Sadurian's page

My character is a witch archetype and I've decided to do a real pick'n'mix with skills.

Mainly Wizard, but also Rogue (for Stealth) and Fighter (just because I wanted to be able to handle a variety of weapons for flexibility). I will also be taking a major dip into Druid when it arrives. The major emphasis, however, is in Apothecary and Alchemist. Nothing says 'witch' to me like being able to create lotions and potions.

I'd rather other problems were looked at first. Anything that reduces performance (like extra graphics) should wait until the basic game functions are fixed, and players have the option of turning their graphics settings up or down.

Yes, a good-looking game might attract players, but they'll soon leave if that lovely-looking game crashes and bugs at every opportunity. More seriously, they'll then share their poor experiences with others online and the game will attract a negative reputation.

I think GW would rather have a review that reads - 'good game but graphics still need polishing' than, 'lovely graphics but the game is rubbish'.

Yes, landscape graphics are important to the final game, but so are plenty of other features. I think playability and internal mechanics should be a higher priority than cosmetics.

Looks like I shall be heading to Alderwag then.

Hmmmm. Shopping.....

Apart from anything else (although most assuredly not my angle or 'scene') playing a werewolf will appeal to those potential players who are 'furries' and like to play animal characters!

Frankly, any schtick or lure to entice new players can only be a good thing, be it ever so small or ever so ignorable by those who do not wish to participate.

More broadly, the popularity of games like White Wolf's 'Werewolf' and so forth cannot be ignored. No, Werewolf is not Pathfinder, but then PFO is not really Pathfinder either. The Golarian multiverse contains werewolves (and similar shapeshifters - I'd love to play a werecat of some description) and is always subject to change. There is no good reason that I can see why introducing a few PC-controlled lycanthropes would be bad for the game - so long as balance is maintained for other players and for the characters themselves.

I don't see 'Pathfinder doesn't have werewolves as a playable race' as a valid argument against having them in PFO. Pathfinder has plenty of legitimate player-race and class options that are unlikely to ever become part of PFO, and indeed having player-controlled characters infected by lycanthropy is an option presented in the canon PnP books, even if it isn't a suggested starting race.

I'm effectively playing a werewolf character in PnP Pathfinder at the moment. I play a Okami True Primitive Barbarian/Druid/Nature Warden. The Okami is a 3rd Party wolfen version of the Kitsune and allows hybrid and human forms, with wolf and dire wolf forms bought as racial Feats (which I have done).

The rest of the party are agreeably confused as my normal form (Druid shapeshifting complicates matters no end), but I have agreed with the GM that my 'base' form is actually that of the dire wolf. Instead of a human who turns into a wolf I am a wolf who turns into a human (sometimes).

Once GW have built the basic framework to allow shapeshifting for druids and polymorphing wizards, the opportunities to introduce other shapeshifting concepts can get going. Hopefully, those with a strong player-base support and sketched out ideas will be taken up.

I have to say that this is the first time I've encountered this thread, not being as avid a forum-follower as I would like (real life sucks).

I love the idea, though, and Malaficia (my nature-orientated druid/witch) would like to sign up to your newsletter. If she were a lycanthrope, which obviously she's not. I mean, haha, all that disruption once a month is ... um... "woman's trouble" and nothing to do with lycanthropy. Obviously.

My two pennyworth is that a changed lycanthrope should not be able to distinguish one member of a race from another, should only have a very limited 'pack' of acquaintances with which she is comfortable, and should be forced to unequip all gear once changed.

On the flipside, she should be a powerful ambush/pack predator and accumulate a separate strand of experience from the human form. Obviously Werewolf trainers would be rather hard to find, so being able to gain wolfen skills and abilities might be tricky, necessitating visiting CN/CE-friendly druidic trainers during the full moon.

No cross-over of XP or abilities should be allowed, the character should literally become a different and wholly distinct person/animal.

The upside? It would be something different, something liberating and something fun to play out. If that isn't enough, then don't take the Curse!

I don't see why anyone would want to restrict an ability that pretty much defines a character class.

The witch is there to buff the other party members and debuff the enemy. That's her main task. To cackle she needs to use a move action, which is pretty significant.

