Rocketman1969's page

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I'm guilty of that viceral loathing. Only because it stinks of the training montage scene where the plucky rogue learns enough in a week of training to outfight a character who has spent years learning to move and attack and be tough enough to actually be a fighter.

Presuming the "years of training" guy is staying a fighter, then how is a rogue 1/fighter 1 consistently able to outfigtht a fighter 2? A: He can't -- or if he can, there's even more wrong with the fighter class than people realize.

On the other hand, if Mr. Years-of-Training is remaining at 1st level, and it bothers you that a 2nd level character can outfight a 1st level character? Then maybe a level-based system isn't the game for you.

It doesn't bother me so much as it makes the whole preparation and back story--um--looking for neutral language here--fluff. Hey i just become a wizard cuz I feel like maximizing my character--just rubs me the wrong way. But as I said--in a more gamist approach that's fine. It just isn't something I'm going to enjoy GMing...it doesn't fit in my gameworld context--to be clear--it is neither right or wrong--it is simply something I loathe. Personal preference.

or to be more accurate:

Bo'sun: Still the guns and stow 'em, Signal the men, set the flags and make good to clear port.
Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren...
Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl."

, I don't share the visceral loathing of multi-classing that most people seem to be infected with.

I'm guilty of that viceral loathing. Only because it stinks of the training montage scene where the plucky rogue learns enough in a week of training to outfight a character who has spent years learning to move and attack and be tough enough to actually be a fighter.

It just kind of devalues the whole thing for me. But each to his own taste. I'm not a gamist.

The fundamental problem with the fighter - and the source of the class's perceived weakness - is that Pathfinder (and by extension D&D) is a resource management paradigm, and the fighter class, as presently designed, doesn't fit into that paragdigm. Every other class has an exhaustable resource that determines a significant part of their combat ability, so adventuring is designed around management those resources - a.k.a. the party adventures until they run out of spells/rage rounds/smites/etc. then rests.

Thus the fighter's unique strength, that its abilities are inexhaustable, are never able to be put into play, except for very rare circumstances. Since the fact that the fighter's abilities more or less work all the time regardless of the circumstances, they are by necessity of game balance weaker than abilties that have finite use.

The way I see it, the only way to truly balance the fighter against other characters is to give the class some resource mechanic that would allow it to utilize truly powerful abilities, on par with what other classes get.

To be perfectly honest though, I'm not sure that's a good thing. My greatest fear in the neverending quest to achieve class balance is the convergance toward class homogenization. If I had to choose, I'd rather have some classes mechanically weaker than others if the alternative was that all of the classes were more or less the same.

They call that Runequest.

shallowsoul wrote:

Still leaves a shield carrying paladin screwed because it's one or the other.

Do Bucklers not exist to you?

Spoken by someone who has obviously never actually used a buckler--but recognizing that the rules were written by folks who have also never actually used a buckler either.

Malachi.

Give us an example of a Chaotic code.

"Ones life is ones own.Do as your conscience wills. Power corrupts so always question authority. Take no slave nor allow yourself to become one--unless that is your decision and your destiny. All persons are created equal but each has his own path. Seek knowledge and new experiences as they add to your character. Work against those who place limits upon people for no other purpose than dogma."

I personally hate terms like 'lesser Evil'. So would any paladin.

What about Neutral? Not every action or every alighment fits squarely in 'good' or 'evil.' We have THREE levels here to play with.

Wouldn't an action you consider as 'less than evil' start looking like neutral? Anything that half of us say is not evil... and the other half says 'well it's CERTAINLY not GOOD...

Paladins can commit Neutral acts. They can NOT commit an EVIL act. even a 'lesser evil'... but they can and do kill all the time. Many times with premeditation even!!

Have you ever read any David Gemmell?

He has a number of scenes in his books about the hero having to kill opponents to prevent a greater evil from happening. If you haven't--I'd suggest reading any book with the "30" in it. What is harrowing about his descriptions is that he doesn't shy away from the fact that the enemy guard or combatant is frequently a person brought to their situation by circumstance and who have children or a wife or people who depend on them.

You are putting cart before horse...paladins kill so therefore killing is not an evil act. Why isn't it--because if it were an evil act then a paladin couldn't do it. It's a tautology.

I'd rather view all actions within the rubric of fulfilling a mission. That way the paladin can in fact take out the guard from behind to get into the keep. That guard might not necessarily be an evil person--simply working for one. So if he has a part in taking that guard "out" by approaching in a purloined robe in order to rescue the captive...and the guard happens to be neutral good and is there to earn money for his family even with certain misgivings--what is the result?

Given time the paladin might be able to talk the man into giving up his post. But he doesn't have that time. Perhaps he might knock him out instead--but that is a tricky possibility with the commotion most likely giving the whole thing away. So he kills him.The man isn't quite dead--and thus gets a coup de grace to prevent both noise and prolonged suffering. The paladin feels bad about it. He wishes there were another way. He seeks absolution through prayer and purification--but it doesn't to my mind means he falls. The definition of "evil" still holds--but definign eveil actions as non-evil to justify the continuence of the class doesn't make the act not evil.

The only other option to my mind is limiting that character to open face to face fights or copping out and relying on Bucky to do the dirty work.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

So we get in a fist fight and there is the potential for you to fall and die--if that happened --even accidentally I'd be a murderer. But I knock you out and then cut your throat and this isn't an evil act? Is that the idea? Right--i don'tagree with the actual words you used but it is close.."it Is no more inherently evil"...even if I argued the point--you have indicated that the act of killing another person with intent is inherently evil.

As the does the game.

In real life, I'm against killing of any kind. In the GAME... Paladins kill all the time. Call it whatever you want, but he's beating a man to death with a sharp weapon. And he does not fall. Therefore Killing in the Pathfinder/D&D game system is itself not inherently evil.

If the person you are fist fighting is not a bad guy and deserving of death...and you are trying to kill him. That's evil Just as evil as killing him in his sleep.

If he falls and hits his head?? that's an ACCIDENT. Not evil. But still cutting his throat while he's down would be... since it was evil to TRY to kill him in the first place.

