PnP Fan's page

XXL would have been a nice option.
:-(

People like this are fantastic sources of criticism. And they aren't always wrong.
But. . .
They rarely have solutions for anything that they complain about.
Ask him for a solution. See what happens.

If he's got something, then let him run the game.
If he doesn't have any solutions (and he probably won't), move on. You do this a few times, and he'll get the point.

Of course, this all comes with the caveate (sp?) of, "If his personality has changed suddenly, then he may be having some problems." If that's the case, you should have a talk with him. You know your friend best.

Hi all just a quick survey about the type of gamers who are on this forum

1. How long have you been gaming
2. First game system you played
3. What are your 3 favorite systems
4. Fate of your first character
5. Do you still game with any of your original group
And finally why do you visit these forums
Thanks all

1. Since 1986 (27 years)

I visit the forums for a few reasons:
a. to see what other folks are doing.
b. to answer polls
c. to see what the developers are thinking about, with regards to the game or the Golarion setting.

When I play female NPCs:
1. For young to middle aged women: I soften my voice, and go for the upper middle portion of my range. Since I tend to speak on the low end of my baritone range, it gets the point across. Mostly I convey through posture and hand movements the femininity of the character.
2. For older women I shoot for high end of my range, and add some vibrato, and try to do my best Julia Child/Aunt Bea impersonation.

It gets the idea across, but without being overly comical, or making me sound like a bad movie transvestite.

I like the way FATE does it - during character creation, you basically come up with a story that happened to your character prior to the start of the campaign, then everyone guest stars in two other people's stories. You get an Aspect based on your own story and each of your guest spots, which is a central part of your character going forward. The party starts out already knowing one another through with all kinds of relationships that way.

+1

It's so much easier that way.

But every once in a while, a tavern brawl is fun too. ;-)

Vincent Takeda wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But all of that is only under your rather unique definition of murder. And it still doesn't change anything. With more common usage, we argue about whether a particular killing was murder. With your usage, we have exactly the same argument about whether a particular murder was bad.

It also has the neat side effect of turning everyone (*nearly everyone. I'll accept a tiny minority of exceptions.) into murderers. Which suggests the want of a term for "immoral killer of sapient beings", if only so we can warn each other about such people.

Oh aye. Even with a more common usage, the question of whether a killing is simply a killing or a murder is most often far less relevant than if it is lawful, good, or evil though. In both the real world and in a gaming context.

And on the other front we happily do have two terms for 'immoral killer of sapient beings'... one of those terms is 'murderhobo' the other is 'paladin'. I'm pretty sure in fact that the word paladin stems from a shortening of the phrase 'brainwashed elite slave troopers'... or B.E.S.T.

In common usage, especially in a gaming context where we generally ignore legal technicalities, an evil killing is pretty much equivalent to murder. At least of sapient victims.

And in my games, a paladin who murders isn't a paladin any longer. Nor do I play with murderhobos, unless we're deliberately running an evil game - even in which case we've usually had subtler and more interesting evil in mind.

Though I do like the B.E.S.T. :)

Okay, I wasn't thinking about the whole murderhobo thing, I was focused on "how does this legal term apply to the game".

I suppose it would be reasonable to redefine murder in the context of the game to be any killing that results in violation of either the lawful or good ethos.

Regardless, for the sake of goblin babies everywhere, it's probably worth have the discussion about free will vs. predestined alignment with your GM.

Or if your the GM, y'know, just don't put goblin babies in harms way. Agian, unless it's a major plot point, we just don't put those elements on stage. Because working out the logistics of orc-phanages is to close to work, not fun.

I guess I fall into the "Murder is a legal term, consult with your GM/Lawyer/King/etc. . " resulting in an "it depends" answer, that probably isn't very satisfying.

Morally justifiable killing, however, requires answering certain questions first. Which of course, also requires discussing things with your GM. As others have pointed out:
1. Metaphysically, are there creatures that do not have free will? Limited free will? Or does everyone have free will?
2. How strong is the Alignment block on the stat block? (Always, sometimes, usually, etc. . )

These are questions that the rules either a) Don't answer (#1), or are flexible on (#2). So, we can play with these two variables, and come up with answers on justifiable killing.