To impose penalties for the witch to use her class abilities would be to start on a slippery slope. Do you also restrict the number of times a fighter can use his Power Attack or the number of hours he gets to wear his heavy armour? Do you decide that magic users have to test for laryngitis after casting five spells in a row? How about the rogue testing to avoid sneezing whilst sneaking up for a Sneak Attack? Druids can't Shapeshift if they are within 30' of metal?

Buffing the party is part of the class ability. Nobody would play a witch if the class's primary ability was arbitrarily nerfed through GM fiat.

A bard who entertains his colleague's undead horde with inspiring music - I love that idea!

All together now, #'Cause this is thriller, thriller night
And no one's gonna save you from the beast about to strike.

I believe the time-tested technique is to have a beautiful woman blow gently across them while they rest on your palm.

Sorry what?

Oh right - the dice are in your palm.

This thread reminded me of an old Fantasy trope, that of the beautiful humanoid extra-planar being enslaved by the evil wizard for his pleasure.

That might work as an NPC Summoner/Eidolon relationship and see the Eidolon help the PCs in small ways to kill the Summoner, but probably isn't a suitable scenario for PC Summoners in most games.

In a world where magic and shapeshifting are relatively common, eating sentient being might be more difficult to avoid than in the Real World....

Is that crippled moose actually a wild-shaped druid or has been Awakened? You kill it for food and suddenly you've murdered an innocent sentient being who was coming to you for help. Cue Evil DM laughter as the paladin falls into his trap. Cue sound of D20 striking DM between the eyes.

That seems to be about right. 48 000 is a lot of cash, however!

I'd certainly prefer a combat system that rewards the character being skilled, rather than the ability of the player to mash buttons. This has been covered on plenty of other threads, however, and I don't think a consensus was reached.

A PF game I joined recently was being GMed by the boyfriend of one of the players. No inherent problem there - my regular game is run by the husband of a player. However... the girlfriend (playing a low-INT female barbarian who spoke like an ikkle gurl all the time... yeah) was a couple of levels ahead of us and was the PC that all the important NPCs entrusted the plot to.

Now I could roll my eyes and tolerate that for a game. But then... 'we'll let John GM for a change because he's been wanting to for a while. We'll use the same characters.'

John was an experienced gamer of the bad sort. He had Ideas! He'd spent years meticulously drawing out a city state using professional design software, including minor architectural details and all-fleshed-out NPC inhabitants. It was all cross-referenced and we were going to be immersed in it. Oh yes. He had a laptop of Doom with his game world in it, and would navigate it as we explored. No journey was a simple street, it was a tour-guided immersion experience of the worst sort.

John was also a GM who liked to play out social interactions without using dice. Your character background, experience, skills and stats meant nothing, he made decisions of how your PC interacted by how you, the player, interacted with him. Even seductions.

John decided that the party were travelling by ship when they were shipwrecked. They had all their gear taken and were being held prisoner by the local crime gang. Then the gang wanted them to go adventuring for them in return for letting the PCs have their own gear back, a bit at a time.

John's 'adventure' was a murder mystery. It was an excuse for his ultra-detailed city to be the star of the game. We had no real clues, we had no gear, we had no real motivation, we had no chance to use our PC skills. Every new location was described in embarrassing detail, including the style of decorative carvings, whether or not it was relevant.

My only battle was in avoiding strangling the GM to demonstrate what my PC was doing to the NPC.

I didn't last the session.

Rocks. 99% of the time rocks are free,

"Oh, not like these, sir. Look at this! Feel the quality of that, that's craftmanship, sir."

(courtesy of Monty Python's Life of Brian).

You've neatly illustrated another point that I was going to make.

We all have different ideas of what is 'attractive'. I'm a straight male and prefer women with some meat on their bones, others like skinny and busty, skinny and boyish, athletic, tall and slim, short and fat, and so on and so forth.

Gay friends say that the same works for them with men, there are fans of 'bears' for whom huge and hairy is good, those who like slimmer and less hairy and all the other ranges in the spectrum.

I know of some women who like short bald men. Others like 'pretty boys', still others prefer mean and moody, and so on.

The problem with all this in artwork is that an artist/publisher will probably be swayed by media images. Hence the portrayals that come straight from 'Models 'R' Us'. If an artist paints a particular look and gets positive feedback, he or she will probably go for that look again. All questions as to why his or her illustrations have enormous boobs and blonde hair will be met with 'because that what the public wants'.

