SquirrelyOgre's page

We all started playing as kids, most of us. A kid isn't really going to understand "Evil" in the sense that an adult would. A kid's just going to want to be "that badass dude."

SNL gives us a pretty good parody of it.

I usually try an experiment. Replace "Evil" on the character sheet with "Badass."

If you could do that, it's more about wanting to be badass than wanting to be Evil. Evil is an entirely separate thing, and you'd probably need a solid group to handle it.

I'll just echo the approach of what other people have said. When I GM, I ask the players before hand to fill out a little card with some basics about their characters and to specifically note if they do any "weird or obscure" things as a part of their character concepts. Then as I read through I go around the table and if they are playing a class or archetype that I'm not familiar with, I ask them to explain.

It's not going to solve all issues, but in PFS it is the responsibility of the player to have their source material available. When I play a class which has mechanical oddities (Alchemist, for instance) I print out and have handy every FAQ and clarification I'm using in my playstyle for easy reference. Not everyone's going to do that, but it is on the player to show what they can do or how something works for the exact reason you are here: no GM can know all the rules and this is ultimately a collaborative hobby.

I wanted to echo this, as well as offer a bit more. Fewer folks are asked to leave the games I run other than rules lawyers. This is not because of their enthusiasm for the rules, but for loudness and antisocialness that irritates other players to an extreme degree. While we try to work with everyone, now and then, the regrettable happens and a person may be asked to leave.

For example, I had one guy follow me around with CHARTS. He did not understand what he was doing wrong--he was so wrapped up in making his point that he did not understand when I told him that he was no longer welcome at my and others' tables.

I had another incident where someone would spam an email account with thesis-length essays on rules clarifications. When a ruling did not go their way, they tried spamming other people, as well. He would then take to tables and attempt to begin shouting matches between himself and the GM or himself and other players.

I do understand you.

If the cavernshark's idea does not work, it may be possible to establish a "working things out later, in order to keep things running smoothly" policy. I am not sure if PFS allows this, but it is one time-honored way of keeping a game moving along, without things getting sidelined overmuch.

In the end though, there are always going to be some folks who will just irritate the tarnation out of people no matter what. It is not your job to teach these folks how to behave around others--instead, it is within reason as an adult, to have the expectation that they will behave as another adult.

Also, if they are upsetting your game, they are likely upsetting others at the table as well. This means that other GMs and so forth have probably had experience with them. It may be possible to speak with a local captain or so on, and discover if this person's behavior is a known, local issue. They may be able to offer you advice on how they have handled it at their table in a way that is beneficial to everyone.

The problem is that SO MUCH says, reference grappling page 232 of core rulebook. This functions as a cleric's domain, see page 116 of core rulebook. Etc.

So if they were to change the core rulebook all the other books that reference it would have their references be off. And they wont do that. So you'd need a rules reference book that isn't supposed to replace the core rulebook to have any hope of this being done.

Man, I would be willing to put up with that. A cleric domain is still a domain for example. Specific references would work out fine, but overall the rules would be clearer and better-presented.

The inherited murk is, I imagine, Pathfinder's Achilles' Heel. With the number of times I have heard "I would like Pathfinder 2.0 just to be a streamlined version of Pathfinder," I imagine it to be doubly true. It is not Paizo's fault, to reiterate. The conversion was hell on their staff, and there was just no time to do so.

Yet, it would be wonderful to go in there with a rake. It would make life better for old and especially new, players alike.

And @JN, good to know. Thank you!

HWalsh wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.

Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.

If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.

Well you redeem evil because doing so destroys evil and births good.

You don't understand black and white morality if you think redemption isn't possible. Just as good can fall to evil, evil can ascend to good.

All black and white morality means is that evil is evil and good is good.

Where you seem to not understand is that ACTIONS are good or evil. People can choose to change. Acts aren't mutable.

I do understand. Black-and-white morality is about absolutes. It is binary, an either-or way of looking at the world. Things are clearly categorized. There is no ambiguity. Evil is evil. There is no little evil. There is no big evil. There is only evil. If you look at it any other way, it is not black-and-white any more.

If some acts are "more" evil than others, then that necessitates that moral absolutism is the way the world works. That some evil acts are a lighter shade of grey than others. But if you believe that, then you cannot believe that "evil is evil," because then evil can be defined in more than one way.

