Just as LazarX said. What you can do is make a storyline that will reveal how great the character's death would be in the accomplishment of his mission (following his own values and motivations) and give him the opportunity to do it. But if he choses not to, then that's allright but he will lose that opportunity and will have to get outside his character's consistency.
One thing is clear though, is you should not be able to plan what the exact story will be in the far future as it is basically keeping freedom away from the character. If your friend wants that kind of game, he should just play video games - you're here to lend him power over your world, not just to amuse him.
I'm working right now (as in literally right now) on a maze that's made for gladiators to compete in team to reach a torch in the center of the maze; it has fake buildings, water channels, some monsters and a lot of low-tech mechanical traps. It's right in the center of an arena and made such as the assistance can see every step of their progress.
Other ideas:
-To hide or protect something.
-Because it's a complicated construct and became a maze de facto even if it has or had another function.
I think it summarizes how I see a maze. The word is used meta-gaming wise, but most of the time it's just a dungeon that happens to be a maze for some reason at the time the players get there. So you can basically take a maze and make it whatever suits your campaing, from sewer systems to a battlefield, from city blocks to natural caves.
I find interesting that you use the word «power storytelling» as proper to a GM but still compare it to power gaming, which is a player's thing. One can imagine a player trying to power storytell as well, i.e. trying to be the most efficient and influential possible over the plot line using not only a deep knowledge of the rules, but a knowledge of what's going on in the story. In fact, I do like my players to use both: reasonable optimizing both in terms of stats and roleplaying.
You can balance those. I never say no to my players right away - for example, one wanted to play a catfolk. I thought through what place could that species have in my world, and told him that he could if he wanted, but his social status would basically be similar to a gnoll child. He's playing a human.
I also make sure I have a very good mental picture of npc hierarchy and various social functions so they know they are adventurers by choice; they still choose to do it rather than to be merchants, but it's their choice. I'm ready to roll with it if they change their mind (and get the message about what this means about my game..)
I agree this is stupid from the character. But alignments are too relative for that player to be blamed for what he made his character do IMO. You can explain your take on alignments - which I did toroughly with my players since they play as a neutral and good party in a lawful evil empire and would be dead if they tried to destroy good. But most importantly, I would hint him about the dangers of his way of taking decisions and would put him in a lot of situation where attacking on a detect evil would end direly for him.
Cheetah are an example where a population bottleneck does not always lead to extinction if the species is lucky enough so that the last individuals have genetic material that allows them to survive in the long run even after a population bottleneck.
I think I would make tham a race with low reproductive capabilities unless when reproducing with close cousins - which would be a very important strategy for their survivability in the long run. This is, how they could survive without any divine action, of course. I'm no fan of «deus ex machina».
While plotting against the BBEGs, it becomes known to the heroes than a mysterious ally or ritual or artefact could help them not only destroy those enemies but vainquish the antipaladin's god once and for all. But the specific kind of magic needed for that is prohibited by the noble house's tradition. The players have to chose and are given a glimpse of possibilities of Epic adventures; if they take the bait, a lot of taking sides occurs in the noble house and who knows what happens?
My basic assumption is that: whatever obstacle you had, it must be seen by the players as an opportunity until they are knee-deep into it, and then they see all the issues involved. If not, they might see it as the GM trying to keep them from getting to their objective because it's not the time, i.e. Deus ex machina. Appeal to the characters' motivations.
I've found this page a while ago, and it's since become my main reference on the historicity of technological transitions such as stone age to bronze age and bronze age to iron age. The Egypt we know is a bronze-age setting, as well as the phenician and babylonian civilization, but the popular image of Greek History is mostly a depiction of iron age (ex: 300 and such). This blog is very rich on the subject of natural ressources and their role in the evolution of human societies.
I'm working myself on an early-iron age setting, so every ancient weapons and artefacts should be made of bronze - or even stone. The whole superiority of iron over bronze resides in the process of creating steel in a forge. Bronze can be molded with a lot less heat than iron, and mostly for that reason has been a dominant material in weapons to equip armies even in the early iron age. I would treat any steel objet as masterwork, and iron objets as non-masterwork. I would treat bronze exactly as iron - except the process of making masterwork bronze objects implies incrusting gems and drawing complex figures (which is not possible with iron due to the forging process - chinese learned sooner to cast iron but it too the industrial revolution in Europe to learn to do it efficiently). I would allow iron weapons in this setting, but however efficient, they would look very boring.
In your world-building process, it'd be great to share some other ideas! (if you don't mind)
In my opinion, desecrating a cadaver is not a non-good act as it does not limit the well-being of any living creature. However, it is a non-lawful act as it is a random act that affects public order.
On the other hand, your character definitely made a good deed by killing these guards who otherwise would have harmed other people, and that to her own risk. An evil character could have asked for a percentage of their business. A neutral character could have protected herself and family. But a good character doesn't care about the risk if anyone can benefit.