Unfortunately for that argument, the public is made of a lot of different opinions. Who here hasn't thought an advert was rubbish and inappropriate, despite the ad agency believing that they were targeting what the 'public wants'?

If there were three art portfolios of fantasy illustration; one showing 'cheesecake', one showing sanitised but supermodel-level characters, and one showing worn and realistic adventurers, I would buy the last portfolio. Which would sell more copies isn't hard to predict, but that doesn't mean that the entire market wants that sort of artwork.

I'd love a fantasy illustrator to come out with a portfolio of illustrations of what 'real' adventuring and adventurers look like. I doubt it will happen however, because 'that's not what the market wants'.

Relevant to this thread but slightly tangential, one of the fantasy paintings that always sticks in my mind showed an experienced adventurer at an inn holding an audience with what were assumed to be less experienced adventurers.

One of the audience was a female, but she was distinctly on the plain side; she was 'chunky' (not fat but hefty), looked a little worn down and actually looked like someone who travelled about the place killing monsters for a living.

That image stayed with me but I cannot recall who the painting was by. It would be one of the famous fantasy artists (Achillios or Elmore possibly) because the image was in a portfolio of fantasy paintings.

Anyway, I'd love to see more 'ordinary' people being illustrated. People who look like adventurers rather than supermodels. I have no objection to a few 'eye-candy' examples, but I'd really like illustrations where the adventurers don't look like they've just stepped out of the styling boutique.

Irrelevant. This post is about how a Paladin can regain his powers within the rules of Pathfinder!

I think you know about the Atonement spell already.

You were asking about whether you were bullying your player. I think the answer to that is as clear as your knowing about how a fallen paladin regains his powers with the Pathfinder rules.

Second, the party's fifth member (a bard) chose to stay behind in Town. This character also speaks Goblin, and was meant to translate the Goblin babbling into pleads for mercy for the party.

As I said on a different thread, if you want to tell a story that isn't subject to modification through player actions, write a book, not a game scenario.

From what you say, the only way that the party could have learnt what was going on relied on a single party member being present, the only way to be 'successful' was to do things exactly as you had planned. That is known as railroading.

The player chose not to leave town but he could have been absent for any number of reasons, or even decided on a change of character. As the GM, you are expected to be able to go with the changes as they occur, not sit back and punish the party because they haven't followed a script.

I prefer humans because I can visualise their concept better. My last non-human was a theatre-loving inventor dwarf bard who I played because I liked the idea (which grew from an early Pratchett novel).

If someone accused me of min-maxing at the table simply because I had a human I would laugh at them.

The problem here is that there are two different strands to this thread:

1. Should the party, within the context of the game, be blamed for their actions as presented to us by the OP?

2. Is what the OP is telling us the whole truth?

I'd suggest that the party were in the wrong if they acted as described. Were I put in that situation as a player, it wouldn't take long for me to realise that something was amiss. I think most other parties composed of appropriately-played good characters would find some other way to subdue them, or at least have qualms about wholesale slaughter.

However, it appears that the OP is not being entirely transparent. Past evidence points to a deliberate alignment trap. If this is the case, and he obviously didn't mention it in the initial post, I would have real doubts as to whether this encounter went the way he claims.

So, the slaughter was wrong but the GMing may well have been even more wrong. It shouldn't be the paladin that falls and has to atone, but the GM.

Yeah... umm... well,

Our local supermarket was selling off boxes of twelve little fluffy toy Easter chicks for 25p each so I bought a box.

I'd love to use them in Pathfinder somehow. My character is an okami (wolfen kitsune) barbarian/druid/nature warden.

Any suggestions for crowbarring a dozen chickens into the game? Some spell or side-effect? Maybe something on the Animal Handling route?

You may have guessed that it really shouldn't be too serious and I'm not really looking for mechanical benefits, possibly quite the opposite. Luckily my group has a loose enough sense of humour to appreciate an occasional small chicken invasion.

Paladin broke the village, paladin should rebuild village as his atonement.

Not just doing all he can to bring back to life the dead goblins, but then to base himself there as teacher/handyman/guard. I suppose he really ought to be there for the rest of his life, but that's a tad harsh for a PC. He really ought to 'adopt' the place though, and spend his free time (and cash) helping it.

I'm with many of the others in this thread; sexuality is in the setting and not the game rules. As there are no rules for sex that are defined by gender there are no rules for homosexuality.