A) If we live in a setting where non PC races have no free will, and the Alignment block is 'fixed', then the aslignment state of baby evil creatures is that they will be evil (no choice, only one option), and infanticide for evil creatures is justifiable (I'm not saying pleasurable, or desireable, nor am I talking about ANYTHING CLOSE TO REALITY).
B) Conversely, if everyone has free will, then by necessity Alignment can be no stronger than 'usually', and you wind up with the situation where everyone can potentially be saved, and there is no justifiable infanticide of any race.

I suspect that most games fall somewhere in between. Some races don't have free will/flexible alignments (Angels and Devils seem likely. .), while other races do (Orcs and Goblins. . ).

I know for my groups, we tend not to worry about it too much, because we've done the whole, "Oh noes, we've just found the orc nursery, what do we do!" schtick already. It just leads to arguments about this stuff, which is often counterproductive to why we got together to play a game. Most of us have enough real world drama, and enough things interfering with our game time that we just blow through this silliness.

thejeff wrote:

Vincent Takeda wrote:

I agree. I don't make a paladin fall for picking flowers. I don't think anyone reads that from my posts, and I wouldn't sit at a table that played like that either. The people who don't like the fact that picking flowers is actually flower murder are simply the folks who only want the word murder to be a binary act of evil, so in fact they want a definition of the word that's more 'black and white' than I do. A level of black and white that is essentially 'lets choose not to call picking flowers murder because murder should always be a word that means 'alignment changingly evil' which I don't think is an authentic reflection of reality. I prefer acknowledging the reality and understanding that just because something is murder and murder is bad doesn't mean you're going to hell for picking flowers. I like my gaming to be as much about navigating the grays between black and white as real life is. Making it black and white takes away one's ability to explore the ideas and takes away a certain gravitas to a lot of scenarios. This view tends to send games into simple gamist crunchfests and I don't enjoy those games as much.

When my players start hungering for a game with less moral dilemmas they'll make a party where everyone's neutral on the good/evil spectrum or we'll fire up a zombie apocalypse combat festival against the undead or a palladium/rifts campaign where the alignment tropes are at least a little more specifically defined.

Redefining the word "murder" doesn't change the moral issues in the slightest.

You debate over whether this "murder" is "alignment changingly evil". I debate over whether this killing was "murder".
Murder is a legal term, meaning roughly some types of unlawful killing of humans. In common use that's extended to most immoral killings of humans. In SF/Fantasy context it's natural to extend that to other sapient species. A very small handful of animal rights activists extend it killing animals. Even among those who

...

+1

Something to think about. . .
If you're spending organizational money on assets that the organization is going to keep, try to avoid things that art too portable. Things like dice, minis and pencils are a requirement for the game, but they are also the things people will walk off with, accidentally or otherwise. Plus, those items are cheap enough that even students should be able to have their own set.
On the other hand, things like wet-erase maps, terrain, measuring tools (if your group does any wargaming) are harder for people to stuff in their bags, or mistake for their own property.
Plus, if you make some awesomely useful/well crafted terrain, then other folks in the organization start saying things like, "who made that terrain?" "Oh, that's Banjax's terrain, pretty awesome, huh?!!"

Contributing to the dry/wet erase comments:
Dry erase:
comes off easily
doesn't stain the board easily
is usually rigid

Wet erase:
doesn't come up easily
also stains the board easily. some colors are worse than others
will definitely stain if you accidentally use a dry erase marker.
usually floppy, so more portable.

We use Tac-Tiles, (dry erase puzzle mats), but I think their out of business.

My friends and I were playing in Eberron (3.5), in Sharn. We were in a chase scene, and the bad guy was getting way ahead of us. In fact, if I remember correctly, the encounter may have started with us on a higher bridge between towers, with the Emerald Claw villain on another lower bridge, sniping at us.

