Jimbo Juggins's page

So, I'm going to register a complaint regarding this entire thread.

I have been playing PFS for over 4 months, and for almost that entire time, my local merchant has been waiting for Paizo to refill his stock of resource books. I have been waiting several weeks now for his back orders to be filled. There are probably close to 10 other players in my area that I know of that are also waiting to buy books that Paizo never seems to have in stock.

Maybe I should just tell him to cancel my long overdue back orders from Paizo and go find another game to play. If you tell me I can't play because I don't have the books, and you won't sell me the books, then I guess I just won't play, ever.

Maybe I should convince the rest of the group that is patiently waiting for Paizo to crank up the presses, or whatever it takes, to dump a game that the game company is obviously not supporting by providing physical product.

And don't tell me to buy the damn pdf. I want a physical book, and I want my local merchant to get his cut of the transaction for being awesomely generous in proving space for us to play.

Can't buy resource books if Paizo won't ship them.

As far as buying resource books at Cons go. I don't really care. I'm don't want to support a CON merchant. I want to support my LOCAL merchant. I also don't want to spend an extra couple of hundred dollars in travel expenses and Con fees, just to buy a book that Paizo will ship to a Con, but won't ship to my friendly neighborhood game store.

FLAME ON!

While many of these items are indeed useful, they are hardly "beginner level" gear.

For instance, I only just acquired a Snap Leaf, at 5th level. Needed my money for more essential stuff before that.

Emir of Entreprenuers,

Greetings! and Salutations from your humble servant, Jimbo Juggins.

I have recently returned from a successful tour of Goka in Tian Xia.

In the shadow of the orchard, I got bit a head of myself. I do believe that your request to see the ladies visage yourself was unwarranted. Is my word not good enough?

I have opened the road to Riddleport for our endeavors, and find my skills have suitably enhanced by my associations both here and there.

Looking forward to many more successful enterprises.

Yours faithfully,

Jimbo Juggins
Talk of the Towns
Tumbler of Tian
Tuner of Tapestries

A proper rogue is scouting for the party.

He encounter traps, usually alone.

He runs into monsters, usually alone.

He relies on his Perception to avoid danger, and his Dexterity to get out of trouble faster than he got into it.

Odds are, I see the ooze before it 'sees" me.

Oozes' initiative bonuses are typically negative and they aren't any faster than I am, so odds are if it does spot me, I can get ahead and stay ahead of it.

If I need assistance taking it out, I retreat to where the party is searching the aftermath of the last encounter. If the whole party can't take it out, why are we there?

If I don't need much help, and I am fully equipped to do significant damage to a non-critable, non-sneak-attackable creature, I might start the fight and call the party in to help finish it off.

If the game makes monsters that are specifically designed to thwart your best ability, you have to be prepared to meet these creatures, as you most surely will.

As far as ooze ambushes, they are typically "mindless" creatures. If I manage to evade one, it wouldn't even remember to "wait" for me to come back after I reached the dead end it was hanging out in front of. It wouldn't even know it was hanging out in front of a dead end.

Finally, I didn't say anything about ignoring it. I am always looking over my shoulder, even when I don't already know I left something hungry behind me. Usually it's just to tell the Melees and Casters to quit arguing who's best, all that noise makes it hard to be Sneaky.

Sure, and again, if you're specifically trying to make a PC seem weak then you'll often succeed. But I would argue that throwing variety at the party makes spellcasters seem stronger, not weaker. Casters have a much bigger toolkit from which to work, and thus have a better chance of finding SOMETHING useful to do. Martial classes (especially at low levels) can often have a harder time. Again, this is not always the case! There are definitely times that martial characters just shine. But on average the casters have more to do.

For example, in the monsters you listed... do they really impede casters effectively? I'm not trying to be Schroedinger's Wizard here, but not all wizard builds are save-or-die based. What part of my low-level Conjurer's Haste/Summon Monster rotation is going to be less effective as a result of any of their abilities? Hell, I can't remember the last time I cast a spell that targeted SR. SR is pretty rare isn't much of a problem at low levels and a lot of battlefield control spells aren't subject to SR. Things like Grease, Create Pit, Summon Monster will all still work and be just as effective. And for things those don't work on (say, an incoporeal undead)-- well, I'll take bets that a wizard or cleric will find a way to deal with that before a fighter will.

On the other hand, the party Rogue or Ninja looks at that ooze, realizes that it's immune to sneak attack, sighs, kicks a tin can down the alley, then cries softly to themselves.

Actually, the average Rogue is too smart to try to beat an ooze, if there is any way to avoid the encounter. He will Sneak, Jump, or Climb his way around the slow, dumb creature. After all, the Rogue's real job is to AVOID things, like traps, AoOs, and sentry monsters. You don't have to kill the enemy to defeat him. Most of the time you just have to get past him (twice).

A less than limber or lively Halfling clad in grey-green garments limps ever so slightly across the ornate marble floor.

"I would have come sooner, your Grace, but I took ill of a fever from which I have only just recovered."

"We have secured the Low Road and the dragons are as friendly as ever they were. It was, as you said, a most unnecessary mission, but profitable nonetheless.

He sits down on a fluffy ottoman at the Prince's table and pours himself a cup of strong black tea.

Let's inject a little Fantasy to this discussion:

Potions = Magic
Scrolls = Magic
Spells = Magic
+1 Sword = Magic
+1 Armor = Magic
Bracers of STR + 4 = Magic
Ki = Magic

Take all of these kind of things out of the equation when you're discussing balance between Martial classes and Magic classes.

Let's also take out a few things that are mistaken for Magic that have crept into the game lately:

• Chemistry via Alchemy. What a wart we have grown from a tiny flask of napalm.
• Guns. Really. Couldn't find a decent Spanish Main era RPG?

At this point in the development of this game, these things are not Magic, they are what Arthur C. Clark referred to as "Technology Sufficiently Advanced to be Indistinguishable from Magic".

I would also like to point out that the Europeans, and the Germans in particular favor a game with more "Realism" and less Magic.

Personally, I think that the current state of the game is pure, rampant Monty Haulism in the extreme. In the history of the Fantasy literature genre, there are rarely enough magic swords to go around, and wizards are few and far between, and half of them are very bad guys. But here in Fantasy RPG land, the amount of Magic "loot" available in the reference books, and the scenarios and the modules is tremendous, and +1 magic swords can be found in the local market place.

