KestrelZ's page

I am in the camp of alignment as optional.

I have played many different game systems over many years. The D&D (and palladium) alignment systems can start knock down drag out fights between friends. My vote is on having it optional. D&D/PF had alignment hard coded in class mechanics, spells (detect, protection from), and magic items (holy, anarchic, etc. weapons); making alignment vital. It was just hard baked in the system. So - what are the pros and cons of an alignment system?

Pros - It gives a foundation of how a PC views the world. Great for beginning players to grasp the concept early on. This also lets the system create divine powers with actual mechanical effects. Holy weapons do added damage to evil beings, protection from good gives mechanical benefits that help an evil caster. Sometimes alignment becomes a storytelling tool; In the RPG "Vampire", a humanity rating was the closest thing to an alignment system. Most players did not care about "acting human" until they learned there was actual mechanical benefit to having a high humanity score (avoid becoming a mindless beast, and less weak during daylight hours if forced to defend themselves when attacked in their lair).

Cons - It can lead to heated arguments due to player viewpoints. If you have a player that has a past history of questionable choices, that player is likely to take alignment debates VERY personally. It sometimes gives jerks a license to be a bigger jerk. There are numerous examples of GMs that love to see paladins fall, or PCs losing class abilities and will throw situations at the group to make it happen. There are jerk players that act out and hurt the group on a regular basis with the excuse of "just playing my alignment". It also breaks down at times when playing a complex PC, or forced into unusual circumstances with very moral implications.

The ugly - Changing alignments can be a rich and rewarding moment when a PC shifts an entire worldview, or it can be a crappy Gygaxian trap because of some plot made magical rehabilitation machine that forced a barbarian to play another class by stepping in the wrong magic circle. A Christmas Carol was clearly a redemption story even if Ebeneezer was evil in a way that didn't involve killing or torture (just was miserly and a jerk), nor did his transformation to good involve a matyring heroic (just became mildly generous and happy). The law/chaos axis is much less clear cut because our culture has a plethora of good/evil conflict tales, and very few epic law/chaos tales (The "odd couple" is about the only clear example I can think of). Seriously, a lot of monks in Shaw Brother films show us that "monkey king", chaotic monks can exist in a story. Barbarians with high regard for tradition also seems to work against the "no lawful barbarian" idea.

To sum it up - Alignment has its uses, good and bad. Making it optional allows a group to retain the good aspect of it (holy weapons, easy to teach beginning PCs about character viewpoint), while allowing other groups to disregard it if it actually interferes with another group's fun (Why can't I play a monk that tries to humble authority by being lovably mischievous?)

I think adventure paths are fine. What I really want to see are adventure modules for above 17th level play. Bonus if they can be somewhat tangent or related to an existing adventure path. A sort of "reasonable stretch" to allow PCs that finish an adventure path successfully would find the module natural to expand into, yet the ability for a freshly created high level group to play in as well.

A great example was "Witchwar Legacy" being somewhat usable with "Reign of Winter".

As for mythic, one could make a low-tier mythic module without drowning in the balance problems of mid to high tier PCs. Giving a PC one or two tiers isn't a big deal. Things get hard to run past mythic tier 4 or 5; Player choices can shift the power beyond the scope of a printed module for the masses, and requires the GM to have specific knowledge of each PC in advance. A printed module can't assume a mythic vital strike build, or a beginning player choosing subpar mythic path choice. Thus modules are best used for mythic tier play that go no higher than 3 at the most.

In short, more high level, and or low mythic tier modules would be nice for me.

Whoops. My mistake - meant to say Cassian, not Galen in the above post.

One example of an evil character in a morally mixed party is Cassian from Rogue One.

To answer Genetic Flood - Yes, during the fight on the planet Jedha between partisans ambushing an Empire tank and storm troopers.

One example of an evil character in a morally mixed party is Galen from Rogue One.

Simulacrum is a better solution if you are going where I think you are going. You need a magician's assistant for your caster's traveling magic show, right?

It's the perfect passive-aggressive way for a GM to say "Here, you end the campaign for me."

Shaving private Ryan

The last time our group discussed the law vs chaos axis of alignments ended like this -

Fight!

Some yes, some no.

Some spells like death ward and rope trick were needlessly nerfed - in the case of rope trick a paradox appeared. (the rope cannot be hidden, pulled up, or detached. It later says it snaps off if it exceeds a certain weight pulling on it).

Some spells are appropriate, or niche enough that they can't hurt a campaign much.