Even a paladin can get pushed to do chaotic stuff in the heat of the battle. It's all about instincts. Atoning for that crap seems fair to me, since is is very undignified to desecrate a cadaver, but I don't see the need to go inquisitor - unless you enjoyed what you did and don't plan to follow order anymore. :)
As for players, as long as a combat is not an auto-win, Sun Zhu's big picture is very helpful. Know the ennemy and make him think it's usual tactics will make him win... except it won't. Shield ally if they gang, evade or resist if they fireball, use skills to challenge GM's expectations.
Not really. Sun Zhu's strategy is all about deception, manuevering, maintaining lines of supply and morale. There is no morale in this game, small scale makes manuevering pretty irrelavant and also means lines of supply are not really relevant, and divination magic makes deception very, very complicated.
Couldn't agree less. A GM can use quite a lot of those strategical tips to give a challenge to players.
-Deceive the metagaming players with red herrings (ex: make them believe they're fighting undeads while it's aberrations, etc.) while being fair if they try to challenge their perceptions with knowledge for example.
-Use your amy's weaknesses as strenght in manoeuver: for example, split the party or get someone into a trap by baiting them with an easy kill. Hide or disguise your glass canons. Ready that arrow or spell to interrupt or counterspell the caster. Bluff helplessness (still with a fair chance to sense motive).
-Supplies take many forms. Steal, sunder, disable, etc.
-Morale is really important. I know as a player I get heated in the battle and always look for ways out when I feel the wind is not to my liking. A co-player pulls the other way by metagaming the party into oblivion so really it goes both ways: a high morale can be as deadly as a low morale.
Seriously, Sun Zhu is not a minute by minute analyst of any combat; just a teacher with the big picture in mind. You can even use his teachings in relationships, certainly so in Pathfinder roleplay.
Plus, it just screams munchkinism to me, and makes no sense storywise (as was mentioned above, precisely how and why did the Sorcerer get that Monk training, and why so little)?
You know what else is munchkin?
A wizard/cleric going from apprentice/acolyte to archmage/hierophant in less than a year of setting time.
Totally agree on that. Balance doesn't suffer, but the storytelling is robbed of its verisimilitude with that in-game pace.
I intend to try a system of acquiring XP that goes as such:
1 hour of training (an the player explains how the character does that without me interfering, it's mostly a thought experiment to intensify character inpersonification) = 1000 XP. When you acquire XP the usual way, it goes into a bank of your character's XP. This is the available XP you have to train. That way, you're losing no time at low lvl, but it helps explaining why most adventurers you meet wouldn't be lvl 20+. Because it's hard, not because they're just NPCs. I also plan to make this rate higher according to settlement's alignment when it matches the character's but it's all very hypothetical.
I hope this will help me plan large-scale events in advance; for example, if I plan a war day-to-day, it helps to know that 100K XP = 100 hours training in an appropriate environment, so I can plan the next 2 weeks counting on the PCs being the same lvl. Of course, a session with 6 encounters might be in-game a weeks long or more, especially at higher lvl. But this is only a gain in storytelling in my opinion.
This affects the curent post this way: if your players can go on and tell hour-by-hour how their character trains, it becomes futile to put them limits in terms of multiclassing or level-dipping; they most likely will put themselves more limits than you do because they will make decisions from a character's point of view.
All that is still hypothetical, but I'll sure get back when I've tried the system with my group.
It's probably more about the whole game vibe than any specific capabilities of your character.
That said, I started reading Lovecraft just recently, and I got impressed mostly by the paradox of the main characters: while they know very much and want to warn everybody, they also want to tell as little as possible. This fits well into the inquisitor class to me: trust me, I will save the day - but don't ask any questions or it means you're an ennemy.
The exorcist archetype would fit well I guess, fighting against possessions and all that. The bonus on knowledge against monter is very nice to reflect the typical 'I read a lot of awful stuff that I didn't believe true but I can use that information now' - also from a couple of Lovecraft's characters.
I understand very much your urge to create that character, however unlikely it is to be used in-game. I love that part of being a GM - to instill your own order into the universe you craft.
First thing, I believe for the First Vampire I would simply not apply the vampire template. Making up a way this character acquired most vampirey powers seems more interesting to me, and it makes sense that only spawns from this unnatural transformation would be stereotypical vampires.
One way I imagine using your premise is the story of a young fighter, adventurer of sorts, who had the awful bad lock to encounter a threat way out of his league. After some time as a fighter he met a Hezrou demon, who lived from the soul of one of the boy's old girlfriends, whom he seduced and threw away without regard at the age of 19; she then killed herself with poison, and spent all her time as a demon trying to poison the whole world. Why they met is lost to time; but she succeded into possessing him - making him a devil-bound creature.
The blood he drawn when he deflored the young lady, she made him seek without end. To satisfy the bloodlust, he acquired hunter skills out of par - and become more and more of a savage animal.