This discussion brings to mind the Ray Harryhaussen classic The Golden Voyage of Sindbad. where Tom Baker played the evil sorcerer. Every time he cast a major spell, he aged 5 years.

You want to even up the Magic to Weapon imbalance, then make the Magic more expensive, and I mean MUCH more expensive. Make the character pay for it in BLOOD. 1 HP lost for every spell level cast, recoverable when you "rest" to relearn your spells.

While you might have to cast that Fireball with your last rattling breath, it's not an extreme change in anything else in the game. A Mage who can cast a 5th level spell should be able to spare 5 HP every once in a while, but might not want to do it at the drop of a hat.

Thank you all for an excellent and civil discussion. I'm curious to see what other opinions will be expressed and arguments made, but I won't have the pleasure of reading them until tomorrow, because I'm logging off now. I'm going to shower, change clothes, go to a local club with some friends, and dance the night away to EBM, because tomorrow is my birthday. I'll turn 40 in a few hours from now, and it seems like I should either be celebrating or drowning my sorrows when that happens:)

Cheers

Happy Birthday!

Not RAW BTW, which says that Cavaliers can be any Alignment, but I think that if you belong to an Order, you must be Lawful.

I don't see why a cavlier couldn't be Evil, as long as he was still honorable, and therefor Lawful Evil.

I wouldn't pull real world morality concepts into a fantasy world where you live and die by absolute judgements on Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. Absolute morality may be strictly fantasy, but then, so is this game. Stick to the exact words used in the RAW as to what is Good and Lawful, and what is Evil and Chaotic.

Finally, in regards to "punishment", it's not your call to do anything other than check his Scenario Chronicles for previous voluntary violations of his alignment, and note another one. The Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play{/i] has a detailed review process for excluding characters from the PFS campaign due to wantonly Evil acts, and if you are playing in a PFS sanctioned event, you should follow the procedures in [i]The Guide.

By the way, you should have told the Cavalier that his actions were going to affect his alignment before he did them, so that he could make the decision to "voluntarily" go against his sworn duty. It shouldn't come after the fact.

I think that challenging his "friend", the Cleric, and beating him unconscious was the real Chaotic Evil act in this scenario.

To be Lawful and true to his Order, the Cavalier should have let the Cleric heal the poor bastard, and then challenged the bandit to "Trial by Combat", allowing the bandit a choice of weapons, and the right to go free if he won the single combat, which of course would be "to the death". In any Cavalier's eyes, and in quite a few medieval era courts (just to provide an example, and not saying that your campaign has the same court system), this would be a "Fair Trial", as fair as if by "Jury of Peers".

If you follow a Code or Order, the Code is your Law, and is higher than any other Code or Law that you HAVE NOT sworn to uphold and abide by, and most probably higher than any other Code or Law that you HAVE sworn to uphold. If you violate this Code, you will ultimately lose whatever special powers it might give you. However, you should also consider:

How many Chaotic acts does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

The black raven wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

The true solution would be to use their character abilities to find the answer: Maybe they can cast Speak With Dead on a nearby corpse. Or there is a slip of paper where someone wrote the password earlier in the dungeon. Or maybe they can use Detect Magic to reveal an invisible arcane mark a foolish minion used to record the password, since they had a bad memory. Heck, the party can use their adamantium pick axe to tunnel through the door.

I hate this kind of situation, because there is usually only one way to get out, usually really not obvious (except to the GM of course) and/or that escapes you because you did not roll high enough on your skill check.

The party ends up being punished (sometimes even killed) for not being able to read the GM's mind.

I meant to use some combination of those options. Plus there is always the brute-force option.

No! Not the BFI option!

Sorry, but I just finished Delirium's Maze. Way too much delirium, and not enough maze. I expected going in to have a nice change of pace from the usual hack and slash party. I was hoping for a good maze, with actual mapping required, some traps and riddles, and just enough combat to make it exciting.

If you doing a maze game, or a puzzle game or a riddle game, then the players' mapping skills and logic skills that should be involved in finding the solution. However, if you want to roll play it, then you let the players metagame it, so that when the 6 INT barbarian answers the riddle metagaming as a player, the 18 INT sorcerer actually gives the party's selected answer "in game". Also, the entire party missing the puzzle should be something a bit less stringent than a TPK encounter or a total mission fail, but should definitely reduce the GP or XP rewards for the scenario. Too bad you missed the riddle, you would have found a +2 Croquet Mallet of the Red Queen

By the way, some of us LIKE to make maps, and solve riddles and puzzles and logic problems, and not just roll dice and be told. Gygax invented this game system, and Tolkien immortalized the medieval fantasy genre in a way that sparked Gygax's inventiveness, and both of them liked riddles.

Speak friend and enter. is written in mithral runes above the magically locked western gate of the Mines of Moria.

Riddles are like jokes, they've all been told before, you just have to find a new twist to them so they doesn't sound so familiar, or doesn't quite have the same answer. Like making the party figure out exactly how many kits, cats, sacks and wives that fellow had who was leaving St. Ives.

Or it can be an easy riddle,
or a "chestnut" as we calls'em in the trade.

"Riddle me this, Batman.
"When is a door not a door?

which is just a vague hint as to the real solution: take the urn (a jar) that just happens to be laying on the floor nearby and put it on the pedestal, which activates a secret door. This is something that "could" be by-passed through in-game Skill checks, but it wouldn't be as much fun.

To My Dearest Friend and Benefactor,
Pasha Muhlia Al-Jakri

I met your old friend Grandmaster Torch the other day.
I did not tell him that I knew you, but instead asked him about his sainted mother, whom he says will be gracing our city with her fair presence next Tuesday.
She will be arriving at Dock 42, if you should wish to pay your respects.

On an another note, I located the beetles that you asked about, and have secured you an egg for your examination. The eggs are very fragile, and the adult beetles thrive in damp environments. I am told they are related to miner beetles, and in my estimation they would make inferior pack animals.

Jimbo Juggins
Excavator of Eggs, Dazed by Delirium

Combat Triage sorts people into 3 categories:

1) You can wait.
2) You're as good as dead already
3) I can save you to fight again.

Doing it in the middle of combat only makes sense if the target of the healing will survive to make a better hit than the healer could.

