Maizing's page

I have several items in my saved list to buy later that I need to review ASAP. I had planned on buying some of them Friday. I have tried adding new items and looking at the list on different browsers, but nothing.

I can't remember all of the items that were in my list, so I have to put ordering anything on hold until it is available again.

I have this same issue. I have several items in my list and wanted to look through them to decide what to buy next, and my list is empty.

I tried to look at my list with three different browsers.

I had a sorcerer take a level of spiritualist upon attaining 4th level... which leaves me with a question: Would the "Boon Companion" feat affect the phantom or is it stuck at whatever Spiritualist levels a character attains?

(Snip) That doesn't really change the fact that the Spiritualist lacks a defined role in the party. I still like it as a touch spell based caster, delivering them through the phantom.

This is how I envisioned the Spiritualist on first reading. The spell list seems way too small and too lacking in touch based spells though. Worse, the Spiritualist can't actually use the phantom to deliver touch based spells until s/he is 3rd level. I would prefer this ability to be available at 1st level.

I had an idea for a kineticist character that works with plants and the like (I based this on a picture I found that I plan to use to represent the character), but the closest I could find to match this concept is the earth focused kineticist.

Is there any chance of the elemental focus of kineticists being expanded?

My only other suggestion for a 'foci' is harder to quantify. I kind of like the idea of a spirit who isn't willing to go on because they want to protect their king/family/nation/ideals...and Zeal just doesn't feel the same to me. Maybe it isn't the right fit here, but that's the one I'm most curious about.

Yes! I would like to see some kind of more "protective" foci myself. Maybe call it "Love?"

So... this will be the Collector's Edition.

Mistakes like this happen all the time, are corrected, and then the value of the first batch that got through the process uncorrected goes through the roof.

Maizing wrote:

Take the following quote:

Crystal Frasier wrote:

My overall point being, even if you think you have valid scientific reasons for calling an imaginary race "hermaphrodites", it's still a dehumanizing and insulting word for real-world intersex people.

Replace "hermaphrodites" with "Chinese" and "intersex" with "Japanese" and it reads like something straight from the mind of a bigot. I would like to think that intersex people are sufficiently intelligent individuals that they would not be offended by the proper use of the word and I find the implications that they are assumed to be so small minded as to be offended by a biological term to be disturbing.

I suppose, but given how “intersex” seems to work in some contexts, as an umbrella term (As an aside, what definition do we want to use?), I wonder if a better analogy might be to replace “hermaphrodite” with “[racially-charged epithet]” – especially one referring to physical features – and “intersex” with “Asian.”

I don’t think anyone here means to demonize the word “hermaphrodite.” It has its uses, but the problem is that it has very often been misapplied outside of more specialized biological contexts, and in most games, I don’t think there’s usually a clear marker when one’s shifting to a biological register. When a casual reader sees “hermaphrodite” in their game material, how are they most likely to interpret it, what is the popular connotation? I doubt it’s necessarily a nuanced biological sense, and it doesn’t seem unduly onerous or problematic to me to find another way of phrasing it to avoid causing a hypothetical player grief, but YMMV, as they say.

Eh... I think it is a matter of personal perspective... and thus it is a personal choice to be offended or not. I personally associate the word "hermaphrodite" with the myth of Hermaphroditus (who was the child of Hermes and Aphrodite and whose name gave rise to the word "hermaphrodite" in the first place). So, to me, the word simply is a direct reference to a Greek god. There is absolutely nothing about the word that has an element of offense to me. So, someone who was offended by imaginary people who happen to be hermaphrodites doesn't look any different to me than someone who was offended by imaginary people who happen to be black. How is that for a "physical feature?" :-P

On the other hand, I do have a couple of issues with the word "intersex." The first being the definition of the word as listed in my dictionary. I have an intense dislike of the label "abnormal." Were I to play a hermaphroditic character, that state would most certainly be "normal" for him/her.

The second issue I have with the word "intersex" is that (as one who has been a target for bullies as far back as I can remember... simply because I have Asperger's Syndrome), it is very obvious to me what a bully could (and likely would) twist the word into. (Admittedly, I would not have a problem with a character being called an "insect" if it was of a race that was actually insectoid in nature.)

As I have a tendency to identify any character I play as an extension of myself, I would object very strongly to having a hermaphroditic character I was playing labeled as an "intersex." Which, of course, is why I offered up an alternative in my earlier posts.

