Spall's page

I've been drawn to the much more complex morality built into the pathfinder setting. I'm sure you could run it as a straight bad guys vs good guys game if you chose the right area, but we've done the archetypal good guys (and bad guys) thing to death. My favorite pieces of this setting are those where the 'good guys' depends on which side of the conflict you're on.

Some of this is subtext, like the utopia in Hermea where the outwardly good intentions of a clearly good creature like the gold dragon Mengkare have little holes poked in them to illustrate the complexity of the situation. Other complex situations are spelled out in clear detail, like the Eagle Knights of Andoran conquering other nations because it's for their own good (really amusing parallels to manifest destiny, imperialism, the paternalistic nature of this area of history, etc).

I am working on designing a game in Mendev, with the players participating in the Crusades. I'm trying to come up with as many situations that will force hard decisions from what will be a supposedly good group. There's the obvious stuff, like making them deal with soldiers who are fighting to keep back the hordes of the Abyss, but are clearly there for their own selfish goals. Is doing the right thing for the wrong reason a good act? Does commiting evil acts while you're attempting to do good tarnish someone irreparably?

There's the parallels with the christian crusades, which I think are very fertile ground to mine as they relate to morality. The humans vs demons angle is a little too straightforward, but throw in some native barbarian tribes that the Crusaders will wipe out or subjugate to keep from falling under the sway of demons and you've got a really complex scenario that could come close to paralleling real history.

I want to have a Chelaxian army arrive and want to assist with the Crusade effort. Their devils are the natural enemy of demons, but is this literal deal with devils worth it in the end? How far can you take 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

I want them to all be good-leaning, generally benevolent characters at the start at least. I'm actually having the campaign start by pressganging the players into the Crusades, but with a veneer of civility. They may have been interested in joining on their own in due time, but the decision was taken away from them. This should set the morally questionable tone I'm looking for (is being forced to serve the greater good a bad thing?).

In the end I'd like the larger conflict of the Crusades vs the Abyss to simply serve as the backdrop for what should be a much more interesting story about a handful of characters who develop unique personalities through the horrors of war.

I was hoping to get more examples of the morally complex situations that will force hard decisions on the players. I was also interested in hearing about how other official sources treat this scenario (The Crusades). I haven't read beyond the campaign setting; I am afraid if I read more official literature it might paint a different picture than I have in my head already, but if something is clearly going to be useful I'll read it. Any suggestions would be great, as I'm having a fun time getting this put together.

I've been trying to work through various issues with PF as my crew gets ready to run our first adventure using the core rules and PF campaign setting. We keep hitting roadblocks and it seems that the consistent theme to these is the fact that the rules are built for a very high magic game world (even though the campaign setting is written like it's only a mid-high world).

We're looking into adjusting rules to notch down the importance of magic a step or two. This group has about 20 years under our belts and have done everything, from gritty ultra-low magic to ultra-high magic and tend to get the best results for our gaming style when we hang closer to the middle. I have ideas for how this would be accomplished, but was hoping to get a peek at rules already in play elsewhere to avoid some of the trial and error inherent in the process.

The general goal of the adjustments would be to foster a story, RP and intrigue intensive game, where magic becomes simply another tool in the arsenal of a well rounded character instead of becoming the only thing that makes them interesting or useful. I don't want to institute massive changes, but had considered stuff like the following:

-Make magic items a little more special, interesting, less common and more powerful (as opposed to simply levelling up your equipment as you gain gold).
-Force casters to more frequently use their skills, wits and a backpack full of mundane items and weapons to help overcome challenges instead of worrying about their adventuring day being over after they fire off their spells (after say, oh, 15 minutes...)
-Limit the availability, utility or reliability of teleportation, long distance travel and flight spells/items/abilities so journeys continue to matter after the first few adventures.

I have a much longer list of possible ways to accomplish this, but wanted to focus on what other people are doing successfully instead. Any suggestions or outside reading would be great.

Thanks.

I've been trying to figure out what roles the majority of armor types fill and it's giving me a hard time. It was similar in 3.5, but I had a handful of ways to create at least a reason to use the off-sets of armor beyond the first levels. I was considering doing something similar as I start a PF game, but didn't want to bother if I was missing something.

For the most part, there's only really one type of each heavier armor (breastplate, full plate) and all the rest are simply taking up space. Theres a few niches in light armor where a chain shirt isn't always the obvious choice (it's close though) and hide is obviously useful when you can't wear metal and can't afford better alternatives.

For the medium and heavy armors the only niche I can think of (other than breastplate and full plate) is the tiny range where you can't afford what you want. At first level some of the crappy medium armor might get used and the lesser heavy armor might see some use till maybe 4th level, but after that I don't see them existing in the game world. Enchanters would never bother working with the lesser base armors, as they could always come up with superior results simply using a breastplate or full plate to start with.

Is this how the game plays out (ie everyone in medium armor uses breastplate and everyone in heavy uses full)? If so, it's not really a problem gameplay-wise, but it just seems boring to have everyone in the same armor.

I'm looking to read some alternative rules that would foster more diversity in armor selections. I don't really want to revamp the whole system, but it would be cool if there was at least some reason to have chainmail, banded mail, etc in my game past the first few levels.

First time with these rules, I haven't even started the game yet and I already have a list of house rules a mile long again...

There's so many things that seem to just flat out break the game world. The worst example was the item creation. Even a low level crafter with a single item creation feat can easily generate 1000gp in resources per day... I couldn't imagine a world with a single adventurer within this paradigm, as you could become much better equipped and wealthier without ever leaving home and risking your neck. There would be a flood of crafters, a glut of top quality goods, prices would fall, eventually all magic items would be available at the drop of a hat at just over cost, all game worlds would become ultra-high magic by default with these rules...

Even if I was willing to sacrifice the verisimilitude of my game world and impose that somehow these item creation rules didn't apply to NPCs (again, the game world would be broken if it did), one character spending one feat could still generate 1000gp in resources per day. Now I suddenly have to pace my adventures so the crafter doesn't have enough time to earn his way into resources way beyond his level instead of letting the game unfold as the story dictates.

The first player to send me his new character forced me to put the brakes on that whole process as well. I know things are supposed to be a little more potent than 3.5 and I don't mind at all, as it seems to give players more flexibility and options in the process, but this first character (a high-str alchemist with feral mutagen) was capable of getting something like 30str with 3 full BAB attacks at full strength... at level 2. WTF am I supposed to do with this? If I throw creatures his way that are tough enough to possibly live more than 1 round then they will be strong enough to outright kill a single character per round. Its rocket tag and it's stupid. Is this just an extreme example of a douchebag powergamer or does the combat generally devolve into instantly wiping out the enemy or having the player group fully wipe (or just having trivial encounters be the norm)?

I don't really understand how I'm supposed to run this game. Do people generally house rule the heck out of this or did I just nail the worst examples in an otherwise balanced system?