See i think the nebulous definition of evil is the culprit here. Yes a paladin will "fall" if he commits an evil act. Which is wide open to interpretation. What I'm suggesting is that the Coup de grace is evil--it is simply a lesser evil than allowing an evil being to survive to cause more harm or for an opponent to suffer.

There are circumstances requiring extreme unction for the paladin to play otherwise his lawful goodness would have him pacifically kneeling and having his head removed instead of doing anything remotely wrong.

The same goes with other characters--it must be situational. And it should be based upon the idea of harm balancing what is most and least harmful.

The code isn't lawful, the code is good. Submitting to the code is lawful. You can argue that the behavior of a chaotic good person could be entirely within the scope of a code but that is not "following" a code.

You could be a person who never lies because your not good at it, don't think it's right, didn't know it was a option, etc. That is different from swearing to never lie.

You could swear an oath not to lie on the witness stand. That is not following a code.

The easiest way to allow the CG Paladin is to do away with the code. You can still keep the mechanics of a fall if the behavior of the Paladin goes beyond acceptable behavior for a Paladin.

Not necessarily. THe code may be lawful--in which case you may have a lawful good character being asked to follow a code that falls down on the good side. The only thing I have to say is that were I GMing a paladin it would be almost impossible for them to fall except through willing action. As they are granted powers from a being that actually exists and is both lawful and good one would suppose...then we could hope that being wouldn't be guilty of the colossal douchebaggery as to lay traps for the guy/gal. There would be a warning given via the spidey sense. If the warrior is channelling the power of the god--then that should provide plenty of warning to prevent actions that will lead to a fall. I would also be playing that the violent or aggressive actions sometimes necessary to do the job would be viewed as failures and would have certain required actions. I however would not be overly puniative about actions occurring in just battle, would not begrudge retreating to survive and regroup, nor even the use of a white lie or two.

Best advice I can give for a Sandbox campaign: Do not have your players make characters in their off-time and show up to jump right into the session.

Either use a forum thread or similar to orchestrate character+campaign discussion gradually for well over a week in advance, or dedicate session 1 to 'building the campaign' together.

What I mean by that, is to sit down with your players and discuss what kind of game they want. Do they want to be part of a military organization handling orders passed down from above? Do they want to be their own group doing their own thing of whatever sort? Is there a leader with a driving goal the others fall in behind or do they all collaborate as mutual partners?

After you have the general tone/style of the campaign figured out, you need to discuss with each player what kind of character they want to play, and help them adapt that player into something that will fit into the campaign in question. Encourage the players to have an open discourse in this and to feel free to give one another ideas and feedback. Let this session be an open forum of idea and concept exploration.

Once all of this is said and done, if the party isn't already assembled in character, you need to get them assembled in very short order (either during that first session, or the one immediately thereafter.) This could be as easy as having their superiors in an organization group them together, or as complex as a small pirate crew traveling from island to island expanding its membership as their captain aims to claim the title of King of the Pirates.

yeah--agreed--i have a web site for my campaign setting...lets folk do the backstory stuff on their own time.

i've actually been convinced. Paladins should remain lawful good.

ikarinokami wrote:

Mystic Lemur wrote:

Shifty wrote:

If it wasn't Evil to hack them to death with an axe in a bloody and wanton display of carnage involving much pain, suffering, and splatterings of gore while they were walking about then it's similarly not Evil to give them a quick and relaitively painless end while they are napping.

Apples and Oranges. As much as the OP wants to make that the comparison, it isn't. The real comparison is between a quick, relatively painless death at the hands of one party member, or the quick, relatively painless sacrifice of a soul to an Evil deity at the hands of another. One is clearly Evil, the other isn't.

A coup de grace is no more inherently evil than a climb check.

100% Incorrect. if the coup the grace was committed on an innocent and unoffending person, then the act in and of itself is an evil, very very evil.

in this particular case due to the circumstances that the initial act of killing could be justified is the only reason that this case of a coup de grace is not inherently evil.

Coup de grace= killing. There are times when an act of killing will always be evil, therefore it makes no sense to say that a Coup De grace will be the same as a climb check.

A better phrase would have been 'Coup de grace is no more inherently evil than killing them any other way...'

If it was morally ok to hit them with an ax six seconds ago... it's ok now.

So we get in a fist fight and there is the potential for you to fall and die--if that happened --even accidentally I'd be a murderer. But I knock you out and then cut your throat and this isn't an evil act? Is that the idea? Right--i don'tagree with the actual words you used but it is close.."it Is no more inherently evil"...even if I argued the point--you have indicated that the act of killing another person with intent is inherently evil.

There are times when a climb check will be evil.

I can remember one.

I was GMing, there was a catastrophe onboard a refugee vessel, think Titanic, but with people fleeing a terrible foe. The party's Chaotic Neutral Rogue decided that he had to get onboard one of the life rafts, so he attempted to push his way through the crowd. I ruled that he caused a chain reaction of people falling, and that he would have to climb over the still living women and children to reach the vessel.

He rolled a climb check. Stepping on the heads and bodies of these refugees to save themselves.

In contrast, our party was once investigating a mysterious plague that was raving a series of communities in area. It turned out to be magical in nature and was being spread by an evil cult. We caught a member, but as soon as one of our other characters touched him, they had to roll a fortitude check (DC 25 if I remember correctly) to avoid being infected. So I was left to deal with him (due to my immunity).

I found out he was going into the village to spread the disease further. Any physical interaction with him would lead to exposure and the insanely high Fortitude check (which no NPC could have passed without a nat 20).

We discovered the nature of the disease was such that if the carrier was dead, then they could no longer infect those who came into contact with them. So we were faced with a decision: Tie this evil (he detected evil) cultist up and hope that no one found him or touched him, take him with us and risk him escaping and warning his cult of our approach or kill him (the village had no prison, just stockades in the middle of the village square).

I chose to coup d'grace this tied up NPC and end the threat to the community. I refuse to acknowledge that this was an evil act.