My take on this is that, if someone else wanted their character called an "intersex," then that is their choice. I don't really care what words other people use to describe/define their characters. Just let me have my choice of words to define/describe my character(s). (In fact, this conversation has actually made me want to make a hermaphroditic character... I have even gone so far as to obtain/modify artwork to represent the character... I just need to name it and choose a class. Many years ago, in fact, I toyed with a story idea about a hermaphrodite, and figure I could use what I can remember of that story for a background.)

Then too:

To bring it back to Golarion, for species in which sex is not usually organized by Hermeses and Aphrodites, referring to hermaphroditism rather than finding a more precise word in a setting which might allow for a more fantastical play of language strikes me as odd, and for people like tieflings who are more or less human we already have a more general word to which the appropriate nuance might be added as needed. Trying to get back on topic, and add a bit of levity to the discussion. I hope I'm not coming across as pointlessly and tactlessly argumentative.

I am not sure that there is a more precise word. If you think that "intersex" is such a word, well, the definitions given by the dictionary (at least the one I have) disagree.

I tend to make my characters fairly balanced. I refuse to set any stat lower than 10 (after adjustments). This makes a 15 point buy (or worse, 10 points) extra painful for me. Basically, if I am allowed anything less than a 20 point buy, I won't be playing.

hot girls, guys are not:

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1390/59/1390590044523.png

The half-orc is not bad. The dwarf, while unattractive, is just a typical dwarf. The halfling is kind of cute (but in a "little kid" way, and arouses parental feelings in me). That elf though, is just plain hideous! I thought elves were supposed to be an attractive race?

Their expressions though... all the females have neutral or friendly expressions while the males are all scowling or grumpy looking.

On a side note, if we’re looking for different words, why not take a leaf from botany and use “monoecious?” Hopefully, it avoids baggage, and also avoids the oddness of referring to species in which “hermaphroditism” is the usual configuration in terms of allusion to a rather singular character from human mythology, with its connotations of unusualness.

I would say that word has the problem of being esoteric... I am fascinated by biology in all its forms but had not come across that word and would have no idea what it means without the context of this thread. It is the same problem that using a made up word based on Golarion deities presents, the meaning is not immediately apparent. Most new players would be even more bewildered than I would be.

The suggestion I proposed ("dual-sex"), is pretty obvious in meaning.

I still think the demonizing of the word "hermaphrodite" is excessive.

Take the following quote:

My overall point being, even if you think you have valid scientific reasons for calling an imaginary race "hermaphrodites", it's still a dehumanizing and insulting word for real-world intersex people.

Replace "hermaphrodites" with "Chinese" and "intersex" with "Japanese" and it reads like something straight from the mind of a bigot. I would like to think that intersex people are sufficiently intelligent individuals that they would not be offended by the proper use of the word and I find the implications that they are assumed to be so small minded as to be offended by a biological term to be disturbing.

Mikaze wrote:

Let your mouse fall upon that Flag button like the sword of Ragathiel.

I'm petitioning the tech team to add this to the forum FAQ. ;-)

Is there anyway for that spammy review to be removed? It is still up, while spammy posts get removed fairly quickly.

That spammy "review" is still there. Can someone in authority remove it? Or is it there no way to remove reviews? Is it going to be stuck there forever?

Be careful about taking the PC's stuff, harming NPCs that they love etc. This can backfire badly.

I have been in games where the entire group of players just up and quit the campaign because of this kind of thing.

I know that if any of my own character's back-story NPCs were harmed without the GM asking me if I would be OK with what was done, that I would not want to continue playing in that campaign (I have had this happen to one of my characters before and will not put up with it ever again).

There's spam in that review for Inner Sea Gods!

That review is especially infuriating as there is no report button for spammy reviews (as opposed to spammy posts).

Question: If reviews of products had to be read by a real person to ensure that they are real reviews and not spam before they were allowed to be published, would that be too labor intensive for the staff?

Or perhaps a report button could be added to reviews?

Has anyone here informed the tech crew that the review here is a spam post?

After reading your post, I looked... I didn't see anyway to report it from the review tab. How would someone go about reporting that blatant Spam?

Edit: The Spammer apparently created his/her account solely for the purpose of making that Spam review post too. :-(

Honestly the hermaphrodite thing seems perfectly fine to me and I don't see what the big deal is. It's a thing that does not occur in humans (to my knowledge) and further drives home the otherworldly / unusual nature of tieflings. I see it as no more deserving of scorn than things like vestigial tails (which some humans are born with in reality).

