Morzadian's page

Morzadian wrote:

Usually by the spell's description, a player can easily define if it's a good or evil act.

And yet I cannot see why animating skeletons and getting them to build a wall to defend a town would be an evil act.

Breaking the sacredness of a burial ritual. Not having your own sacred burial site (like mass graves.

Or using the skeletal remains of people whose souls have passed on to Valhalla and other otherworldly places for your own purposes, no matter how noble, is still seen as practising the dark arts, and is frowned upon by the majority.

They are dead (the skeletons) and it's not your character's place to interfere in the natural cycle of life and death.

Milo v3 wrote:

None of what you just quoted says that [Evil] spells are evil acts, simply that [Evil] spells are associated with evil.... which is true, since they all involve manipulating evil in some manner according to the descriptors description.

Please note that some posters here argue that some spells with the Evil descriptor do not involve manipulating evil ;-)

I was answering TOZ who wanted to know if the rules said that "Spells with the Evil descriptor are Evil acts/spells/whatever". So, I did show that they are indeed evil spells.

Of course, you can still argue that casting an evil spell is not an evil act. Since the RAW do not actually write that it is. That said, AFAIK there is no exhaustive list of evil acts in the RAW, nor of good acts or neutral acts BTW.

Black Raven, I agree.

Usually by the spell's description, a player can easily define if it's a good or evil act. The spell Death Knell is a merciless and dishonourable spell.

A bit of common sense goes a long way

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

HenshinFanatic wrote:

LazarX wrote:

In the early days of Star Trek paperbacks there was a book of short stories called new voyages. In one of those stories, a mad scientist splits Spock into his Human and Vulcan selves. One of the best moments of that story is when Kirk suddenly realizes that Spock's friendship with him, is from his Vulcan half as much as it is from his Human one.

Friendship my tail, they're a romantic couple whose only on screen heterosexual escapades are mentions to past relationships or when they're manipulating someone (more often Kirk), or being manipulated by a greater power (more often Spock).

Anyway, I support more male homosexual couples and couples involving one or more trans and/or non-binary individuals in adventure paths. I wouldn't even object to polygamous relationships showing up in a positive light even though that's not my thing.

I would assume that at this point that is a delicate balancing act. There's a fine line between helpful progressiveness and immersion killing pandering.

Nope. Nothing "delicate" about it. Including gay or trans people isn't pandering any more than including straight people. They don't need special plot justifications for their presence any more than straight people do. It's not about "progressiveness": it's just about treating everyone equally.

They exist in Golarion, therefore they are present in stories about Golarion, and that's all there really is to it.

Unfortunately we do not yet live in the society where that can be the expected answer. The existence of this very thread is the proof of that.

I'm saying that including a LGBT character is delicate work. I'm saying there is a certain level of presence of any given social group which one would expect, and finding a given level of diversity without it becoming cliche or pandering requires balance.

It's the "High School

...

Including gay and trans characters per se is not a delicate act, avoiding tokenism definitely is, so is avoiding too much allegory or didactic content.

And inclusiveness can be different and is different to representation. Having a gay character in an AP doesn't necessarily mean it includes or welcomes LGBT gamers, its often the indirectness, layers of character that makes inclusiveness possible rather than simple representation.

Some very impressive strategic writing is happening at Paizo.

Alright people get your best rocks ready!

I am unapologetically for GMOPCs (or whatever they're called this page of the thread) I wouldn't get to play pathfinder if I didn't use them quite honestly, I've also never seen them abused as bad as claimed around these parts, nor have I found it a personal affront to my RPG Skillz, anyway I'm busy so Chuck away :-)

Oh Captain Yesterday you always bring the 'fun' to these forums.

Wait...where did my rocks go? Someone stole my rocks! Looks like the handiwork of a Kender.

But people seem to be able to do that as players just fine.

Why is it a problem for a DM running a PC?

A player hasn't read the Adventure Path, published adventure or self-authored adventure. But the DM has read it and knows exactly what's going to happen.

So meta-gaming comes it play (with DMPCs) by default.

I'm not saying you can't have a successful DMPC (you can, I don't think Jaelithe and Ashiel and others are being disingenuous on that front) but it is a more problematic task than running regular NPCs as they usually don't join the adventuring party.

Its also a matter of play style, I'm an old-school grognard and I prefer the Players vs. DM dynamic and I'm definitely not a fan of GMPCs.

But I have no problem with other people who like GMPCs.

The Alkenstarian wrote:

But there is simply no way it ever CAN be equal terms, because the GM automatically possesses vast and extensive knowledge of the campaign that the players don't.

Don't metagame. Problem solved.

Ashiel it's a bit more complicated than that.

Once you know the information you can't delete it from your mind, it will always influence a GMPCs actions, negatively or positively.

Its always taken into consideration.

The subtypes work in any campaign.

And the subtypes are put in place so the Eidolon will fit into a fantasy worlds mythology not just for reasons pertaining to game balance.

Hopefully with future releases more subtypes will be added, or 3PP could take the initiative and publish a book on new subtypes.

Like what they did with the Unchained Monk and monk archetypes.

And when artists do get ethnicity right (like Wayne Reynold's version of Sajan and Seelah), the strengths of their art can be lost, and is often 'westernised' by other artists.

And this is where criticism is needed, lets the artist know they did an unsatisfactory job.

We do it with game design and game design improves, it goes from strength to strength.

Art shouldn't be immune to scrutiny.

Oh, there's ungodly amounts of pure undiluted racism in Lovecraft. I don't recall the trumpeters specifically, but there was a lot of racist imagery in Dream Quest.

Mostly I was just pointing out that Narly doesn't make a good, evil, example of a black god in the sense we're talking about.

Yeah I didn't want to open that pandoras box.

Yes I agree Nyarlathotep shouldn't be included in the black god conversation.

Paizo most likely wants to avoid the problematic side of Lovecraft's writings, which leaves the Black Pharaoh open to interpretation if he is Egyptian, African etc. Its just an avatar and Nyarlahotep has thousands.