Thst being said, it turns out to be considerably more effective at low level, and in a recent scenario that I played this was the major contribution made by a 1st level Witch (the only healer in the party) playing in a Tier 3-4 module with several 2-4 level characters. I lent him my Wand of CLW and he went to town with it in what seemed to be a couple of interminable combats where we couldn't hit the monsters effectivley most of the time, and they couldn't hit us much either. Thanks to his healing efforts, we mananged to wear them down.

The player felt like he was contributing by healing us in mid-combat (as he was), especially since most of his other spells were being shrugged off by the monsters saving throws. Later in the game, he was inspired to drag my uncontrollably laughing body closer to the BBEG just in time for the BBEG's spell to wear off, so that I could stand up and whack him a couple of times.

This in now way negates anything that TarkXT said at the start, and probably actually proves his statement that it IS a good tactic at low levels. However, the actual debate is about whether it is a good tactic at higher levels (5+).

A halfiing courier arrives, bearing what appears at first to be a small bundle of oddments wrapped in rags and twine.

Panting heavily, he delivers the package to Prince Aaqir, holding his hand out for his tip. The Prince tosses two bits of of silver, and the halfling leaves as quickly as he arrived.

Attached to the package is a brief note:

Plenty more where this came from.

Jimbo Juggins
Roustabout in Riddleport

After removing several layers of cloth padding, Aaqir finds a belt pouch filled with salt. He drops the pouch suddenly, and thrusts his instantly frost-bit fingers into the warmth of his mouth.

The salt spills onto the floor and two frozen halibut steaks slide out of the pouch. Aaqir, always quick to grasp the obvious, and often too quick to grasp things he shouldn't, realizes this substance will be a boon for shipping perishable cargoes for the Qadira.

A letter arrives addressed to Prince Aaqir al'Hakam

Greeting and Felicitations My Prince!

It is unfortunate that your instructions for my visit to Dtang Ma did not meet your expectations of the outcome, as I have fulfilled your instructions, but have not achieved the result you desired.

Follow the crest to the other side and you may yet find the connection you seek.

Your humble servant,

Jimbo Juggins
Follower of Fools and Fool of Followers

As he refolds the missive, the Prince notices the coat of arms of one of the Kirin clans of Tien Xia sketched on the top third of the back of the page.

107) Asking for advice from expert idiots is a worse idea.

I want to disagree.

I think Science is HOT!

Marc Radle wrote:

Must not go off on rant about people using dumb internet slang ... Must not go off on rant about people using dumb internet slang ... Must not go off on rant about people using dumb internet slang ...

MNGOORAPUDIS

I think this might actually be onomatopeia for something with a similar meaning. Try saying it out loud a couple of times.

These usn't a forum, it's a whine tasting contest.

Your whine is bitter dregs, and since you like to complain about things, but don't REALLY want to have a productive discussion about them, I'm outta here.

So much for high hopes.

Since I don't want to complain, and since that's all you DO want to do, it time fo rme to leave you to your misery.

I'm off to tilt at other windmills.

"Beam me up Scotty."

Option 1:

Throw Alignment out or ignore it altogether. I'm not in favor of that. It would screw up a lot of stuff, especially character motivation. Why are you killing monsters and bandits? Because they are Evil. Who's in favor of godless Paladin's and Clerics, Druids with no respect for Nature, Inquisitors with no divine guidance, or law-abidng and respectful Barbarians? Let's throw this option off the table right now.

Option 2:

Crib from another game system. Most of them cribbed from this one. There were Alignment rules in D&D before most of those other systems even existed. Besides ... Core Assumption 1: We don't really want to change anything in the CRB. This is an ADD-ON, not a rules change.

Option 3:

Make it so that it only affects certain character classes. If you don't want to deal with Alignment, then don't play a character that gets help from a deity or spirit. Anybody who wants to ignore the system can do so by simply not playing a character class with alignment restrictions. Wait a minute ... I think that's the way the rules ARE written.

So let's discuss option 3:

Preferred discussion procedure:

• Step 1 - Read the rules.
• Step 2 - Do the math.
• Step 3 - What's missing?

What we need is an exhaustive list of the currently available character classes with Alignment restrictions, so that we can see who exactly these rules affect.

I'll start with the Core Classes:

• Barbarian - Not Lawful
• Bard - Any
• Cleric - Must be within one step of deity
• Druid - Any Neutral
• Fighter - Any
• Monk - Any Lawful
• Paladin - Lawful Good
• Ranger - Any (you used to have to be Good to be a Ranger, now they let any riff-raff in)
• Rogue - Any riff-raff :)
• Sorceror - Any
• Wizard - Any

  Doing the math:

  Out of the 11 Core Classes, there are 6 that really don't care what their alignment is, although I think that Rangers, as divine casters probably should. I'm not advocating doing this, just saying.

  Barbarians have a range of 6 possible Alignments: CG,CN,CE,NG,NN,NE. They probably won't get into any serious Alignment issues unless they decide to go cold-turkey on Rages.

  Clerics have a range of between 3 and 5, to keep within one step of their deity. Smaller range when your deity isn't at least part Neutral.

  Druids have a range of 5: NG,LN,NN,CN,NE. They have to balance things to stay out of corner situations.

  Monks have a range of 3 (LG,LN,LE). Like walking a tightrope.

  Paladins have a range of 1 (LG). Straight-jacketed.

  Without a frequency distribution of player Class choices, and by default making the totally bad assumption that players select character classes at random, and the equally false assumption that these are the ONLY classes available, the best we can tell at this point is that about 55% of Classes are totally unaffected by any Alignment rules.

  I would consider the Barbarian to be unaffected as well, unless the player purposefully restrains from going berserk, or gets some kind of curse that permanently changes his Alignment. So that's 64% of Classes pretty much unaffected by Alignment.I can totally see this happening, though. I might even do it myself to get a Barbarian dipped Monk.

  So we're down to about 36% of all Classes that would be affected, and lots of opportunities to play a Class that doesn't give a damn about Alignment, except for story-telling purposes, or character motivation.

  How about some more data on who is really going to be affected:

• More Classes with restrictions?
• Survey says "What's your favorite Class?"

Or maybe we're ready to move on to definitions of terms?

Jimbo, I would wish you luck in your quest... but I fear that whatever you come up with will drive many people (myself most likely) away from the game.

