Selk's page

How high of a wisdom does this atheist character have? If it's low, she may simply understand that worship isn't required to be accepted into a sympathetically aligned afterlife, and she can carry on as she will.

If it's high, she may be presented with a spiritual dilemma, one that people who actively worship the gods seek to understand through prayer: that worship germinates true wisdom, and Wisdom (capital W) allows you to fully appreciate and understand the nature and structure of the afterlife you're given. Worship is like cramming for a degree in flora, fauna and physics of eternity. Without it you're entering the next stage of your soul's life woefully uneducated.

Btw, this is just a thought experiment for a setting with active gods and knowable mysteries, not my personal feelings on religion.

How do the gods know who's worshipping them? Do they physically see the individual?

Nearyn, I sympathize with your desire to make a more storied and socially realistic collection of leaders, but the rules are working against you. The level mechanic rolls everything together in the notion of overall effectiveness: you cannot become an influential speaker, a keen tactician, or a master of intrigue without also becoming a relatively skilled combatant.

It makes for some ridiculous political systems (the numbers trumping the fluff as Aelryinth suggests), but that's where we are. D&D and Pathfinder aren't systems that make for holistic world design: it's a battle simulator, where you design every character assuming that, at some point, they'll be personally fighting for their lives. Even the Queen.

The easiest way to deal with this is to establish within the campaign lore an era where spellcasters did run everything, but their techno-magical utopia went sour and nearly obliterated the world. Magic in the current era could have all sorts of stop-gaps that prevent a return to those apocalyptic times, among them:

1. Self policing wizard societies/academies that cull or hobble apprentices that want to use magic to affect widespread changes.

2. State sanctioned inquisitorial orders who practice the burning of any spellbooks that don't carry their official seal of approval.

3. A boogey-man lich god who literally swoops down and consumes the hearts of the world's most powerful spellcasters.

4. A widespread fear and condemnation of spellcasters that makes it social suicide to become one.

I like to go with the assumption that the world exists as it does not in spite of the presence of magic, but because of the presence of magic, and that some of the desert climes, for instance, would be completely uninhabitable without the existence of people able to magically create water.

Instead of asking the question, 'why is the world the way it is despite X,' the built in solution is to take it a step further back and assume that the world is the way it is *because* of X. Create water doesn't invalidate the existence of water-scarce desert cultures, it allows them to exist in areas so water-scarce that they wouldn't even exist without those magical resources, which also provides built in plot hooks, as village Y depends on their few adepts to keep the well topped off, and when a few of them are kidnapped in a gnoll raid, suddenly the entire village's survival hangs in the balance, as the town cistern keeps getting lower every day, and there is nobody to top it off (or not enough remaining adepts/clerics/whatever to keep up with demand)...

[I picked create water out of a hat, since it's been brought up before, but any of the other questions, like how plagues could exist in a world with remove disease, or how kings can die in a world where every kingdom has X people capable of raising the dead, can be dealt with similarly. Raise dead, in fact, is a *great* way to showcase how the world would develop / advance / progress much more slowly, since it's a sad scientific truism that for there to be any progress, the old generation, and their death-grip on their own theories, have to die off and make room for new thinking. In a world where the 'old generation' keeps coming back to hold onto the reins of power, and at the forefront of thought and philosophy, where the church doctrines are handed down from outsiders who *never change their minds,* no matter what their followers think of birth control or lady bishops, the world would be wildly more stagnant and traditionalist and resistant to change than our...

It's an interesting point, Set, and worth considering, but when the OP mentioned ubiquity I imagined ubiquity in magic and also the number of magic users. Imagine your desert scenario if every villager was also an adept, because the ante into that magic system was the equivalent of a cheap civil education. The explanation I wrote before was addressing the social ways of preventing this sort of saturation.

Because the magic mechanics presented in the sourcebooks are metatextual, designed to facilitate encounter design, not to explain how magic fundamentally works. They aren't the big 'R' Rules and Rites of magic as they exist in the setting, the deeper mysteries, the techniques and philosophies that wizards actually teach each other. Most of that is handwaved as "learning the arcane arts", since D&D has a scatological treatment of magic.

What the system doesn't convey - but which is strongly implied in the setting - is that magic is dangerous, volatile, endlessly enigmatic and seemingly hungry to make fools of those who think they are its master. It's not a tool or an appliance, it's a beast that can be coddled and tricked, but is never truly tamed.