I've included homosexuality in characters and settings but never felt the need to introduce rules for it. It's like having red hair - you note it for your character and play the character accordingly.

It may have magic, but I think it would be hard to convincingly argue that Pathfinder (and D&D) are primarily based in anything but version of a European medieval world. The base technology is European medieval, the cultural style is European medieval, the basic bestiary is medieval and the social world is European medieval.

Even the magic and religions reflect a medieval mindset. Golems, whilst not European medieval exactly, were certainly known to the medieval scholar through religious texts.

That said, using medieval weights and measures might be confusing. Using the old names would be fine, as long as the units they referred to were easy to use mathematically. I can handle a measurement being called a rod if I know that 1000 of them is a mile and I can walk three miles in an hour. No, it isn't a correct measure but it is easy to work with and gives some period flavour.

I would be happier if units of measurement had archaic names. It doesn't really matter what they represent as everything in the game is abstracted anyhow. Unless your character is a surveyor or mathematician, you're really not going to be bothered by in-depth calculations.

If I can carry 10xSTR in UNITS, then it doesn't matter mechanically if those UNITS are called pounds, kilograms or garglezillons. I know that 10 UNITS weigh more than 5, and that I'm going to struggle to carry 150 of them if I only have 12 STR.

Similarly, if I am told that City A is 100 UNITS from City B, and that I can travel 30 UNITS a day, then I know that I am looking at a three-day trip. If those UNITS are leagues, kilometres, miles or anything else, it doesn't change that fact that I need three days' travel. That's all I need to know, I'm not calculating a missile trajectory or laying out a railway.

Flavour-wise, I much prefer something with a pseudo-medieval feel. Kilometres and kilograms are far too modern for the feel of the game. I'm not expecting a complete medieval measurement system, just that the base units get more suitable names than modern metric.

Over here in the UK we have a bit of a trope against BMW drivers - they rarely use indicators, rarely drive under the speed limit, rarely give other drivers consideration, always hog the fast lane, and so on and so forth. I dare say other countries have similar views for drivers of different brands of car, but for us it is BMW drivers.

I should note that this is not really a post bashing BMW drivers nor the car. It simply using the commonly held stereotype to make the point.

Anyhow, the point is this. If the BMW driver is a bad and selfish driver, then surely he is going to be similarly bad driver in a Ford or Skoda. It is therefore not the car, it is the person driving it. Yes, they are attracted to the car because it says something to them, but that does not mean that an otherwise excellent driver will suddenly turn into a selfish roadhog because he is in a BMW.

Take that and apply it to alignments. A great player will not turn into a jerk because his character is CN. Nor will a jerk player become a great player because he is forced to play LG/NG or whatever. Yes, a jerk player is attracted to CN because he sees possibilities for being an idiot 'within the rules', but that does not mean that CN as an alignment is bad.

Don't blame the alignment, blame the player.

For the record, I've seen and played plenty of CN characters who are good party members.

You'll like this video then:

Schola Gladiatoria talks about swords versus spears.

Actually, all Schola Gladiatoria's videos are worth watching if you have an interest in medieval weapons.

Realistic for me every time. Cartoony anime or GamesWorkshop 'Chaos Spikey Bits' are not my taste at all. I'd rather see an avatar looking like some refugee from the Hundred Years War than a poster boy for XtremeArmor 'R' Us.

A good way to enrich the soil is to have a large battle over it. All that blood and bone is great for the soil, and the slaughter is definitely the RPG way to solve any problem. Just invite the local goblins to attack the village and play 'Magnificent Seven'.

If the only way to get the better gear is to indulge in FFA PvP then it is going to put off a lot of players, myself included. I play an RPG to interact with other characters, not to kill everyone else so that I can 'win'.

Luckily, it does not appear that this situation will be the case and long may that continue. Going to a FFA PvP area is likely to be its own reward for the type of player who wants to test themselves against other players rather than the environment. There are those who enjoy challenging and defeating other players and there are those who prefer other aspects of the game. Unless both types of player are treated equally, it is going to be perceived as a game where only the FFA PvP players get the good rewards.

I'd like to see cosmetically different weapons. When a longsword looks like any other longsword it disappoints me, but I will go out of my way to get a sword that fits the character.

For example, in GW2 I use the transform tokens a lot to keep the look of my weapons when I acquire new ones. My pirate character has swashbuckler gear, my 'paladin' has high medieval and my Saxon warrior has Dark-Age-looking weapons.