.
Anyway - good luck "Don Quixote" (really, in a non-snarky way).

Old Persian proverb:

A thief is brought before the Caliph for trying to steal the Caliph's prize stallion.

"Pardon me, oh Prince," pleads the thief.

"Why should I pardon you?" the Caliph replies.

"Because," says the thief, "I can teach your horse to sing."

The Caliph regards him with one-eyebrow raised, "I don't believe you, but I will let you try. If after a year, the horse does not sing, you will surely die."

As he's being escorted to the stables, a guard says to the thief, "You don't really think you can teach that horse to sing, do you?"

The thief replies, "You never know. A lot can happen in a year. The Caliph could die, I could die, and the horse might actually learn to sing."

I have high hopes, low expectations.

Jimbo Juggins wrote:

The goal here is to come up with just such a mechanic.

Why? Why would you want to measure something completely subjective, based on personal values, experience, and culture, and then impose it on others not because its fun, but because arbitrary rules? The no evil thing is more to keep out disruptive behavior than anything I've always thought. More than anything, imposing alignment strictly just ends up being upsetting and bothersome when someone doesn't entirely agree with you. We do have rules however, to help ensure everyone is fun and there isn't so much disruptive behavior, and make sure there are warnings before alignment infractions.

You're missing the point. The entire goal of this exercise is to make Alignment relevant in game terms by negating all of the "touchy feely" and personal arbitrariness problems that YOU say you don't like.

• Do you like the existing Alignment rules?
• Do you use the existing Alignment rules?
• Are you happy with previous GM rulings regarding your character's Alignment?

If the answer to any of these questions is "NO", then that is exactly "WHY?"

If the answer to none of these is "NO", then you must like the system enough to implement it as written, up to and including letting GM's decide when characters lose class abilities because of an alignment change, and you don't want anybody to change the system in any way. (Sarcasm Alert!) Why are you in a RANT forum?

That's enough for "WHY?", I want to discuss "HOW?, and more specifically I want to develop an in-game mechanic that I, as a player or GM, can use to measure a character's actions against defined stereotypes.

I don't want to go overboard on this. The end result can't be cumbersome, arbitrary, "unfun" or forced. Help me make sure that it doesn't go there.

As far as the "No evil" rule goes, that is a PFS sanction, and I didn't include PFS as one of the basic assumptions. Mainly because that particular rule would tend to have more "severe" repercussions that Paizo would have to enforce, and I don't even know exactly how to deal with the minor repercussions of the CRB rules as written yet. How about we cross that bridge when we come to it.

Furthermore, any workable system will have to function the same for any Evil characters that your campaign might allow as it does for the non-Evil ones.

In regards to disruptive behavior, the only difference it makes is to put the wolves into sheep's clothing. A disruptive player will be disruptive regardless of his character's alignment.

So do you want to talk about "HOW?", now?

And then there are just times that the party wants to go "Full Frontal Assault", at which point the Sneak's role becomes "Get behind the enemy to provide flanking bonuses and stab them in the back".

Like anything else, you have to know when to scout and when not to scout.

If your party's in a fight, you should be in it with them, or at the very least guarding their backs to keep the bad guys from flanking, not off looking for more trouble.

• Is scouting worth it? Definitely.
• Is it always appropriate? Definitely not.
• Is easy to implement? Again, definitely not.

I would tend to agree it works better with an experienced team and GM, and not so well for convention play where you don't know the team or the GM.

I forgot about cards games.

First card game "WAR", with my older brother, in '64 or so. Should count as my first "wargame". :)

I would like to try to put together a "workable" house-rule add-on for Alignment with the following basic assumptions:

[list]

A pair of barbarians shuffle into the audience hall of the Pasha Muhlia Al-Jakri's opulent palace in Absalom. They are bowed under the weight of a large roll of woven cloth. A rug or a tapestry form the look of it.

Silently, they lower their burned to the floor before the Pasha's feet, untie their bundle and kick the roll to unspread it on the floor.

From the centermost roll of the brilliantly colored tapestry leaps a dimnutive figure: a red-haired halfing in a grey-green cloak, wearing a green top hat. As he leaps to his feet, he doffs his hat and bows low before the Pasha

"Fresh from the Throne of the Thakur of Jalmeray, I bring you, the one, the only, Jimbo Juggins, the Juggler!"

He executes a perfect back flip to the center of the tapestry

"The Thakur sends his appreciation for your eminence's foresight in sending such an able performer as myself.

He bows again, hat extended to the side. He snaps the hat sharply to his head, and waves his arms in a circle, pointing to the tapestry.

"The mighty Zamir sends his regrets that he will not be able to join us, but has sent you this magnificent tapestry as a parting gift."

He stops turning in place and glances nervously towards the druid. He clears his throat and in a high-pitched voice, says quietly, but succinctly,

"Don't tread on me tapestry."

If you haven't finished an encounter that the rogue can't participate effectively in, then the rogue should be watching the groups backside, which means standing rearguard by watching down unexplored corridors or waiting in ambush behind/beside yet to be opened doors, just in case something else happens to wander in. Actively scouting ahead of the party, which comes under the category of "Looking for Trouble", should only happen when the party is ready for you to pull the next monster to them.

When is a door not a door?

When I play a paladin, I always choose a sin that they aren't very good at dealing with. Maybe he has an anger problem and loses his temper - Wrath. Maybe he believes that being chosen by the divine makes him better than the people around him (Pride). Maybe he's a womanizer (Lust). It helps to give them something to strive against as a flaw, rather than just being noble and good all the time - that's not very interesting.

I have a paladin whose entire personality is built around the Seven Deadly Sins.

If you look at them, these particular sins aren't really very Evil, and tend to affect the sinner way more than they affect anyone else.

Greed, Sloth, Vanity, Envy and the rest just aren't good justification for a major alignment shift.

Theodore Horatio Earnest Onceler, Esquire, tends to be more worried about the fact that his armor got dinged than that you almost died.

He did lay hands on you when you were at -5HP and saved your life. You should be grateful.

He expects to get the biggest share of the treasure, because, after all, he did most of the actual fighting and took most of the damage.

And assorted things like that.

Sort of annoying, but not really Evil.