Seems that canon only applies if you're playing Pathfinder Society games, writing campaign setting material for Paizo, or writing fiction for Paizo (or either of those for Wayfinder). Otherwise, what does it really matter?

Edit: Or if you're trying to win the post-banquet trivia contest at Paizocon.

Totally agree,

And any mention of moving away from canonical sources is countered by "what about PFS." There seems to be a 'you are allowed to do that/you are not allowed to do that" kind of sub-culture in Pathfinder games or at least promoted by (some?) people that play them.

Hopefully Pathfinder Unchained will get more people to 'break the rules.'

Morzadian wrote:

If this thread had a list of ways for GM's to make GMPCs function well in campaigns (for people who wanted to use GMPCs in their campaign), we would actually gain something from reading posts in this thread.

But it does have just that (well, maybe not literally a list, but IIRC some posters described how they use DMPCs in their games), so either you didn't actually read the posts in this thread or you didn't gain anything from reading them.

lol,

Condescending comments sure, lots of 'you are a bad gm/good gm' or 'GMPCs are always a problem' or "GMPCs are never a problem' type of comments.

Something like 10% of the posts offered helpful solutions that didn't push for an agenda of for or against.

A problem with these forums is that it is plagued with posts that shoves other people's opinions down other people's throats.

If this thread had a list of ways for GM's to make GMPCs function well in campaigns (for people who wanted to use GMPCs in their campaign), we would actually gain something from reading posts in this thread.

Otherwise all we are doing is flexing our debating skills, which is fun to a certain degree just not very productive.

Morzadian wrote:

The reason why there isn't a game mechanic about tradition and weapons is that the Pathfinder game leaves 'flavor' up to the GM and players. That applies to every class and race in the game.

And yes a GM can rule that a lawful human cavalier that uses a gnome hooked hammer is performing a chaotic action.

So that ruling could perhaps be made in a home game -- but not in PFS as campaign leadership has not given any indication that such "flavor" fits with Organized Play.

I agree,

The same can be said about the OP, campaign leadership has not suggested the idea of 'alignment ticking- 3 times and you are out' is part of organised play. Yet someone has introduced it into organised play.

Nyarlathotep has many forms with the black pharaoh being one of them, the 'black pharaoh' is kind of like a polymorphed form than a true representation of a deity.

Although you could treat it as such.

I agree with Draco Bahamut and others that Golarion is in need of a black pantheon (Mwangi and Garund) as well as chaotic/lawful/good/evil outsiders, which is related to such a pantheon.

Nethys (Nethys can send a white woman as a herald?) and the 'black pharaoh' are not the best examples on how there are black gods in Golarion, Mwangi and Garund have been under-represented in relation to religion in Golarion.

Morzadian wrote:

Dread Knight wrote:

Morzadian wrote:

Dread Knight wrote:

Morzadian wrote:

He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).

How is this a chaotic action?

Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).

No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.

So you can't have a traditional way of fighting? That's really strange.

Oh you can but that way of fighting would be up to the character/player not some BS about not using this one specific weapon can change your alignment due to the fact real world Cavaliers/Knights used longswords.

There is nothing in the class description or mechanics that say they have to use longswords in fact the mechanics point to them using whatever weapons that they want due to their weapon proficiency being all simple and martial weapons like Drake and Phantom mentioned.

Again saying that since he uses a weapon that was gifted to him by an admirer instead of a longsword is a chaotic action and should be marked as such making that the character couldn't be LN is completely asinine.

The reason why there isn't a game mechanic about tradition and weapons is that the Pathfinder game leaves 'flavor' up to the GM and players. That applies to every class and race in the game.

And yes a GM can rule that a lawful human cavalier that uses a gnome hooked hammer is performing a chaotic action.

If you read my original post I said there is a problem with alignment in general. Not that cavaliers can't be an exception to the rule in relation to weapons and tradition.

i used Davos the cavalier as an example to why the alignment system is deeply flawed.

Morzadian wrote:

Dread Knight wrote:

Morzadian wrote:

He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).

How is this a chaotic action?

Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).

No offense but that is one of the most asinine things I've heard.

So you can't have a traditional way of fighting? That's really strange.

Morzadian wrote:

Dread Knight wrote:

Morzadian wrote:

He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).

How is this a chaotic action?

Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).

According to the RAW, A cavalier/knights tradition is fighting with any simple or martial weapons... Even Paladins and inquisitors have the option of using a favored weapon of their god... but its' not required!

Unless you're using some weird archtype or something. I'm sure there are some of those out there.

Frankly I wouldn't play in a game where the DM looks at the character and says "nope! Not cookie cutter enough..."

Nope, there is no mention of simple and martial weapon proficiency being a Cavalier tradition.

I used the longsword as an example. Lawful Cavaliers would have different traditional weapons based on region and culture.

The Lawful alignment is not a requirement to be a Cavalier but if a player decides to play a Lawful Cavalier they have to follow tradition (RAW, CRB p 167-168). And combat has no exemption from tradition, if anything you would find tradition prevalent in combat situations.

Morzadian wrote:

Nyarlathotep is most likely influenced by the writings of H.P Lovecraft (a favourite author of Paizo designers) rather than Egyptian or African sources.

I should hope so, as Nyarlathotep did not exist in any Egyptian or African primary sources, or in any form prior to the early 20th century. That's rather like saying "Bilbo Baggins is most likely influenced by the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien..."

But if you haven't read Lovecraft you could be mistaken about Nyarlathotep's origins. 'Hotep' is Egyptian and one of the forms he takes is a black pharaoh.

Nyarlathotep is most likely influenced by the writings of H.P Lovecraft (a favourite author of Paizo designers) rather than Egyptian or African sources.

In Cthulhu Mythology Nyarlathotep is also known as the 'god of a thousand forms' kind of fits in with Pathfinder's description "is one of the Outer Gods of the Dark Tapestry who takes on thousands of forms."

Erik Mona wrote:

To be perfectly honest there are not enough of them in the setting right now, and the ones that ought to have Garundi features ended up a goth woman with white hair, a fey-looking white dude with half a face, and a nature spirit with a pretty inhuman form.