If a crafter could specify the appearance of the finished item (within limits, of course), it would make shopping around a much more worthwhile procedure. When your Arabic rogue knows a place he can buy a nice curved dagger, he's going to seek out that crafter if the player is concerned about his appearance and character. That means a settlement can have more crafters making a living by each specialising in a different appearance for their items.

Maybe have different crafter specialism skillsets branches to aim for - 'Eastern1' 'Eastern 2', 'Medieval4' and so on and so forth.

Plus some players (like me) have a great concept for a mysterious witch... but then they also like the idea of an Arthurian paladin. Oooh, but what about a hardened greatsword-wielding mercenary? Gnome jester?

I have more ideas for characters to play than I have money to support, but I'll try to trim my enthusiasm to suit my wallet. As Lifedragn points out, part of the problem is your real-world mindset that day might not always suit the character you play. Some days you want to build a complex network of political contacts, and sometimes you just want to grab a big axe and hurt something!

The Pathfinder Wiki is a good place to read up on background material for the Golarion setting.

Pathfinder Wiki list of deities.

Just remember that the Online version might be slightly different in approach.

Remember, at no point in history (except for the stone ages) did soldiers actually clash head-on into its enemies. Combats were fought in a series of skirmishes involving long-range weapons (slings, javelins and bow/crossbows) and melee combats were extremely coordinated between two armies.

Sorry, I couldn't let this pass.

Pre-gunpowder (and some post-) armies fought in head-on clashes. Long-range missile weapons were used to soften-up and draw out warriors but were rarely decisive. Until the English/Welsh war-bow ('longbow') and crossbows, long-range missile weapons simply weren't powerful enough to defeat armour and shields effectively enough to be significant.

Battles from Biblical, Classical, early Medieval ('Dark Age') and Medieval generally a similar pattern - a few exchanges of missile fire by those who had them (and not for long, if at all, if you knew that you were deficient in that area), a bit of a clash between rival skirmishers, then an advance into contact. Short-ranged missile fire (heavy javelins, pila, throwing axes, etc.) was exchanged during the advance as a means of disrupting the enemy formation.

The head-on clash then occurred. This could be the charge of 'barbarian' warriors, the clash of opposing shield walls, the crash of heavy infantry, foot knights or whatever. It was a blunt instrument and was certainly a head-on crash. Essentially, before the advent of effective and powerful long-range missile weapons, clashes between armies were indeed 'head-on clashes', possibly with a light smattering of skirmishing as they advanced.

Anything that is 'extremely coordinated' is looking at disaster without excellent communications, something pre-radio armies simply didn't have. It also relied on drill, discipline and thorough training. Examples such as the Roman Legions and the best of the classical Greek states aside, armies did not have that level of training.

If you are just dipping your toe in the saurian waters at present, might I suggest looking at d20pfsrd to start with, and moving on to the books when finances allow?

Your thread title is misleading - this has nothing to do with the alignment of the party members and everything to do with the behaviour of the players. It is not a character issue, it is a player issue.

CN characters do not have to be disruptive IC, I've played many a CN who was a loyal party member. A CN thief doesn't need to steal from their companions, in the same way as a CN fighter doesn't need to kill their allies. CN is a valid party alignment, what is not valid is a player who decides that he wants to be an immature disruptive special snowflake.

The same problem was prevalent in the early days of gaming. I recall plenty of 1st Ed. CE Halfling thieves who played as backstabbing pickpockets and would murder party members in their beds. That was before maturity and experience kicked in, and I haven't seen that sort of behaviour at the table since the mid-1980s.

If the players really believe that screwing the party is good roleplaying then so is having the other party members react by handing them over to the authorities or administering local justice. If the player is really all about 'good roleplaying' then they should relish being tried and executed for thievery by their former companions....

Skinny is another option that is rarely presented. Skinny women, yes (albeit almost always with big fun-pillows), but not really skinny guys. If you want to represent a Rincewind-style skinny wizard (or rather, Wizzard), you're out of luck. It's body-builder or nothing.

Would something need to be recorded in audio as soundtrack to play along with instumentation? It would be nice to fill taverns with such perhaps for Bards to "perform" some of their Sir Robin songs along with instruments actually played. Of course you'd need writers and half-good singers, too.