Well, you got me beat by a couple of years. I only go back to '79 as far as RPGs go, but if you want to talk wargames, I can take it back to '72. Or we could push it all the way back to Checkers (and I don't mean Nixon's dog) in '64.

So I guess we're just a couple of grognards farting into the wind and enjoying the smell. Maybe I should shout "Get off my lawn!"

This topic intrigues me... :)

And me as well.

The first thing that pops into my head is ...

Design a highly popular and innately complex RPG that encompases hundreds of thousands of copies of hundreds of paper-printed books, maps, scenarios, character sheets, DM screens, Chronicle records, etc., etc. etc. The amount of paper required for this activity could easily denude hundreds of square miles of virgin rain forest every year.

Is there a cliff or a pit full of fire or acid nearby?

Alignment is still an element to this game. If players are doing things morally questionable, it should be noted on a chronicle sheet and then reported to a venture officer. If it starts to become a problem, something should be said.

Alignment is more than just a sense of morality, it is also a mechanic. Why shouldn't it be something that players can be reprimanded for? Then again, alignment isn't so much a question for some players. But it obviously is for others.

But with PFS being something where role-play isn't always happening.. it's also harder to...enforce this mechanic? (Is that the right word?)

I agree with your perspective here.

It's futile to argue about the "real world" terms when what is needed is a mechanism that defines alignment solely within the context of the game. Such a mechanism would also provide a guideline on the kinds of actions a character with their professed alignment would or wouldn't normally do.

We can even go outside the PFS campaign setting with this, and make it encompass shifts between LE/NE/CE. There are plenty of Pathfinder campaign settings and quite a few homebrews where PCs can have Evil alignments.

I also would like to see the discussion get a clearer concept of the difference between Good vs. Evil and Lawful vs. Chaotic.

@ FanaticRat:

As far as "punishing players for playing the game as designed", a mission objective that requires an action that would conflict with a player's alignment is pretty much the same as finding a trap the hard way, or engaging in combat, its just the character's fantasy world soul is getting whacked instead of his fantsy world body. Or is a TPK, or even a single PCs death, also to be considered punishment for playing the game as it was designed?

But I like your argument style, and even agree with a couple of your points. Tell me more.

@ nosig:

A well-defined alignment system would limit the ability of GMs to interpose their personal definitions of what is Good and what is Evil, whether that is ice cream or flouridation. In your case, I think it should be more of an argument about Lawful vs. Chaotic, but some people get confused about the difference, and try to make Lawful = Good.

A player voluntarily making his character do Evil actions does not necessarily mean he is being a jerk, although it might if what he does creates dissenion in the party. On the other hand, and not to pick on Paladins exclusively, but they do make such good targets... I have played with one or two Pallys who were excessively role-playing their Lawful Good alignment, and were violating the "don't be a jerk" rule while doing it.

Finally, there is no point for PFS to deny characters Evil alignment if they are not going to do something to enforce the existing alignment rules and restrictions. I am not suggesting that any player kicked out of the game or denied the chance to play PFS just because their character "turns" evil. They just have to generate a new character and start over, the same as if their character had died.

Evil CAN be defined in purely game terms. See my previous attempt at this in the thread above, about 16 posts back. It is not dependent on the players or the GMs sensibilities, religious upbringing, etc, etc, etc, nor is it dependent on the characters background, or even on their Alignment. Killing or harming non-evil creatures is Evil. The Evil character doesn't think that killing is Good, or he wouldn't do it, because he doesn't want to do Good things, he wants to do Evil things. Likewise, an Evil creature won't want to kill or harm Evil creatures because that would be doing Good.

An Evil act is still Evil even if you were ordered to do it, or coerced into, or did it while under the influence of an Evil spell. The "I was just following orders" defense means your were Lawful, not that you were Good, or even Neutral.

Do enough Evil faction missions without some compensating Good actions, and your character should become Evil and unplayble, and get kicked out of the Pathfinder Society. Just because Paizo leads you into temptation doesn't mean you have to go there. You can refuse to do an Evil faction mission (which would be a Chaotic act, and would lose you a Prestige Point), or you can make-up for it by saving the captives and killing the Evil monster in the main mission, or by being kind to the street urchins, and giving them fireworks and marbles and candy.

As far as the Prestige Points go, I thought that you weren't supposed to win them all anyway. An average 4 out of 6 per level is the game design goal.

Opening doors is one of those things that pretty much fries the concept of sneaking up on anything.

Not so. Unless opening the door sets off an alarm, or the hinges squeak, or the light is significantly different with the door open, then opening the door s-l-o-w-l-y and taking a peek doesn't necessarily obviate sneaking. Especially if the nearest foe is some distance away, or has his back to the door.

JIMBO - "I open the door slowly and carefully, and peer around the corner. What do I see?"

GM - "You see the dirty backside of a hideous troll who is standing directly in front of the door. A couple of other trolls are grunting at each other across the room. Do you speak troll?"

JIMBO - "No. Does the troll see me?"

GM - "Make a Sneak check and a Perception check."

GM rolls hidden Perception check for the troll. You actually beat the troll's check but you don't know that. Your Perception check fails miserably, so the GM doesn't tell you you won, instead

GM - "You don't THINK he noticed you, but you're not really sure, what do you do?

JIMBO - "I slowly and quietly close the door and start to tiptoe back to the waiting party."

GM - "Roll another Stealth check."

GM rolls another hiddne Perception check for the troll. The troll fails agina, but the GM says nothing. Jimbo gets back to the party and tells them there are 3 trolls ahead. The party figures out a plan of attack, and then they go STOMP SOME TROLL.

Now, Jimbo could attempt to pick the troll's pocket, sneak past him, steal everything in the room, and escape unnoticed. Not likely, but it could be done in the right circumstances. Didn't work out well for Bilbo Baggins though.

Or, Jimbo could stab the first troll in the back, shout "HELP!" and hope the rest of the party arrives before the 3 trolls turn him into a burrahobbit (they're crunchy and taste good with catsup).

How tough are trolls anyway? And they don't like fire. Jimbo likes fire. Maybe he'll yell "FIRE IN THE HOLE!" and toss the flask of Alchemist's Fire that he happens to be holding and starting cooking up some troll Bar-B-Q. Testing the troll for doneness with his daggers while he waits for the imminent arrival of his party.

