Pale's page

291 posts. Alias of Chuck Wright (Frog God Games).


1 to 50 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

My only nit-pick here is "Challenging" is being used by some people on these forums to mean "stuff I like" and disparage any ideas they don't like, which are challenging, as crap.

While I don't agree with Scott Betts on everything he says, he's one of the few around here who is level-headed and calls people out on their hyperbole and demonstrably bad ideas.

Please hang in there, Scott.

Elth wrote:
Pale wrote:

I also haven't seen people espousing that non-consensual PvP will kill PFO, but that they won't play the game if it exists... Amazing how that's entirely different from what you said.

It's funny when people always threaten not to play a game unless it is developed for them. I may as well jump on the wagon too.

I will not play this game if it doesn't have non-consensual PvP

Pathfinder setting or not. I have no interest in another themepark MMO where people can get the same or better rewards by having less or no risk.

I already plan on playing Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 has no PvP at all outside of the RvR Mists and Arenas.

I was also planning on buying Pathfinder Online because of it's non-consensual PvP and full or partial looting. I will not buy it if they are removed.

So just like the carebears can stamp their feet and demand to have their way. I can lower myself to their level and do the same.

Good day ;)

Um... what's your point here other than needless condescension?

Anderlorn wrote:

Number 1 rule, do not only listen to the no lifers, the A-Types, former\current WoW players (wishes he had a WoW filter), and old school DnD players.

Listen to EVERYONE!

I wish I had a filter for prejudicial idiots.

MicMan wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I don't think your metric for how successful PFO is really rings true. Plenty of MMOs are successful which use the "riskfree" (read: not actually risk-free) approach you talk about, and very few are terribly successful which use the riskier-rewardier approach you favor.

These are all themepark MMOs which PFO is not gonna be.

And yes, every publisher wishes for many people to play and pay his game.

The question is, will emulating the existing "riskfree" games lead to success?

I simply object to the "non-consensual PvP (aka risk) will kill PFO" stereotype because that sounds awfully close to "if PFO isn't like WoW it will fail".

You assume far too much.

It's amazing how many MMOs that aren't WoW don't have non-consensual PvP. So your jump in logic is just that, a jump with no connecting points to justify the statement.

I also haven't seen people espousing that non-consensual PvP will kill PFO, but that they won't play the game if it exists... Amazing how that's entirely different from what you said.

Elth wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Elth wrote:
Natan Linggod 972 wrote:

Being an MMO/internet veteran and therefore utterly pessimistic about the nature of humans, I can't.
I feel sorry for you.
I am equally pessimistic, and I do NOT want your pity.
Good luck never being satisfied then. :)

Goading not once, but twice.


I'll be perma-ignoring this thread now.

*waves bye*

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chubbs - Don't twist what I say.


I am not sure there is much of a care factor if you play or not.

Then don't post in the thread.

I'm offering a view for the developers to consider. Nothing more, nothing less.

And seriously, I'm sick of the comments about how non-consensual PvP is so awesome and great. It's a source of frustration in a game. It's amazing how most don't like frustration to be a part of their relaxation time, isn't it?

"Learn to play the game."

Thanks for assuming that anyone who doesn't take your position doesn't learn to play the game. Guess what? I don't want to bother getting revenge! I don't want that as part of my game play!

You do!


That's the game you're getting!

Coldman wrote:
Pale wrote:

If you read to the very end of my sentence you will notice that I said "in [a] fantasy-life simulator".

This has nothing to do with the cost of the game.

The devs are also saying that a player should be able to choose his own level of security to some degree. I'm in and around these forums a great deal and I am not getting the feeling that this game is going to be a free for all, not at all.

There will be looting, and non consensual PvP. To what degree we do not know, but it won't be a royal rumble by any means. They have mentioned very harsh punishments for playerkilling. Free for all open pvp MMORPGs generally do not have these.

Wait and see. We know very little about this game.

There is no in-game penalty to keep people from grief-killing. The only way to prevent it is to not allow it in the first place. I'm seeing the seeds of "that's life!" responses that I've seen in other games with non-consensual PvP. For the record, I love consensual PvP, Battlegrounds, PvP Zones and Arena fighting. I simply don't care for a PvP environment that caters to bullies (non-consensual PvP).

I am not interested in investing my time and money into a game that rewards Player Character Killing with "you get their stuff". Nor do I wish to pay money to run their game for them or feel pressured to be online to protect virtual things.