Wizards are taught to respect and fear it, and to treat the proliferation of its secrets as an exercise in catastrophe control. They select apprentices and accept students carefully, weighing their ambition and morals alongside their aptitude. Wizard academies exist to educate, but they also serve to monitor and control, to secret away dangerous spellbooks, to keep war mages loyal to the crown, to preserve an air of rarity, and to guide necromancers away from being the next Adventure Path villain. A free exchange of magical learning would start an arms race, a collapse of sovereignty – or just summon a world eater – that no sane, well-educated wizard wants.

What the Uber-Trapfinder needs is the Moriarity of trap making - some bygone inventor/genius who left clues among his inventions that lead to the location of his ultimate Rube Goldberg style trap. Only by successfully disarming an invention does it reveal its clue, otherwise it's destroyed in the triggering. His master trap is so large, and so complicated, that some parts of it must be triggered, and other parts disarmed, for the trapfinder to progress through it.

This idea might entirely sidetrack your campaign. So I suggest devising a trap that, by disarming it, it triggers the real trap further in the dungeon. The trapfinder successfully pulls out the right gear and bends back the needles of, say, a door trap, just to hear a heavy thud and an ominous scraping further down the tunnels. In short, don't let him see the entire device, just a piece of it, so he's unsure as to its true purpose and doesn't know if disarming it is actually the best option.

Tacticslion, you don't need anyone's permission to unload. Go ahead. I have ideas myself, but I'm out with friends right now - and a handful of drinks in - so my input won't amount to much.

D&D makes a mountain of assumptions w/o truly exploring the implications, Paizo included. Anything that might add depth, and a writer's consideration, is welcome. I'm sorry if that makes it sound like Paizo's writers aren't thorough, but their job is to design the 'rides'. It's us, the players, who give them cohesion and meaning.

It sounds like you player wants to explore the more noble aspects of zealotry, a la Joan of Arc. The real world usually punishes zealots, because they're difficult, intractable people who are easier to adore dead than alive. If you want to be realistic, then yes, keep punishing her until she's ground down under the pain and compromise that comes from living in a corrupt world. Or you could experiment with rewarding her fervor with some equally rabid followers and a few bright, bloody wins. Give her a few moments in the sun, perhaps at the astonishment of your other players, before you go all George R.R. on her again ;)

Okay, there's a lot here to chew through. Your points are well made, but I don't think you're saying anything new: at this point Paizo knows what's up with their depictions of sexuality and gender among the iconics, the gods and the NPCs peppered through their products. These boards are ablaze with topic after similar topic. Even if they wish they had been more egalitarian their in design/writing choices, they can't significantly contradict published material without looking like they're pandering or back-tracking. All we can ask is that that future artwork is more adventurous and mindful, and that their writers follow suit. It's a progressive company, and I'm sure there's a lot of stuff they'd love to put into their products that they're not sure a large portion of a fan base is quite ready for.

Changes will happen in stages, but I wouldn't hold my breath looking for complete parity.

That said, there's nothing stopping us, the fans from altering the deities. Online content, done well, can supersede anything in print. I'd be happy the sexualize the hell out of many of the male gods - spice up their portfolios and, by extension, change the sexual palette Golarion.

Selk wrote:

There's no material or 'power up' reward for this that wouldn't seem tasteless in comparison to the ordeal these paladins have suffered. What you've done is created a scenario that would lead to possible canonization, if saints were a thing in Golarion. Since they're not, what you've got a sad tale that will be popular and often-read entry in various Books of Light and Truth.

Hopefully your players are fully on board with this grim tale and find catharsis in its resolution.

But saints are a thing. I once run a game for a paladin of Shelyn and she had a saint patron of her paladin order. But I think I found a reward for my paladin. Thank you sir.

Are they? How does that work in the setting? Saints a specific thing, recognized and recorded by a church with entrenched rules and traditions. Shelyn's church has saints? I didn't think her worship was that centralized and codified.

Maybe, by saint, Paizo means just a notable cultural hero with godly favor?

There's no material or 'power up' reward for this that wouldn't seem tasteless in comparison to the ordeal these paladins have suffered. What you've done is created a scenario that would lead to possible canonization, if saints were a thing in Golarion. Since they're not, what you've got a sad tale that will be popular and often-read entry in various Books of Light and Truth.

Hopefully your players are fully on board with this grim tale and find catharsis in its resolution.

Speaking of micromanaging, how do the deities know what their followers (and non-followers) are doing anyway? Is omniscience a common thing among Golarion's gods? I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the setting materials. If they're not omniscient, then how do they keep up with their flocks? Does the act of prayer also serve as a 'data dump', or do the gods only know what their followers tell them? Is it assumed, as a cleric, that a god knows your thoughts, or are you free to lie to them?