So I did what any self respecting Cleric of the Silver Flame would do in this situation. . .

I jumped off the bridge towards his bridge, some 50 or 60 feet below.

The looks I got from the players and the GM were priceless.

Then I whipped out my featherfall token that I keep strapped around my belt and landed safely on the bridge, ready to close with the Emerald Claw agent.

Then, IIRC, the GM pulled on on me. The Claw agent was my character's cousin, who I had assumed died during the cataclysm in Cyre.

I swear, one of the best campaigns I've ever played.

I generally don't coddle my players, with a few exceptions.
1. New players. I want them to have a positive experience at least once before something really bad happens.
2. I tend give some very easy encounters at first level, because characters are so fragile.

To me, a negative outcome can be just as interesting as if the players were 100% successful. And I feel the same way when I'm a player. Which is apparently kinda weird, at least where I live. I have players who complain about having some difficult fight, and will sling casual insults at the GM (sometimes me, sometimes others) for cooking up a challenging encounter. Meanwhile I'm thinking, "Well, duh! That's his job."

I despise rolemaster with all my heart and soul. And body. And i use other people to enhance the power of my "despisal".

Seriously, if hate has hatred, what does despise have?

+1

And let me explain, I'm an engineer, I'm not afraid of math. I do draw the line at tedium (without pay!).

PnP Fan wrote:

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Orthos wrote:

I feel like I'm one of very few people who even tries to play Gnomes with a scrap of seriousness.

I'm currently in parties with a gnome summoner and a gnome sorcerer. We take them very seriously.

Awww. . .come on guys. It's hard playing a clown when everyone around you wants to be serious. :-)

To me, the fluff in the various PF books and the setting books just screams out for trickster/comedian madness. Not self destructive, or party-disruptive necessarily. More. . . cleverness.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're 'doing it wrong', but gnomes set my inner child free. And he's a very goofy kid. >:-)

I am not suggesting that it is "wrong" to play a jokester. I play a jokester/trickster myself. He happens to be a human witch, and he provides great fun for the table. I am just saying that gnomes are just another race and to type-cast them as comic relief is, imho, a self-limiting exercise. Whenever I deal with stereotypes in the game I am far more likely to play against them than to play to them. That's all.

I hear you. I do that from time to time as well. If I'm playing, I'm much more likely to not use stereotypes. When I'm GMing, I'm about 50/50 use/ignore stereotypes. Mostly depends on which is more useful at the moment. But that's probably for another thread. ;-)

Orthos wrote:

I feel like I'm one of very few people who even tries to play Gnomes with a scrap of seriousness.

I'm currently in parties with a gnome summoner and a gnome sorcerer. We take them very seriously.

Awww. . .come on guys. It's hard playing a clown when everyone around you wants to be serious. :-)

To me, the fluff in the various PF books and the setting books just screams out for trickster/comedian madness. Not self destructive, or party-disruptive necessarily. More. . . cleverness.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're 'doing it wrong', but gnomes set my inner child free. And he's a very goofy kid. >:-)

Of course, when I'm GM'ing, it's a little different. Tactics play a stronger role in my custom NPCs (villainous or not), as well as the role they play in the story. For example, as I learned more about the Cavalier class, and figured out what would make an optimal Cav, I hit upon the "small character riding various exotic animal" idea, specifically a gnome on various exotic rides. Well, in my version of Golarion, gnomes are very childlike, and are often used for comic releif. So I decided that his tag line would be something like, "Hey guys, look what followed me home!" as he walked into camp with a dinosaur or a giant spider. Cue laugh track. But when I actually put him into play as an NPC, he wound up being a messenger character working for the PCs for a bit. So I gave him a Batman/Lone Ranger feel (always wore a mask/helm, handed out 'gnome signals' that would alert him from any distance, that sort of thing). He was an amusing amalgam of goofiness. Players seemed to love having him around.