I am not sure you do. Think of it this way: they are saying that an act which is evil cannot be NOT evil. There are still different sizes of evil, but it does not change that they are evil, and not neutral or good. They're not actually arguing that there are not DEGREES of evil, just that evil cannot be well, not-evil.

A good analogy could be French fries. For example, you can have a small, medium, or super-sized bag of French fries served to you at McDonald's. Yet, B&W morality states that they're ALL French fries.

...just in different sizes, but that they are French fries does not change. It's part of the nature of fries too, that there can be a bunch of them or just a few.

Gray morality though, is like the dieter who looks at the different sizes available to them at McDonald's. They consider that because it is a SMALL sack of French fries after all, and that since the fries are made out of potatoes, you really could consider them a vegetable and therefore healthy.

Klara Meison wrote:

And what if they don't want your freedom? People growing up in the modern world often forget that for a long, long time serfdom was a thing, and nobody complained.

Sorry, but...

Bwahahahaha - "nobody complained"!? - hahahahaha

Yeah... you haven't studied a lot of history.

The entire French Revolution was people complaining about it. (Admittedly - there weren't officially a lot of serfs by then, but France had kept a sort of semi-serf class.) As was the Polish revolt (which was basically put down by Russia because they didn't want a bunch of freed serfs giving their own serfs uppity ideas). And many X many more times.

Yeah... no.

Were there some people who didn't want freedom? Sure. After the civil war some ex-slaves stuck around and worked on the plantations too. But they were a minority.

One of the reasons that Russia eventually abolished serfdom (1860's) was to cut off the fomenting rebellion. Of course - the Marxists did it anyway a half century later, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

...pretty much this. I'm going to go ahead and include this as well:

Consider your table.

Slavery as a topic in RPGs can quickly veer into Creepy Guy territory. I've had to boot at least two guys when they started going on about the virtues of slavery, how Roman slavery was honorable, how most slaves LIKED their get, and by the way could one of them have a female slave?

Did I mention the women at the table, and many of the men, were creeped out?

Be careful with this topic. Even if you don't see it as creepy, arguing passionately for it at the table can easily label you as That Creepy Guy that No One Wants to Invite Back.

NobodysHome wrote:

Ah, I see. This is an experiment in, "I am going to take every post and interpret in the most negative possible manner."

It did kind of feel that way for a while, didn't it? Quite overtly, in some cases. The first section worked out amazingly well (although the fact that it means I was right from the get-go still puzzles me, because it fails to explain my subsequent experiences)...but Jesus H. Kryten, I did NOT bargain for that second half.

SquirrelyOgre wrote:

Dear Hiding,

Often it isn't "optimization" but the perceived attitude that comes from how the demand for optimization is handled, socially. For example, the phrases:

* You're responsible for our party's TPK if you don't make x, y, or z as choices
* Let me make your character for you; you'll have more fun that way

...are off-putting. These and similar phrases are often given with honest sincerity by the individual giving them. I repeat: honest sincerity.

With autism, it is very possible to get caught up in the numerical details and a perceived goal of the game. The idea of making someone's character for them so it's "done right, so they will have more fun" can seem logically helpful. Emotionally, it fails to take into account the other person's feelings.

This...puzzles me. I'm the admitted autist, and this is the kind of stuff (particularly that first example of yours, which was rabidly thrown at me in that "Inquisitor feat" thread of mine that I linked to on the 1st or 2nd page) that gave me the impression that "optimization" was an idea to fear. I've run into this misunderstanding before, and it's distressing for multiple reasons. Autistic =/= unimaginative. It just doesn't. Quite the opposite (and I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone pitching that second example, at least not in that spirit)....

I get you. Yeah, I never meant to come across that you were uncreative. Anyone involved in RPGs is going to be, and I suspect you have creativity in spades. I may have misread part of your post, too. I really apologize for that.

What I am trying to say is that the pushback you received about optimization is often related to how optimization-related arguments and statements have been presented in the past.

While some optimizers give good, kind and well-worded advice. ...there tend to be a set who push too far, unintentionally. I have encountered the second example in that list I gave many times and the first many more often than that. As often as not, the statements were well-intended. The optimizers in question were trying to help and were honestly puzzled why others rejected their help, or why the pro-optimizing statements were seen as offensive.