Honestly, this has a lot to do with the pantheon and the campaign setting being designed concurrently, so the gods had largely taken form before the ethnicities of the campaign setting began to gel.

When we get around to detailing the rest of Garund we will have more of an opportunity to address this issue, but for now we don't have a lot of great options for what you are looking for.

That being said, I can easily see the folk of Thuvia imagining Abadar as a dark-skinned Garundi, and so on, so there is always that somewhat unsatisfying tactic to fall back on before we address the issue in print.

Erik, why not include Garundi gods and goddesses like you did for Osirion when you do the Southern Garund Gazetter?

Also, the Osirion Pantheon could be included as Garundi with Osirion like features other than the animal heads.

Osirion and Garundi are completely different cultures. With Osirion being influenced by Ancient Egypt and Garund being influenced by a mixture of real world cultures like Iran, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Ethiopia.

Do deities need to look like the people that worship them? The Eqyptian god Anubis has a Jackal head.

DesolateHarmony wrote:

Marking good ticks on a character sheet is encouraging a character to commit evil to balance it out, isn't it?

That I would see as one dangerous part of ticking good acts. IT encourages things like "I will not heal your mortally wounded character although I could easily do so. I know that's an evil act, but it will keep my CN druid from becoming CG."

I agree,

Furthermore, you can't counteract evil acts with good acts. Evil is evil and bad reputations are usually remembered for a long time, in many cases remembered for a lifetime.

If a character kills a farmer's son, the farmer will want revenge no matter what good acts the character might have done, unless they try to redeem themselves for the act in question, like casting a raise dead spell on the farmer's son.

Morzadian wrote:

He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).

How is this a chaotic action?

Davos's use of a gnome hook hammer in combat breaks with the knight's tradition of fighting with a longsword (a chaotic character challenges traditions and represents the destruction of order, CRB p. 167-168).

I have no problem with giving out alignment infractions both with good and neutral creatures committing evil actions however I seem to be one of the only people in my area who also gives out good alignment infractions.

What I mean to say is that if a Neutral, Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral character do what I consider and the rest of the table as well consider to be a particular "Good" act I'll record on their chronicle that they received a "Good" tick mark understanding that after three such acts their alignment would shift toward Good.

Am I the only one that does this and should I just stop because it is silly?

It's not silly, as you are viewing alignment as its written in the book, and characters should be accountable for their actions, how accountable and the way you go about it is up for debate.

Alignment is a generic paradigm, an ultra-simplistic way of looking at character motivation. It's contrived, at times non-sensical and fairly immature.

Davos the Cavalier

For example, Davos a human lawful/neutral cavalier, he has taken a knight's oath to show respect to all his peers, demand respect from the lower class and to be identified in battle with a clear display of armorial bearing (like a tabard with heraldry).

Davos also lies to his mother about his frequents visits to brothels (chaotic action), has killed a few orc prisoners for throwing mud, soiling his beautiful velvet cloak (evil action).

He also uses a gnome hook hammer in combat, a present from a gnome weapon smith who became lust-struck by his handsome appearance and well manicured finger nails (chaotic action).

Yet the alignment rules prevents such a character like Davos from being created.

The History of Alignment

In early versions of D&D, alignment's original conception was based around Michael Moorcock's idea that characters aligned themselves with either forces of law or chaos, not as a moral compass or a way of establishing character motivations but as an ally, kind of makes sense when look at spells like protection from chaos.

IMO what force a character allies themselves with should be separate from their characters motivations and moral compass or lack thereof.

Quote:

Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.

With the explanation made by Crystal in the post above, that by bride price she actually meant a male equivalent of dowry, indeed the dowry could be (pardon the pun) divorced from misogyny - if parents of both bride and groom are expected to invest comparable* amount of wealth into the newly wed couple, or if both male and female are expected to provide comparable amount of wealth before entering marriage.

In the same vein it could be possible to present dwarven birde/groom price as exchange of gifts between the parents/clans of both instead of being gift traded for woman.

Yes I agree,

However both words Dowry and Bride Price have specific meanings and interpreting these words for what they are is of no fault of the reader, if no alternative exposition is provided.

I deeply disagree with literally every interpretation you have on Shardra's backstory.

Dowries and brideprices aren't inherently misogynistic in a fictional setting. They're part of how dwarven families make their available children more attractive to better marriages. You want your child to marry better than they have now, so you sweeten the pot so a family of a higher social class will okay the marriage. Is that necessarily progressive? No, but dwarves don't generally marry for love so much as to secure family lineages and political alliances. Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this.

Likewise, a caste system isn't immediately oppressive; just because a society has clearly delineated roles and expects each person in their role to know the rules, work towards a better whole, and excel in their role doesn't automatically mean they are chained to that role for life. Dwarves are pragmatic and like things to run like clockwork; their natural urge is to categorize and organize. But the fact that Shardra moves castes when she develops a new skills demonstrates there's plenty of room within dwarf culture for individuals to find their excellence. Yes, Xolgrit and its protectorates do lean more towards Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good, and people tend to be worked harder than they might prefer to meet quotas set by the military, and their is a certain amount of corruption and self-interest screwing things up for everyone (which is why Shardra's backstory is a little more bleak than it would be if she were born in Highhelm), but even here there's room for people to grow and find themselves.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in dwarves being monstrous oppressors, but they're just people. They're people who like the world to run on a schedule, but they're also a people who generally want everyone to be safe and happy.

You are talking about a class system not a caste system, a caste system is an immobile stratification system. Historically and how it applies to fiction and yes it is oppressive.

And as you know a class system can be oppressive (less opportunities, discrimination) but has positive aspects like mobility (that you mention in your post), you can shift social classes, limited or unlimited depending on government like an Aristocracy would create limited mobility.

Dowries and bridepieces are loaded words, and the context they were used in was gender specific, and if they aren't inherently misogynistic I haven't seen evidence otherwise. The backstory Harsk the dwarven ranger iconic doesn't even discuss marriage let alone dowries.