There is a term --um--the lesser of two evils? The act was evil--it was simply not as evil as the alternative. Life has a funny way of putting you in situations like that.

Limeylongears wrote:

Bill was passed to legalise same sex marriage in the UK about a month ago by quite a majority, despite (or because of) all the usual arguments being exhumed by the antis. Sure someone's mentioned it elsewhere, but not in this thread (so far as I can see)

I knew I'd find it somewhere! December 27th!

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I hope you guys don't mind a straight guy's POV on something...

Here in Britain there are moves afoot to allow same sex marriages in churches, but churches would be allowed to 'opt out' (?)

One of the arguments put forward by the churches against same sex marriage is that 'it would destroy the sanctity of marriage!'

I can imagine a man and a woman who've been happily married for fifty years (I have a good imagination). They may very well consider their marriage to be sacred. What I cannot imagine is how the sanctity of their marriage would be affected in the slightest by a same sex marriage somewhere on the other side of the country!

Britain is a much more secular country than America (or Poland; sorry for your loss, Drejk). Can anyone with a more religious mindset explain to me how the marriage of some people you don't know is anyone else's business?

No-one's managed to explain it to me yet. : (

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's 'intolerance'! : )

it's actually very simple. So simple that understanding it will make you even more depressed because it is obvious that it simply will not change for some people.

1. The religions that have a problem with gay marriage are primarily revealed religions.

2. Revealed religions rely on proselytization to gain more followers.

3. People join because it puts across a basic set of rules that everyone has to follow.

4. If you don't believe as they do and follow different rules you have rejected the foundation of their belief, namely that all people should believe as they do; act as they do; value what they do.

So they believe that they have the right to tie whether you prefer innies or outies to morality--not because the preference is immoral in and of itself---but because they cannot allow for any part of their belief structure to change, If one part is false then couldn't all of it be false? This is why tying religion to morality is a dead end. Morality requires reflection and choice--it is based upon extremely simple premises--if it is inalterable because of a book that cannot change then it is a substitute for active moral thought. Gay marriage is their business because people who break that rule threaten all the rules. They really can't separate the idea of gay marriage from murder in the streets.

Stormbringer campaign:

"Okay--so the girl is in the highest tower of the fortress--there are thirty men in there--let's go."

"Wait wait wait--what's the plan?"

"Plan?"

"Yeah! the plan to get in and get out? The plan?"

"Same as we do every night Pinky--we sneak in using stealth and come out in a welter of unparalleled carnage--."

Turns out--it was thee wrong fort--after slaughtering all but three men in a welter of unparalleled carnage--the leader stops...flicks the blood off his sword and says:

"I'm terribly sorry I'm afraid we've slaughtered completely the wrong group of bandits."

Then we left.

Interesting forum post. Has anyone ever dealt with outright blatant homophobia or, more commonly, what I call "locker room" humor in their games, either from the GM, players, or both?

Example from a real game: "Your PC enter the prison section --"

"Oh, fu#@! Don't drop the soap!"
"Haha! Yeah, your elf better watch it in there, Brian. Or he's gonna get the shaft!"
"Yeah, Brian. And none of that mamsy-pansy safe shooting cr&% your character does all the time. These guys mean serious business, what with no women for so many years."
"Still can't tell if elves are male or female. Or how they like to get it."
"Hey, at least they're gettin' some, Mr. 40 year old virgin, either with pu#^# or fu$#@$ by a f!!$^&!"
"Ass#%$%! At least when I'm fu$#*^$, I know it's a lady, not like that b8$#@ you call your [girlfriend/wife/roommate with benefit]!"
"Fu#$ you, f~+$#^!"

Etc. NOTE: Cleaned up the language a bit. I left the group shortly.

I had a character assaulted in a prison shower. It was the nature of the game and campaign. It worked for the story and the gm and myself are in no way homophobic. Some of the rest of that gaming group however were--it came out that session. But then again so did the racism, sexism and otherwise awful bits of soul possessed by some folk. One of them got over it after a serious lecture. The other tried to laugh it off...we didn't let him. I dunno--our group is largely straight and white--but I guess we seriously have no time for the "expected" talk that supposedly goes on in those circumstances. In any case--lessons learned. Neither of them were invited past that game.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I'm happy this circumstance has never happened to you. Anyone else who has played with a less mature or perfect crowd of people?

Ah, OK, I begin to see where you're coming from. I guess the unspoken rule at our table is "do what you want, as long as you're not just being a dick." And that's been good for us lately, largely because we take very great pains to screen out dick players and not invite them in the first place.

I can see that someone GMing in, say, a public venue -- a gaming shop or con game -- wouldn't be able to do that, and would sadly be forced to deal with a lot of problems that I, personally, wouldn't want to have to put up with.

yeah--it's the not being a dick part that gives me fits. I've played with a lot of people over time--but I'm just now having to come to the conclusion that certain people can't play in certain campaigns. I have a really really good friend. He has no real desire to play --he does it but frequently becomes destructive--he wants to GM--that's his thing.

Another is so rule focused and acquisitive--he cannot factor in any role playing whatsoever.

A third is all about system abuse and justifying any action no matter how disruptive as acceptable to the point of arguing for an hour.

The first we let GM.

The second and third are no longer part of the group.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

a group of people who have saved your life, shared their food and worked with you daily for an extended period of time are to be sacrificed because the player is ticked off.

Who says they did any of that? Maybe the PCs wandered into town based on another decision they made previously. And maybe a series of failed diplomacy checks left them with a bad feeling about the locals.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Is it ever okay to say to a player--"Your character wouldn't do something like that?"

No, what their PC "would do" is up to them. I'm a referee, not a novelist.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

or do you simply play it out--ruin everyone else's good time and not invite the guy back?

And what are the other PCs doing in the meantime? If they don't like what one of their fellows is doing, they are free to stop him. Or, if they LIKE what he's doing, then in what way is he "ruining everyone else's good time"?

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I'm at a loss.

Clearly so. Let me put it this way: I generally game with people who are mature enough to make group decisions based on what they want to do, without me having to demand that they do exactly as I tell them.