Honestly, though I hadn't planned to toss my coppers into the pot on this one, I think railing against the correct usage of the word (being a creature with multiple functional reproductive systems associated with being male/female) is a perpetuation of ignorance. The same kind of ignorance that leads to bigoted thinking.

Don't hate the word, and don't steal people's cookies. Educate others that intersexed people are not hermaphrodites, don't hide the word or stop using it. All that does is give it power and alienate people for silly reasons. Stop drawing lines in the sand and seek unity. >_>

I for one really like the idea of having a character that could be both a father and a mother (without shapeshifting magics) and think such a thing would really make you think in the fantastic for a moment. In much the same way, a character who reproduces aesexually would also be an interesting thing to consider when developing a character.

But yeah, honestly the anti-hermaphrodite thing just comes off to me as really ignorant and destructive. Rather than fixing a problem (through education) it seeks to hide away what is seen as unacceptable or uncomfortable (a word that is sometimes misused), which in my mind directly mirrors the exact destructive thinking that causes the issue in the first place.

I have to agree with this poster.

1) I would think that an intersex person who is offended by being called a hermaphrodite would be like a Japanese person who was offended by being called a Chinese: the offense being due to the fact that that is not what they are.

I would not expect an intersex person to be offended by an actual hermaphrodite being called that any more than I would expect a Japanese person to be offended by hearing someone from China being called a Chinese.

If an intersex person really does find the proper use of the word hermaphrodite to be offensive, I would have to consider that as bigoted as I would if a Japanese person was offended at the mere mention of Chinese.

...and really, are there not already enough offensive words in existence? Do we really need to tarnish more words with that label?

2) If it is absolutely necessary to use a different word than hermaphrodite, may I suggest "dual-sex" rather than either "intersex" (which has a specific meaning and is not a synonym for hermaphrodite) or some made up word whose meaning is not immediately obvious?

Maizing wrote:

Why do NPCs have to be young/attractive to be romantic interests?

For example... in Jade Regent, one of the campaign traits is to have a childhood crush on one of (3 out of) 4 NPCs. What would be so "wrong" about role playing a Herald and Maude style romance with Koya? Not to mention that older males can be quite sexy (think: Sean Connery!).

Just my two cents.

For the record, I'm not factoring in age. So far one of the men in CotCT is well into middle age or somewhat beyond, and one of the women is cited as 40.

Attractiveness I am factoring in to some degree, because we're looking for planned love interests, designed to appeal to a majority of people...or at least not designed to not appeal. Ignoring physical attractiveness will give a very skewed and inaccurate picture as compared to people's actual experiences.

Keep in mind that attractiveness is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

For example, I was in a gaming group once (a long, long time ago), where one of the members of the group made a comment (after having watched the TV show The Rockford Files), about how he considered James Garner to be a homely man, and how amazing it was that he still got ladies interested in him... yet I personally, always considered James Garner to be ruggedly handsome.

Why do NPCs have to be young/attractive to be romantic interests?

For example... in Jade Regent, one of the campaign traits is to have a childhood crush on one of (3 out of) 4 NPCs. What would be so "wrong" about role playing a Herald and Maude style romance with Koya? Not to mention that older males can be quite sexy (think: Sean Connery!).

Just my two cents.

Maizing wrote:

This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):

2nd Edition Player's Handbook wrote:

Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.

Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.

I disagree. Changes from 2E to 3E was a huge change in the paradigm. The intent of many spells changed. A great number of things got quantified. Conditions like stun, blind, etc. are spelled out. Things have traits now. There was a very large shift from the DM defining all these things to the 'system' defining things.

Spell changes from 3.xE to Pathfinder further meant changes in intent.

So, sorry, the intent of Color Spray did change from 2E because Blind and Sightless are two very different and distinct things. So if blind isn't mentioned in Color Spray that means blind creatures ARE affected by the spell now.

So let's just toss Common Sense out the window.

This is a very old spell. I looked it up in my 2nd edition player's handbook. Here is what it says there (on page 132):

Blind or unseeing creatures are not affected by the spell.

Just because the wording for the spell has since been changed to read "sightless" does not change the intent of the spell. I would say that you guys are over-thinking this.