Eventually, the creature he had became couldn't be differentiated from the demon inside itself. This half-fiend that we would call today a vampire became a creature obsessed by herself with drawing innocent blood and corrupting the pure. Even the Gods couldn't stop the venom spilled throughout the world by the revenge of a once pure damsel.
Summary of what I suggest:)
-12 fighter lvls, very generic longswordsman
-Demon-possed template, Hezrou (note: gaseous form power from here)
-20 ranger lvls - I suggest Shapeshifter archetype with sorm rewording ex: eagle=bat; others fit pretty well IMO
-after some ranger lvls, add Half-Fiend template and get amongst other abilities natural attacks for your shapeshifter natural weapon style
-Finally the vampire template could be added as a sort of deal with Asmodeus who against some kind of veto regarding his corrupting actions gives him the power to procreate.
There's much in common between your GM's style and my GM's. Just to give an idea, we've been on a 3.0/3.5 epic quest for the last 3 years or so in Magnamund (Lone Wolf's world) and it seem like 2 out of 3 fights are life or death matters. Moreover, we've had TPK three times before that game with same GM. We learned something: him being a videogame enthusiast, we should optimize the hell out of our characters cause fighting would always be - almost - mandatory. Even then, we lost a couple of fights, but the heroes being higher levels, it wasn't the end of it.
The first couple of times his monsters (frickin from the Fiend Folio, Book of Vile Darkness or some crazy epic book...) killed us, the GM himself looked surprised; he had to give us farfetched ways to get resurected or stone-to-fleshed. But then we all got the beat of it and don't make nearly as much of a fuss about it. Hell, I even alternate between ultra-careful decision-making and impulsive decisions, like in the last game when I teleported back to a very powerful sorcerer just after being stone-to-fleshed in town. (Would have destroyed the bastard he I had't rolled a frickin 1 on my massive damage save...)
Now the GM rolls with it. The BBEG kept me in stone form as a trophy and the rest of the party got to convince a powerful wizard guild to help out, which gave us a friend whose sole job was to counterspell timestop which meant auto-win.
I'd conclude with my impression that the main point with that inconvenient event is that your GM is not completely in touch with his own playstyle. He might have been even more surprise than you all of how the events turned out, and was trapped by his preconceived ideas about the 'malignancy' of his monster into killing you all instead of bailing or something. One way for him to amend would be simple that: possessing the barbarian was a bit too much at the end. You could just rewind there and have that not happen. I don't know, talk about hero points or something if necessary. Your whole campaing sounds cool enough to hesitate a good bit before leaving it like that.
As I noted, fleeing is a pretty decent option, especially via Readied Actions to Move, but anybody sticking around to slug it out may have a very tough time.
The only reason to get TPKed I see is the Videogame mentality that if you meet any hostile creature it means you should be able to kill it for the XP. Hiding in the ground is a very weak offensive strategy and at some point the elemental(s) will have to get out - but it sounds to me like a damn good way to scare your players before an otherwise easy fight - and to make them paranoid for the rest of the game about not only the sky, but the ground also. :P
I always take actual historical mythology as a gold standard when thinking about gods. A valid theological point of view must explain how antique gods relate to each other.
Greek and Norse mythology both fit well within the portfolio = power thing more than with followers = power. In fact, they don't seem to care at all about followers, except when it makes them look good for other gods.
Iliad is a great example of what's in humanity for the gods. Hera and Athena are pissed because Paris chose Aphrodite, not because he's important as such. Apolo takes part in the war because the greek army and allied gods are making him look foolish as the main god of Troy because they permitted the desecration of his temple. And Poseidon is pissed against heroes who don't offer him respects because that makes him look weak from others' gods point of view if he doesn't react.
Zeus tries to stop their fights over puny humans since as the Lord of Olympia, he draws power from the unity of his pantheon - and so must also be extra careful with his punishment (he does also punish individuals who make him or other gods look bad in mythology).
The whole clerics thing is way less of a priority for that kind of gods. They are little if anything pictured in epics when so many warrior heroes are gloriously represented.
Also known as: grids are silly, silly things sometimes.
Doesn't anyone else use hexagonal grids? It's way more realistic and mechanically enjoyable. Our group's been doing it for a couple of years, and I recently tried to make new maps of the sort using standard school material - the first one took me almost 4 hours, but after 3 I'm at 1 hour 15 minutes or so for a brand new map.
DR ignores damage, but that doesn't mean it isn't dealt. It just means it doesn't get taken out of your hit point total while incorporeal halves damage received (as in, half the damage is never received). So if the big guy swings his sword for 30 damage, that is first halved (because half of it never hits) to 15, and then reduced by 10 (because 10 points of damage received can be ignored) to 5.