Some spells are far too unbalancing, or should be considered higher level "greater" variants. Time spells from second edition are quite unbalancing.Being able to change the age categories of dragons, or rewind minutes of time could have very anticlimactic effect on a campaign. Buffing spells, such as cats grace, lasting 10 minutes per level rather than one minute per level aren't game breaking - yet should be considered a higher level than they currently are (perhaps a "greater" variant that is 2 levels higher).

Still digesting the rules, yet there seems to be plenty of contradictions. Things like the DC to pilot more advanced vehicles is harder than less advanced, so it should be easier to win a race with a model T auto rather than a 21st century sports car.

I do know many board games and tactical war game (such as battletech) make the initiative loser move first, then the initiative winner moves last. The movement technically takes place simultaneously, yet the initiative winner now knows the opponent's path and can take that into account while the initiative loser just showed their intentions.

From what I gather in my first go through of reading, this is what happens in Starfinder. Essentially the initiative loser declares their intent first, the winner can declare their intent with the added knowledge of knowing what the initiative loser will do, and action takes place "simultaneously".

This is why the initiative loser declares what and where they fire first, the initiative winner declares fire last, yet the results are considered a simultaneous exchange.

It's rather pointless in a one on one duel, yet becomes important when there are multiple targets.

Still, I can't understand why flyby attacks are allowed if movement is considered simultaneous - unless the ship you fly past has opted not to move.

All I can picture is an android with a still-bleeding heart duct-taped to their chest, proudly proclaiming: "I'm real! I'm real!"

That's the most awesome version of the Wizard of Oz yet! Tinman goes on a rampage, he's going to get a real heart one way or the other.

Companies hire the handful of people that can actually cast a wish spell in order to ensure their products are crazy awesome at breaking the laws of physics. This also explains how a huge 3 km starship only weighs 8000 tons.

It gives probes / launched satellites a reason to exist - a remote controlled spotter ship, if you will.

Sort of. Ironically, it would require a sense motive check to see if the other person is studying your motives while not trying to appear to do so.

Sometimes no check is needed since it would be obvious. A guard clearly on duty is obviously using their perception skill, an interrogator is clearly going to use sense motive on the person that is interrogated.

Here is an example of why motivation matters -
the culprit was mind controlled. Suddenly, you need to know who planted the mind control in the first place.

Granted, not every murderer or evil cultist was under mind control. If your PC is interested in redeeming others, or preventing others from becoming an evil, murdering cultist, it becomes important to understand why they chose the path they traveled.

I'm not saying that such villains deserve forgiveness or redemption, yet it may help a PC to watch the signs and stop someone else before they go to such a path.

Besides, keeping a villain yammering about their backstory is a great way to learn how to strike them psychologically, learn their plans, and delay them long enough if you need extra time.

Old school precedent - in 2nd edition D&D a paladin of Horus is chaotic good. By experience, this did throw off numerous GMs that were too used to trapping paladins into a moral dilemma corner.

paladin of Horus - It's an evil mummy, I attack it.
GM - It didn't attack first, you're in danger of breaking your code.
paladin of Horus - You mean that chaotic good code that means I do what feels right? Right now smacking evil undead before they do harm feels right.
GM - Oh yeah.......chaotic good.....I forgot.

Without digressing too much, the word of a non-fallen Paladin will at least convince a court or barrister that the paladin believes what they say is true from he paladin's viewpoint, it does not necessarily mean that it is truth.

Don Quixote may believe he is slaying giants, yet all the locals ever see him do is charge at windmills with a lance. Don Quixote believes he is telling the truth, he even acts in noble cause, even if the facts paint a different picture.

The specific situation in which a lawful noble is summoning demons could easily complicate a setting if you dig too deep. Is demon summoning an illegal activity in that region? Did the noble forgo any protection of rank when he attempted to harm a guest? If the morale dilemmas keep piling on, someone in the group better take ranks in profession: barrister and get the plot moving where it should go - stop the social soap boxing and getting on with killing monsters and looting treasure.

Yes, there may be social consequences, yet without a good "face" PC in a group, it's like springing an endless dungeon of traps against the one group without a trapfinder. It goes from lesson to no fun in a short period of time.

I know a player that only makes Fighter PCs, usually forgets to add his BAB and strength bonuses, and rarely remembers what his feats actually are. He has three decades of experience with RPGs.