Hmm.

MagusJanus wrote:

For the same reason that asking people how they came to understand that they are LGBT is typically not considered rude and invasive. It pretty much comes down to a lack of understanding perspective and people asking questions while trying to figure out that perspective. You would be surprised how often...

I dig it. Something for me to think about.

To add to that, I think a lot of people look to LGBT people like we have transcended some fundamental awkwardness about sex because our openness on the subject of identity implies an openness on the subject of physicality and biology. A lot of straight people don't get that coming out doesn't make you less apprehensive about sex, just more honest about the partners we want. They think we suddenly have the zen of a sex positive mega-guru, when most of us still have all the hangups that everyone else does.

Hi btw, posted years ago, been lurking ever since.

Justice Ironbriar, With Queen Ileosa being a close second.

I think a lot of DMs recognize the wasted potential of Ironbriar as written in RotRL and have used him as a more nefarious and politically cunning opponent. I did, and he made for an awesome foil, constantly forcing the PCs to doubt their motives, their allies and the depths of the conspiracy in Magnimar.

He and Ileosa are the best kinds of villains, powerful and well connected in ways that make the PCs seem like dangerous vigilantes at best, degenerate murders at worst, if they treat them like hack n' slack enemies.

I wouldn't allow a character like that at my table unless I was a friend of the player, and I trusted them to reign themselves in if I said they were being mechanically abusive. A fresh acquaintance would require a preliminary play - just a short session with me and him/her, where I could see first hand how they intend to run their character. If I see something troubling I'll just say no, or steer them towards a character I think will have more success in the campaign.

Some players have no interest in the setting, or seeing their characters grow in unexpected directions because of the story pressures placed upon them. I'm not saying the OP is one of them; he sounds very earnest and eager. But I'm suspicious of any player who has plotted their character's development from lvl 1 to 20 before they game even starts.

My advice to the OP is to allow the campaign to affect and change your character. Have plans, sure, but if those plans require a very specific class combo to enjoy, then make a more flexible character.

You are not alone. I consider clothing, and how it reflects morals, customs, and the passage of time, to be extremely important when running my campaigns. One of the key differences between an immersive fantasy movie and a cheesy one is the production design and costume treatment. It has to be cohesive, detailed, thoughtful and respectful of the material - otherwise it's just a cosplay in a 'Medievaltown' back lot. The type of movies they used to churn out in the 70's and 80's. As DM my job is communicate the former as a part of my descriptive lexicon. I try not to obsess about it at the table, as I doubt my players care about corsets and baldrics, but I drop a mention here and there that textures the experience.

I've picked at Paizo's art direction in past posts, specifically on the matter of costume design ("Hey look, 10,000 years have passed and Karzoug's still in fashion!"), but it's an unfair criticism. You can't curate historically considerate costumes in a fantasy setting while drawing from a wide pool of artists - and also keep a publishing schedule.

We, however, have a lot more room to obsess on the forums. It might be just you and I, Witchy, but I'd be happy to go into further detail on what treatments I've given the cultures of Golarion to make them more 'real'. For example, my players can spot the differences between Magnimaran, Korvosan, Westcrown and Egorian Chelaxians by a glance.

This is an interesting topic, because it takes an editorial knot - as mentioned by James Jacobs - and turns it into an opportunity to expand the setting's theological concepts beyond the limiting system of alignment. This paradox (thanks OP!) makes Serenrae more nuanced and real, like a god one could imagine in literature, more than most Golarian gods, who fit neatly into their binary slots. It's hard to reconcile but it's pretty cool.

A few reasons Serenrae might tolerate slavery:

1. The enslavement of some of her faithful is the karmic balance Serenrae must endure for her defeat of Rovagug. Such a beast can never be bested by force or will alone: Serenrae had to pay for his imprisonment. She and her most enlightened followers struggle with the burden of this cost. This is my favorite theory.

2. It's a test for her followers. Humanity must free itself of the evils of slavery, not the gods, not if humans are to a gain the enlightenment Serenrae wishes for them. She has made clear in her lessons and visitations what she expects, but she will not remove her blessing from followers who seem to be lost. She bides her time, waiting to see if they can find their way on their own. It's crucial to her that her followers find their own light.

3. There is a biblical reckoning coming , a point at which Serenrae will anoint her most devoted followers and use them to lead all the slaves out of the accursed lands. She will proclaim the time for redemption to be over, and she will lay waste. Some of her clerics have read the portents and know this time it soon.

Yup yup.