Okay obviously you sensed some antagonism from me that wasn't intended. If so--no offense was meant by the previous post.

Alternately you may simply be antagonistic in nature in which case-if you can't be civil and not a condescending jerk--then quit posting in a thread that has to this point been quite civil. I'm hoping it was the former.

To be clear--I have actually had a player fire bullets into a stack of dynamite knowing that it would kill everyone else in the party. No one was close enough to stop him. He just got ticked at a ruling decision, supported by the rest of the party and made it happen.

I've been in campaign with another different player who shot an allied NPC in the back because he liked his gun while surrounded by the associates of the NPC--who had just finished helping the party--getting half the party killed even when warned it would happen.

So I'm actually asking---given those situations what is a GM is to do with that--by your rules I'd let it happen--close the campaign and go for pizza? I was seriously asking the question.

But if you want to stick to your guns dude go for it. I'm happy this circumstance has never happened to you. Anyone else who has played with a less mature or perfect crowd of people?

...but neither you nor I get to tell all the other players what THEIR PCs are going to do.

I get that in theory--but I guess I have a problem with the player who refuses to play a character with any consistency. I know I'm going to get a "...dragons" response to this--but in real life people don't necessarily decide that a group of people who have saved your life, shared their food and worked with you daily for an extended period of time are to be sacrificed because the player is ticked off.

Moreover, most people don't engage in seriously suicidal actions like--i dunno--firing bullets into a stack of dynamite in the middle of a melee involving six other characters standing right around it--ending the campaign for everyone else involved.

Is it ever okay to say to a player--"Your character wouldn't do something like that?"

or do you simply play it out--ruin everyone else's good time and not invite the guy back?

I'm at a loss.

I totally GM wrong man. Based on what I read on these boards, it's as if I never passed GM 101.

I'll throw encounters at my players that they better run from. My players could easily blunder into an area where they should stay away. Most such places have plenty of clues that the PCs would notice, and normally that's all it takes. But they could do it if they wanted to.

And I'll throw encounters that are way, way below their CR level as well. In fact my next encounter I have planned for my level 9 party is a swarming horde of CR 1/2 or 1/3 creatures that they'll probably dispose of without breaking a sweat.

I've learned that every now and then players seem to enjoy just seriously kicking butt on some monsters that used to give them fits. Makes them feel like they've grown.

Yes! Exactamundo!

Yes. But Adam of Bremen was actively proselytizing against the Norse religion to attempt to replace it with Christianity--so one might allow a little bit of suspicion.

Frazer's golden bough was very much about the sacred king idea--but once again--from the archaeological record--the stories of human sacrifice have proven thus far--to be largely stories.

Now I'm not doubting the Norse propensity for killing folk--but as a normative function of a society--it wasn't a "good" thing--it was more of a recognition--one that permeates the entire culture of the nature of man's struggle against the environment and how he is fated to lose.

Self sacrifice is a big deal. Sacrificing members of their own society? Most probably. But I think--with very few exceptions you will find that they are thralls, captives or the justification of the elimination of rivals.

But I'll have to look into it further.

John Kretzer wrote:

One thing I do when I run a sandbox game is to tell my player you get to run the first adventure. With the idea of how your characters meant and why they are sticking together. It is usualy a great RP session with me mostly in the back ground maybe setting the scene and RPing NPCs that need to be done...

I tried something like this once. I got maybe 5 minutes of "I'm a half-orc named Tom and I want to be the greatest halbardeir in the the world." Then everyone just looked at me.

John Kretzer wrote:

... I also encourage my PCs to write the background together...so they can start knowing each other with a history.

I don't think I could ever get them to make their backstories together.

I have tried unsuccessfully several times to get my group to make the mechanics of their characters together so that they fit together. Never works they always come with a finished character and intend to run it no matter what anyone else is running. (There is one guy who tries to be more of a team player and fit in the group, but then he usually seems resentful that he is the only one.)

I really don't think it is so much that they are uncooperative. I think it is more that they think about PC's in their free time. And over the last umpteen weeks they have fallen in love with some particular build that they have been working on 'forever.'

At the risk of starting a flame war...ick.

To wax additionally a little more anedcotal, while it might be tough to call any particular campaign or session 'gamist/narrativist/simulationist' by the original GNS theory model which is often messy and unclear and tries to jumble unlike concepts together that arent particular to the actual words 'gamist/narrativist/simulationist', I feel that its almost impossible not to have a clear answer which kind of session you're running under my definitions of the threefold model.

And its not to say that any of them are bad. I happen to like simulationist sandbox because of its pure unrestrained free will, where the characters actions have a purpose and an effect, but the characters goals are entirely of their own choosing.

I happen to like my version of narrativist the least, since I strongly feel 'the railroad' and after 25 years or so of gaming, my character concepts and goals are usually a little 'off the wall'. Thats not to say that once a set of simulationist players gets around to choosing a goal that you don't pretty much handle it like a narrative. Just happens to be a narrative the players chose on their own so they're less likely to step off of rails they set down for themselves.

Gamist is interesting. I will say that I feel like 'combat feats' were developed for the sake of both giving the fighter more power, and for nailing down some rules about the more 'imaginative' things people try to pull off in combat'... I remember as an adnd2e gamist that combat-centered campaigning was plenty interesting and fun because we tried very hard to fill fights with more eloquent/interesting detail than just 'I stab him' 'I slash him' 'it claws you'... We weren't so much 'dicing off against another set of stats and abilities' as we were 'choreographing a fight scene'. I liked it because you could pull off nearly everything that is now considered a 'combat feat' without having to take a feat first. I hate to say it but theres a part of me that feels like fighters have become weaker for having to 'invest' in...

Love the Takeda style three fold model. I'm with you in preferring the simulationist--recognizing of course that the other parts drop into when needed or fun. Beyond that--I like the open concept world. The motivations are generally better as they are developed by the players and this leads to more involved gaming.

Without getting all academic regarding human sacrifice.