Or Jimbo could have been spotted by one of the trolls, and not noticed it, and the troll(s) would get a surprise round. Jimbo's reaction to that would be a scream of "HELP!", and assuming that he wasn't one-shotted or gang-banged, a double move action towards the party while screaming "INCOMING", dropping his bomb behind him, and pulling out some fresh weapons, most likely sling bullets, one in each hand.

"A man, a plan, a canal, Panama."

I certainly think that would be appropriate, but changing from Lawful to Neutral to Chaotic is going to require a lot of mis-behaving on your part without being actively Evil while doing it. Practical jokes anyone?.

Or, are you planning on dipping your CN barb into a LG pally? ;)

Also, you have to make a point to let the GM know that your character is violating his alignment on purpose, and you will have to make sure the GM notes it on your Chronicle, like

Doesn't work or play well with others.

Displays agressive Chaotic tendencies.

Colorsprays outside the box.

or

Listens and follows orders well.

Looks both ways before crossing dangerous dungeon corridors.

Is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thifty, clean, brave and reverent.

I assumed that it was SOP everywhere, until my first PFS scenario, when the fighters just started randomly opening doors yelling for "Dinsdale! Dinsdale?", well not actually Dinsdale, but something like that.

Even then I managed to get Sneaky. After all, they were providing one hell of a distraction :)

Doug Miles wrote:

One of the features of Living Greyhawk that I miss was the many regions that developed a legal code that identified unlawful behavior, including penalties and rules for softer sentencing based on PC skills/roleplay. I always loved that it was illegal to harm a horse in Ket, but you could kill elves as if they were monsters.

Would it be so arduous to develop a PFS legal code for Absalom and the five original Faction nations? Would defining crime & punishment in PFS lead to more problems at the table, or would it dampen some of the situations we've been talking about?

Doug, I like this. I think the concept itself is worthy of a thread of its own for discussion, especially since it's not been picked up here. After all, we are supposed to be non-evil.

Now you're on the wrong track. Law and Good are not the same. Plenty of Evil acts are Lawful, many Good acts are Chaotic (Unlawful). Breaking the Law doesn't make you Evil. Obeying the Law doesn't make you Good. Pathfinders are supposed to be non-Evil, but they are not required to be Law-abiding. There IS a difference.

Then there is the fact that Absalom and the 5 original faction nations are 6 different governments, so you would need 6 different legal codes. For instance, I am pretty sure that slavery is legal in some faction nations and illegal in others. So the answer to your questions is "Yes, it would be exceedingly arduous to develop a PFS legal code(s) for Absalom and the five orignal faction nations."

On the other hand, there should be (and is) an alignment code for the Pathfinder Society. If you go around torturing creatures and killing innocent by-standers on purpose, then you should get kicked out of the Society. Player's who regulary participate in these types of actions should have their character's Chronicle sheet marked "Evil", and that character should be prevented from gaining any more XP or PP in sactioned PFS play.

Now, if you really want to talk about Law and Chaos and the minute differences in the legal codes of Andora and Cheliax, instead of Good and Evil, I am pretty sure that there's a dissertation on that lurking in my brain as well.

"All that Good requires to succeed is for Evil men to do nothing. Encourage the sinful to practice Sloth"

Without broadening this argument out in the real world, exactly what is Good and Evil in the Pathfinder universe?

Typically in an adventure, expecially any adventure that includes combat, there are several types of creatures you might encouter:

Pathfinder PCs
Good or Neutral NPCs
BBEGs - Big Bad Evil Guys, which often includes Evil Pathfinder NPCs
Mooks - Lots of little evil "Monsters or other kreatures" :)
Innocent bystanders
Victims

Not an exhaustive list, but enough to illustrate the point.

There are also several types of interactions you can have with these creatures:

Destroy or kill them (same difference).
Save them from something that could kill or destroy them.
Talk to them and get information (Bluff, Diplomacize, Intimidate).
Talk to them to get goods and services.
Help them.
Hinder them.
Heal them.
Harm them.

It is Good to destroy, hinder or harm Evil.
It is Evil to destroy, hinder or harm or anything not Evil.
It is Good to help, heal or save anything not Evil.
It is Neutral to help, heal or save Evil.
Helping, healing and saving are Good acts, but not when they help Evil, so it comes out Neutral.

It is Neutral to not destroy, hinder or harm Evil.
It is Neutral to not destroy hinder or harm Good.
It is Neutral to not help, heal, or save Evil.
It is Neutral to not help, heal, or save Evil.
It is not Evil to do nothing, but it is not Good either.

Diplomacy is Good.
Bluff is Neutral.
Intimidate is Neutral, unless it involves harm, then it is Evil.
Acquiring goods and services for money or barter is Neutral.

Non-lethal damage is not harm, and is therefor not Evil, but it's not Good either, unless you do it to Evil creatures.

Intentionally doing Evil things is a serious alignment infraction for Good or Neutral Character. Enough to cause the loss of Paladin, Cleric, or other faith based powers until some kind of Atonement is made.

Accidentally or unintentionally doing Evil is still Evil, but if you balance it by doing something Good, it comes out Neutral. So if you saved the village, but innocent bystanders were killed by your fireball in the process, then that's a Neutral combo. If your character does Evil acts under the influence of an Evil NPC, then that is also unintentional Evil. I would apply the "Rule of Three" here and say it takes 3 unintentional Evil acts with no balancing Good acts to redeem your character to equal one intentional Evil act for the purposes of Alignment drift.

So going by this code, we can affirm that torture, defined as "Intimidation to obtain information that involves harming the subject creature", is indeed Evil.

We can also affirm that destroying undead or any other Evil creature is Good, and that killing innocent bystanders, victims, or non-Evil NPCs is Evil, especially if you do it on purpose. All you Paladin types out there should be checking alignments before you start a fight.

This code allows for the possibility of accidental alignment changes. You could have a character so inept that not only does he routinely accidentally kill innocent bystanders, but he also doesn't manage to kill the monster in the process. The road to Hell is paved by people like this.

As an Chaotic Neutral character, Jimbo doesn't really care too much about Good and Evil, not does he care for rules. He carries a whole arsenal of weapons, both lethal and non-lethal and is equally well-versed with both. No -4 penalty to make him "bloodthirsty".