To look at it another way, DR says that it takes a fixed amount of force to break through your tough hide or overcome your body's natural wound closingness or cause actual damage to your skeletal body or whatever. Incorporeal says that half the force of a blow is never transferred from the weapon to the target. Of the half which is transferred, it still has to get past that natural toughness or regen or boniness or whatever it is.
The rules input really closes the topic.
Though I would probably houserule it otherwise if only to adress the possibility that players themselves might get incorporeal at some point and it should not be that much of a synergy with DR.
It does say that DR can be interpreted as a form of body armor. A little problem with that: the creature's incorporeal. It doesn't have a Constitution score. I can't buy the DR as being a physical phenomenon. But yeah, can be argued both ways. I chose my side before I rationalized it. ;)
Your dilemma made me think about an experiment in my physics' class a couple of years ago. This is basically similar to 3D viewing technology. Many materials are birefringent, which means they let light pass selectively regarding the polarization of the lightwave. If such a material was applied as a pellicule on the drawing (wikipedia cites sur materials as cellophane) and your player wore adapted glasses, he would in fact not see what's being. The picture could even be made such as only the creature would be invisible to him and his surroundings normally visible.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.
Damage Reduction, just as making a Reflex save for example, is a way to avoid damage. It helps answer the question: do I take damage, and if so, how much?
Paizo said wrote:
Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source.
The incorporeal rules read as: when you take damage from a corporeal source, you only take half. You don't take half hypothetical damage; you take half damage when you are dealt any. It's like you had double HP against physical attacks.
DR makes you ignore damage, ergo not have it dealt. Since you don't get half damage you ignore, I would apply DR first to see what's the damage, then half the actual damage dealt.
The Rogues should get a combat style, and get bonus feats for it (a la Ranger or Monk): Dirty Tricks, Steal, Feint, etc. are the kinds of moves that rogues use. When using their combat style against a flanked or dex-denied foe, they add +1 per SA die to their CMB on the maneuver. This lets them, for example, use a dirty trick on a dragon.
This actually sounds awesome. Rogues are not weapon-oriented, but strategy oriented. Giving them a skill-using strategy (or even CMB-using with say the option of using level instead of BAB for that particular trick), and giving it as a by default choice would make an interesting improvement of the rogue in-combat usefulness. For example, 4 Winds introduced «Throat Threat» in Strategists & Tacticians: you can grapple a flat-footed opponent as long as you're unthreatened, and you put a blade on it's throat; if people try something weird of which you are aware (I'm simplifying), you can have a single attack as an immediate action with auto-hit and auto-critical (+ sneak of course since the dude is still flat-footed), and it's Fortitude save against damage dealt or be stunned for 1 round (so possibly coup-de-graced?). Now that would make a lot of sense if the rogue went around the whole battle to get the vulnerable player (say wizard) as a hostage in case things turn bad. You could even take the baby dragon to convinced her parent to be a good lizard. :)
I hope you mean in game animal type only acts on survival instincts and nothing else, because in the real world many animals have been shown to harbor grudges, attack and kill for pleasure, and make life and death choices based upon god knows what on a whim. Survival has nothing to do with many animal behaviors (crows, monkeys, elephants, dolphins, and other species the world over have shown this).
I don't play my animals as 100% instinct driven alone, because it doesn't make any sense. It is an outdated idea that animals are somehow unable to comprehend or reason out further than "eat, sleep, sex, protect"
/rant
Only outdated for some animals. The vast majority, in particular insects, and lower life forms in general are only of the eat,sleep, and multiply modes of life. It's only in animals with higher developed neocortexes and almost all of them mammals do you see other motivations come into being, particurlarly emotive ones.
In pathfinder those are vermin. Vermin is mindless, but animals are not.
Looking at my GF's ferret right now: so much more than instinct comes to play (at least seemingly) :P.
EDIT: of course, I'm not arguing against your point here.
I would consider 1 zen archer level dip with the fighter archer archetype after. For the cost of 1 level:
+2 to all saves
Surprise surprise, +Wis bonus to AC when naked (donning a full plate is crazy long)
Free Perfect Strike
Free Archery Feat
Free Improved Unarmed Strike (think snatch arrow eventually?)
Flurry of Blows with bow is essentially rapid-shot
The possibility of taking lvl 2 and 3 eventually to benefit from Wis to bow attacks plus other crazy bow feats without needing any prerequisites.
A nice background explanation for your wisdom-based character in heavy armor.
What do you mean with Chameleon, a race or archetype? It escapes my mind, at least I cannot remember seeing it. Please enlighten me :P
I mean Chameleon the rogue's archetype. You could use both Chameleon and Burglar archetypes since they replace different powers. I also thought about sniper + bandit for crazy sniping as a rogue (attack + move and hide further after a ranged sneak attack from 40 ft in surprise round at level 4... sounds pretty annoying to me :P; add fearsome strike on a critical at level 8, now from 50 ft, still on surprise round...)