Just a note. I have no control over anything but my little bit which doesn't relate to anything that gets published. This is me participating as someone who really likes our stuff, but I think some better, more targeted criticism would likely find their way to others ears.

The OP specifically mentioned that his idea of male beauty was quite different from what has been presented so far. And others have spoken in various ways on that. I think it would be more productive to say something like, "I want to see men with larger shoulders" for example than just "I think we should have more beefcake." I don't want to diminish that point, but we've already got a thread dedica
ted to that thanks to Deadmanwalking. What specifically do you think we're missing for your personal gaze.

I'm typing this on my phone so forgive the goofs. The primary thing that's required isn't broader shoulders or a six pack. What's needed is a genuine, open, non smarmy smile. Something that communicates a receptive, fun, man that's not saddled with the subtext that he's sexually competing with the author or the artist. They tend to undermine men (making them jerks or ugly brutes) to reinforce the male, PC, nice guy angle. The male npcs can be handsome, decent people without being secetly suspicious.

Short version: depict a handsome young man who is morallyy good and doesn't have a secret shame or ulterior motive.

Hmmmm. In this regard, I'm genuinely interested to hear what specifically(instead of the less general more good looking men) you would like to see from gay men and straight women gamers who feel like we need more beefcake and how those two groups may differ and whether there might something that gay

women or straight men think we are missing in that regard as well?

Your art director should note, in the first sentence when describing a male character that they are attractive. When soliciting art from (mostly) straight male artists they probably default to attractive representations of females unless they're specifically instructed otherwise. With males they probably 'default' to a wider interpretation. Control that.

Jessica, I appreciate your response, and I wish I was a little less hungover so I could respond in kind, so I'll keep this brief.

Yes, it's very easy to say, "Well, art should challenge you and not just be an escape!" when you're talking about challenges that you personally don't usually face

My tone was strident, but you're assuming too much about me. I also include occasional homophobia in my campaigns (one of the -isms from my earlier post), a trait I find confusing and often repugnant, but which I'm also careful to not use to demonize an NPC when I have them express it. They can be homophobic and a valiant, kind, moral person. As a gay man I find them interesting to portray, and I think my players appreciate that I'm building a campaign populated by complex, realistic people. More to the point, I'm not afraid to make myself uncomfortable.

On your mention of The Handmaid's Tale, I'm a huge fan of Margaret Atwood, especially Oryx and Crake and The Blind Assassin, but THT is a book I could only read once. I had the flu the first time I saw the movie, and made for some spectacular nightmares, but I digress. I hope you brought up that book as a worse case scenario rather than probable inspiration for my kind of game. I'm not sadistic.

I try my best to tailor my campaigns to the mix of personalities I know will be coming to the table every week. The majority of them are women and many of them are close friends, so we've all come to trust each other and enjoy the experience that this style of DMing offers. They tell me they like my games, and they keep coming back year after year, so I trust that I'm not being too heavy handed. Yes, it's not for everyone, but it is for a group of 35-ish people, which gives me the confidence to say I understand and welcome the challenges of interactive storytelling.

I do agree with you that, with product design, a lighter, escapist tone is a boon to reaching a larger audience and promoting accessible fun. It's good business. But the conversation isn't just about Golarion as written, it's about Golarion as lived, through our various treatments of the material.

Hitdice wrote:

Children worked plenty, too, on a subsistence level. Seriously, child labor laws just weren't even a thing.

In a lot of the modern world, it still isn't a thing.

Oh hush you. Don't you know we live in enlightened times? By the way, I'm writing this response on a phone built by near slave labor while wearing clothes probably assembled by children. I wonder what alignment that makes me. But I digress...

To put my previous point more succinctly, good fantasy storytelling should challenge our moral worldview. I think erasing sexism from a setting entirely whitewashes a fantastic opportunity for a group of adults to explore and discuss it. Here's where I geek out completely: good D&D is an artform. Good art should challenge you, not just be an escape.

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

When what is so female centric/prominent? There are plenty of male gods. And sorcerer bloodlines aren't gender specific.

Because 30% women-70% men is equal.* Didn't you know? So our 50-50 split is female-centric. :-P

*I am snarking here about a study that showed that when the number of women onscreen in a movie goes above 30%, males in the audience are likely to perceive the scene as having more female characters than male ones.

This study had been mentioned twice now in this thread. I tried looking it up, but all I get are hits for the percentage of speaking roles women have in movies. Anyone have a link to the study?

Thanks!

Quote:

Very true. I must admit I didn't even think about that one. Gosh ur weight, age, ur hair, and size matters but ur height and gender don't. Anyone else find that strange?