As a coder friend once explained to me: "It's obvious. Why WOULDN'T you want to do that?" They went on to say that of course someone would want the optimal build in order to have the most fun because it was the logical thing to do. He would get caught up in the details, and 3E encourages a sort of mathematical character-building game as well as the traditional adventure module. It is easy to get caught up in that and admittedly, can be a lot of fun. It can also be very creative.

It took a long time before he was able to sit back and say, "I understand that others don't want the most optimal build. It isn't logical to me, but I have to be okay with that." Many times, we would need to take him aside at the table and explain why steam was coming out of someone's ears.

He was a genuinely good and creative person. He volunteered to bring snacks if people requested it, or if someone said "can I get help with X?" However, he would get caught up in character optimization and was unable to understand others' emotional reactions. He genuinely thought he was helping them. To be fair, it took me a while to see this as well because I too, would be angry because I thought he was being condescending, insulting, or so on.

It turns out that he was trying to be forthright and honest.

He is not the only person who "gets caught up" that I have met or had at the table, and I suspect he is far from the last. He himself later told me he was along the spectrum, and many of the optimizers I knew who tended to "get into trouble" were as well.

However, not all. Others were not on the spectrum, but were just so focused that they missed social cues entirely. It is possible to do that.

I suspect the kind of focus that it takes to get into that level of character optimization encourages that "so caught up I forget to read why others get upset" mindset because boy do I run into it a lot.

Much of the advice may be well-intended. I would go with a polite but clear: "no thank you" or "thank you for the advice, but I would like to focus on something else" or "thank you, but my goal is different" and move on. In the case of the coder friend, if you engaged him on a point of argument, he would become concerned that you were not seeing his point at ALL and he must convince you. It was very important to him.

He was also concerned that you would not have as much fun as you could. The result of this is that the argument will ESCALATE. It will escalate out of well-meaning intentions and a wont to be understood.

Basically, if that sort of "escalation" happens to you, express your gratitude, politely let them know that you'll consider their advice but that your goal/etc. is probably different, and then move on.

I have had way too many conversations like this in the past several months...into the past several decades. The bottom line is: a number of the more driven pro-optimizers end up missing social cues. Some are along spectrum (and have told me so) but not all are. They just for one reason or another, get so caught up that they fail to see the hurt and frustration coming from someone else.

When cues like that are missed, it tends to leave a feeling of anger or upset behind. Because, I suspect, this situation happens more often with pro-optimization mindsets/discussions, that anger and upset becomes associated with optimization in general.

Again, these honestly good and damn creative people who are trying to help. It just comes across not as they'd intended.

Dear Hiding,

Often it isn't "optimization" but the perceived attitude that comes from how the demand for optimization is handled, socially. For example, the phrases:

* You're responsible for our party's TPK if you don't make x, y, or z as choices
* Let me make your character for you; you'll have more fun that way

...are off-putting. These and similar phrases are often given with honest sincerity by the individual giving them. I repeat: honest sincerity.

With autism, it is very possible to get caught up in the numerical details and a perceived goal of the game. The idea of making someone's character for them so it's "done right, so they will have more fun" can seem logically helpful. Emotionally, it fails to take into account the other person's feelings.

I suspect that disconnect may play a role here. It may also play a role with many conversations about optimization where they have seemed to go off the rails. I have had many, many conversations into the night where I have had to sit aside with someone with autism and explain why they need to let others make their own choices, or learn to phrase things in a different way.

I would estimate that this has happened at least three times in the last two months. These are brilliant, kind people. There is however, that disconnect that can put them at odds unintentionally.

What I WOULD suggest is stepping away from "optimizing" and anything else for a while, and to give this a read. It may give you a better way to approach these conversations. It may also give you a better measure. For example, the book outlines several rules for social interaction, that were written by someone with autism. If you see someone arguing for optimization and see that they are violating these rules, you can be sure that the audience will become upset or even angry.

It may be worth noting what Gary Gygax had to say about paladins

Nice. That's a more proactive take on them than I have seen in a while. Good to hear from Gygax in this area.

The Great and Mighty

Bonus if it sings opera.

Hey, Alia.

I'm sorry you have a player who feels he has to corner/challenge the GM. That's no fun. Even less fun is play being bogged down by rules arguments when you'd like to focus on the game. Even less fun is when those rules arguments are slowing down play for four other players, and yourself. It boils down to: Him vs Him, Him, Her, Her, and Him.