The main reason I would have to back the GM here is if they play in a campaign world he himself created. In that case, if he says tieflings exist but not aasimar for whatever the reason, that's great. Also, the regrets about the 5 Cha tiefling character might explain part of his choice. :P
Also, many characters can specialize into countering spellcasting and spellcastersm or alternately despise spellcasters. So not being a spellcaster makes the rogue very hard to figure out, strategy-wise. And UMD is still there for when it's worth it.
I can actually agree that Rumormonger might be hard to repalce with a spell, but the rest is easily duplicated with spells, perhaps nto easily in all cases, but possible.
And to not forget that archaelogists gets rogue talents also on top of a supreme spell list that is everything the party face could dream of.
I got misunderstood here. What I meant is that no one can use spellcraft to figure out the fact that the rogue is tring to crush their evil plans. As opposed to any spell that can be uncovered by any witness with ranks in spellcraft (including our rogue). From a GM point of view, if an evil genius of a NPC figures out the wizards' trying to magically trick him, he's gotta be pissed. As opposed to the case where he even succeeds a sense motive against a rogue's bluff. He might then be mostly amused. Convincing people to do stuff also gives them way less excuses than forcing them to do it by magic. WWAD? (what would Asmodeus do?)
That said, I just looked at the archaeologist and it's awesome.
A Chameleon Sanctified Rogue or Chameleon Burglar is awesome too. (Though I admit I've not played one, I can only judge on paper.)
Benefit: Once per day, a rogue with this talent can roll two dice while making a Sense Motive check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Sense Motive check.
Special: A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every 5 rogue levels she possesses.
Honeyed Words (Ex)
Benefit: Once per day, the rogue can roll two dice while making a Bluff check, and take the better result. She must choose to use this talent before making the Bluff check.
Special: A rogue can use this ability one additional time per day for every five rogue levels she possesses.
Convincing Lie (Ex)
Benefit: When a rogue with this talent lies, she creates fabrications so convincing that others treat them as truth. When a rogue with this talent successfully uses the Bluff skill to convince someone that what she is saying is true, if that individual is questioned later about the statement or story, that person uses the rogue’s Bluff skill modifier to convince the questioner, rather than his own. If his Bluff skill modifier is better than the rogue’s, the individual can use his own modifier and gain a +2 bonus on any check to convince others of the lie. This effect lasts for a number of days equal to 1/2 the rogue’s level + the rogue’s Charisma modifier.
Rumormonger (Ex)
Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can attempt to spread a rumor though a small town or larger settlement by making a Bluff check. She can do so a number of times per week equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0). The DC is based on the size of the settlement, and it takes a week for the rumor to propagate through the settlement. If the check succeeds, the rumor is practically accepted as fact within the community; succeeding by 5 or more over the DC decreases the time it takes the rumor to propagate by 1d4 days. A failed check means the rumor failed to gain traction, while failing by 5 or more causes the opposite of the rumor or some other competing theory involving the rumor’s subject to take hold.
Weapon Snatcher (Ex)
Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: A rogue with this talent can make a Sleight of Hand check in place of a combat maneuver check when attempting to disarm an opponent.
Another Day (Ex)
Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: Once per day, when the rogue would be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by a melee attack, she can take a 5-foot step as an immediate action. If the movement takes her out of the reach of the attack, she takes no damage from the attack. The rogue is staggered for 1 round on her next turn.
Of course, the dozens of ways I see of using these to a party's advantage imply more than crunching numbers...
But it's more fun for both GM and players. Plus, none of that can be spellcrafted.
My point: the result of a fight with a BBEG or an army can be determined by the ratio party preparation/adversary preparation. The wizard excels at preparing himself. The rogue excels at unpreparing the adversary.
On an unrelated note, it would be terrible to be a new applicant who showed up and was told, "Well, all the cool elements and elemental combos are taken. You have to be Captain Ooze." Yeah, that'll impress the ladies.
Let the ladies judge the potential of being the Ooze dude!
You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer). Weapons cause standard damage (with no Strength bonus; note that arrows or bolts deal damage as daggers of their size when used in this manner). Other objects cause damage ranging from 1 point per 25 pounds (for less dangerous objects) to 1d6 points of damage per 25 pounds (for hard, dense objects). Objects and creatures that miss their target land in a square adjacent to the target.
There's another way to interpret it. The spell is worded so you in fact only get one attack, which damage's value depends on the total mass or stuff that hits the target with the different attack rolls. This damage is counted after the facts and is (total weight/25 pounds x 1) or (total weight/25 pounds x 1d6) or (weapon dice 1 + weapon dice 2 + weapon dice 3... + up to weapon dice 15). This single attack can do sneak damage as normal (i.e. once). This is still great as you're pretty sure to land your sneak damage against any enemy out of 15 dice rolls, even if you go with a volley of arrows for example.
The «damage-by-weight» part of the text really sells the «one-volley-attack» spirit of the spell IMO.