Man, it's almost like Pathfinder's rules don't map to real-world physics, and that concerns like these are significantly below its level of abstraction. I mean, geez, PF beings get better senses as they age. - because of that whole abstraction thing, y'know?

It's almost like...

Sweet Asmodeus, it's almost like this is a game, based in a genre that doesn't give a flaming damn about realism or something.

Wouldn't that just be a head trip?

Hur hur. Snarky, but your point rings true. I despise when people try to attribute some scientific exactness to D&D stats. They're generic terms - placeholders at best. Using them as the starting point when defining the variation of humanity? That way lies madness and narcicism.

Hi all. I've noticed that many published material and players play the game based on "genders are largely equal". I'm curious if...

1) most play it this way
2) does this seem possible
3) if changed what do u do different

Share with me plz.

1) I don't. Many of my games include a generous dash of sexism, racism, elitism - and many other isms that stain the hide and underbelly of real life society. I include them not because I believe them (or at least I hope I don't) but because I enjoy the tension and moral shading they add to my campaigns. They create injustices to strive against or exploit, and let my players know there is more goodness to be done in Golarion than what can be achieved at the end of a blade or destructive spell. I try not to overdo it though, mostly it's reflected in the immobility of expected gender rolls for the merchant, servant and poorer classes. Lots of goodwives, daughters on shorter social "leashes" than sons, expectations of ladylike behavior - that sort of thing.

That said, if I'm DMing for a group of strangers I tone down my Dickensian flavor text until they become comfortable with me and each other. After a few sessions many of them thrill at the HBO treatment.

2) Yes, it's possible, but it's difficult. We all come to the table with a bees nest of ideas about gender relations.

3) I guess I answered this above.

Scavion, you've framed your argument too neatly, attributing motivations that don't have parallels in the OP's original scenario. Your analogous man has a job that has specific, enforceable authority, racist motivations and desire to harm others. You practically put him in a storm trooper outfit before you itemized your points.

Foul wolf cries foul. Fooooowwl!

Quote:

Morality is objective in the game world

Everybody says this, but I've seen enough paladin threads to know it's goblin droppings.

More to the point, it's wishful thinking on the part the designers of the alignment system. Sure, we can say it's objective, but that's only useful in dangerous situations as a means to validate quick decisions. Outside of that alignment can, at best, be used a framework in which to discuss morality and play with hypotheticals. We view culture through a highly subjective lens. To ask someone to replace that lens with an objective one is like asking someone to become sociopathic. It's a social game - our moral structures are crucial to our enjoyment and understanding of it.

But goblin poo works too.

I don't consider this evil. It's just very slimy. It's petty corruption that probably does no harm to those involved, but it does damage civic trust, encourage gossip mongering and lays a strong foundation for future compromises that could germinate into true evil. The paladin is right to be concerned: he's got a Ferengi for a party-mate.

That said, morally gray situations like these make for some great roleplay, as long as the players focus their discussions in-game and don't press too hard on the DM to prove them objectively correct. What's more interesting than what the DM says out of game is how the NPCs react when one or two of them discover the enchantment.

1) How to you handle turns during this phase of the game? I tried to stick to the combat round format with 1 standard action and 1 move.

2) How do you manage the perception skill during dungeon exploration?

3) Do you usually try to force this kind of group to stick together or do you allow them to roam around and if you do, how do you manage simultaneous combats and such?

3) How do you keep things going smoothly and interesting without having to speed things up too much?

1) When haunts are involved I present the encounters like scary campfire stories. I avoid combat rounds entirely and switch between characters when it's dramatically interesting - usually at a suspenseful moment.

2) If it's meant to be scary, I roll their perception rolls for them and keep the results secret. Removing this certainty from the players makes them more careful and curious.

3) If you have a group that likes to split up, insert more traps and less monsters into the encounter. Traps can debilitate a character without killing them, and leave them calling/screaming for help. Escaping traps will encourage characters to work together. For simultaneous combats, I give each group/character about three rounds before switching. I'll usually make the monsters more mobile, to lure the characters into the same encounter.

4) This is a skill you just need to practice. The only advice I can offer is never treat an encounter/room as 'boring', even if there's nothing of importance in it. A well described pile of useless junk can keep a player intrigued for longer than you'd imagine.

Good luck!

I suppose we need a "Mr. Divinity Contest" to determine which male deity of the pathfinder setting gets the blue ribbon and cup :)

I can't see Asmodeous doing great in the talent competition, the judges just aren't going to be excited by the ability to make a contract

I'd split it. For the ideal of physical perfection it would be Abadar. His obsession with the platonic ideal could easily include himself, being the the ultimate specimen of a civilized man. The perfect landlord, husband and citizen.