Pathfinder Iconic back stories are only 300 words if even that, this is why they are open to interpretation, if i was going to write one myself, I'm pretty sure other people would interpret it differently. In my post I specifically used the word 'implied' because there wasn't enough text for a positive definition. 'Citizen-soldiers' could be interpreted in many different ways.

Lots of things in fantasy literature is oppressive or there is a sacrifice of personal freedom, knight orders, the demands of being a wizard, fealty to a despot king (or not), corruption and greed and these things can happen in any culture it's not unique among dwarves and I never claimed otherwise.

Edit: I'm not throwing around the word 'oppressive' as a negative thing, as a narrative device it creates the right environment for strong characters to flourish, to understand the deplorable consequences of injustice, George R.R Martin's characters Loras Tyrell and Brienne of Tarth comes to mind as likely candidates.

I would say that dowries being a thing is a sign that dwarves have a slightly sexist culture (the basic consequences of dowries aren't exactly obscure). That's the most I can see, though, and it's not necessarily as harmful as it tends to be in real life. The dowry seems to just be a custom they stick to, avoiding most of the other baggage. Exile was for her causing her homeland trouble, not for her transgenderedness or for her being a woman (which is a somewhat confusing distinction to make, but you get what I mean).

Okay, I have re-read Shardra's background.

Dowries and the caste system have a history of direct association and in Crystal Frasier's writings this is implied "But the mines and refinery of Xolgrit fed the war machine of Rolgrimmdur far above, and militant efficiency demanded all citizen-soldiers accept and excel in their roles, no matter how miserable."

The dowry and caste system is both very misogynistic and discriminatory. Oppressive acts against class and gender and oppression is oppression, I don't think you can have 'acceptable levels of oppression,' or "wait your oppression is not as bad as mine" its all bad.

Furthermore "Guided Xolgrit's miners to rich new veins of ore and long-lost treasure troves. Shardra's confidence, skills, and womanhood blossomed, and eventually clans from Xolgrit and beyond offered handsome brideprices."

This is de-humanising turning Shadra into a commodity, her worth is defined by how much money she can make the other clans as well as improving the financial status of her own clan.

I like Shardra's story, it's a powerful tale, stories of greed and politics often breeds memorable protagonists

I personally don't actually know much about the preferances (sp?) of my characters.

Voren might be asexual, but I'm not really sure. I do know he's the only one of my characters that wouldn't really care if he was cursed by a girdle of opposite gender.
I think Vors is attracted to ladies, but I don't have much evidence to go on.
I feel I should also note that Toshiro's parents are both women.

That's basically how much my Pathfinder play is affected by the contents of this thread.

Playing RPGs (mostly D&D and now Pathfinder) for over 3 decades let me to the conclusion that player characters need an extensive character background so they can make judgments on pretty much everything including sexual preference and relationships.

Usually my characters have a 8 page character background, kind of like a mini-thesis.

Otherwise you are really left with alignment (that is generic in nature, which leads to tropes, instead of reinvention of existing tropes that make for more interesting characters ) to make judgment calls on who your character is and how they feel about something.

Edit: IMO the process of writing helps me figure things out (about my character) or leads characterisation and identity in exciting new directions.

@Coltron yes it's excessively brutal, but you have learnt a hard lesson,

Always kill your character's mother before she gets to you first, or for that matter you are better off killing every member of your character's family.

“I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”

It's not crazy at all. A brilliant optimiser and home-brew extraordinaire who posts on these forums gives all his players the Leadership feat for free. It gives the Charisma ability more use in combat situations.

IMO martial characters need the Leadership feat more than other classes, spell-casters have other options like Planar Ally and summoning spells or powerful Eidolons.

Story also plays a huge part in why a character needs a cohort, what type of cohort and what role the cohort will play. Mechanics aren't everything, Pathfinder is a role-playing game after all.

I'm currently playing a half-orc fighter from a noble house who has 4 warrior hirelings who are all old (45-55 yrs old), they reflect the fact that my character comes from a decadent feudal culture, which in the past was quite powerful, just not anymore.

edit: characters that are unlikable or have bad reputations (low Cha) still have friends, maybe not very good friends (could be a back-stabbing political opportunist), definitely a chance to introduce an interesting character into the game.

So the RPG line (the rules hardcover) is intentionally setting agnostic -- you're not going to find anything about how societies in Golarion work.

As far as publishing books on society and culture, that's what much of the Campaign Setting line is. :-) (There's also a lot in the APs.)

Paizo does a fantastic job, no complaints here.

Just really a comment (not criticism) about the broad brush over the fine detailed brush, sometimes our gaming group is after specifics (how do different countries and cultures interact with each other as the campaign setting line tend to be really focused on a particular part of Golarion).

From my experience, yes the APs do have more social/cultural interaction in relation to the NPCs, Ameiko and her father's Japanese influenced glassworks business (in a foreign nation) and her unique family dynamic comes to mind.

Well, and this is my personal take, not Golarion canon:

Cheliax: Doesn't much care one way or the other about female-female relationships if the participants are people without any real power, or if it's a noblewoman indulging herself with a servant on the side, as long as everyone keeps to their place. I tend to assume there's a misogynistic aspect to Chelish culture because of Asmodeus, but it's not a central part of their culture, and it's more new/fashionable than it is deeply ingrained. So I picture it as being sort of Victorian -- you have a female ruler, and a penchant for perversion, and an upper class that's free to do pretty much whatever they want, as long as no one noble feels like calling another noble on it. (And scandal is titillating, and in its way, fashionable as well.) But if you DO make a powerful enemy, the same stuff that made you a scandalous public darling can be turned against you (e.g. Oscar Wilde). Given the emphasis on nobility, there's also an emphasis on carrying on the family line, so heterosexuality is privileged from that standpoint, but it's assumed everyone's coming up with clever ways to cheat, nepotism for one's paramours (het or non) is rampant, and everyone's looking for something to gossip about. When one falls from public esteem, all that stuff might come back to bite one.

And at the same time, ironically, there's also a strain of misogyny among the anti-Thrune contingents, because the current Thrune is a queen.