Yes, there is such a thing as system mastery. Some players never explore their options. Most slowly learn things as time goes by. Some can quickly glance at their resources and build a PC to extremes because of fast analysis, imagination, and usually a good mathematics background.

What is to discuss? Lawful alignments enjoy hierarchies, defined rules, and systems of authority. Paladins are individuals, so one paladin ruler would have different laws than another - though both would still be motivated to do the best for the populace. Differences in their wisdom, background, and overall ability may measure how well said paladin ruler will succeed in their efforts.

Most people in the US would be lawful neutral. We follow major laws and feel we are "good" because we usually don't steal, murder, etc. A true good person would aid others even if it was hazardous to do so and not their job (such as first responders). Evil people enjoy causing suffering in others. Lawful evil people are those that love to do so "by the rules". The point here is that we already tend to see lawful people run governments and kingdoms, though such individuals largely tend to be lawful neutral or even evil (power is a magnet for the corruptible) and equate lawfulness with good. A true lawful good lawmaker would be more motivated with helping others rather than in their own comfort or career.

In the end, your mileage would vary. There are many paladins unqualified to lead ants to a picnic, yet some could make incredibly charismatic and benevolent rulers. In other words, your qualities as a politician go beyond class, level, and alignment. They include experience, background, confidence, and so many other qualities that make a person what they are.

If this is about paladins falling because of power, I find that power doesn't corrupt, it is merely a magnet for those that are corruptible.

Another weakness of a level based system. The problems with saying that more experienced people have learned to minimize their damage comes with explaining magic healing. Why can cure light wounds heal one person from near death while barely healing the paper cuts a high level PC receives?

Just accept the carrot and stick rewards of leveling up, justifying it leads to madness. Point buy systems and more gradual experience systems do a better job with it, yet many systems end up with PCs that do not gain much more in being able to take damage than when the PC first started.

Past 10th level and characters are beyond what we see in all but the most comical movies and stories. A 20th level barbarian can survive being fully immersed in lava for a round or two. Outside of a cartoon, I just can't justify it.

Alright, once Fox signs over the rights to X-men, we can give it a razzle dazzle it by combining it with another Disney franchise.....X=Pooh!

We could have Cybear, Professor Robbin, Nightbunny, and Tigerrine!

Check out the epic level handbook for D&D 3.0/3.5

It will need tweaking for Pathfinder, yet it has good information on how new challenges arise, or how a game world deals with above 20th level characters. It even shows how skills can be used at ridiculously high DC levels (such as using swim to travel up waterfalls).

The main problem with going above 20th level is the math. A 1/2 BAB means you miss everything at your epic challenge rating, while a full BAB hits every time. A bad save always fails without a 20, and a good save always succeeds without a 1. In other words, if the progression isn't modified or leveled, everything becomes very binary for success or failure to the point that dice are meaningless.

One way to avoid it is to say beyond 20th level, all advancement plateaus to bad saves / half BAB progression, even if taking another class beyond 20. That helps keep the math from diverging too much, while giving PCs a very modest reward for going up levels.

I find it funny that the original poster's point seems to be lost. The OP already pointed out that there was a good aligned outsider that was designed for amorous pursuits - the gancanagh azata, Bestiary 5 pg 38.

The point was that there was no female equivalent to that particular azata. My suggestion, make a write up of one for the next RPG challenge and see if it makes it in a future beastiary.

Back in my day we just used simulacrum to make our snow cone wish machines.

A cleric / Oracle class. In other words, the divine casting equivalent to an arcanist.

As a "go to" race? No.

I have played a few gnome characters before and found them useful. There's not a whole world of difference between any of the core book races. Differences yes, though all have their uses.

Linguistics is one of those things that RPG have problems balancing and keeping players happy.

Languages are too simple to learn in Pathfinder/D&D 3+, as well as some scifi RPGs. In GURPs, it takes points, so characters can become interpreters with a reasonable amount of "effort". In White Wolf, you learned a language per skill dot, and it became harder to purchase said skill the more you had. The problem? You couldn't buy more than 5 dots, and there are a number of people in the world that speak more than five languages. It was joked that only NPC, "low generation" vampires could be a UN interpreter.

There is an alternate D&D 3rd party setting that made languages a subskill of linguistics (1 point, basic spoken phrases; 2 points conversation and children's reading level; 3 points fluency; 4 points professional study of that language).

Evil campaigns are the new normal.

We had trouble enough when bands of bloodthirsty murderhobos put a nominal "goodish" alignment on a character sheet. Somehow I don't think all those alignment shifted outsiders are much help against roving murderhobos that don't even pay lip service to being "goodish" anymore.