Please feel free to get academic regarding this point. I'm aware of the el dorado story and the myth of Adonis...in these cases the term king should be used loosely. They selected a young man, dressed him up and called him king and then killed him. You can bet it wasn't the actual seated king on the throne who swam to his death. The Swedish King Dolmade is recorded in the Yngling Saga--but that is of questionable provenience and the story is considered by many to be a myth. Moreover--if you read the saga it seems far more like the story of a number of chiefs moving to remove a political obstacle rather than a forthright ritual of sacrifice.

The thing is that human sacrifice fall under the following broad categories:

They are all evil. But an evil act is sometimes justifiable.

As for the coup de grace? Evil. Completely evil. But a necessary one that does not automatically make the individual evil. I'm personally opposed to capital punishment. But I'm not opposed to it in a lifeboat or during war.

There are exingencies in those situations that make the evil an acceptable one.

Killing an unconscious foe is an evil act. However, there is evil and there is evil...if when waking the foe would still be a threat and there is no legitimate way of dealing with him then it is a necessary evil. If you have met a person in open combat and they have fallen then it is an acceptable evil as the combatant has engaged in the expectation he will die. Cutting the throat of an enemy who has surrendered? Completely evil but also acceptable if you happen to be in a life boat--or the enemy is a baby eating demon who can't control his urges. If you are wandering about a battlefield cutting throats to take the loot--still evil--but something an otherwise neutral person could be seen doing.

The point is that people commit evil acts. Good people commit evil acts--neutral people commit evil acts and evil people commit evil acts.

The act is evil yes--but what makes the character evil is the motivation behind it.

As for human sacrifice--this is always an evil act. It is done--but only in extremis in most cultures in history. That is that it was only ever considered when all else failed.

The Romans found it an abomination. Agamemnon was vilified by gods and men for his sacrifice. The Aztecs glutted themselves on it and waged war to bring captives in to sacrifice them. The bog sacrifices in northern Europe and the viking sacrifices almost certainly involved chattel or slaves.

Full members of a tribe were almost never sacrifices to a god--with the exception of the central american--specifically Aztec systems where anyone but the priests were game and there is a considerably weighty theory that it was done partially to get some protein in the diet.

The crusaders had the "extreme unction" blessing that was granted by the pope allowing all actions, murder, rape and mutilation as not a sin in the eyes of god. Still evil--but with a dispensation. I'm sure we could imagine a good knight and an evil one acting after that. I'd say the good knight quickly dispatches his fallen foes, does not abuse women or children and keeps the plundering to a minimum... Even though he is technically allowed to. The evil knight now has an excuse to do what he will...and with justification.

my comments were thoughts on the OP's question

Rocketman1969 wrote:

is it reasonable to expect players to understand when they are outmatched and to expect them to run away.

The GM controls what the players run into, even if the GM rolls on random tables, they are still making a decision to have their players be able to run into creatures that they will be unable to defeat. So I was making suggestions on things to keep in mind for these types of encounters. I am also writing for the type of GM who wants to make an entertaining experience for their players, not an idiot who thinks GMing is me vs the players and I win by killing them all.

I wasn't talking about when you are in a fight that is supposed to be balanced for your party level and it goes bad. Those things happen, you can't really plan for luck. Dragon wins initiative, breathes fire, hits entire party, rolls max damage, they all fail their saving throws. Might have been a balanced encounter, but the players got terribly unlucky. In these situations, I think you can definitely expect your players to realize they need to retreat, regroup and try again.

I think it's also worth noting that to you the GM it might be obvious that the players should run, but it might not be to the players. Especially once you are in mid level ranges, where you are defeating huge monsters. Unless your players have memorized the bestiaries and are shameless metagamers, they will probably try to fight. (even making knowledge rolls to identify the creature doesn't really tell you what challenge rating it is. And running away because their roll of 35 failed the knowledge check would be metagaming).

I've had players attempt to push on into places and situations where not only did the rest of the party say no. But I, as the GM, said out right--if you go there you will die. He started to act like a suck then.

In this campaign I had a bunch of fifth level characters going against a stone Golem. Well above the CR for the party. They succeeded because they plausibly came up with solutions and the Golem was specifically set to guard an area. I thought they would have simply pushed on once they figured out how to get past this guardian--but "Mr. I march ahead" forced the issue-always forcing the issue. Well he's gone now. And we are all much happier. And my gamers run--oh they run.

Nice discussion.I would agree with the notices and pitfalls mentioned in most of these posts.

I'm especially interested in the simulationist, gamist, narrativeness breakdown.

I guess I agree with Jeff--the game rules for the world should be set at the design and character creation stage. The game session should have some sops to the gamist side. In the end there has to be stres and that should be worked out with input from the characters skill set and ability--as for narrative...that's why I like the sandbox. The story gets made up as you go along. The non-sandbox bits are like stones in a matrix--and the characters can pick and choose where they go and how they embrace it.

In sandboxes--the idea of a common goal or hook that keeps players together is an excellent one and one that I use constantly.

In campaign 1 the players are actually a collection of spies for a crown prince.

In campaign 2 they are shipwreck survivors in a continent they do not know.

In a 3rd campaign they were part of a named mercenary company.

Adding to the list.

That's why I'm actually a big fan of future history. "We leave by boat. Ah--tsunami scheduled for that time."

Rocketman1969 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Non-sandbox games allow character growth as well. Strongly railroaded games may not, but there's a lot of room between a railroad and the classic sandbox.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I'm speaking in my experience the sandboxes just really shine for character idiosyncrasies and excellent back stories. It allows choice as well with repercussions and finally really allows for the effect of the characters to be felt--they change the worlds by their actions.

Now this can be done in an AP or other campaign path type situation--no question other types can include these features--i just find it easier in the sandbox to make it happen.

Well, my limited experience with sandboxes has been pure hack and slash with little development or motivation beyond "Kick down the door, kill the monster, get the treasure."

Whereas I'd consider the APs to be heavily railroaded campaigns, much more so than than I'd like. That's not a criticism, published really need to be. There can't be the same level of freedom as when you can actually change whole sections of the campaign in response to player actions.