That irony makes Asmodeus really happy, I'd imagine.

So, male-male relationships = cool, as long as you make sure to provide an heir. Female-female relationships = unacknowledged, largely.

Drow: Drow think men are disposable brutes, and fairly useless without strict direction. Largely an inversion of Greek society -- the public sphere belongs to women, except that instead of men's sphere being home and hearth, it's the barracks. Drow think men are very much controlled by their impulses, except in drow society, men not being able...

This subject matter is very interesting, as a suggestion would it be possible that Paizo might publish a book on society and culture, because this topic often comes up in our games. And the Gamemastery Guide and Ultimate Campaign don't cover these areas in close detail.

From memory, Towns of the Inner Sea is the only book that goes more in depth about class structure and politics. Really great book.

As one can see from my previous post we had trouble establishing judgment about homosexual dwarves, but there are also things like laws (and how they vary from nation-to-nation, my gaming group is really in the dark about that one), traditions, particularly barbaric traditions like trial by combat and outlawed ancient rituals.

We end up looking at historical cases, and from your comments the culture of Golarion is quite differently from our own world.

Morzadian:

As Lissa pointed out above, "traditionalist" doesn't mean the same thing in Golarion that it does in the real world. Golarion doesn't have a history of misogyny the way Earth does, so assuming that "traditionalist" = "sexist" is a mistake.

That's not the same as saying that there's no oppression in Golarion (there is slavery, there are oppressive governments, and there are corrupt rulers). There is even gender-based oppression in some areas.

But that's different from automatically equating "traditional" to "patriarchal." If you take somewhere like Cheliax, which recently started worshipping Asmodeus (who's a misogynist), there likely is growing misogyny there. But given that that development is a relatively new thing, when you talk to a Chelaxian who's a "traditionalist," you're talking to someone who's more egalitarian than is currently fashionable.

You also can't assume, in a different world, that a focus on procreation automatically comes with a side of homophobia, or even with an emphasis on monogamy. Those associations, in the real world, were formed over millennia of cultural development intertwined with the morals of religions that don't exist in Golarion. A society that is intensely focused on procreation is, in most cases, going to privilege heterosexual pairings, yes--but it doesn't automatically follow that they're going to be homophobic. (Something can be outside a preferred paradigm without being seen as evil/illegal/etc.)

Even in human history there are contrasting examples of oppression. From the sounds of things we were looking at it from a wrong context.

We researched academic articles on vikings and homosexuality with 'Sturlunga saga' being one of them, instead we should of looked at Renaissance Italy as Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo had sexual freedom (same sex relationships) without fear of persecution, and their society was quite advanced like the dwarves with the rise of status of artisan/art (a thought triggered by your post).

Yes where the real world ends and Golarion begins is always hard to know. Andoran and France's age of enlightenment, Taldor and the roman empire etc.

Yes having a massively expanded (hinduism inspired) pantheon of deities and avatars with many different pantheons existing without major religious wars creates a safe distance between Golarion and our world.

Jessica, your comments about Cheliax is very interesting in how context changes what traditionalist means, I will bring this up at my next gaming session, most definitely.

Thanks, its nice to have an intelligent, thought provoking conversation on this topic, really made my day.

To hew a little closer to your original question, dwarves are primarily concerned with whether or not Yangrit will continue family lineages and for who, and it's entirely possible her family are a@@#$&%s who interpret that as "You MUST marry a man," even if that's not the default for dwarven society. If her parents didn't have many kids, it's entirely possible they may even send angry letters or eventually "wedding planners" to bring her back to an arranged marriage.

If you want to fore some interaction with a kidnapping plot, it's also possible (depending on what adventures you're running) to tweak the plot a little and have her family controlling some resource the PCs need to achieve their goals. Maybe their libraries have the secret passwords to open a dungeon, or maps to the next adventure site. Maybe her family own whatever macguffin they need (or to really force the issue, maybe the groom's family owns it and makes the macguffin part of his brideprice). In that case, you'll also need to figure out what the groom's perspective is on all this which, in part, is going to involve figuring out how long the marriage has been arranged.

If you want to go a more gonzo route, you can have her family be okay with her liking women, but insist on magically transforming her into a man and marrying well, and maybe if she sires some respectable children she can change back in a few decades.

For Yangrit herself, it's entirely possible, given the dwarven tendency to simply assume everyone is born along the mean and to generally not talk about problems or their feelings, it's entirely possible for little queer dwarflings to grow up never realizing that being gay or transitioning to a new gender is actually an option. Depending on how much contact she had with the larger dwarven cities growing up, she may simply assume her parents would never understand, when in reality her "confirmed bachelor" uncle is gay and still loved, but no one ever talks about it. Sometimes an anti-climax like that is exactly what a group...

Wow, I'm really impressed.

Yangrit (or the player that plays Yangrit) will be over the moon about these concepts.

Thank you for your generosity, it will help us navigate these obstacles considerably.

Morzadian wrote:

SunshineGrrrl wrote:

Really noone is proscribing against changing the world how you see fit. If, however, you're asking questions about the default setting, you're going to get answers about the default setting.

Shadra's story has oppressive elements to it, a dowry! And pretty much being exiled from her home.

I suggest you re-read Shadra's Iconic background a second time. Before making false accusations.

Shardra was exiled (unofficially) for standing against the military and (officially) for consorting with evil spirits. And the fact that her family had to put together a dowry for her when they realized she was a daughter doesn't have anything to do with homophobia, just the aforementioned "heterosexuality is the assumption" attitude among dwarves.

Yes, yes of course.

And oppression (or superstition)) is a universal tool of taking away people's freedoms or denying them knowledge. Whatever one assumes those freedoms to be.

Yes I agree, oppression and homophobia are not mutually exclusive. Although homophobia is often the result of oppression.

Crystal, thanks for the clarification, it will help us make the right decision on how homosexual dwarves are treated in our campaign world.

Really noone is proscribing against changing the world how you see fit. If, however, you're asking questions about the default setting, you're going to get answers about the default setting.

Shadra's story has oppressive elements to it, a dowry! And pretty much being exiled from her home.