A Blake's Seven ending.

Welcome to the wonderful flaws with a level based system.

It is a great system to give a sense of reward and achievement (a very popular system for video games), yet it doesn't really follow what we see in fictional epic tales from books, plays, and movies. That type of reward system is better represented by point experience systems like GURPs, White Wolf, Star Frontiers, Justifiers, and a myriad of other systems.

When applied to commoners or NPCs, the experience system really becomes wonky. In a world filled with vicious random encounter tables, and everything is a challenge to an insurmountable threat to a first level person, no one should be first level long. They either level up quickly, or wind up dead.

That's why it is best not to think about it and realize the game world is meant to cater to the 3-5 adventuring party and their antics. Don't think about why so many alpha predators in the world haven't wiped out civilization. Don't dwell on the economic upheavals adventurers cause buying magic items. Don't dwell on the irrational lifestyle of the average adventurer. Pay no attention to the people behind the curtain.

I'm hoping Rogue One has a "Butch Cassidy" ending where everyone goes out in a pyrrhic sort of victory. One where they steal and transmit the plans, only to become overwhelmed in the end.

It might not be likely as it is made by Disney, yet I like the occasional tragic endings to change things up.

Using spaghetti to celebrate? That tempts fate, soon we will have summoners with flying spaghetti monster eidolons.

Lots of good suggestions.

As advice to the original poster, it is best to ignore the city building rules from ultimate campaign. It doesn't figure in that you might build low cost housing in a crowded city versus a small village with lots of nearby woods versus a small community near a mountain/desert environment. It is more for kingdom or guild building purposes (depending on which section the original poster referred to).

In short, make it cost what you feel would be best for your campaign. Not outrageously expensive, yet not something first level PCs could do easily. Make sure there's enough intrigue and adventure to interest the other players, yet not so much that everyone gives up the project.

The most important rule as a GM is to make things fun for everyone. If they love micromanaging subsystems, go for it. If they just want to kill monsters and find treasure, then feel free to make it something that is a background event that gets a few updates from NPCs, yet does not demand center stage from the PCs.

A large number of "townsfolk" NPCs are lawful neutral, so its not much of a stretch to imagine people that aren't as concerned by order or freedom to land as true neutral.

Granted, I have a hard time justifying how an adventurous PC would have a true neutral alignment. It is not quite the alignment one would expect out of someone driven to pursue a hazardous career.

Ultimate leadership/kingdom building - for those that prefer micromanaging a kingdom over adventuring.

Ultimate service - Don't trust that ghoul cohort! The book titled "To serve adventurers", it's a cookbook!

Ultimate diplomacy - Good news, I made all my enemies into friends. Bad news, they are friends with each other and united to destroy us.

Ultimate entertainment - Detailing the board games, gambling past times, and entertainment in your fantasy settings.

Depressed that my level 20/10 mythic wizard is still weak compared to the newly generated PC I made for a superhero game.

I have played a lot of races over the decades. I haven't played half-orc yet, though had one as a cohort before. I've played a lot of non-core races. I've even played a minotaur once, and a full dragon (with class levels even) before.

I find the term "out of the box" to be something measured in gradations. Then again, I started roleplaying with scifi and superhero rpgs long ago, so I'm used to things that would never fly in a traditional fantasy campaign.

I have seen many, many, many bad movies of the years. I'm sure that Monster a go-go, Beast of Yucca Flats, and Birdemic are all mentioned somewhere on the thread. Those three are my personal "worst movies ever" selections.

Dishonorable mentions include most of the scifi original films. Mill Creek has loads of cheese in various collections - the Scifi Invasion collection contains 50 contenders like Alien Prey, Star Pilot, ROTOR, Robo Vampire, and so on.

One runner up that hasn't been mentioned yet - the 1967 version of Casino Royale. Though far better than most Troma films, it has a highly talented cast that become lost in a mess of a plot. The movie had so much going for it, yet fails to find a focus. It was meant to be a spoof o James Bond, yet picks up and drops plot threads so quickly that it is more like several random talent sketches spliced together rather than a coherent movie. Even Ishtar at least stuck to a single plotline.

And speaking of Ishtar,I found Ishtar to simply be an unfunny version of Spies like us. It wasn't that it was bad, it just could have been much better - not a good film, yet certainly isn't as bad as any of the films riffed by MST3K.