I'd suggest taking this to the rpg.net forums or a different site. I love Paizo to pieces. Their forums tend to be crunchier than most, though. This has its strengths. If you're looking for more management advice, it can be found here, but will often get bogged down with the classic minmaxers aren't bad! versus yes they are! versus Let's qualify that. That's what is happening above, and "let's qualify what minmaxing is" is really tangential to your question.

So I'd head there, or perhaps a different forum and frame your question as a social and group issue at the table. There's no need to even bring up the system really, as this sounds firmly like a player issue.

GMs have been handling issues like these since time immortal. It's group management.

If i had to say one , then it would be the original.

The original paladin code is direct , the others are more ... open ended and generical , they dont directly tell you what you cant do at all.

Personally i never get paladin players because i warn them im really , REALLY strict with the code , so you better not step 1 foot out of it even ONCE or you will be losing powers and asking forgiveness. Ofc i know quite well others GMs show more leniency and sometimes just dont care at all about it.

Yeah, I would never play one under that.

It sounds like you're saying: just don't play a paladin in my game.

No offense meant: it's just what it comes across as. To me, it'd be the same as: "This is the one, true interpretation of the Ten Commandments." That's somewhat akin to, in the analogy above, saying: "Everyone uses the Southern Baptist version of the Ten Commands. It is the one true way." ...when you were wanting to play a Catholic's interpretation of the TC.

...which historically, one interpretation of even a "list of 10 simple do/do nots" did not work out. There are something akin to 40,000 varying Christian church organisations worldwide, likely all of whom claim the TC as core in their faith. Again, I am drawing an analogy.

What I could wish Paizo could do is say: yeah, there will be regional/faith-based interpretations.

Or perhaps they already have, with deity-specific paladin codes. I suppose part of that touches back on what the OP was bringing forward.

It is not explicitly covered, per se. Instead, I'd like to draw an analogy using real-world examples. I'll use one that I imagine many gamers in the US would be familiar with: the idea of Ten Commandments. I am not advocating any particular faith, here, or even faith or not-faith at all. Instead, I am hoping to draw an analogy about how you can take a core concept based around faith, and watch it diverge.

The Ten Commandments: Here are the traditional, "basic 10" found in many faiths. We could consider this "basic 10" as analogous to the paladin code. It's something typically seen as "the definitive list of thou shalt/shalt nots" among a number of belief groups.

...except every faith interprets those items slightly differently. Take these variations, for example:

Lutheran Catechism

Catholic Catechism

Baptist Catechism

...there are many more out there, including multiple proposed variations of a Methodist Catechism, and I am sure more for Baptist. We could venture further with the analogy, by going into things like Quakers, the Amish, and so on.

For purposes of our analogy, the different temples such as Erastil, are analogous to these groups. Their paladins take a "core code" and then it gets reinterpreted by their individual temple.

So:

Paladin Core Doctrine : Various Deity Codes :: Ten Commandments : The millions of Catecisms and faith doctrines in the RL based around the TC

I would presume that a paladin would understand their Core Doctrine based on how it was taught to them--so perhaps, the Deity Code for that deity's paladins would triumph.

I realize this analogy may make some uncomfortable, and I welcome a different variation of it for that reason. It's just something that pooped into mind and I haven't thought of anything better.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Sincere question: wouldn't the rules from the CRB supercede a freelancer's NPC where he might have missed that rule?

You can still make elixirs of personal spells with Create Wondrous Item.

Shouldn't anything that is published by Paizo undergo a rigorous enough editing standard that things that clearly break the rules don't make it in? I get that the rules are the law of the game, but if you are hiring people to create NPCs, shouldn't those NPCs have to conform to the same rules as everybody else? And shouldn't you be hiring people to create them that are pretty darn familiar with the rules? FAQ or errata request I don't care. If the button gets hit enough times, something will be done about it, and I, for one, believe something should be done.

Even the Vietnam War Memorial has spelling errors. It is/was one of the most highly scrutinized documents in the world.

The lowest percentage of errors you are able to achieve within a written document is something like 1-2%, with a lot of money, investment, and editing.

Pathfinder tries to include various monsters with different cultures, and it also has varying power levels. The first few levels the characters are mostly like ordinary people, and later they are like super heroes.

