most of my players generally say they enjoy my games now). This was about 25 years ago, loosely using 1st ed. AD&D. I say loosely as I was about 13 or 14 years old at the time, hadn't really read the combat rules. The game was basically, "you fight Orcus" roll some attacks on both sides, "you kill Orcus" DM (me) rolls up random treasure and artifacts and hands them out. "You level up," and everyone levels up their character. Rinse and repeat. There was some story element, but I don't remember it so it probably wasn't any good. But everyone else was new to the game so the newness and excitement kept them coming back despite my short comings; they just never had a good DM to know how bad things were with me.

But at the time, at least, I wasn't a DM that said "no" to the players often if ever. If they wanted to try it, I'd let them. Luckily 2nd edition came out soon which prompted other players to buy the books and read them and then correct me on the rules...which then made me read them closely and so I entered my "better DMing" phase.

So in the quagmire of my poor DMing, one evening, 5 or 6 fourteen-year-old-boys closed off in my bedroom, the body odor swirling in the rising temperature of the body heat, playing these 100th level characters with loot out their ears, the following happens:

There are two brothers that are playing in the game. The older brother, is the same age as the rest of the guys and the younger brother is a year younger than the rest of us. The older brother is one of the bad-asses of the school; nobody messes with him save the ones that do and they all have lost. The main reason this guy, and his brother, are playing with me is because I just moved in next door to them about six months ago or so (we'd been playing at least twice a week every week for 5 months at this point).

The younger brother is playing a Thief, and he decides to pick pocket some precious magical item off his brother's character. The other brother starts to get angry at even the suggestion of doing so. The younger brother rolls, and succeeds. Then the older brother goes ballistic. He starts yelling at the top of his lungs "f%$#! you, I'm going to kill you! You little s%$@!..." and so on. His fists are clenched, veins popping out on his forehead and neck.

There's a moment where I'm in shock. No body else is moving, largely due to fear of the older brother's reputation from school.

Then the shock leaves me and nonchalantly I interrupt and say to the older brother, "hey, can I see your character sheet, I need to check something" as I'm leafing through the DMG. Without thinking he hands his character sheet to me, all the while continuing to scream at his brother. Literally foaming at the mouth.

Then I ripped his character sheet in half.

"... there was silence in heaven for about half an hour." Though really it was a split second as the older brother slowly turned fully towards me, fists still clenched, and he started to yell at me.

I stopped him by saying calmly, "hey [name], look at yourself. This is a game, [name]. It's just a game. Look at what you're saying to your brother. Over a game."

He sat down.

I said, "don't worry, it can be an exciting game, but it's not worth getting angry over. Anyway, your character isn't dead just because the paper is torn in half. It's still legible, and here's a new character sheet," I tore one out of the prepackaged 1st AD&D blank character sheet book and handed it to him, "in case you want to copy it over instead of taping the old one back together."

To this day the rest of the players that were there comment that they can't believe I didn't get the crap kicked out of me then and there. But after that incident he turned out to be one of the best players I've had the honor of playing with and one of my longest and 'bestest' friends.

I could tell the following story in a way to make it seem like a "Stupid, Stupid Player Characters!" story, but really, in my opinion, it was awesomely well-played.

This was a 2nd edition D&D Forgotten Realms campaign. We were about 8th level (give or take a level) and overall pretty standard. I remember I was playing a dwarven fighter. I think we had a rogue and a cleric. But it was the wizard that really stood out.

The wizard dressed in red robes and always declared himself as a Red Wizard of Thay where ever we went to whom ever we met. Even though we had never encountered any Red Wizards, in back-stories or in-game. But he enjoyed the fear and awe that it brought to NPCs when he said it.

Add to that, the player playing the wizard kept a journal that was, well, one-sided and made his wizard out to be the heroic savior of the party for every encounter and event and referred to the rest of the party as his "followers" or "worshipers."

So one day we're traveling down a canyon or steep gorge, and up ahead about twenty mounted riders wearing Zhentarim colors and symbols come around a bend. The lead knight commands us to declare ourselves.

My dwarf leans over to our wizard and whispers something like, "play it cool. The Zhents hate Red Wizards, if I remember correctly." (And at least for our campaign the two groups did hate each other).

Our wizard nods at me, then kicks his horse forward a bit and yells, "I am [so-and-so, I forget the character's name], Grand Red Wizard of Thay, Leader of the Hosts of Thaymount, Master of All that I see!"

The Zhentarim draw weapons and the leader starts to say something like, "drop you weapons," when our wizard lobs a fireball into them.

The player is giddy as he rolls his six-siders. The rest of us are horrified. He tallies up the damage, the DM applies it, and...not one of the twenty are killed. Damaged, of course, but all still breathing.

The combat was harsh, several of us were nearly killed, and only because the leader and his two lieutenants fled after killing the rest of the Zhents did we survive.

Our wizard's journal entry for that event read along the lines of "Ungrateful Zhentarim attacked us, but with my mighty fireball I slew them all save their leader who ran screaming down the canyon in fear. My followers fell to their knees, worshiping my greatness!"

tl;dr: I did the opposite, but essentially the same thing and equally annoying to the GM, of "shooting the BBEG in the face during the monologue" and got my party killed.

Very good post, and a nice point on the iron cage of imagination. I mostly agree, and I can see through your explanations how your world is taking shape (it seems healthy and coming along). My concern is one of balance, so I will thoroughly balance a monster race if the players want to play them. I am all for demihumans and even odder things being played, but there must be balance. If they want to play a fish man, that is fine, we can do it, but the fish man must be statted to be balanced.

Thank you.