He's definitely a fallen paladin. Still lawful and with the same dedication as ever to a code of conduct, but the actual code is now evil in nature.
In terms of character backgrounds, he should have lost his paladin powers at some point. He then thought: «Well, here's a challenge from my god, I always knew I'm not worthy anyway.» He then proceeds to be even more extreme in following his code of conduct (which is perverted in essence). Later, when say Asmodeus passes as his god and give him the equivalent powers he had as a paladin (only a little bit different, say: Smite Chaos and Detect Chaos; lay on hand only works on self... a non evil non good mount), he tells to himself «Finally, I've been worthy!» He then proceeds to gain levels in some other class as a lawful evil character (say Iconoclast Inquisitor with detect magic instead of detect alignment; say with the Persistence inquisition as a domain). He is eventually going to understand that he's on the wrong side of the fence; but way too late. By that time, he will have become a convinced disciple of lawful evil ideals.
Seriously, the whole idea is story-telling gold. It can also help a lot your players to understand what alignments are about around your table.
Lets take crits for example. While I do roll the occasional crit, most of them are against mooks (that I would have killed anyway), 3.5 undead (that are immune) or in other ways less than useful. The number of memorable (timely and useful) crits I have had in the last 10 years can be counted on 1 hand, and I remember them all. Meanwhile, a guy in my group crits just about every session. Way more often than statistics (given weapons used, number of attacks taken, etc...) say he should. And we have watched, he doesn't cheat...he doesn't have to. It also doesn't seem to matter what dice are being used or even if it's a computer dice program. He rolls more crits than everyone in our group of 4(on average) combined.
I don't intellectually believe in that... but since it happens to me all the time, I'm beginning to be an almost believer. I'm also that guy who rolls more crits than everyone else combined. Not only that, but mostly natural 20s. I just bought a second set of dice and first game I play, double natural 20 on attack rolls... It's almost a waste of my keen scimitar. :P
Not much more to say on the actual topic, though. I'd probably go for a Charisma-based character, since you have plenty to shine outside combats if you roll too bad. And being good at something is very important to have fun, at least for me. That said, many character types with little dice-rolling have Charisma as a primary ability, so it might be two birds with one stone.
Actually, I checked the Game Mastery Guide, and there's a section on insanity. It actually has stats for various mental illnesses, including Mania, Psychosis, Schizophrenia, Multiple Personality Disorder, Paranoia, etc. Each week you have to make a Will save, and if you succeed, the DC is reduced by your CHA modifier. When it drops to zero, you're cured. (If only it was so easy in real life)
Psychosis actually changes your alignment to Chaotic Evil, but no word on what that does to a paladin, except maybe force him to be an anti-paladin. Schizophrenia seems closer to what you're describing-- the patient loses connection with reality-- but it has no affect on alignment, it just penalizes your ability to make skill checks and causes you to become confused under stressful situations.
I've looked at those. As a mental health professional, there's a lot I would change about their definition of psychosis mostly. First off, the difference between schizophrenia and psychosis as mental ilnesses makes no sense as stated, since schizophrenia is a disease punctuated by psychotic episodes and often times by chronic psychotic thinking. What they mean is «psychopathy», not «psychosis». And psychopaths are certainly evil, but rarely chaotic in fact.
On a game perspective, I am personally a huge defender of alignments, even though they should be more consequences of roleplay than guidelines to a character's evolution. Here's my take on the two axis:
Good vs evil shows the importance of self vs the importance of others. A good character tends to believe (emotionaly at least) that it's worth sacrificing herself if at least one other benefits from it. A neutral character believes you need to weight your loss against others' benefits and make moral deals. An evil character believes the whole world is not worth her own self. There's a continuum between pure good and pure neutral, and between pure neutral and pure evil.
Just to make something clear, torture is not an aligned thing, it's a way to have fun. An evil sadistic person will get all fun possible from her hobby; a good sadistic person might be masochistic instead, directing the impulse against herself. A neutral sadist will weight her fun against the others' suffering.
On that axis, situating your character is very interesting, but tricky. I would say he started out as a benevolent person, but gradually started blending his conceptions of himself and God. So he became a defender of principles only coming from himself and doesn't care anymore about weighting his actions against a morality - he only does what he needs to feel good. Ergo, evil.
I'm less assertive regarding law vs chaos, but IMO it refers to how deeply a character feels the world can be predicted. A lawful character believes she can get benefits from following the world's order; a chaotic character believes she'd be very dumb to play by the rules when anyone can break them at any time. A neutral character believes circumstances is the key, some situations being rules-friendly and some others not.
To use the sadism example again, for extreme alignments: LE = torture inside legality; CE = torture as long as no one can stop you; LG = hurt yourself for principles; CG = hurt yourself as long as it keeps being fun. Etc.