Looking at your original thread, I would call the type of role play you described "heavy" role play (I take my terminology from MMOs I play)... and, as Gauthok showed in his post, heavy role play does not preclude optimization.

I have to admit, that I would also be turned off by this type of role play being called either "normal" or "traditional" (and I am very much into heavy role play). Most games I have been in, we either did heavy or light role play... the most important thing is that we all have fun.

My issue is that the Girdle of Opposite Gender is referred to as a "cursed" item. Transformation from one gender to the other is referred to as a curse, and for some people that's not a bug it's a feature.

I think the Girdle of Opposite Gender should just be a magic item. One that's relatively easy to make (Alter Self as a prerequisite). No mentions of curses.

It is a cursed item because the change is involuntary. In the same way, a magic item that made any change to a character against that character's will would be cursed... even if some would consider that change a good thing. Admittedly, a non-cursed version would be possible, and I can see such being used deliberately by some individuals.

Personally, I would never use such for any of my characters and if any of them were subjected to the effects, I would do my best to get it reversed. If I had wanted it that way, I would have made it that way to begin with... because when I make a character, I choose which gender I want that particular character to be and do not wish it changed (and I have both male and female characters).

I think that this is one of the great features of games like this, that the characters' gender (and gender identity) is determined by the players themselves, so a character would only be trans-gendered if the player actually wished it to be.

I will also add that I find this item less of an issue than I do the helm of opposite alignment. This item only affects the character's physical form, the helm affects the character mentally... and regardless of what is done to my characters' physical bodies, what makes them mine is what goes on inside their heads.

Funny thing about the claim that unusual races are picked for power gaming...

In my gaming group, one of the members wants to GM the Jade Regent AP.

He was at first unsure which races he would allow us to use, and was considering allowing us to use some unusual races... but did say that we would have to write a good background story to explain any such if he did end up allowing them. I wanted to play a skin-walker (from Blood of the Moon). So I made my character with the understanding that my race choice might not be allowed (my back up plan was to make the character a human if that ended up being the case).

Well, the GM ended up deciding to not allow unusual races after all, so I converted my skin-walker to human as I had planned.

As a human, my character is extremely better than he had been as a skin-walker.

Maizing wrote:

I bought it too... and I even created a lamia character... but I am not really sure when or where I would ever be able to play the character.

I would do a review, but I never know what to rate stuff.

Cool! I'd love to hear what you created!

Hey, feel free to write that review anyway! Short and sweet is perfectly fine :)

Ok, I did a review. I just listed the pros and cons (as I see them). I hope people find it useful.

Kcinlive wrote:

Fine! I bought it! Are you happy?

Curse you Kobolds and your quality gaming products!

-Kcinlive

Heh, so here's MY curse ...

I've been formulating what I think would make a really cool lamia-centered adventure ... but I don't see having any time to write it any time soon:(

I bought it too... and I even created a lamia character... but I am not really sure when or where I would ever be able to play the character.

I would do a review, but I never know what to rate stuff.

Tormsskull wrote:

Tvarog wrote:

My take on backstory is that it's generally not worth the effort, for two main reasons.

First, my experience has been that most GMs will use your backstory to force you into things you wouldn't otherwise do. Some family member gets kidnapped, or your hometown gets razed, or some other similar tragedy occurs.

That's a noobie mistake. As a GM, I always ask if I can meddle with a PC's background before I do so. I won't say exactly what, but as an example, one of my players from a previous campaign added his sister into his backstory. She seemed like an interesting character, so I asked him if it would be alright if I threw her in the line of fire during an adventure. He said it was okay.

So I turned her into a sort of blessed character that could turn into an angelic form (very powerful) for a very short period of time/day. Once a certain evil npc learned this about her, he was trying to manipulate her into working for him.

It ended up being a great adventure hook.

I agree, its shows a level of inexperience as a GM. I had one very experienced player who joined our group that came to us with this sort of "background PTSD". His background was always "I am a loner orphan who has no friends and my hometown was destroyed by invaders", simply so the GM could not screw with his character using it.

I something to say about GMs who screw with a character's back story...

My gaming group once did a Vampire: the Masquerade campaign. In that game, you used development points to create your character (basically, you spent points for benefits and got points back for flaws which, combined, made the background story).