It's a game model that promotes game addiction. It's a game model that supports sociopathic behaviors, it's a game model I'm not willing to invest my time in.

It's fine if others are, more power to them and have fun with the game. It's a shame that there are certain elements already being championed by the developers that turn me off to the product.

If you read to the very end of my sentence you will notice that I said "in [a] fantasy-life simulator".

This has nothing to do with the cost of the game.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That they intend the game to allow murder and robbery (What Ryan said on the crafting thread implied that there will be full or partial looting of corpses. On other threads, he has indicated support for non-consensual PvP.)

I will have to pay Goblinworks to perform a second job in fantasy life-simulator.

When I'm paying for entertainment, I want to play a game. Not watch a virtual economy to know what price I need to set to sell a chunk of iron for. I don't want to explore an uncharted area and be more worried about asshats running around murdering other players for yuks. That isn't realistic, it's just virtual bullying.

Thanks for the announcement of a game, but if this game is going to have a basic familiarity with EVE Online, this fan has to say "No thanks and good luck!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pale wrote:
Derek Vande Brake wrote:

What's the difference between a player killer and a high level respawning mob?

What's the difference between a player killer and a CE worshipper of Our Lord in Iron who is legitimately acting in character?

The CE worshipper of Our Lord in Iron who is legitimately acting in character is a figment of your imagination.
The non-existence of such a character is a figment of yours.

Not really, Kyrt. What is the point of creating such a character other than to justify ruining another person's time?

Or as it is also called - "For the fun of it".

I've seen your arguments on the now-closed thread and, quite frankly, they don't wash with me, so there's really no need for you to answer that one. It also became apparent to me that you know next-to-nothing about how people behave in an MMO. Inconvenience is not a deterrent... heck, banning accounts isn't much of a deterrent.

I don't care for non-consensual PvP for the same reason that I don't let a player be a jerk at a gaming session because he's playing "in character".

I give you analogy and hyberbole -

Handing out loaded guns to everyone because 1 out of 10 people will use them with responsibility is not an argument to do it.

Derek Vande Brake wrote:

What's the difference between a player killer and a high level respawning mob?

What's the difference between a player killer and a CE worshipper of Our Lord in Iron who is legitimately acting in character?

The CE worshipper of Our Lord in Iron who is legitimately acting in character is a figment of your imagination.

Why ban something because children have ADD? Or even waste the resources to put in a special "jumping endurance meter" for that matter?

It's silly.

Just grow a thicker skin and ignore it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does this need to be resolved via the rules?

Because it's easier to say. There's a whole science behind this kind of thing but that's what it boils down to. After an "ng" sound it's easier to transition to a "th" than an "r".


Chaotic_Blues wrote:
Quick Question Chuck how do I get my shipping address changed? I didn't realize until just a few minuets ago that Pay Pal's gave you my old address.

I believe that Bill will be double-checking all shipping addresses before he ships the books out. You are not alone in the shipping-address-changing department.

KaeYoss wrote:
Pale wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Pale wrote:

Same with your animal/vermin comparison. They simply are not alike at all.
Vermin are animals in real life

Ah, I think that a lot of "vermin" should be categorized as "animal".

I automatically jumped to the train of thought that vermin = insects, arachnids and other bugs of dubious origins.

Vermin in Pathfinder are pretty much arthropods - insects, arachnids, and the like.

And Arthropods are animals in real life.

Once I again I failed to express myself fully. I meant to say all mammals should be animals and arthropods should have a separate type or subtype.

I know my biology, I really do. I'm just crap at saying what I mean. ;)

So... ditch vermin type, make them all "animal" and sybtype certain ones for weird qualities like "hive minds" and such... but then again, swarm kinda covers that, doesn't it?

Evil Lincoln wrote:
You're just prejudiced against holograms.

Damned Luminescents!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pirate wrote:


coyote6 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
There's only one Material Plane. The universe is big enough to hold pretty much every single campaign setting.

I dunno, how do you have Earth-616, Earth-2, Earth-DCNU, Freedom City Earth, and Gamma World (never mind the variants from different editions) all orbiting Sol in the same universe? It must be very crowded, and we just haven't noticed yet. ;)

You're thinking Solar System. That is, the collection of celestial bodies orbiting a single star. There can be trillions of solar systems in a single Galaxy,


Only if all of the stars are named "Sol" would there be that many solar systems. There is only one solar system, all the rest are, in fact, star systems.