Exactly what do you mean by sandbox, anyway? The term is used pretty broadly as anything from loot driven dungeon crawls to heavily character motivated stories. With varying degrees of GM created plots. Again ranging from none to lots of NPCs all with their own schemes and agendas.

Sandbox is usually brought up on these boards in relation to stuff just being in the world and the party choosing its challenges rather than only encountering CR appropriate monsters. That's not really the context you're talking about, I don't think.

i'm talking about a well defined game world where the characters can choose to travel where they will and interact with a larger and more open world. it can be any style of play--but world events have potential inputs that have a lasting effect.

Non-sandbox games allow character growth as well. Strongly railroaded games may not, but there's a lot of room between a railroad and the classic sandbox.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I'm speaking in my experience the sandboxes just really shine for character idiosyncrasies and excellent back stories. It allows choice as well with repercussions and finally really allows for the effect of the characters to be felt--they change the worlds by their actions.

Now this can be done in an AP or other campaign path type situation--no question other types can include these features--i just find it easier in the sandbox to make it happen.

The thing about sandboxes is it allows that character growth. I need to go find my brother--my father has died--i have sworn this and must climb that to make it happen.

I also find it much easier to set up a website with the game information on it so people can look into it themselves.

The world I have now is on-line and though it steals images and material from everywhere--it gives folks a really good grounding and lets them look into it themselves and craft their own back story.

The death of a character is really rare in my campaigns due to my optional death rule and the character point mechanic.

If you go into dead negatives you can elect to die--Which happened last session with one of the party and roll a new one or you can take permanent damage in terms of stats, move, Ac, skills or saves.

You lost an eye or a hand or your liung was punctured or you have become horribly scarred.

I'm on side to make the experience fun--and sometimes that near death expereince really jacks up the energy level--having people in the party angry at me for a close call with another character? Excellent.

But I always leave a way out.

Cranefist--excellent point. The end result can be epic though especially if you are dealing with continents as I generally do.

I like the idea of e12 for my present campaign.

Make sure you have a cover if you live in a community with outdoor cats.

And a shovel and pail. Can't forget the shovel and pail.

I only really gm in the sandbox. Part of my love for the game is sub-creation--world design. The degrees in Anthropology and Archaeology lend themselves to crafting sandbox worlds with cultures and realities all their own. I build continents to play on--so options are wide open.

Now--I do take PF modules and re-skin them all the time because as much as I love the sandbox--adventurers also like story arcs and character development that comes along with chained adventures.

How do you do this for a continent when you players might hop a ship well away from your carefully planned adventure?

I have a couple of suggestions:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Anyone else?

I use a different mechanic for damage that seems to soften the low levels and NPC's but keeps high level people well within the range of dying from a weapon strike.

helps. The rolled Hit points are called soak. You can take all of your soak without penalty--its you getting progressively tired, off balance, singed, abraded or knocked about--not blood--no broken bones. You regain all of your soak with a nights sleep.

You also have HIT POINTs-these are equal to your characters constitution score and do not change.

Once your soak is gone you start taking HIT POINTS--these are the actual wounds. Each hit point applies a -1 penalty to all d20 rolls.

Critical hits can either do multiplier damage to SOAK or single damage directly to HIT POINTS.

If you take hit point damage you need to roll a Fort save versus 10+the damage or be stunned, or bleed or be impaled--which leaves you with flatfooted AC and at half move until the weapon is removed--then you bleed.

The character point mechanic allows you to transfer the critical damage to soak for a point--however you can't remove the amount of damage equal to the weapon multiplier. So a x3 weapon would always do 3 points of HIT POINT Damage with the rest transferred to soak even iof you spent the point.

Falling damage is split between soak and hit points with situational modifiers reducing or adding to damage. Fifty feet is the generally accepted lethal level in real life where you are 95% going to die. Rolls and soft landings can alter this. But no one falls from 200 feet in game and lives without some serious explanation.

It's gritty--but they love it.

And the thing is--that blacksmith with the 16 constitution? You have to do sixteen points to kill him--and he is going to get worse with each strike--like a normal person does when they are wounded. The first level mage? Buffed a bit by the rule change.

Ask him to hold up his right hand. When he does grab two fingers each in both of yours and pull apart as hard as you can. Not only will this cripple his hand but it will automatically cause him to bend forward at the waist. you lift your knee up at the same time and the impact should break his jaw. If he isn't unconscious at that point a stomp to the side of the head should do the trick. Next find a really large body of water and a hardware store--rent a boat and a wood chipper and ten gallons of industrial soap....

Somebody always has to ruin the fun by reminding everybody that Conan of the books IS a barbarian in the true sense of the word. That is, he comes from a barbarian tribe in a barbarous land.

The Pathfinder/D&D barbarian is a new construct, and may as well have been called Blaburglubliblu, for all its relationship to barbarians of the real world or their literary counterparts.

Thus, judging Conan by the revisioning of a word into an abstract game concept is really insulting to Conan. And real life. And pretty much everything not in the pages of a Pathfinder book.

my dear Crom yes! yes! and one more time. I was hoping i wasn't the only one thinking this. Conan in the books was the greatest fighting man of his age which in Pathfinder would make him about 7th level. Come on folks--he was nearly killed by an ape. He was taken out by ghouls. He nearly died against the spider in the elephant tower and won against most of his non-human foes due to a handily placed object of singular use.

Please, as a serious fan--Conan does not fit into the pathfinder world. This game is as far away from the literary roots of the genre as a game can be. Seriously. I just read in another thread how a barbarian fell 200 feet and laughed it off--superheroes--pathfinder characters are super heroes not fantasy characters.

Playing mini6 Solomon Kane. I'm playing an Algonquin warrior and cohort of a british pirate played by another player.

We got a bit heated and the other player told me to suck his ...well...you get the picture.

I didn't break character and in my best Apache Chief rip off voice said: "You told me that was how your people said hello..."

You are missing out. I run great games.

As do I. But as I said La la la...human steps.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I see... more clarification then

Clarification wasn't needed. Perhaps a bit of introspection, but not clarification.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.

When a GM claims that he'll kill a player character's horse because the player used math, then I would find it very difficult to trust that GM. As would most people, I suspect.