Anyway, I got the distinct impression that my GM did not like the character I was playing as I designed it. He decided to destroy some of the RP fluff I had given my character (and one of the benefits I had spent considerable development points to give my character while he was at it), and ultimately ended up destroying any fun I had playing that character. The worst part was, he thought that destroying those things would "fix" what he perceived as a problem with my character.

This is from a novel rather than from any game rulebook, but you might find The Bifrost Guardians series by Mickey Zucker Reichert of interest. Particularly the book By Chaos Cursed.

In that book of the series, one of the characters (who happens to be a spell caster) is pregnant. The following is a quote from the book:

"Instinctively, she clutched the tiny aura to her, felt the edges of its life energy blur into her own. She could not separate the two. Any spell she threw would sap its life force as well as hers, and once emptied of chaos, the child would die."

Admittedly, spell casting in the book is different from in the game, but this is the only information on the subject that I have ever come across.

I generally write a few paragraphs, I don't think I have ever gone 2 or 3 pages worth though... maybe one page at the most. I usually work any traits I want for my character into the story I write.

If I have a shared background between multiple characters, I write that stuff up separately.

Maizing wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Characters with crafting feats are not obligated in any way to provide services to the group.

Exactly! Being able to craft stuff does not make the character the party's slave.

Characters with healing spells are not obligated in any way to provide services to the group.

/sarcasm

You may not realize it, but that is the logical conclusion to the line of reasoning that you are following.

Characters with crafting feats are not obligated in any way to provide services to the group.

Exactly! Being able to craft stuff does not make the character the party's slave.

My view: If a party member chose to make stuff for me for free, I would personally feel that I needed to do something extra for that character in return. If, instead, the character asked for a modest payment in gold (while still giving me a better deal than I could ever expect from an NPC), that would "let me off the hook" (as it were). Either way, I would not feel that the other party member "owed" it to me to make me stuff for free.

I will add that I have never played a character who can craft anything, so my attitude is that of one who would be the beneficiary of a party member who can craft and is willing to craft for the other party members.

Jessica Price wrote:

Newly GM wrote:

Im gonna chime in be the black sheep and say this is not rape for real.

If the barmaid sleeps with her friends, then its her problem. Charm person makes you look like her friend. If she gets convinced to sleep with you, its because she have no problems with doing so.

Its easy to put morals in front of facts, but it doesnt change the fact the she still have to be okay with sleeping with friends for the spell to do it. Its not rape, its consensual.

She didn't consent to sleep with you. I'm not sure what's unclear about this. YOU DO NOT HAVE HER CONSENT.

Ill have to disagree with this, depending on the situation of said NPC. If she was already okay with sleeping with her friends, then charm person isnt forcing anything on her. She sees you as a friend, and if shes okay with it then its not rape. Charm person isnt a compulsion spell, youre not taking away her free will to choose. If she does it, its consensual. Remember, charm person is a Charm spell, not compulsion one.

So what about when the spell wears off and she realizes that YOU ARE NOT HER FRIEND? Her will was compromised whether you will admit it or not.

Or do you think it is not rape if she doesn't scream or struggle?

Maizing wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?

Let me take a different approach...

Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?

Yes, that is clearly rape.

Quote:

Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?

Again yes, but it would still be rape if he used a high bluff check instead of charm person, would it not?

...but that is exactly the way using a Charm Person spell would work... so you have just admitted that it is rape to get a charmed person to sleep with someone.

Why is it, that I get the feeling that, while there are both male and female players saying that this use of a charm person spell would be rape, that there only male players saying that it would not be?

So it's rape because of Charm Person? Magical lies are rape, mundane lies are not? If it is rape either way (which it is) then why is Charm Person the culprit?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that it is not rape if it is mundane lies.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

How much difference is there between a saving throw (and possible subsequent charisma check) and a bluff check? If a character makes a bluff or diplomacy check to seduce someone, is that rape? Is it purely because it's magic and not skill that makes it rape?

Let me take a different approach...

Uther Pendragon uses Merlin's spell to assume the likeness of Igraine's husband, seduces her, and beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?

Yes, that is clearly rape.

Quote:

Now assume that Uther isn't under a disguise self spell, but instead Igraine is charmed. Uther convinces Igraine he is her husband but "under a magical curse" to appear as Uther. He seduces her, she fails her save, and he beds her. Knowing Igraine would have never consented to Uther otherwise, are Uther's actions rape? Don't they carry more weight than just a magical lie?

