As noted elsewhere, it probably looks different from the other side of that arrangement.
Depends on which side of all that you're on, I expect.
Game design based on The Gamers 2. *nods* Maybe next we can look at the Knights of the Dinner Table comics. Can't wait to implement Demerits for players who mouth off to the GM... that sounds like a good idea, right?
In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure the anathema system exists to minimize ambiguity and prevent this exact sort of situation. It's about as clear a set of rules as it'll ever be while still supporting the flavor of divine beneficence.
That said: if they made this an optional rule that groups could opt into, like the Removing Alignment rules in Pathfinder Unchained, I'd support that. It gives groups that prefer to play that way the green light, and that's just fine by me.
"The rules went from telling the DM he could nix a character to telling him he couldn't."
No, they went from characters having to be houseruled in, to those characters being legal within the rules. "If my 3.0 GM doesn't let me play my nonlawful monk, she's nixing my character!" is as much the GM's fault as not letting you play your wizard with a full BAB. It's something she could allow, but just because you want her to doesn't make her wrong for not changing things to fit your wishes.
So all those nonlawful monk players in PF1... however many there were... aren't necessarily problem players. They are, however, trying to play a character that operates on different standards than the game assumes, and just because the GM doesn't let them have their way is no reason to vilify her.
PF2 seems to be going for a strengthening of GM authority-to-make-rulings in general, which I'm just fine with. But I suppose it won't be quite as golden for players with an adversarial, rather than collaborative, mindset.
(Or GMs out to screw the players, of course... though I don't expect most of those GMs would be swayed by "well, the rules say you can't screw me, so nyah" in any case.)
Honestly, if you can't even trust your GM, you probably shouldn't bother playing with the group. You're probably not going to have a very good time, or help the group have one. It's supposed to be a fun time with friends, not "how can I protect myself from this untrustworthy enemy of a GM". And I can't imagine this sort of baseline atmosphere of mistrust goes away just because your character doesn't have anathema.
I dunno. Maybe I've been playing wrong this whole time. *shrugs*
Is it Respecting Others' Roleplaying Preferences Day on the forums already!? Gosh, how time flies.
Right? People are so sensitive nowadays. It's not like orcs have a long history of being based on racist depictions of people of color, all the way back to their origins. That'd make a redesign that specifically emulated an animal commonly used in racist depictions of another group of PoC really awkward.
So if you have sequences which are somewhat challenging for non-specialists, this lets you provide opportunities for the specialist to feel "I am good at this" and when you have truly heroic challenges (like the aforementioned frozen waterfall clock) only the specialist has a realistic chance of succeeding so if they do, they feel *awesome*.
And then they roll an 8 and fail. And not only do they feel absolutely terrible about missing their obvious opportunity to be the hero, they also feel like every resource they spent on that skill was completely wasted.
I suppose an 11th-level fighter would have had enough ability score increases to be able to multiclass into wizard. At lower levels, I'd be very impressed with their dedication to an otherwise unhelpful stat (and wondering how their physical stats looked because of it).
So your position of "orcs are exactly as valid a player ancestry as everything else, so shut up and stop complaining" doesn't take into account that, in Paizo's organized play setting (which is the only real option some people have to play Pathfinder), orcs are completely unplayable. And this is a campaign that allows fifteen ancestries by default, plus another (estimated) twenty-two additional ancestries. But not orcs. It's almost like, just maybe, there is something different about how they're officially treated.
So maybe telling people to just play orcs instead, or whatever you're saying, isn't really helpful. (I'm erring in your favor and assuming you weren't being intentionally disingenuous.)
Sweet. How do I play one in PFS?
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I too have played (edition) with mediocre GMs who used (game mechanic) to make the game less fun than it otherwise would have been, so I feel your pain.
Allie Silverstrand wrote:
I don't know anything about that halfling comic.
I feel like nobody properly appreciated me getting inspiration for my first PFS character from the sorts of things we discuss in this thread. (And a paladin of Shelyn, no less!)
I'm very disappointed in you all. Very disappointed.
Horror Adventures had a sidebar in the Spells section about how casting spells with an alignment descriptor can shift your alignment, sometimes with as few as two or three castings, or even once in truly egregious cases (such as human sacrifice).
More than a few members of the forum are displeased. There are arguments about RAW and anti-alignment statements, and some... aggressive anti-Paizo sentiment... is starting to ooze into the thread.
Making my Calistrian kitsune phantom thief.
On the one hand, ALL THE TAILS. On the other hand, Deific Obedience. Of Calistria.
I guess I could just slut it up for fun instead of bonuses. But... those bonuses. Plus, it's more fun when it's done for her.
Also under consideration - Realistic Likeness, both to keep things spicy and to make sure her noble identity isn't associated with her numerous kinks.