Can there be an option to terminate with extreme prejudice any bard bringing out his lute and strumming the first few bars of 'Stairway to Heaven'? Maybe a 'Heinious' flag...?

I've asked for overweight avatars before. I don't believe they will be available, sadly. The chance to have an overweight character, especially as not all PCs will be active fighting-types, would be a very nice option.

And yes, a female avatar without attached twin volley balls would be nice.

Stephen has said that there will probably be no Constructs or similar 'Pets' available to individual players (even Animal Companions and Familiars are in the balance). Therefore the ethics of building and using a Construct or permanent Animated Object are likely to be purely academic.

I would agree with you that it shouldn't be Evil, but also agree with a few posters who have mentioned that they wouldn't like to be living close to someone who happily uses bones to build such mannequins. PCs are meant to mirror our own moral and ethical stance to a degree, and I even got a little disturbed by Damien Hirst's range of preserved animals used as art!

That, I feel is where the fun of role-playing comes in. My character happily builds an animated mount out of horse bones, and has animated wolf bones as guards, but another character is horrified and tries to stop her. Fun for all but not an automatic in-game 'Heinous' hit or move to an Evil alignment.

Pathfinder has rules for weapons from the Stone Age all the way up to the Victorian Period. There is absolutely no need for a campaign to use them all in the same setting.

I am primarily a GURPS player and the problem is even worse with that system - it includes just about every genre and setting you can imagine, with consequently a huge range of technologies. Some players in a pseudo-Renaissance setting will still see rules for AK-74s and think, 'whoa, I'll buy one of them', before being gently reminded that they do not exist in the campaign setting.

Like the OP, I grew up with 1st Ed. AD&D. This was before I become more interested in history, mind, so I didn't see the anachronisms of plate armour (which was platemail, mail and plate in the late C13th style, in those days) being used alongside halberds and heavy crossbows (depending on your interpretation of 'halberd' and 'heavy' crossbow, of course).

Firearms is a big step for any pseudo-Medieval world, fantasy or not, and the addition of advanced firearms does not sit well with me. I can accept early muskets and hand cannon, but not six-guns. If players want to run about like Jesse James in a party with Conan, Gandalf and Sir Bedevere then so be it, I'm not the arbiter of what happens at other people's tables. Luckily, my group doesn't like firearms in the game, and (aside from an IC experimentation by a gadgeteer dwarf) we haven't used them.

I'm with the OP. I build a character to a concept and not to squeeze every last +1 out of the system. Sure I'll look at improving an attack if that's what the character is meant to be about, but not to the point where end up with a sheet full of numbers and classes that don't hang together conceptually.

I knew I was out of the ordinary on this forum when another thread was talking about AC35 at 8th level as not being unusual. In our group, anyone in the high 20s for AC is considered very well-protected.

Different reasons to game, I guess. I like to play a part, other people like to be the Biggest Baddest Kickass out there, no matter what thier character. I'm happy to drop optimisation for characterisation, others prefer to drop characterisation for optimisation.

I'm happy to donate (and have done) and will read the book with interest. Although male, I like to play female characters and I hope that this book will give me an idea of both potential pitfalls and hints to improve my characterisation.

In addition, my wife has dipped her toe into the hobby and I hope that this book will give her the impetus to get more involved.

and a few ghouls and ghasts at the top of the walls make climbing them a dangerous proposition.

Climbing spike-topped walls or fences always runs the risk of being caught by the ghoulies.

Undead would seem to make great manual labourers for building or repairing defences: Simple instructions and tirelessly work.

Operationally this wouldn't be any different to having peasants doing the work. The 24-hour tireless thing could be offset by the lack of common sense and initiative that humans bring to the party.

Having an evil, necromancer-led settlement with undead labourers is trés cool for flavour purposes, though.

It certainly sounds along the lines that Malaficia would follow, so I'd be interested in a loose coalition along those lines.

I know why gunslingers and revolvers were introduced, but I think they are really inappropriate for the setting as it stood. Maybe it would be appropriate in an Eberron-style world, but Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name walking around next to Conan the Barbarian and Sir Galahad doesn't work for me.

Have you considered dipping into Witch to pick up some mind-affecting debuff Hexes?

Aside from slavery and necromancy, what tactics do you believe Evil will have access to the Good will lack?

Putting itching powder in the toilet roll supply.