I suggest you re-read Shadra's Iconic background a second time. Before making false accusations.

I wouldn't confuse traidtionalist with any sort of weird attitudes about sex/gender politics with dwarves in this setting. I think Shardra's background shows a far more egalitarian view of how dwarves handle such things.

That's right, there aren't any oppressive aspects to Golarion.

As Shardra's mystical skills and budding femininity began to show, her parents lamented their loss of a son and the addition of yet another dowry.

Dechl used what remained of her authority to accuse the spirit-talker of heresy. Although friends and family staunchly defended her innocence, Shardra took the allegations as a chance to act on plans that had grown increasingly tempting. She left Xolgrit and her tutors, childhood friends, and family by paths only the stones remembered.

The theme of 'oppression' is used in stories, great stories. And in roleplaying games you can play an oppressed character without personally believing in oppressive social structures that occasionally dot the landscape of Golarion.

Not everyone treats Golarion as a didactic or allegorical utopian fantasy world and nor should they be forced to.

Edit: Does Golarion have oppressive themed stories to tell? Fantasy versions of Amistad and Schindler's List, of course it does and we are better off for it.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

For example, if I were in a game with TOZ, he'd be respectful enough say point-blank at the start, "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me on it I'll admit it." I can respect that approach far more than the people who fudge the dice and then pretend like they don't. Hell, I've run games for players who preferred the DM to fudge rolls; I roll in the open, but I'd occasionally say, "Screw that 20! I'm rerolling it, unless anyone objects!"

Well, I'm no TOZ, but can we compromise? "I will occasionally fudge the dice, and if you call me out on it I'll call you a liar, say you drank all my milk*, and shame you in front of your peers. If you prove I'm lying, I'll storm out, break into your neighbors' house, drink all their milk, and leave a note saying it was you."

terrible to deprive the party like that. when characters get together in the bars to talk about their players, they don't talk about the upteenth time the party slayed a dragon risk-free because the GM was fudging the dice. We talk about the players who almost got us killed with their crappy rolls - Windmill Willy who couldn't roll above a 4 to hit for 3 sessions in row and had an 0 for 47 record, Stoney Steve who played a barbarian and made exactly one will save in a 15 level career and had to be repeatedly turned to stone by a druid to keep from wiping the party, and Snake-Eye Susan the girlfriend who filled a spot with a ninth level wizard for one session and cast fireballs that did less than 10 points of damage. We talk about the time our player learned that a babasu with a single spear attack can do over 50 points of damage on a crit. When the GM decides to coddle the players it is the characters who suffer, dying isn't bad as long as we get some good stories out of it.

No offence intended: even though you are a ghoul, you surprisingly have some really interesting stories to tell people about.

Morzadian wrote:

In my current campaign a player is playing a bi sexual female dwarf (her interests in men is really just to keep her father a dwarves lord happy) and we are finding it hard to create a relationship/social dynamic that contrasts the rigid traditions of the dwarves and sexual freedom.

We read a few academic articles about homosexuality in viking culture (a similar culture to dwarves), it was interesting but often vague and didn't really give us a way to move forward.

The responsibilities of completing goals in the adventure paths and the isolated regions that dwarves live in maybe part of the problem.

Has anyone found success in creating a dynamic that deals with rigid traditions and sexual freedoms in relation to dwarves?

Any constructive advice would be most helpful

Dwarves in Golarion might be a tad more monolithic culturally than in some other settings, since there aren't a bunch of dwarven subgroups like 'hill dwarves' or 'gold dwarves' running around (excepting, of course, the Duergar), and dwarves generally have their own sub-pantheon of gods which are explicitly a family, with a husband-father, wife-mother and passle of children and uncles and whatnot.

'Traditional' marriages might be the rule, with the exception being that they are just that, traditional, a matter of binding different clans together and cementing alliances and producing heirs, but not necessarily anything at all to do with love (again, particularly among the duergar / followers of Droskar, who might regard a marriage as just another dreary chore / onerous duty they must perform half-heartedly, at best).

If this is the case (and this is just one view on how dwarven marital traditions might ape those of their racial gods, unlike elves, who have an assortment of elven and shared human gods, none of them seemingly related to one another, or sharing any marital ties), then it's entirely possible that behind-the-scenes sexual relationships outside of marriage could be tacitly accepted,...

Thanks Set that's a very good analysis of dwarves culture, marriage and religion.

I haven't been using these forums long (6 months), and was thinking about leaving for good, not enough conversation, too much "I'm gonna prove you wrong," or insulting comments you might have just changed my mind, thanks.

Yeah, marriage to cement alliances is definitely apart of dwarven culture in this campaign world, and yes love has nothing to with it.

And a good dose of politics, grey politics are involved.

Our gaming group had a discussion about it and said it could create scandal among the dwarves and she couldn't be open about it, but your comment "They'd be just as upset if she went out adventuring and slept around with other boy-dwarfs, because the point is that she's supposed to stay home and marry WhatsHisName." This opens more doors for another option, great I will bring it up at our next game.

This is the question that the player asked me:

Q: does Dwarven polygamy exist? IE: one husband, two wives?

Yangrit (if it isn't yet obvious) is a lesbian character (based on a close friend of mine)... but she faces the prospect of an expected marriage to a fellow male artisan (Grunyar).

The GM has chosen for the visiting fellow artisan (in the letter) to be a female friend (Valmae Sammerist) and not my soon-to-be husband. If I (as Yangrit, as a dwarf from a traditional clan) pursue other (marital) options, should I expect the GM to play conservative or should Yangrit (based on the proximity and interaction with trading human colonies) try for a closer relationship with my 'friend'. Note that Valmae and Yangrit are so close, that she knows Yangrit is gay.

So... My basis being that I (Yangrit, who knows her own story) could introduce the 'fact' that Valmae (her close female artisan friend) not only knows Yangrit but.... (*Taddum!*) that she is also in love with Grunyar. So thereay be a pssible role play to achieve such an
arrangement as 1 husband 2 wives.