That was a joke. Obviously I didn't tell it well--and you don't have the insight to perhaps consider that-- having said that--lets just say even given the chance I would never play a game with Ciretos or Bookrat and Bookrat and Ciretos would never play a game with me.

Our styles just wouldn't mesh.

Let's leave it at that. The twain shall never meet. La da da--What's for lunch...

Hey man. I've been on this site for about a month. I have the same kind of viewpoint that your do to a certain degree. I'm lucky enough to have actual actors as players in my games--they understand that at the end of the day the director calls the shots to a degree.

Having said that--you are simply going to get a lot of hostility pomposity and handwaving of any complaint you have by the general folks here. That's okay--understand that Pathfinder is a superheroic game. The convention is that all of the stuff in all rule books is equally allowable. So eidolon summoner rogue paladins are possible. And that's fine--but it isn't the type of rpg I have any interest in taking part in.

I'm using some basic parts of the pathfinder set right now but it isn't the norm on this site.

The general view here is that the Rules as Written are the main resource--that a player should be allowed to multi-class even if you don't like it as GM. And that isn't wrong. It's just not a reality I would play in.

As for your characters just being some people who picked up swords--thats a cool start. If they live long enough and accomplish enough they just might become something more right?

It's where I would generally like to see characters starting from--but this system doesn't start you out like that. It is a completely technical base that you can drape various levels of RPing on top of. For the most part it doesn't seem like very much of it--though you can't generalize too much.

Thus the shorthand for the WOW and Strawman fallacies cited above by someone who read it somewhere else and now is dropping it on you to instantly dismiss anything you have said. Get used to that attitude.

THe fact is that Pathfinder is not a world agnostic system at its core. So players read and cite rules as if they are completely equal actors in the world and expect you to bow down to it. If that's acceptable then fine. If it isn't --then don't play with those types of player.

I'm not sure what an E6 game is, so I will check up on it. I'm trying to avoid mythic because they players *really* want it and I personally think it's just a little too much.

I understand how the gnome felt, but there were other things for him to do. For instance, he was flying when the floor fell, so he was safe somewhere. From there he could have either:

Held an action to cast on the gunslinger when he stepped out of antimagic to attack.
OR
Flown down to the party and shoot zombies. They only had 3-4 hp each and were there merely to buy the gunslinger some time before the party could get up him and destroy him.

I do understand what you're saying about the rules though. I try *not* to completely crap all over the rules, but sometimes I feel it's necessary to keep game flow instead of: "Wait, why does this guy have so many minions all of a sudden?"

I'm not a fan of high level, myself. Thankfully, this campaign only has another three or four sessions before they wrap it up.

I'd look at the comments directly under what I've quoted--that guy has some good points.

I couldn't gm that game. I couldn't gm those players in that setting. It's like--uh--fingernails down a chalkboard. It sounds like you prefer a grittier game--with actual potential costs for the characters.

You can have a discussion prior to the next session give them the options and let the chips fall so to speak. Remember you are there to have fun too. It might even be an idea to play some other game systems. You are not doing it wrong--it seems to me that you are just running a game you have real problems with the expectations.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

No, you're not. I've actually never met you. You're somebody posting on an internet thread. That means you don't get to pull that card, you're just one opinion out of many and your house rules are valid targets for any sort of criticism I or anyone else wants to throw at you.

Wow that's a new level of purposeful misreading of intent.

In my games as GM what I am saying is your right to contest the rules ends at my final decision.

If you don't like it as a player you recourses are are to hold off until after the game to discuss it further, to accept that not everything in the game is going to be to your personal satisfaction and accept it or to swear in my face and drop threats or take your ball and go home.

You on the internet will never play in one of my games but if there was a "hypothetical" game the above rule would apply. Hopefully we would have all of that worked out before our "hypothetical" game but if not--then we would hopefully work the problem out amicably. However, as I said at the end of the day--the world definition and what is allowable will be my decision.

I have stood firm. I have been convinced. I have reversed a previous decision based on a good conversation. I have also calmly refused the attempt and had some serious disrespect on the issue thrown my way.

At the end of the day--the responsibility for balancing everyones fun at the table is ultimately mine as GM. If we can't agree with that--we can play a board game where everyone is a player.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

Lobolusk wrote:

Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

So I think from my read of this thread--as long as the expectation of every single rule in the game is discussed prior to game play and agreed upon--when the game has started the player should determine via the RAW what is allowable and what the GM thinks at that point is immaterial.

Okay. That seems reasonable.

So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

I've lost you.

Are you saying that you're the GM and therefore feel free to ignore RAW at any point without informing the players ahead of time?

What I'm saying is we can work to decide the rules as best we can ahead of time--but if something comes up and there is a disagreement the players vote as to the outcome has merit but not equal value with the decision of the GM. In that case after a lively discussion a decision will be made. By the GM.
Or that you'll follow RAW with the previously discussed changes, but you get to decide what those changes are?
If it's the latter, what does your last paragraph have to do with anything?
If it's the former, what happens when I do something based on RAW and you then inform me for the first it works entirely differently?

Rocketman, why do you believe "respect" is equivalent to "adheres to my every whim?"

Strawman, ( And,might I add, a very blatant one. You are usually much better than this.) It is not about my every whim. It is me saying no to something not out of fiat--but because part of my job is to define the game universe and to ensure a balanced good time. It is about respecting my judgement within the game when a potentially divisive or unbalancing aspect is at issue.

Where does simply showing respect for the person who organized the game and the rest of the players around the table constitute "my every whim."

I will grant that if I sat there saying no. Absolutely not--you require no explanation--I am god. Then I'm not doing my job very well. And I don't GM like that--but sometimes mastering a game means making a decision--you are either going to allow that decision or the game stops.

If I am put face to face with a rule and I look it over and I think it imbalances the game or doesn't fit into the scenario--and I briefly explain and still get grief over it I can deal with that--but at the end of the day I will have to insist.

Multiple confrontations like that and the fun starts to descend into chaos and a waste of time.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

While I completely agree with the game as a collaborative efforts--The fact is, that the players in my game simply have to come and sit down and play.