For something more lustful, romantic and Dionysian, Cayden Cailean could be the unofficial god of cuckolding. It could be a common joke that a woman's, um, 'virtue' is her "little starstone".

The conversation about Golarion's technological development is really interesting (whether it's artificially retarded for sake of setting, or if magic has some profound, if subtle, anti-predictive effects). Something that should be added to this discussion, though, is the influence of predatory monsters and intelligent, evil races. Judging by the APs, the civilized, intellectually curious people of Golarion are constantly menaced by appetites that could destroy regions, if not entire civilizations. We should assume that not all plots and rampages are stopped by heroes - and that many villages, townships and countries succumb to the tides of an extraordinarily dangerous world.

Unlike the real world, where one tribe/kingdom could conquer the other but usually assimilate the people and adapt the technologies, there's no guarantee that the victors have any interest in technology or culture, and may actively wish to scour the land of any seed of (demi)-human endeavor.

Humanity (and the good demihumans) are by no means the apex predators of Golarion, and they do not possess the luxury of uninterrupted technological advancement. They may have been hunted, decimated and driven back many times, to such a degree that their dark ages last much longer than ours.

It's cultural. Modern Western concepts of femininity and masculinity are so ingrained that designing a male god of beauty and earnest love could spark a complicated discussion. There are many classic examples of such gods, but the Golarion setting has a very Western pop-culture fantasy sensibility: big demons, big boobs, big explosions and lots of spiky armor. Paizo's staff is refreshingly game when it comes to sexuality and gender politics, but I don't think their intent with Golarion was to reinvent the genre. And right now that genre is comfortable with goddesses (not gods) of love and beauty.

Abadar: Lee Pace
Asmodeus: Javier Bardem
Calistria: Tricia Helfer
Cayden Cailean: Sam Rockwell
Desna: Natascha McElhone
Erastil: Jeff Bridges
Gorum: Entirely CGI, not sure about the voice. A kettledrum? ;)
Gozreh: Amanda Seyfried and Rutger Hauer
Iomedae: Charlize Theron
Irori: Faran Tahir
Lamashtu: Claudia Black
Nethys: Cillian Murphy
Norgorber: No one.
Pharasma: Sigourney Weaver
Rovagug: Hmm.
Sarenrae: Zoe Saldana
Shelyn: Emelia Clark
Torag: Liam Neeson
Urgathoa: Rooney Mara
Zon-Kuthon: Doug Jones

Rather, what I see sometimes is:

"My charisma is 5 but that only means I'm socially anxious. I'm actually the most beautiful woman in the land."

That's fine, but then you'd have to say you're so socially anxious that it completely overwhelms your beauty to the point that people are mortified. That character would read as extremely mentally ill or cursed to NPCs observing him/her.

Put them in a position where others are relying on them to find their courage; i.e. a young boy and girl have been kidnapped, and time is of the essence.

This is a solid suggestion. The characters should feel a sense of obligation and purpose. If the NPCs expect them to be heroes then they'll probably start acting like it. Furthermore, let them experience first hand the cost of cowardice. Don't be afraid to have kidnap victims meet bad ends if the PCs falter, or the villagers massacred by the scary things that live in the forest.

Captain K. wrote:

It is the Charisma score.

Anyone who says otherwise is just ugly and envious.

Yeah yeah, you have a 'lovely personality'. Beat it, butterface.

That's just it. Charisma primarily represents personality not appearance. And it's force of personality not how nice that personality is. That's why hags and most demons and devils have so much of it.

Charisma represents your ability to exert influence over other people. The nature of that influence is up to you: a great voice, effective body language, an imposing demeanor, a beautiful face, captivating eyes, these are all valid. Being physically attractive comes with a lot of power in social interactions, enough on its own to carry a high Charisma stat.

Neither. Both.

This is a classical story seed, one which requires the princesses to seek the council of a High Priestess of Shelyn, who tells them that only a sacred viewing pool atop some far off mountain has the ability to divine peerless beauty.

There's a catch: the pool imprisons peerless beauties for eternity. The only way to escape is to destroy what it covets. Princesses who sacrifice their vanity escape to tell the tale. Princess who don't are never seen again. The High Priestess of Shelyn wears a veil, btw ;)

In my game, the moment the yeth hound sensed the PCs approaching
Nualia stepped in the hallway, cast Obscuring Mist and fled to a better position. They didn't get close enough to see the trap before the mist rolled in. The hound saved its howl for the first PC who managed to get past the triggered trap.