I read the title and thought - huh? Someone making a homebrew magic system that makes color spray look tame?

According to my Hitchhiker's guide -

The Ningi is a galactic unit of currency, valued at one eighth of a Triganic Pu. It is a triangular rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles along each side. Galactibanks refuse to deal in Ningis, declaring them "fiddling small change."

Careful of statistics. It's good to have a base idea of how the world is shaped, yet it can backfire. An example of backfire is when a group of players in the game "Twilight 2000" ran a very long running campaign. They did a tally of all the opponents they had killed, then read a game book detailing the population statistics. Since they kept tracked, they found they had killed nearly the entire remaining adult population of the game world.

Lesson learned - statistics can paint the base assumption of how the world works, yet adventuring PCs always work as the exception and run into the exception to how the world works. In other words, there are as many casters of whatever level as the plot requires for the PCs. Otherwise I can't see how human-like races ever survived in a world as full of dangerous alpha predators or plot-heavy apocalyptic events as any long running campaign would require. And without those plot convenient hazards, the game would become somewhat dull for those seeking adventure through such conflicts.

This is a weakness of level based systems.

Experience level shows how many risks a being takes (combat, social, or plot line risks). A speed run type adventurer might gain levels rapidly at a young age, yet is far more likely to die with an unrecoverable body. An adventurer that reaches middle age has either great fortune, skill, allies, or the sense not to take too many unnecessary risks (and gains levels more slowly).

It is simply easier to take a slow and steady rate of gaining experience rather than becoming super impulsive to become 20th level before reaching a human equivalent age of 20. Also remember, adventurers are a rare and eclectic lot. They take odd races, often have magic users in a group, fight more often than career soldiers, wear more gp worth of magic items than the value of a castle, and so on. These are supposed to be the exceptions to a society, certainly not the normal people.

Everyone has a breaking down melting point. If the person you described has such a low tolerance melting point, it is best not to play with such a person.

Any other solution would be forcing a square peg in a round hole.

Ah, the great comic book struggle - the fight between creative license and conserving a franchise character.

Comic companies are loathe to rock the boat with a successful franchise. Ben Parker will stay dead, even if the rest of the Marvel universe treats death like a revolving door. Comic writers wish to go wherever they want, sometimes leading to great storylines, and sometimes crashing to the ground. The only time such storylines stick is when fans love it, or when there is some business plan by the comic owners to make it stick (such as making sure Wolverine stays dead in the comics until the cinematic rights to the character reverts to Marvel/Disney).

Judging by fan reaction, the Cap storyline won't stick. It would make a great running joke for a Bob, agent of hydra storyline.

Sounds like the opening to the old D&D cartoon. Sooooo, our first level party gets a single magic item each to start with; and we have to fight Tiamat AND some homebrew demon wizard villain thing? At first freakin level?

I hate this campaign!

I really like it. I ask that everyone take their time with it to iron out the tech wrinkles, maybe make a space combat system that actually is simple and works with a D20 system.

Personal opinion - Too bad a superhero type game doesn't work well with a D20 system (many try, yet seem to fall short of the simplicity a "non-linear" system can provide with the genre, such as Mayfair's DC and the old TSR Marvel)

You just think they are wrestling with their faces. Must be some chelish fighting style.

We call it the ancient fighting art of tonsil boxing!

Golarion (Pathfinder's setting) does not touch this subject much since it would be one of many issues that all magic could affect society.

The view of resurrection may well change viewpoint from culture to culture. If a person passed away from old age, resurrection is likely not an issue since it only addresses death through violence, accident, or similar means.

I can only throw in my suggestion that for most Inner Sea cultures death could be treated as a severe illness for those that can afford and have access to resurrection magic (such as nobility, or other nation rulers). Until the departed is resurrected, a representative would handle affairs until the departed can be resurrected. If resurrection is performed in good faith (meaning a reasonable attempt), and fails, then the departed is declared deceased.

Other muddy water issues would be returning as intelligent undead, suffer lycanthropy, or reincarnation. Mind control, if proven, would be treated as loss of capacity or coercion (and any crimes performed while under another's influence may be assigned to the controller).

1. Only where a ranger (or anyone with a tracking feat) can find it.

2. Who said bags of devouring were cursed items?

3. Anywhere they want, who is going to argue?

4. Much like monkeys, they fling waste at any PC that proves to have an untouchabley high AC - and a low touch AC.

See that opponent with a two handed weapon and a low will save? Enchant that lucky winner to be your new beatstick for you.