Spes Magna Mark wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Vermin are animals in real life
So are humans. :)

Nuh-uh, we're a virus with feet.

KaeYoss wrote:
Pale wrote:

Same with your animal/vermin comparison. They simply are not alike at all.
Vermin are animals in real life

Ah, I think that a lot of "vermin" should be categorized as "animal".

I automatically jumped to the train of thought that vermin = insects, arachnids and other bugs of dubious origins.

Set wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
But I don't think their problems are as bad as they used to be. Just wish they were humanoids rather than native outsiders.

Humanoid (extraplanar) would probably work better for that.

IMO, there have always been too many types.

Elemental should be a subtype of Outsider, and Vermin a subtype of Animal, IMO. Fey and Monstrous Humanoid should probably be subtypes of Humanoid.

3.5 got rid of the 'Beast' type, folding them into animals, and PF got rid of the Giant type, making them a subtype of Humanoid, but I think that this was just trimming some leaves from the over-design, rather than the harsher pruning it needed.

In PF Elementals are a subtype of outsider. And there are enough fey creatures that aren't humanoid in any way that it would be complicated to fold them into humanoid. Fey also traditionally just don't think the way that other sentient creatures do, I think that it takes more than appearance to determine a type.

Same with your animal/vermin comparison. They simply are not alike at all. Humanoids have more in common with most other animals than animals have in common with vermin.

Turin the Mad wrote:
Hey, keep quiet! I can't get my XP farms up and running in this thread with all this serious-toned blathering going on. Think of the babies!

With the stabalicious faces?

WPharolin wrote:
Set wrote:

Serious business.
Whoa! Hold on there buddy. This thread is the bastard child strawman of another threads alignment discussion. You aren't aloud to be serious here!! There could be children around!

I resent that, I built no straw men, good sir.


Yes it does.

Even if the baby's name is Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot.

Evil begets evil, even in the real world.

Soldiers fighting for the "right" cause oftentimes commit atrocities. They live with the consequences of that their entire lives.

Killing someone, justified or not, has an intense impact on one's psyche.

I'm sure that mucking about with forces beyond mortal ken also has an intense impact on a character's psyche.

Staring into the abyss will eventually turn you into a monster who thinks that summoning demons or creating undead is an awesome idea to solve all your problems.

It only doesn't make sense if you are using the reasoning of a disassociative psychopath.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I love alignment threads.

I wish that threads that didn't need to be about alignment wouldn't dissolve into them.

Mr. Quick wrote:
Pale wrote:
Why not just create outsiders that fit the summoning spells instead of insisting on summoning evil creatures and arguing about in-game, rule-based morality?

probably because some folks LIKE to explore issues of morality in their games. I've run entire campaigns where players started off as evil and eventually ended up redeeming themselves. I've also run games where a player toyed around with evil magic and it corrupted them to the point where they had to be put down by the rest of the group.

But this isn't about gaming style.

This is about someone wanting to summon evil creatures because there aren't enough good creatures on the summon lists.

I like exploring morality in games, too. Just not on threads where the only reason for "exploring" it is to whinge about the fact that casting evil spells will, in some people's games, make you evil. I was hoping that this thread might have some solutions instead of armchair social theories on the mores of society and how that should apply (blah, blah, blah).

Why not just create outsiders that fit the summoning spells instead of insisting on summoning evil creatures and arguing about in-game, rule-based morality?

I was thinking that making your character with an NPC class wouldn't be all that great a thing to do.

Greg Wasson wrote:



No way.

The Friar tuck of the legends was a warrior monk who made mead... and drank a lot it.

I would definitely draw the good Friar up as a Cleric who focuses on combat. Neutral Good with the Good and Protection domains.

For for fluff's sake I would also give him some knowledge ranks in beekeeping and brewing.

Hudax wrote:
People wrote:
Where does the evil come from?
The only logical place for the evil to come from is the intent of the caster.

I'll have to disagree with that on the whole "The ends do not justify the means" argument.

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Ivan Rûski wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Mindless undead were made evil so that paladins could smite them, so that anti-evil spells would be effective against them. That's all there is to it.

Mindless undead were made evil because it suits the trope as anyone who's watched a Zombie Apocalypse movie would attest.
Actually, I'd say zombies from said movies would be neutral, as they hunt people for food, like an animal.

I'd agree, but paladin players wanted their paladins to be able to smite them so they became evil instead.