The decision to do non-lethal damage is mostly a choice made by whether there might be some information to be gotten out of a surviving prisoner, or by whether the creature might be controlled by an Evil creature, but not necessarily be Evil themselves.

Sometimes he just likes to show off by beating the supposedly lethal enemy into unconsciousness just to prove that

"Sticks and stones will break you bones."

Urban undead.
Gritty.

I smell zombie apocalypse. Lots of zombies, looking for brains.

Your best bet, be a barbarian with INT 7 (or less if you can manage it), so that they don't view you as dinner.

Or you should Useplan9, from outsider space.

Pliskin

Oops! Sorry, not original, but it defintely fits the other criteria.

Or three even.

Sorry, just 1 out of 3.

Roac and Carc were already mentioned by Dragonchess Player

Yes, call it the ring of spell storing.

And what's this about throwing an item but getting to make a ranged touch attack roll?

It works just like a Splash Weapon.

As far as what to call it...

Scrotum of Spell Storing

has a nice alliteration coupled with some basic baggy double entendre.

Heckle or Jeckle. If you don't remember them, look them up. Actually they're crows, not ravens, but it can be difficult to tell the difference from a distance.

I was thinking Lenore as well, but Vod Canockers beat me to it.

Don't recall seeing Craven on the rather lengthy collection of lists, so I'm throwing it out there. It sounds appropriate for a small, fragile, easily smashed-into-a-pulp creature.

And finally, how about

Raven Lunatic

How about we just let the people who want to play Clerics do so?

Is it really necessary to try to change every rule just because there is some character class that you don't know how to play effectively.

However, if your Cleric character concept is defined by "talks in church on holy days", he probably shouldn't be wandering around during the week actively fighting evil.

I think the fact that you can't min/max the Cleric class turns a lot of people off of it. You have to be MAD to be good at what the Cleric can do. Most of the other Divine casters have the same sort of problem. You need to diversify to be effective at any of them, meaning you usually need multiple "good" stats to make the most of the Divine character's class abilties. Multiple good stats means you can't go with one "great" stat and make the character work.

Combat is only half of the game, and some people don't like that half. You can't judge in-game effectivenss by combat effectiveness alone.

How about this:

We get rid of all of the character classes except the wizard, the fighter and the rogue. Require all fighters to have STR 18+, all wizards to have INT 18+, and all Rogues to have DEX 18+. That way everybody can play a min/max character snd everybody will be able to participate in combat in a "useful" way.

Hope you don't run into any undead, or have to talk to any NPCs to find out where the local monsters hang out. But, hey, who needs non-combat scenes anyway, they just slow down the game.

You have to ACT sneaky, and you need to be PARANOID.

Expect that at any instant your sneak attempt is going to fail.

Plan for it to fail.

In addition to high Sneak skills, you need good Perception. You need to see them BEFORE they see you. Keep reminding the GM that you're attempting to Sneak, also that you are actively looking for anything "strange" or "funny" or "out-of-place". You're scouting, every other sentence you say should be "What do I see?"

There are a lot of times when Sneak is impossible, or almost impossible. Doesn't mena you shouldn't try. Opening doors is one of these times. Walking into an ambush is another. You can TRY, but expect to fail.

However, last time I opened a door "sneakily", it worked, and the party managed to avoid a totally unnecessary and potentially lethal giant scorpion encounter, so it pays to take the chance.

The time before that, the monsters WERE alerted by the rest of the party, but I remained undetected and in good position for a major flanking assist.

Another time I disarmed the trap on a door that would have given our entrance away, and we ALL successfully snuck in and got into prime firing positions before the BBEG knew we were there, even though he was "waiting" for us.

Before that, I opened a door on a seemingly oblivious undead gnoll, and managed to fire bomb him before he even knew I was there.

I'm trying to remember if there were other similar successful Sneaks, but the number told already is quite a lot for a 3rd level character to have under his belt. That's about 1 good Sneak every other scenario, and one scenario had two (actually 3, but the 3rd one was role play and not combat).

Some of these Sneaks can be considered "successful" mainly because there was a back-up plan if they failed.

As a sneak, you have to tell the party what you are planning on doing, and they each have to know what you expect them to do.

Basic tactic is the PULL. Anybody who has ever played a MMPORPG knows how this works. The scout goes in, gets as close as he can without being spotted, and then aggros the monster into following him into the arms of his ready and waiting party.

To make this work against an unknown opponent(s), the Sneak has to make a couple of judgement calls at the instant that he is spotted. He has to decide:

1) When to fight and when not to fight.

2) Where to fight.

Can you survive until the party gets there?

a) Yes. Shout out "Fire in the hole!", and get the fight started while the party comes running.

b) No. Shut the door, if there was a door involved, and run like hell back towards the party.

Can the party survive this encounter?

a) Yes. Shout out "Incoming! so the party has time to prep.

b) No. Shout out "Twenty-three Skidoo!" so the party has time to runaway and regroup at the last "safe" place. This requires that you designate "fallback" positions as you move ahead.

In the event that your sneaking is a major fail, and the monster sees you first, shout out "Help!", and try to break away and run back to the party, and expect them to be running towards you.

A little paranoid perception, a little sneakiness, and a little tactics, and the scout starts working the way he is supposed to work.

I suggest that your read Anne McCaffrey's "The City Who Fought".

Check out the character "Joat". This is your social misfit, who wants to help the party, but doesn't quite know how to get along with the party, and would actually prefer to work alone.

This type of character will attempt to "secretly" follow the party so that they can be the "unknown benefactor" who suddenly appears out of nowhere to save their asses when the action gets hot, and just as suddenly disappears when the monsters are dead.

"Who was that masked man?"

Consider that this character should have good Disguise skills to keep the other PCs for recognizing him after seeing him repeatedly over multiple scenarios.

Ask you buddy if this is more like what he had in mind.

Game Machanics:

During Travel Scenes:

You toss in a few Stealth and Perception roll offs between the PCs to see if anybody spots the Lone Ranger following them.

During Combat Scenes:

For all intents and purposes, the "Lone Ranger" will not be a member of the party: Cannot Aid Another, or benefit from any Team Feats, and most importantly does not count as flanking for any party member, and cannot get a flanking bonus from any party member.

There could be combat role-playing with the Lone Ranger asking for help and the party consenting to give it, but it will not be automatic.