Wrap-up: Mr lawful stupid here is in fact lawful evil. He believes in principles that are worth following and he alos believes that he earns some points following them (lawful), but has long stopped weighting his ptinciples against others' interests and only follows said principles them to feel good about himself (evil).
One thing I did and helped me find equivalent gods between Egypt and Greece is use the Mesopotamian pantheon - there are a couple of gods there that can be taken as middle-grounds. I also intend to use a complete Mesopotamian pantheon for one of my human people, with a phenician flavor.
I also suggest Zoroaster, the first take on monotheism, to get some ideas on how to make plots happen on gods' scale.
Moreover:
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/~GEL115/index.html
That guy's awesome. He put the most useful stuff I've found for World-Building, telling real-world humankind story from the point of view of utilising natural ressources as its real evolutionnary advantage. Great takes on life in stone, bronze, iron ages (and even renaissance); irrigation; silver mining. Raised my enthusiasm a great bit.
My take to kender using point buy race system (with the philosophical implications of non-possession in mind, not the making of a super-thief...):
And there lays the issue, kender can not act other then they are. They steal or they die. They are the creation of a mistake, an artifact. They are born insane and diffusional. They can't not steal just as you can must breath.
Read my previous post. Kenders CAN'T steal. They don't recognize possession. They still can be dicks if they take something someone is "entitled" to, and that's alignment-dependant, not race-dependant.
«Ownership increases the frequency of consensus over disagreement. Using social protocols, ownership establishes one or a group of entities' permanent priority of access to something. Unless the owner relinquishes this right, this established priority stands regardless of empirical phenomena.
A dilemma arises when an entity enters into the sphere of a consensus with no prior knowledge of the agreement.»
«Non-possession is another concept which can resolve this dilemma. If claims always match empirical reality, then there is no conflict. Eliminating exclusion, claims to priority of access will always be based on empirical reality.»
«Non-possession denies the exclusive access of an entity by another entity.
To paraphrase: non-possession says that no entity has the right to exclusive access to another entity, either by social agreement, or de facto exclusive access.»
«Non-stealing is the practice of not breaching an entity's entitlement of or sense of entitlement toward something.
Theft has to do with breaching ownership: both possession and sense of entitlement. Non-possession only challenges the idea of possession, not entitlement.»
Long post to get to the following point: eastern religions have much in common with kenders' sense of possession and it can be understood that way:
-There is no such thing as exclusive possession.
-Therefore theft is impossible.
-There are things that one is entitled to (ex: clothes currently wearing, food you're about to eat, stuff with your name on it).
-Entitlement depends on your emotions towards something.
-There is no breach of entitlement if you only take stuff that is kept "in case"; especially if you hand it back when said case happens.
-And there is no possession.
Your first creature up there can be done with «Quadruped» and taking it again for extra legs, since it's got a humanoid upper body. I do agree however that prerequisites and RP costs are a bit out of proportion. :P
Humanoid (giant?!?)
Large size +7
Quadruped +4 for 8 legs
I'm currently working on that kind of real-Earth mythology adaptation thing, too. Feels a huge loss to create a homebrewd universe without using History's inspiration.
My tactics is more to determine a way to become Gods (to explain actual Gods and to lure players into insane quests for their own chance at it); I went after days of Wikipedia reading for Hindu Gods to be the fundamental principle behind the whole universe and to explain from a naturalistic perspective the Evolution of PC races and their accession to pantheons. Most are human. Norse pantheon is Dwarf. Hindu mostly Elf.
For fun's sake:
Name; Alignment; Portfolios; Domains; Weapon
Horus; LG; God of the sky, power, war and hunting; Air, Glory, Good, Law, War; Longbow
Hathor; NG; Goddess of feminity, music, celebration, joy; Charm, Community, Good, Pleasure, Weather; Battle aspergillum
Apis; CG; God of virility, kingship, oracles; Chaos, Glory, Good, Luck, Strength; Light mace
Bastet; LN; Goddess of protection, domestics, vengeance, ointments; Community, Healing, Law, Protection, Retribution; Scizore
Isis; LN; Goddess of motherhood, magic, fertility, rebirth, the moon; Healing, Law, Magic, Protection, Renewal; Dagger
Osiris; LN; God of afterlife, undeath, silence, life; Darkness, Death, Law, Liberation, Nobility; Aklys
Ra; LN; God of creation, laws, the sun, the land; Animal, Glory, Law, Sun, Travel; Bec de corbin
Anubis; N; God of the dead, rites, stability; Death, Destruction, Liberation, Protection, Repose; Flail
Ptah; N; God of crafts, stability, stone, regeneration; Artifice, Darkness, Earth, Healing, Magic; Hammer, lucerne
Thoth; N; God of knowledge, mediation, scribes, philosophy; Knowledge, Nobility, Repose, Rune, Time; Terbutje
Seth; CN; God of anger, the desert, storms, foreigners; Chaos, Destruction, Madness, War, Weather; Khopesh
Sekhmet; LE; Goddess of warfare, fire, action; Destruction, Evil, Fire, Law, War; Bola
Sobek; NE; God of danger, fear, water, guards; Destruction, Evil, Protection, Strength, Water; Shotel
Nephtys; CE; Goddess of nursery, companionship, strategy, death; Chaos, Charm, Death, Evil, Trickery; Starknife
Here's my take around the synergy principle: Trait Trees. (gotta find a less creepy name though... lol sounds like french «traîtrise», treason)
Rationale: From an Evolution point of view (which is all I think about when imagining how a race came to be, not much into Creationism), as I was saying from an Evolution point of view, abilities develop because of ecological niches, and tend to come together. For example, sea mammals can swim + have a lot of fat, flying mammals rarely have a lot of fat. :) This is a powerful way to justify changing RP cost along other variables than creature type or subtype, and also an incentive to buy some non-combat traits to fit a concept cheaper. But the main part would be to represent the evolutionary cost of certain combo.