Since Golarion has the wendo spirits animating the neutral zombies in the Mwangi expanse, the evil zombies found elsewhere have to be animated by something else. I'd suggest viewing it as the extended will of Urgathoa, evil goddess of the undead, because Pharasma, neutral goddess of death, refuses to have anything to do with undead.

This puzzles me. Why didn't they just change "Smite Evil" to Smite Evil and Undead"? It's a far less game-invasive change.

Fenrisnorth wrote:



Because I don't want the hungry little bastards slipping free and killing innocent people when spells wear off. And yes, evil IS a definite thing, but where is it coming from in this equation? N

1) Destroy them before you lose control.

2) I gave you a nice, fluffy example reason in the second portion of my post.

3) You need to find a non-PFS game somewhere. that really sucks.

Herbo wrote:

I think the more important question is: *breaks into song*

"What would Erik Mona do, if he were here right now..."

"He'd spell check a book or two, that's what Erik Mona'd do!"

"When Erik Mona was at WotC, newly in the fold. He was yelled at by Jonathan Tweet for being far too bold!"

When Eric Mona was in the Alps fighting grizzly bears, he used his half-dragon fire breath and saved the maiden fair!

(Not much tweaking need for that one)

I have a setting that I've been developing for a few years now that involves the deaths of all the major gods and the rise of new ones from very minor deities. So this topic had to be addressed simply in an historical manner. My thoughts were that while the god was no longer capable of giving spells that there was no reason why the Clerics of the dead gods couldn't still use their energy channeling and healing abilities.

Now, I don't know enough about the Golarian setting to have an opinion on what Iomedae would or wouldn't do specifically, but it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief to think that a god who amicably replaced a fallen god wouldn't grant the new cleric their powers however I believe that god would start sending messages to that cleric as to who exactly they should really be worshipping. (Subtle things at first, but as the character gains power things should get more severe.... perhaps even spontaneous loss of powers at critical moments or no spells being granted for a week.)

I think that it's a nice little idea for character development.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spacelard wrote:

isn't this thread necromancy...

Seriously if you don't like it house rule it and move on...

No, this is Animate Dead Horse.

And why are you stuck on creating undead? Command and Control Undead spells both work just as well when the undead do show up... and I've never seen a campaign where there was any significant lack of undead. Let the others waste their power and resources creating the damned things (pun intended) and then nick their efforts. ;)

People get hung up on the reasons of why a widget is a widget. Work with the rules or mutually agree to change them.

Also remember that "good" and "evil" are palpable things in Pathfinder. They aren't simply nebulous concepts of morality and societal mores.

If you want some in-game reason why it's evil how about this: Orcus, the Demon Lord of the Undead, belly laughs when an undead is created because it strengthens his hold on the Prime Material Plane every time it's done. ;)

Fenrisnorth wrote:
jocundthejolly wrote:
Fenrisnorth wrote:
Todd Stewart wrote:
Necromancer wrote:

Everything associated with the Negative Energy Plane is generally marked evil (Sceaduinar, Dhampir, etc.)

That's an interesting one there. As originally described in TGB, the sceaduinar aren't evil, however the core PFRPG sceaduinar writeup has them as evil (fwiw, yes I made a fuss about it). ;)

I'm also incredibly sympathetic to the folks questioning about that [evil] tag and the alignment shifts in nonintelligent undead between 3e and 3.5 (and the carryover into PF). But you have to work within the system so to speak, and Paizo has come up with an in-game rationale when there really wasn't one in 3.5. I might have gone a different way myself or in my home games, but it's not the end of the world. :)

I like the idea of non-evil necromancers, and there are certainly ways to do it even when the overt use of negative energy as an animating force within the Material Plane is construed as an evil act by virtue of it disrupting the proper balance of creation. I could think of some other ways to add to that rationale and still come down with sympathy to non-malevolent necromancers and even the sceaduinar (blame the jyoti, those soul cultivating bastards!).

Wait, what's the ingame reason, I can't find it. Also, magical healing and positive energy, and raise dead imbalances creation also, so shouldn't they be evil too?
Can you see the difference between raising someone from the dead and desecrating someone's corpse by turning it into a foul and hideous mockery of life? I'm not sure what you want from Paizo. The assumptions you are questioning are part of the main line tradition of heroic fantasy role-playing and are unlikely to change "officially," but obviously you can make your home game whatever you want it to be. Maybe your problem is finding a like-minded GM and group.
I can use loaded language too. Can you not see the diference between using a non-aligned energy of...