Wow Judael, that's a lot of work. This type of NPC process can be helpful to the DM, but I've found it has mixed results when presenting it to players. You have to convey the residents of Sandpoint as living, breathing people without bogging down interactions with list-y minutiae.

A trick I've used over the years is to actually cast a large NPC list with real life actors. Something like…

Ven Vinder - Ray Winstone
Shayliss Vinder - Emma Stone
Father Zantuss - Daniel Day Lewis
Cyrdakk Drokus - Bruce Valanche
Mayor Kendra Deverin - Julie Andrews

It helps me roleplay the NPCs off the cuff, and makes them distinctive enough that the players can fill the imaginative gaps themselves. It also keeps them crystal clear in my mind's eye. The challenge is making sure I don't play any NPC too 'on the nose' (Christopher Walken as Titus Scarnetti is a bad idea ;)) and to never, ever tell the players this is what I'm doing. Saying an NPC looks or acts like a certain celebrity takes players out of the headspace needed to run a good scene.

Just my two cents, though I enjoy your descriptions.

If the opponent is too powerful, I don't require skill checks to know this. I'll just choose a PC with appropriate (ball park) ranks and tell them, usually with some snippet about how they came across that knowledge.

If they still choose to attack, I'll convert any attack that knocks the first PC into negative as an automatic Combat Manuever success instead and make a show of it, using that character as a rag doll example of power disparity. My players know its their one 'out' to flee, after which all negative damage incured is truly deadly.

If they can spin me a good yarn about what their character has been doing 'off camera' to warrant the build, sure, I'll allow it. If I'm going to have some min-maxers in my game, they should damned well be entertaining ones.

I know this will sound facetious, but as a DM who has had women majority gaming groups for most of the past 15 years, I find being a gay man helps a lot. I cringe to admit it, like I'm waving the banner for some 'Girls + Gay Guys = Besties!' TV trope, but I do feel that my position in the head chair, and occasionally as a player, has allowed a variety women to feel comfortable with getting their feet wet. It takes the edge off of gender politics and often piques their curiosity to the type of game a non-stereotypical gaming dude will run. It's just enough of a crack in the boys' club where a lot of geeky women want to peer in.

They eventually discover that it's just like most tables - ridicuous stories, a boatload of combat, and a generous helping of friendly ribbing - but by that time they're hooked.

This might not be helpful in the larger context of marketing to women, but I've seen it work wonders on a group by group basis, among many friends, gimmicky as it is. Utilize your gay male players to attract female players, and perhaps vice versa - their numbers might be roughly the same, actually. Work those demographics, combine them. I'm not kidding.

Jessica - my apologies of this this angle tips the conversation off topic again.

Selk wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Aha! Finally an Ashiel post about fighting games!

I knew it was a good analogy! Heh...

I'm not fond of the fighting game analogy. It encourages a blandly narrow view of this game. Class balance be damned, and double damned if the DM has an inkling of what makes a robust and engaging story, with multiple opportunities for all characters to contribute to -and shape- the outcome.

Less power = less fun? Bah, it's a conceit that has crept into this game that I think is playground balderdash *adjusts his purple hat*

Did you read my OP? Or just saw "Fighting game analogy" and thought "Pfff... Fighting games are for losers who just want combat! RPG are about exploring the world!"

Because I actually said:

"So, if in a game which involves combat and only combat, having more options with most often outweight having bigger numbers, what happens when you expand the game to involve non-combat situations? What happens when you expand it to involve pretty much every situation a GM can think of?
What happens is that having extra options becomes even more important, and number tend to mean less. Your number must be high enough to make you options effective, but after a while it doesn't matter.
A character who deals 300 damage per attack is just as good as one who deals 100000 damage per attack, but a character with 10 options is much, much better than a chracter with 5 options."

and

"Want to buff Fighters? Giving two extra skill points will help him more than giving him an extra 50 damage to their DPR."

I didn't even focus on combat options! Quite the opposite, actually. My point was about overall versatility. Which happens to include in-combat options.

I have no idea where you got the "less power = less fun" quote. I have much more fun playing with Inquisitors and Paladins than with Wizards and Clerics!

I did read your OP before posting. What I took from it was that mechanical versatility (options) equal a more useful PC. I disagree. I think versatility is truly function of playstyle and the adaptability of the DM and that usefulness as measured by a character sheet is only the tip of the iceberg.

If you have more fun playing less powerful characters, what is the ultimate point of balancing wizards if it doesn't seem to directly correlate to fun...in a game?