I usually start with a general personality archetype (not class archetype), for example, some time ago I decided that I wanted to play a character that was the "voice of his ancestors" in some way.
For fun, I decided to explore this idea mechanically, independent of any actual campaign. (I was running a campaign at the time, and had no idea when I'd be able to play the concept.) I cooked up two or three different versions, including two or three different Oracles, a Magus, and something else. I hit upon the idea of Elves and the Ancestor Mystery for the Oracle, and I thought that's what I would want to do. Then, after I ended my campaign, and finally had the opportunity to play, the GM explained that we would be doing a Golarion based version of Monster Hunters International, in Absalom. So I looked more closely at game mechanics, and how I would get my character to Absalom, and wound up changing to a Battle Oracle, Half-Elf, with a twisted family history in the Mordant Spire community. To represent his connectin to his Elven ancestry, he has the Haunted curse, as well as an Archetype (Ancestral something or other). In addition, if the GM wants to run in a different direction, I explained to him the mental connection between the elves and the Spire (per the Mythic setting book), if he wants to take the Haunted thing in a different direction.

And generally, this is how all of my fantasy characters are generated. Very spaghetti-like, where cause and effect are difficult to trace.

Adamantine Dragon,
From my (limited and subjective) experience, most folks grow out of the murderhobo mindset. We used to refer to adventuring as "home invasion" back in high school. Unfortunately, the lack of RP awards in 2.0 is also why we switched to GURPS, instead of just home-brewing RP awards.
We don't worry about RP awards anymore, we just do it. I can't count the number of character-based point of view arguments we've had, in -character marriages (sometimes between straight players of the same sex), in-game politicking. It's all about the fun of the RP, with a heavy dose of action/adventure.
If you want to get your players out of the murderhobo mindset, give them something to do that doesn't necessarily involve violence. Something where violence is a disproportionate response. Maybe there are two good aligned leaders who disagree on a course of action for the city to take. Give the players the opportunity to make the peace, and solve a problem. There are no specific mechanics for this in PF, but we've stolen the "skill challenge" mechanic from 4.0 and it works pretty well. (It also encourages folks to spend points in a variety of skills.)

williamoak wrote:

I would be interested in seeing playing a Vimes-like character. Definitly a rogue-ish type (despite his status as a lawman).

Urban Ranger 3 / Investigator Rogue 2 / refluffed Golden Legionnaire or maybe Student of War

Also, high WIS, with CHA secondary (in spite of what he thinks about things, he definitely has the "force of personality" thing covered. I think I put him together as an Inquisitive (3.5 Eberron) once, for fun.

Probably should have weapon focus: club as well the Leadership feat.

Not sure how to model the Free-willed golem though. . .

Dear James Jacobs
I submitted the following yesterday, just as a flurry of other questions came in, so I guess it got overlooked.
I've thoroughly enjoyed playing in the pathfinder setting in the last few years. I especially enjoy the level of detail given to the various religions and the setting mythology. Reading the mythology is like trying to solve a mystery novel to me. Please keep doing what you're doing, it's been great fun!
Okay, my questions, which are primarily about the Dragon Empires Gazeteer, it's deities, and their relationship to the western deities.

1. While some of the western deities are also worshipped in east by the same name (Pharasma, Shelyn, Desna, etc...) it also seems that some of the eastern deities and western deities are remarkably similar in personality. Enough so that they might actually be the same deity, under a different name. Specifically, I was wondering about the following east/west equivalencies:
Fumeiyoshi = Asmodeus
Shiziru = Sarenrae
Tsukiyo = Ihys
Kofusuchi = Caiden Caelean
Sun wukong= also Caiden Caelean?
Ya matsumi = Rovagug

2. I have a theory regarding the starstone. It seems to me, that the starstone and Ihys murder are related. My current working theory is that Ihys invested some of his personal power to create the starstone before he was murdered. Though I could also see the starstone being the actual remains of Ihys after Asmodeus killed him. Am I on the right track?

3. Given #2, Lao shu po's background sounds like a metaphor for a starstone test. Is this the case?

4. Given #2, and the notion that the starstone was pulled from the diaspora, which appears to have been created from the collision of two planets that occupied similar orbits, is there a metaphysical connection between deities, and celestial bodies? Perhaps a relationship that exists for the older deities only?