The dilemma is .... it seems obvious that if Yangrit 'plays her cards right' we'll have a forge of amenable artisans at the Glassworks (Yangrit wrote a letter to her father, and he is buying the Glassworks and converting it into a dwarven forge, and sending dwarven artisans to work there). Meaning we can adventure without 'needing days at the forge' for Yangit.

BUT, if I over play this hand (in the pursuit of role-playing)...we'll be ostracised from the great advantage of the dwarven temple forge, and the DM's NPC's will all be for nought.

In my current campaign a player is playing a bi sexual female dwarf (her interests in men is really just to keep her father a dwarves lord happy) and we are finding it hard to create a relationship/social dynamic that contrasts the rigid traditions of the dwarves and sexual freedom.

We read a few academic articles about homosexuality in viking culture (a similar culture to dwarves), it was interesting but often vague and didn't really give us a way to move forward.

The responsibilities of completing goals in the adventure paths and the isolated regions that dwarves live in maybe part of the problem.

Has anyone found success in creating a dynamic that deals with rigid traditions and sexual freedoms in relation to dwarves?

Any constructive advice would be most helpful

I've just been offered a spot in new group starting up this thursday. The GM said he'll be running a DCC funnel to strat. Sounds messy and chaotic, might be fun. Doesnt look like much roleplay to start, that could be good thing, maybe.

Edit: If nothing else it will be a game to play.

That's good news Jacob, hope it works out well for you.

There is nothing worse then not being able to play rpgs.

The best gm's run nothing but DMPCs... Every character is a well thought out well developed, thoughtfully motivated and played actor upon the player's stage with at least a hair of common sense or a sense of self preservation, or at worst, if fighting to the death, a believable thing worth dying for at stake at the relevant moments. They should not be conveniently scaled to be 'a balanced fight' for the party because that's not how life works.

Sometimes versimilitude means dealing with people as they are, not as you want them to be.

Now DMPCs are NPCs, a definite change in goal posts.

NPCs are a supporting cast for the players, DMPCs are quite different as NPCs don't normally join an adventuring party.

It also depends on how you play the Pathfinder game, pvp or tabletop, DMPCs would function quite differently in both of these methods of playing the Pathfinder game.

Mordo wrote:

First, nostalgia; it's mostly the first D&D setting, FR.

Second actually. I believe the first was Blackmoor.

Blackmoor wasn't really even a setting, not what we would call a setting. More like a campaign journal.

Arneson created the concept of dungeons with levels and the lower you go in the dungeon the harder it gets. Still a large contributor to the development of the D&D game.

On the topic of settings, Greyhawk has the best maps ever produced for an RPG, courtesy of the very talented Anna B. Meyer.

http://ghmaps.net/greyhawk-maps/realm-maps/page/6/.

Morzadian wrote:

Every badDM has a bias or personal preference.

Fixed that for you.

I can't do a front flip from a standing position. It doesn't mean no one can. I can't breakdance. It doesn't mean no one can. I can't skateboard. It doesn't mean no one can.
If you can't put away personal bias and preference as a DM it doesn't mean no one can. Your limitations are your own, not mine, and my limitations don't determine your own.
Rolling to make unbiased decisions doesn't break immersion any more than rolling a saving throw or an attack roll does. Dice rolls determine the random aspects of the game. If you can't separate the dice rolls of the mechanics of the game from your immersion in the game then you are genuinely screwed when you have to roll your 3 attacks and reflex save this round in combat. But sure, the DM rolling to determine who a baddie attacks is breaking immersion...

A saving throw or an attack roll (rolling the dice) is not a decision. For example "Sorry GM I'm deciding not to roll a saving throw against that Charm Person spell." I have never seen it happen, because you don't have a choice.

What I was getting at in my post is there are pros and cons in GMing, not always bad/good Gming.

GMPCs produce a certain play style, and/or influence play style, and posters such as Jaelithe and Kyrt-Ryder have used them or experienced them being used to much good effect.

Just because the GMPC play style conflicts with your current play style or perspective and your PREFERENCE is not to use them or play in games they are being used does not mean it shows your limitations as a GM.

Game mechanics and how they relate to specific characteristics (immersion) in the game has been going on since the very beginning of RPGs, even in influential games before that like Chainmail and the class 'fighting men'.

Just found out today that the City of greyhawk boxed set I mentioned before as being one of the only good Greyhawk materials between 1986 and 1992 was co-authored by ..Carl Sargent.

I should have guessed considering the quality.

Awesome,

Did you get a copy of Ivid the Undying by Carl Sargent, it was never published?

If not I think you could still find it somewhere? I know WOTC has sadly gone out of its way to shut down 3.5 websites like D&D Tools

Hello Folks,

I've been thinking about WFRP & related RPGs recently. One particularity is that one's ability with weapons is represented by a distinct ability, Weapon Skill & Ballistic Skill.

Those two specific ability scores got me thinking: could they be used for more than just combat. After all, "Weapon skill" (for melee strikes) concerns a form of hand-eye coordination; knowing where your body is, and how you move it. It could easily be used for skills that require fine manipulation, such as Sleight of hand, Disable Device, or certain craft skills. For "artistic" reasons, I could name it "Coordination" or "Proprioception".

Now, "Balisitic Skill" is more complicated. For one, I cant for the life of me think of any associated skills that arent just combat. And I cant think of any simple names to represent it. So I was wondering if anyone had any ideas.

Like what the previous posters said, and it's very difficult (and not very fun) to have game mechanics based on real world comparisons.

For example Heavy armour, such as 16th century Gothic armour (maximillian) will protect its wearer from most weapons, any weapons that are one handed have 0% to be effective. Two handed weapons have a slight chance, ogre strength and spells are more likely a worthier opponent.

Same goes with fighting skills, the famous samurai Miyamoto Musashi never lost a sword fighting duel and he openly admits he wasn't the strongest or fastest. How do you make an rpg based on that statement, very hard, nearly impossible.

I would argue that it IS fair because it's what goes on in Golarion.

Dwarves have a bonus against Goblins for a reason, because the two groups are constant enemies.