You don't rip anyone from anywhere. Raise Dead only works if the soul agrees to return to the body.

0gre wrote:

People have long debated the pronunciation of FAQ, it's a debate that has quietly raged on the internet for years. Do you say it? "Ef Ay Que" or as a word "Fack", or some people say Facts...

Personally, I think it's best to pronounce it with a soft A sound and a hard Q "Fahq". Alternately I think it's also acceptable to use the soft A sound and pronounce the Q, "Fah-Que".

I only say Fah-Que whilst make off-color jokes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tryn wrote:
DGRM44 wrote:

Did 3.5 ever stat the Gods?

Yes, there are stats at several Splat Books (Complete Divine, Deities and Demigods etc.) and it was the worst decision they made ever.

Then as soon as something has stats player will try to find ways to kill/overcome/or otherwise deal with it.

"Look I rolled a 20 at Bluff, including my boni it's a 64, God X only rolled a 63 in sense motive... I lied to a god and he believes it!!!!!"

So please, no stats for gods!

Complete Divine didn't stat the gods, it lists them at their power levels, gives their alignment, description, portfolio and domains. That's about it.

Deities and Demigods does stat out the gods but it was a far cry from a list of gods to kill. On top of weakest god being about 30HD and the strongest going up to 60+HD they also had fantastical powers associated with their portfolios and domains as well as a mechanic referred to as "Divine Rank" that allowed for the purchase of special abilities beyond the ken of mere mortals.

Basically, your characters weren't a threat to the gods unless they, themselves, ascended to godhood.

I always thought that it was a fantastic basis for high-level play (alternate advancement systems) and more of the ideas in there should have been incorporated into the giant mess that was the Epic Level Handbook.

(By the way, your example simply couldn't happen by the standards of the Deities and Demigods book. Although I do get your point, you're using an argument that just doesn't wash.)

Hama wrote:

3.5 did stat the gods, and made them too weak. To me gods below CR80 are just not gods.

It was my understanding that they didn't stat the gods, per se, but they statted the avatars of the gods as a carry-over from 2E.

It's my thinking that the perusal of a scroll can allow a mage to determine the spell on a scroll. Anything beyond that is pretty awesome world flavor.

Also, the next mage I create is going to refer to the Fireball spell as "Kaboom-shaka-laka".

Gailbraithe wrote:

DMchucky and other that are arguing that it costs those of us who do not want more high level support nothing for paizo to publish a high level book (and then continue supporting it) are simply wrong. The Paizo staff does not have infinite time and resources, and thus we are dealing with a zero-sum game.

Any amount of time spent by the Paizo staff working on a "mythic" level book is time they are not spending working on support for the game most people play, therefore it makes perfect sense for those who have no interest in high-level play to agitate against high level rules.

I want paizo to put out products that I have an interest in buying, and I don't want paizo to put out products that won't help me make my campaigns better. Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but don't try and sell people on this nonsense idea that we can all get what we want.

OK, how about learning a lesson about selfishness, then?

I'd say that you really only need the core rulebook and the first book of the AP.

Has anything been announced about the book other than the title (and the title change)?

Frankly, the only other book I saw done like this for core rules is Savage Species and I'm really wondering what this book would have to offer me.

Asteldian Caliskan wrote:
Not sure what a 20+ book is needed for, by then its a case of 'your char walks onto the battlefield, gives the army an Angry Monkey stare, they all die'

Characters of that level wouldn't be anywhere near that battle. Their concerns would be on a more planar level... like facing the hordes of the Abyss in the form of an army of Balors or some such thing for a climactic battle.

And just to point it out (and not because I assume you don't know) but it isn't all about combat.

As an aside - Quite a few of the classes have the characters become immortal at 20th level. My assumption was that anything above 20th level in Pathfinder would have to move on to demigod-like powers and transition out of the "mortal" realms.

I would love to see some high-level content.

I feel that it's a completely different game at that point, though, and like joela points out, the complexity of the character and NPC/monster write-ups would be tremendously unwieldy.

I hope that the development team can create a simple and elegant system to approach demigod+ levels of power.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Renie wrote:

Napoleon kittens (as well as kittens dressed like Napoleon)

Napoleon kittens are way underpowered. Viking kittens are where it's at.

I can't get enough in the way of monster books... I'm an addict.

So yeah, I'm excited. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All I'd really like to see are guidelines on creating my own races with some really good, fleshed-out examples.

1 to 50 of 291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>