Again yes, but it would still be rape if he used a high bluff check instead of charm person, would it not?

...but that is exactly the way using a Charm Person spell would work... so you have just admitted that it is rape to get a charmed person to sleep with someone.

Why is it, that I get the feeling that, while there are both male and female players saying that this use of a charm person spell would be rape, that there only male players saying that it would not be?

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Razh wrote:

Im asking more on the lines of morally dubious things like charming an innocent barmaid to sleep with you, when normally she would never agree to it.

IMO, there's nothing "morally dubious" about that, any more than there's anything "morally dubious" about giving someone a drug that incapacitates them so you can rape them. Either way, it's evil.

I would say Charm Person is more akin to lying than drugging someone. However I'm in the "Charm Person doesn't equal Dominate Person" crowd. So I certainly wouldn't consider it a good thing, but a far cry from rape (at least in my games).

A person under any sort of mental compulsion can't meaningfully consent.

Exactly!

Charm person impairs the victim's will. Even if the barmaid would normally sleep with anyone who asked, even if she made her living as a prostitute, for her to sleep with someone while under the effects of a spell such as charm person would be rape.

I would like to add that if a character of mine were charmed, and the GM allowed the one who charmed my character to do something of this nature, that I would leave that gaming group. It would not matter if the character who charmed my character were a PC or an NPC (nor would the genders of the characters in question matter)... I would not play with a group where that could happen.

The same rules that apply to PCs should apply to NPCs.

How do you know that dwarves aren't actually functional hermaphrodites, that can choose which gender their bodies manifest... but the vast majority of them prefer to function as male?

It would certainly explain the stories of bearded female dwarves.

The Crusader wrote:

The first commandment of the "Evil PC Campaign": Thou Shalt Not PvP.

Seriously. Don't.

There is always a point where you can decide to attack or betray another PC because, "That's what my character would do!" It's a lame excuse. Don't use it. Don't do it.

Your DM has done a lot of work to create adversaries for you. Your fellow players have not.

Exactly. Poor excuse, and a "Richard' move.

I still say that the GM was at fault. I don't know whose bright idea it was to have the new character try to assassinate a party member, but the GM should have known better. It is the GM who is ultimately responsible for introducing a new character to the party.

If the method of introduction was the plan of the player, the GM should have vetoed it. If it was the GM who came up with the idea, I don't know what to say.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I had a GM set up a character of mine to fail once. The OP's story is an even worse introduction of a new party member.

Reminds me of: http://www.amazon.com/Code-Lifemaker-James-P-Hogan/dp/0743435265

The book might give some ideas for a campaign.

From what you wrote, it sounds like the GM screwed up the introduction of the new character to the party. GMs can do that sometimes.

I have had it happen to one of my characters... and that was in a party of neutral to good PCs... and I only realized that the GM was at fault for the death of my character in retro-spec.

Basically, the GM set the new character up to fail. I am really curious as to how the android was supposed to have gone from trying to assassinate one of the party to being an accepted member of the group. I know that I would never trust someone who had tried to kill one of my party (and I never play evil characters).

Also, as other posters have said, the GM could (and SHOULD) have ruled that the damage you did was not fatal somehow. The GM is, after all, the arbiter of what happens in the game. He is the story teller. He was in control of the introduction of the new character. In my opinion, a GM is actually REQUIRED to fudge the dice rolls if it makes for a better story.

For some reason, I am reminded of a comedian... who did this routine about rabbits.

Two rabbits were chased into a haystack by a fox. One turns to the other and asks, "Shall we run for it or just stay here and outnumber him?"

The other rabbit thinks about it for a bit, then replies, "Don't be silly. We're brothers!"

The trait -
Beast Bond: You share a close bond with animals. You gain a +1 bonus on Handle Animal checks and Ride checks. One of these skills (your choice) is always a class skill for you.

I picked it out of the list from http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/characterBackground/tra its.html#_traits

...but I have since learned that there are traits that I might want normally which are not PFS legal and I want to use the character that I gave this trait to in PFS play. Is there a complete list somewhere of traits that are allowed? If so, where would I find it?

Alignment does not restrict or prevent any actions, at all. Your actions determine your alignment, not the other way round.

If you're having problem with a player's behavior, the correct action is to talk to the player about the expectations of the game and his character, not use ham-handed control-freaking.