I don't disagree with you, but fair is not the word I would use, true to the setting and the themes within sure.

What's a +1 bonus anyway, not really much of a bonus in the broader scheme of the power level of class abilities and optimisation; is it a bonus for dwarves if they are going to be frequently targeted by the many enemies they have accumulated over time in the history of fantasy lore.

When I have donned the GM cowled cloak, I stayed true to the setting and the story, which created bias, and I think that's what makes roleplaying games unique, quite different to video games in that the exact same story is often interpreted differently, the experience is always different.

It allows us to share familiar stories (like Adventure Paths) which can be vastly different from each other.

Morzadian wrote:

You are way of base,

I don't believe I am off base at all. In my opinion, and that's all any of this thread are, Paizo/Pathfinder/Golarion are not nearly as inclusive as they are given credit for, and there is a lot of room for improvement, which threads like this one prove.

Paizo has went out of it's way to include more women and non-heterosexual individuals in their products, (which I'm simply saying is not new or unique to them, or even a modern phenomenon/improvement), and has also went out of their way to include individuals that are not white, (something that in my experience is also not new or unique to them). What I am NOT SAYING I that those are bad, just not enough to win them the inclusiveness reward. I also think that along those lines, including a lot more women and LGBT's as monsters, villains, and enemies is something that PF has not done, (well, outside of setting history or epic plot-level npcs). It's a single step. And there are a lot of groups that are not represented. I named a few off the top of my head and everyone seemed to focus on the Christian one only, which I think is kind of funny (ironic) as there have now been at least three separate products that have connected Golarion to Earth). There is/was another thread a few months back asking where the Mexican's where, and the answer was basically, they aren't.

And while, yes, I understand that I can insert or alter the setting as I need, well, that's not really helpful and something I can do for literally any game or setting.

xavier c wrote:

You do know that mormonism is not Christianity right?

LazarX wrote:

On what basis do you make that statement?

I agree, let's not go there. The question of if it is or is not a form of Christianity is irrelevant. We could just as easily change the original statement to read "does not include groups like classic Christian Mormon heroes. . .", which is more on point to the discussion, and trying to argue that Mormonism is or is...

It's a roleplaying game based in a fantasy world.

If I want to create a campaign setting that doesn't include white people, just say a Persian influenced setting would that make my setting bad or a failure in some way or worst still racist or prejudice.

Of course not.

A friend of mine who is of Syrian heritage does not like Zadim the Slayer iconic, not one little bit. Finds it a little bit offensive.

Players connect to specific characters or stories for a whole bunch of reasons not necessarily even based on gender, race or sexual orientation.

I have a Thai/Latvian/Ukrainian heritage, and the Pathfinder game hasn't failed me if my heritage and culture is not represented. Although I do tend to play outsider characters like half-orc fighters and monks from far away lands.

Edit: As long as there is diversity in characters and the type of stories that can be told then Pathfinder is heading in the right direction, make the game too allegorical and it will divide role-playing culture and ultimately the industry.

Seerow wrote:

So you genuinely don't see the difference between making a personal PC that the DM takes control of and has personal vested interest in vs giving your players the ability to call upon allies made in game to work with them on their own terms?

Because the former only works if the DM is really, really, good at avoiding personal bias. In my experience a lot of them aren't. I'm conscious of it being a problem, and still would rather avoid it by putting most of the power there into player hands rather than maintaining direct control. Games where the DM insists on running their DMPC isn't...

If you show me a DM who runs a DMPC badly with personal biases and such I would place a bet that the DM also is one of those that has his favorite Big Bad Evil Guy escape at the last moment no matter what the PCs do, and somehow combats last exactly as long as the DM deems it to despite whatever damage the PCs have done, and NPCs seem to always survive as long as he decides they do, and the PCs will be knocked unconscious and taken prisoner when he decides that is what he wants the story to do.....This is all bad DMing. It isn't about a certain aspect of the game being wrong, it's about a DM's inability to properly use a certain aspect of the game fairly without bias. If a DM is gonna lay favorites with a DMPC he is gonna do it with NPCs and BBEGs also. Part of being a good arbitrator(which is what DMs should be) is being unbiased. I roll in the open so the PCs can see that I don't "cheat" rolls for effect. I do not adjust HP on the fly to make things more harrowing. I do not play favorites with BBEGs by making up a last minute way for them to survive the encounter. If a monster is fighting 2 PCs and needs to attack one and neither has stood out as the more imminent threat, I roll to see who he attacks. Fairness. That is what DMing is about and if it isn't done well then the problem isn't in the tool (the DMPC) it's in the user of the tool.

Good Dming, bad Dming is subjective. Some gaming groups place little emphasis on mechanics, with more focus on story and don't mind that the villain gets away, it's more thrilling for them, it creates added drama to the narrative.

I personally don't like GMPCs, because as a player I want the adventuring party to make it or break it on their own. I love the challenge that independence can bring. This is my preference.

Every DM has a bias or personal preference. Who does the monster attack? How is alignment being treated in the game? How does low charisma and social interaction work?

Rolling (or randomness) to make non-bias decisions is fair, yet you sacrifice immersion and the ability to convince the players that this is happening for real.

A goblin is most likely to attack a dwarf over another race based on racial enmity. It's not fair, however that's what goes on in the world of Golarion.

Fake Healer wrote:

Absolutely, maybe with a section in front of the adventure advising what area(s) would be a good sub in Greyhawk.

Well this, I can't do. Greyhawk is wizards owned so I can't touch it. But I can certainly do adventures involving something along the lines of a corrupt official hiring a band of orcs to harrass the caravan guild as a negotiating tactic to get them to lower their inflated prices to help the poverty stricken population and let you work it into your campaign.

I remember an old Greyhawk adventure where you had to escort a group of pacifist ogres on a holy pilgrimage, and right at the end of the adventure something happens and they turn back to their evil selves.

And the party said "I knew it! I know we couldn't trust these ogres, holy pilgrimage what a joke!"

Greyhawk has a sense of irony or humour to it.

Dale, politics, particularly grey politics is a good way to start. Sounds interesting.