From the last (closed) thread to this one, this discussion has become a rhetorical parade. Shadowsoul, please lay out your house rules for magic item availability, either here or in the House Rules boards. If I like them I'll use them. Some other people may do the same. If the rules are thoughful they may become widely accepted, maybe popular enough to be at the forefront some developer's thoughts when writing product. That's really all you can ask for from this thread.

Lay it out. I'm not fond of the current rules, I'm an active DM. I'm all ears (eyes?).

Aha! Finally an Ashiel post about fighting games!

I knew it was a good analogy! Heh...

I'm not fond of the fighting game analogy. It encourages a blandly narrow view of this game. Class balance be damned, and double damned if the DM has an inkling of what makes a robust and engaging story, with multiple opportunities for all characters to contribute to -and shape- the outcome.

Less power = less fun? Bah, it's a conceit that has crept into this game that I think is playground balderdash *adjusts his purple hat*

A capable and well respected commander wouldn't have to do a thing. The other men-and-women at arms would give the PC a "talking to".

Divination is great, but in this campaign world it tends to come out broken, or at least unreliable.

@ Evil Minion - Good thing they can cast it multiple times :)

Any way of turning to the animals and plants for help?

It's a city that was overrun with undead 1000 years ago. Unless these undead are great at urban maintenance the city is going to be almost totally reclaimed by nature. A city would have most likely been built next to a source of water - a river or lake - so there's probably bountiful vegitation, enough to obscure the city from any long distance perception checks. In short, your wizard is smart enough to fly, but probably failed her Knowledge: Nature and Knowledge: History checks ;)

That said, your best resource for finding the city is the remaining orc civilization. If roads existed, maps probably did too, or a maybe some record of the city's name. A name itself can sometimes provide a clue as to a city's location, "Ombrachacha means 'by river's big bend' in ancient Orc", or something like that.

If you'd rather find it without the orcs' help, it really depends on how thoughtful your DM is when considering the ecology of the undead. There are potentially a lot of tels: creek systems animals refuse to drink from, a high concentration of carrion animals.

It doesn't have to be meta-gamey. The mystical aspect of bardic music has never really been explained. It's a clunky mechanic that has room for all sorts of bizarre "music of spheres, maaaan" explanations. Just say your bardic performance has a flicker of feedback - that you can almost taste the blood in your mouth when you sing a comrade into a deadly skirmish, or the wind in your trumpet sours with a dark harmony when an ally fails a disease check. It's almost inaudible, but you have just enough time to push back against it, to dash it away with a clarion crash.

So, in a nutshell you're saying "communication wasn't as good in the old days." Got it.

Well, communication is even better now, so what's your point again?

What I took from LazarX's quote is that our improved communication is actually creating a false sense of dilemma. A lot of us (I'll include myself in this) are perhaps casting too wide of a net in our quest for consistency in rules. If we need 4000 people to agree with us on rules that are effectively used to adjudicate 6 players, then perhaps our desire for consensus is missing the point. It seems many people want to be proven right here so they can bring this news back to their table, when that matter is better settled at the table.

So I was watching The Gamers: Dorkness Rising the other day (if you haven't seen it, you can find it on YouTube).

Along came the idea that Paladins can't stand by while dishonorable and evil acts happened.

And my mind started churning: If you use Holy Water to slowly destroy a demon, wouldn't you be doing your Paladinian duty? If the demon just so happened to say something useful, it wouldn't be considered torture, would it?

I could use some help. Not because I have a Paladin in the party, but because I want this question answered.

There are a lot of interesting layers in this question, but I'm not sure the forums wouldn't just sour them with absolutes and zingers. I think questions like these are best answered with more questions; a sort of religious exploration that can add depth to rp and flex the characters' Wisdom bonuses. Stuff like...

- What is the purpose of holy water, to punish or to purify? If there's no purification, just pain, is it grotesque to use?
- Does a demon secretly desire torture at the hands of a servant of good because it knows such treatment pleases the gods of evil?
- Can demons even experience 'clean deaths'? How does one know a death by beheading is any less torturous and prolonged than a death by burning? Why do mortals assume demons die like them or like animals?
- Can a paladin use torture to pursue a greater good? Do some good gods promote doctrines that support the idea of a 'greater good' moreso that other gods? Would Abadar see the wisdom in torturing 1 to save 1000 where Desna would not?
- Can a paladin lose paladin-hood as a step on the path to being accepted to the deeper mysteries of their god?

In short, I don't think your question has an answer. But if your (theoretical) paladin player gives it some serious thought and integrates some doubt into their rp because of it, then the unanswered question is much more useful than a plain ol' answer.