They get fed--most times out of my pocket or my efforts- they get drinks--they get an immersive adventure with products I have used a chunk of my cash to purchase to make their experience better and even a ride home at the end of it.

If they are going to distrust my GMing to the point of conflict over this kind of issue--then I don't need them in my game or --frankly --in my life. It isn't just a gaming contract--its the kind of selfish "me first" crap that I wouldn't accept from my six year old let alone an adult gamer.

Discussions and disagreements can happen and do--but I have the ultimate say in what is allowable in the game world and what isn't. Not the player--not the RAW.

At the very least--there needs to be a whole hell of a lot more respect than I've seen on this board for the effort put in by any GM to make the experience happen for their players.

The outrage from certain players is ridiculous. So to be clear --I'm setting certain rules for the world--If I ask for a justification then give me one. If I determine that your multi-classing doesn't work in the game world it is not for you to sit there and get in my face over it. You have a choice--convince me how it works in context and I'll allow it--or don't and I won't. Then you have a choice; play or don't. And if you show enough disrespect in your dealings with me--you won't even have that choice.

So --if you have a question or a comment as a player in my game be assured I will listen and attempt to be fair--But don't expect me to put most of the g+~!*~ned work into a game to have someone tell me how it is going to go down and think that they are going to have final say in the issue.

...

I see... more clarification then--If I have put in the bulk of the effort--then in fairness I should have the benefit of the doubt. If you decide your game play experience takes precedence over everyone else's because the character is yours then that is what I'm talking about.

Now I've had this situation happen before. It actually involved one of my players threatening--physically--another person in MY house. This individual was not invited back because HIS good time--didn't outweigh everyone elses.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.

Rocketman1969 wrote:

I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

So what if you're the GM at MY house Rocketman? Do you have to follow MY rules at MY Table in MY house? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.

Tell you what--you are the GM i follow your rules or I don't play your game. Now in 99% percent of the cases we are going to get along famously. In the 1% situation the outcome of that disagreement will be based on whether the outcome is a deal breaker. If it is --I'll thank you for your efforts and head on my way.

While I completely agree with the game as a collaborative efforts--The fact is, that the players in my game simply have to come and sit down and play.

They get fed--most times out of my pocket or my efforts- they get drinks--they get an immersive adventure with products I have used a chunk of my cash to purchase to make their experience better and even a ride home at the end of it.

If they are going to distrust my GMing to the point of conflict over this kind of issue--then I don't need them in my game or --frankly --in my life. It isn't just a gaming contract--its the kind of selfish "me first" crap that I wouldn't accept from my six year old let alone an adult gamer.

Discussions and disagreements can happen and do--but I have the ultimate say in what is allowable in the game world and what isn't. Not the player--not the RAW.

At the very least--there needs to be a whole hell of a lot more respect than I've seen on this board for the effort put in by any GM to make the experience happen for their players.

The outrage from certain players is ridiculous. So to be clear --I'm setting certain rules for the world--If I ask for a justification then give me one. If I determine that your multi-classing doesn't work in the game world it is not for you to sit there and get in my face over it. You have a choice--convince me how it works in context and I'll allow it--or don't and I won't. Then you have a choice; play or don't. And if you show enough disrespect in your dealings with me--you won't even have that choice.

So --if you have a question or a comment as a player in my game be assured I will listen and attempt to be fair--But don't expect me to put most of the goddamned work into a game to have someone tell me how it is going to go down and think that they are going to have final say in the issue.

Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

So I think from my read of this thread--as long as the expectation of every single rule in the game is discussed prior to game play and agreed upon--when the game has started the player should determine via the RAW what is allowable and what the GM thinks at that point is immaterial.

Okay. That seems reasonable.

So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

I've been thinking about deities in Pathfinder and I have a few questions. Let's use the ever-popular Iomedae as an example. She is the deity of valor, justice, and honor.

(1) But what does it mean to embody those concepts?
(2) How did she come to embody those concepts?
(3) How can someone who doesn't follow Iomedae, or even who specifically rebukes Iomedae, still be honorable or act with Justice? Do the deities have a monopoly on the virtues they embody? And if not, what's the point?
(4) Does a deity become more powerful simply be people worshiping that deity? For example, does Iomedae become more powerful the more followers she gains?
(5) Relatedly, does anytime a person is honorable in the world, whether or not they worship Iomedae, make iomedae more powerful since they are contributing to "honor"?
(6) If someone were to slay Iomedae, what would happen? Would they literally rip control over those domaind and those virtus from Iomedae and grab control of them? What if a dishonorable person with no valor slayed her?
(7) If she died, and no one took control of those virtues/domains, would honor/justice/etc. still exist in this world?
(8) have i been smoking too much pot?

1) Which came first the god or the concept. If the concept did then a) the god may just be a power who gains strength and purpose for an immortal existence by becoming one with the concept. If b) the opposite the concept itself may have spontaneously generated the being as its avatar. 2) see 1 3) If 1 a then they can't if 1 b) then they can if there is a different avatar. Or perhaps it is the common will of the worshipper that crafts the shape of the god. Perhaps allah, jaweh and Jesus christ are all the smae god with different manifestations--perhaps every god is--and mirrors the aspect of the people who find it and worship it. 4) Thats up to you--but it doesn't surprise me that the religions with the largest followers usually get to set the morality 5) if you believe in fairies does one get its wings? 6) if you are at that point it is beyond my ability to fix your campaign--or in a nicer fashion--that is up to you as the GM to decide--the procession of events after the fact. Perhaps the dishonorable would instantly become so--perhaps even become Iomedae herself reborn because that is the form the concept requires--or perhaps the world falls to darkness unless the goddess is revived...immortals never truly die right? 7) once again--your choice--from a narrative aspect I'd consider--maybe yes all of it is gone except for one player character who strives to bring it back, or the party quests to stop or reverse the slow decline in these aspects in the world before it is too late--or perhaps one of the previous scenarios happen--your choice and finally 8) i don't know. Do you think you have?