My personal canon at this point is that Aroden pulled a God-Emperor to free mortals (mostly humans) from the shackles of prophecy. Most of the other god and goddesses, like Pharasma, are pretty miffed about this, as they like humans at the mercy of prophecy, and probably just had his soul outright destroyed when it came up to be judged.

This is actually at the core of my current campaign! I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing these ideas in the setting material.

I've always enjoyed learning about setting mythology, and the metaphysics that govern a setting.

Dear James Jacobs
I've thoroughly enjoyed playing in the pathfinder setting in the last few years. I especially enjoy the level of detail given to the various religions and the setting mythology. Reading the mythology is like trying to solve a mystery novel to me. Please keep doing what you're doing, it's been great fun!
Okay, my questions, which are primarily about the Dragon Empires Gazeteer, it's deities, and their relationship to the western deities.

1. While some of the western deities are also worshipped in east by the same name (Pharasma, Shelyn, Desna, etc...) it also seems that some of the eastern deities and western deities are remarkably similar in personality. Enough so that they might actually be the same deity, under a different name. Specifically, I was wondering about the following east/west equivalencies:
Fumeiyoshi = Asmodeus
Shiziru = Sarenrae
Tsukiyo = Ihys
Kofusuchi = Caiden Caelean
Sun wukong= also Caiden Caelean?
Ya matsumi = Rovagug

2. I have a theory regarding the starstone. It seems to me, that the starstone and Ihys murder are related. My current working theory is that Ihys invested some of his personal power to create the starstone before he was murdered. Though I could also see the starstone being the actual remains of Ihys after Asmodeus killed him. Am I on the right track?

3. Given #2, Lao shu po's background sounds like a metaphor for a starstone test. Is this the case?

4. Given #2, and the notion that the starstone was pulled from the diaspora, which appears to have been created from the collision of two planets that occupied similar orbits, is there a metaphysical connection between deities, and celestial bodies? Perhaps a relationship that exists for the older deities only?

My players went for costuming. Our White Roses of Westcrown wore cloaks and hoods, with various full-face masks. Their color theme was black and white, and the designs were all different (though none of us are artists, so the descriptions were vague). Commoners recognized the players because of the masks and cloaks, but had no idea who they really were.

We also just handwaved the fame gained from the play, since that was done as normal people.

Eventually, the common folk sort of knew who the White Roses were, but by then, half of the commoners in town were part of the resistance anyway.

I've run the entire adventure path, and these were the problems I had:
1. The backstory is a lot of fun. Very few characters are left without motivation and some kind of knowledge of the bigger picture. Unfortunately, they also tend to die before they can impart any of their knowledge to the PCs. Frequently I found myself without any way to get interesting and/or critical information to the players without inventing something in in the scenario. Puzzle solving without clues is a pain, and the whole AP is a puzzle-solving/conspiracy story.

2. The AP isn't very scalable. We have a large group (7 players!), and they make mince meat out of the encounters. Unfortunately, since most of the encounters are in-doors, in reasonably sized rooms, you can't really add bad guys to make a fight more challenging, because you run out of physical space.

Don't get me wrong, we had a good time. But the AP just wasn't very well put together.

So. . . is there room for humorous submissions? For example, filk song lyrics, or a less than serious adventure (themed appropriately of course)?

Youvnor,
Fellow Grognard here.
I think what you are missing is a couple of things.
First, there's that sense of wonder. Unfortunately, after 25 years of playing, it's difficult to recapture that. A good GM will bring it out in the custom made campaign he's put together, but it's not guaranteed.
Second, I think you are missing a sense of accomplishment/danger. This can be a little easier to recapture. To bring that danger back, you just have to do is make the encounters tougher. there's nothing stopping you from inserting that "do or die" trap in an adventure. It's just got to be a higher CR than the guidance provided. My groups do this sort of thing all the time.

Just my two coppers.