Examples:
You buy WINGS (2 RP).
You can have a Wing Natural Attack for +1 (Prerequisite)
You can have Fly for +2 (Prequisite - some other features might give access to it too, though)
You can have Climb for +1 (Normal cost raised to +2)
You must pay +1 for any trait that grants Stealth bonus
You must pay +1 for any trait that grants Swim bonus
You buy CLAWS (1 RP).
You can have a Claws Natural Attack for +1 (Prerequisite)
You can have Climb for +1 (Normal cost raised to +2)
You must pay +1 for any trait that grants bonus with specific weapons or weapon proficiency
You must pay +1 for any trait that grants Diplomacy bonus
You buy GOOD EYESIGHT (1 RP).
You get Low-Light Vision for +1 (Normal cost raised to +2)
You get Skill Bonus (Perception) for +1 (Normal cost +2)
You get Skill Bonus (Any Craft) for +1 (Normal cost +2)
You must pay +1 for any «Underground» trait and for Darkvision (why develop darkvision when your eyesight is awesome?)
You buy MASSIVE BODY (1 RP).
You are not slowed by armor (other slow medium creatures are) but you must pay +1 for Normal Speed.
You get Stability for Free
You get Hardy for +2 (Normal cost raised to +3)
You get Dwarven Weapon familiarity for +1 (Normal cost +2)
You must pay +1 for any movement trait
Etc.
(Also, MASSIVE BODY explains why Dwarves would be 10 RP cost and balances Hardy, wink wink)
3.5E, Nalada the Wise (so-called by only herself - WIS 6)
She's a dwarven female CN Warmage10/Wild mage10/Dragon Disciple 2 (still playing) from Bor, in a Magnamund campain (Lone Wolf's world).
We started out as a level 12th party and have had a campaign-long mission of destroying a quatuor of Evil major artifacts which can only be destroyed by a true dragon etc.
Nalada is the only one in the party able to wield the stone, since she's too chaotic to be affected by their corruption. She kindda wants to keep them for her, but she already got 3 destroyed since they didn't accept her will on first try and she's looking for the last one anyway. Warmage gives awesome firepower, wild mage helps having access to other spells with Use Magic Device and gives a lot of flavor. Dragon Disciple adds level 9 spell slots and ability scores and d12 HP.
Her background states she started as an autistic little girl until she was discovered as a potentiel warmage for the dwarven army. After a while, she went on her own and into a mountain dwarfs' village, where she went all Nietschean and borderline psychotic and even at some point stabbed herself in the guts. High charisma and some bluff skills helping, she managed to get a troup of knight-ish dwarves to follow her in search of 'Truth' and got them all killed because of bad judgment calls and makig herself pass as a leader (except another PC who survived and still follows her). Afterwards, she met with the rest of the party who are good-doers looking to destroy the Damned Stones artifacts.
Her first epic feat makes her what she is now: she just added Time Stop and Greater Teleport to her spontaneous caster spell list. Last game, one of the artifacts changed into some kind of epic-CR shadow assassin who could just go back and forth the shadow plane, right at the time we were in the only living dragon's lair. Of course, first thing we know the assassin is gone. While the Cleric concentrates on his Gate into the shadow plane, she stops time. She spots the bastard just preparing to leap into material plane being the dragon for a potential one-hit kill. She goes back through the gate, teleports at the exact spot the assassin would be and casts Prismatic Sphere, then goes away. She notifies the dragon who happens to be immune to all sorts of light effects and readies his breath attack just in time for the confused assassin to get blasted (all that, inside the sphere).
Next round. Time Stop again. Back to the shadow plane. Another prismatic sphere there. The assassin's trapped and doesn't even know it. A couple of Delayed Blast Fireballs and watch the show. The assassin actualy died from massive damage and the artifact was destroyed as planned afterwards. :P
These Damned Stones would better do what she tells if they want to keep on existing... I hope the GM got it for next game. (wink wink)