I've not used alignment in years, and I've found roleplaying to be better, because nobody makes the mistake of looking at their sheet and going 'Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ...' which is wrong. People actually roleplay a character, not an alignment.

In my book, THAT'S good.

The best alignment rule set that I have ever come across was from an alternative rule book for D&D that I picked up once many years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know what happened to the book.

I do (more or less) remember how alignment was handled in that book though. Basically, each character set up a set of guidelines for what that character would or would not do. For example, there were a number of options with regards to how the character views torture (and how these views range from good to evil), such as:

1) Character would not resort to torture for any reason (extreme good).
2) Character would only use torture to obtain vital information if all other options had failed and the character believed that torture is the only thing that would work.
3) Character would use torture regularly, but only to extract information and does not enjoy the process.
4) Character only uses torture in order to obtain information, but enjoys doing this.
5) Character employs torture purely for pleasure regardless of whether any information is obtained (extreme evil).

I may have forgotten a few of the options, but you get the idea. If I remember right, there was actually a questionnaire for the player to fill out to indicate the character's moral code. It was a lot less two dimensional than the standard D&D alignment system. The book also had some sample moral codes showing how they would work as an indication of the character's alignment. An interesting note, is that it is perfectly possible for an evil character to be repulsed by the idea of torture ("Sure, I have murdered millions of innocent intelligent beings, but I never TORTURED anyone!").

The fact is though, that there are some things that good characters would never do... if they wanted to stay good. So while you are technically right in saying that the player should not look at their character sheet and say, "Oh, I'm LG, therefore I must ..." If the character DOES do things that a LG character would NOT do, then their alignment would change to reflect the change to their moral code.

Funny thing is, what you said at the beginning of your post actually says this! So yeah, actions determine alignment... but doesn't that fact contradict your claim that you do not use alignment? Or do the players in your campaign just do anything they choose with no consequences? ("Yeah, I am a paladin, a paragon of virtue, and my friend here is a sadistic murderer. What of it?")

Personally, I cannot see a paladin (who is supposed to be good) associating with an evil character, if for no other reason than that they would have nothing in common.

DragoDorn wrote:

What I don't understand is why are you adding classes to the game in a book called 'The Advanced Class Guide' and all the classes don't have at least some kind of supernatural, spell like ability, or actual casting. Pure melee classes don't seem very 'Advanced'. The Slayer, the Brawler, and even the Swashbuckler, to some degree, feel like they are lacking in what I would consider advanced abilities.

I don't see how "add magical abilities to it" automatically makes something more "advanced."

I agree. In fact, this is the only one of the advanced classes that I, personally, find interesting. While I do think that there needs to be a better synergy between FT and SA, I don't think that the base class "needs" to have magic abilities as part of it.

I can't resist testing this...

SMURF!

Here's an idea... instead of an "ignore" function, maybe a "hide this post" function could be added to the boards? I have found (on many boards), that often there will be one (or more) posters who will make posts that can range from thought provoking to inflammatory. In such cases, I would flag the inflammatory posts, but read (and perhaps respond to) the others.

Perhaps flagging a post could hide it? Or give the option to hide it (in case the flag was a mistake)?

Anyone else kind of find it amusing that a thread like this pops up and everyone is aghast that someone would say these things? I promise you, were it a female making disparaging comments against men it would be smiled upon, probably because most of the people white-knighting in this fashion are only praying the woman would look at them.

As a woman, I would be just as offended by another woman making such remarks about men as I would be about a man making such remarks about women. Neither is appropriate.

I was actually bothered at a gaming session in the group I am in where one of the party members had to be charmed by a fellow party member because he had failed a will save and was attacking a certain party member and it was the only way to get him to stop. Then some of my fellow players started making comments about what the charmer (a gay character played by a gay player) should do with the character who had been charmed.

It made me as uncomfortable as it would have if the character who had been charmed had been a female and charmer had been a straight male. Fortunately, the player of the charmer is an honorable person and did not follow through with what the other players were suggesting.

I did not speak up as I don't quite know how I should have addressed it, and our GM is also female and did not say anything as far as I know.

I also don't know if they were actually saying those things in character or if it was just a matter of the players teasing their friends in very bad taste.

Why would Shaman's need Charisma?

I saw this mentioned a few times, but aren't both their spells and hexes are based on Wisdom?

Oracle spells are based on Charisma. A witch's spells are based on intelligence. It seems odd that a mix of those two classes would rely on wisdom.