The Lone Ranger turns his blood-smeared face toward the party'a cleric. "Heal me!", he pleads, as the ogre's mighty club arcs towards his unprotected skull.

During Role-playing Scenes:

The Lone Ranger can make Perception checks to eavesdrop on the party's conversations with each other, or with NPCs, and make plans accordingly, a failed Perception check means the Lone Ranger did not get that information, and his actions are with repect to that information is to follow the party. He may also need to do some Tracking if he has to follow the party at a respectful (non-observable) distance.

Or, the Lone Ranger can attempt to gather information independently, and if he does find something the party needs to know, he can leave them mysterious notes or clues. Be sure to include occasional Stealth and Perception checks to see if the party spots him eavesdropping or slipping them notes.

The character may "evolve" from skulking in the shadows to a more face-to-face Team member relationship, or maybe not. The story line has some potential for some very interesting developments in either direction.

However, this type of play probably wouldn't be sanctioned by the RAW, even though no rules are being broken by playing this way. But it could be great fun, especially if you can coordinate the parallel play of what would essentially be 2 groups, a group of 3 and a group of 1.

But the real question was ...

"Do we really need Inquistors as a separate class?"

My answer would be

Yes. For variety's sake.

Yes. Because if we don't allow this as a separate class, a player could still build pretty much the same type of character, based on the Cleric class, maybe multi-classing for a better Feat progression or Skill bonuses, selecting appropriate Spells, Feats, and Skills to do what they would consider "appropriate" for that character. It will just take you longer (more levels) to get your character fully developed, and you might not get quite everything that they put into the Inquistor class. You would still be able to perform the Inqusitor's special "duties". That is, you could act and function as an Inquistor, even if there were no such class. So might as well set it up so that the palyer can be an Inquistor from day one.

Personally, I would rather see it as a Prestige class, requiring about 5 levels of Cleric as a pre-req. Sort of like a holy Assassin, which is another Prestige class or archetype that should exist if it doesn't already. It is so hard to keep track, there are so many classes and archetypes out already, and new ones coming out all the time.

On the other hand. No. We don't really NEED the Inquisitor, any more than we need Rangers, or Druids, or Monks, or Sorcerers, or Witches, or Barbarians, or Assassins as separate classes. These are all just hooks to hang your character on, like saying you're a waitress or a cook. It helps define what it is that your character is good at, so that other people know what to expect.

Historical, blunt weapon wielding, evil turning (not necessarily undead) clerics:

Saint Patrick

1) See the thread on "How to roll a cheerleader".

2) Consider Johnny Depp in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow". That's a good Inquisitor role model. Another would be the main character in the TV show "Grimm", although the way they do the "were-creatures live among us" meme in that show doesn't quite fit the the classic RPG fantasy world.

3) I sort of agree with the Batman analogy, but only in terms of Batman's versatility. Batman is usually prepared for anything, and so is the Inquisitor.

4) I don't disagree with the Judge Dread concept either, but how do you translate that to fantasy medieval?

5) The Inquisitor seems to represents characters of a religious bent whose main passion is hunting and destroying witches, demons, and the undead. There are a lot of stereotypes available: Brendan Fraser in the Mummy movies, Peter Cushing in any number of Dracula movies, Richard Grant in that 1991 Warlock movie starring Julian Sands, Laura Craft in Tombraider, Lamont Cranston in the Shadow, Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child, Paul Blackthorne in The Dresden Files, the Brothers Grimm, etc., etc., etc., and don't forget Buffy.

Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

You do realize that diamonds are really not all that rare.

They'd be significantly more rare if they were destroyed while spell casting.

And if mines had a tendency to become infested with horrible monsters.

Now... _synthetic_ diamonds as spell components. Discuss. :D

Can you take coal and fabricate it into a diamond?

Actually, in the real world, you can create microscopic layers of diamond on steel plates using methane gas (bottled farts) as your carbon source. Just need the right combination of temperature and pressure. It's actually easier to do it if the carbon is in a gaseous state than if it starts out as a solid.

"Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!"
"Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!"
"Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Joy!"

What is really needed is a REAL Feat tree, or perhaps I should say "Bring us a SHRUBERY!"

I want a visual, interlocking network showing all of the pre-reg feats and ability scores for all the Feats. Realistically, there could be several trees (Comabt Feats, Magic Feats, Teamwork Feats, etc.).
Also, there are several "stand-alone" Feats that aren't part of any Feat sequence (like Toughness).

There are some intersections to these tree branches (which is why I said "SHRUBERY").

I think that it is these "intersections" that Markthus is looking for to build his "Versatile Fighter".

This is why we need a roadmap of the Feats, to help pick up the correct pre-req. Feats early in the character's development to achieve the desired overall effect at higher levels. After all, some people really like the sounds of Whirlwind Attack, but don't know where to start building the ZFeat sequence.

Most of the time these map routes will be a single point, or a straight line progression, sometimes it will fork, and sometimes it will form rings. Sort of like the skill path star maps in Skyrim, except in Pathfinder, sometimes they overlap.

We're looking for those times where 2 different patterns cross, so that we can reduce the total number of Feats required to complete both sequences.

Anyone know where I can find such a SHRUBERRY? Maybe with some kind of two-tiered look?

I apologize for the inaccuracies in anything that looks close to a quote, but I'm paraphrasing, not quoting.

"Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Know what I mean? - Monty Python's Flying Circus Now I'm quoting verbatim.

Since I didn't see anything that said there had to be a game involved, I assumed you were collecting Character concepts that cousl be expressed in one word, and that could be part of a Fanstasy/Fantasy-Steampunk setting without seeming "out-of-place".

Quite an extensive list, but I do have an original contribution, which I don't believe IS an actual Class in any published game (but I could be wrong).

Pickpocket

I would also like to commend

Tinker

as separate from Tinkerer, as a Tinker is a traveling merchant and jack-of-all-trades who fixes metal things (like pots), while a Tinkerer seems to imply a person who builds machines and gadgets. Related, but slightly different class concepts.

Also several suggestions, which like Tinker have limited utitlity in a Fantsy RPG, (although I made a lot of gold in Freeport, Everquest, as the first two of these).

Tailor
Postman
Plumber
Carpenter
Groundskeeper
Gardener
Detective (didn't exist before Poe, not sure exactly what you mean by Fantasy Steampunk).