I thought about the idea of capping the power level of casters at to be close to a full caster's power when they get 7th level spells.
That however makes it really hard to have them fighting demon lords and other similar monsters. I know that is a rare event, but many still like the idea that it should be possible. The demon lords could be powered down, and the leveling system could change so that people still have a wide scope of power between levels 1 and (insert level cap).

In the end I think it would have to be more modular if you want to make most of us happy, but that may put a lot more work on the devs and GM's.

There is also the issue of many people wanting the game to be very similar to what it is now, even if they want some things fixed.

Paizo may need someone who is a technical writer, and who also understands the game to work with the dev team. I am sure people will still think of combinations of feats, magic items, and so on that were not thought of, but I think it would happen less.

I also think that Paizo to a large extent should rely on GM's to make rulings in corner cases, and they should make this known. Each splat book should work with the core book, unless the new ____ references another splat book. Of course there will be exceptions and the devs will have to come up with guidelines for that.

We as posters(not all of us) also have to get better at not trying to read the rules as loosely as possible to get everything we can out of them. Making FAQ's when you know how something works, but you just don't like the wording should have a lower priority than something that was really worded badly.

The more I learn about the PFS team, the more respect they get. It's rough to bridge the gap between all of the varying, different rulesets.

What PF does need are a team of technical writers. Not one, but a team, and a republishing of the CRB. If PF will stay relevant to new players, then it needs better approachability.

If your core book is streamlined and referencable, much of PF is modular to begin with. For example, publishing a spell compendium that cleans up, rebalances, and restrealines many of them would go a long ways. Perhaps it outlines Occult-style under and over-casting.

...concept could be a dwarven bread baker PrC, ala Pratchett.

DominusMegadeus wrote:

It... it's a cat. Like, how will the sex ever matter?

Given that a female felis domesticus, also known as the common house-cat goes into heat everytime she experiences estrus, I'd say it's pretty damn important what sex the cat is & it will matter...

I'd also say your GM is jacking with you and you need to get it resolved.
Out of Character.

On the other side of this, the males get highly aggressive throughout the year. It isn't uncommon for tom cats to die, end up scarred, infected, and so on.

They can easily end up missing eyes, an ear, parts of their skin, and so on from these fights.

This is over both female cats as well as territory, and goes on all year. Territory marking can also get aggressive--from urination and furniture mauling to cat mauling, and so on.

One of the reasons it's suggested to neuter male cats by 6 months of age is not only to reduce population numbers, but because it also curbs their behavior and lengthens their lifespan.

Basically: there are downsides to either feline gender and it's important to cover both.

The larger concern is: discuss with the DM how much the character is influenced by their new instincts.

Sounds like you have a transgender cat and a transspecies cat.

Something important to ask is: why is your character more accepting of a change in species than a change of gender? This is an important thing to know about the character, and should influence your steps forward.

If you conclude that the character's physical gender is such a significant part of his identity (not everyone's is), that it's an issue, then some choices open up.

For example, the character might take on a more shamanic view (see 'two spirit' in Google). They might additional magical knowledge. They might insist on certain pronouns, and so on. They might attempt overcompensating (for a cat this could be interesting) in some ways as well.

OTOH, it depends on your group's level of RP. Just work it out in some way, but and this is important: don't be upset because 'girl.' Be upset because, 'I feel strongly that gender is part of who this character is.'

If you do, also examine how they're handling being an entirely different species, too. It's who the character is now.

So...I got one thing from this thread.

Well, two.

Apparently: Women being fully clothed = censorship, to some.

Second, I'm heading over now to pre-order two copies of this book, and giving one as a present to a friend who's been considering getting back into 3.x, but she hadn't been sure yet.

Thank you for letting me know about the awesomeness.

My group doesn't have a problem with it, so it is in the game. My group has two women in it and it doesn't phase them at all.

From a recent game session:

Female player whose character with scimitar just scored a critical hit against a human cultist...

Me: "Your scimitar catches your foe across the mid riff, opening a wide channel of blood and entrails. With a scream of agony, he grabs at his intestines trying to spill from the enlarging wound and falls to his knees."

Female Player "I wonder how that hit would be like with a groin hit? Anyhow, I step forward and try to decapitate him with my next attack"

From another game session:

Me: "The three goons make disparaging remarks to about 'whether you got any hair "down there" and how they would like to find out. One of them states what he would like to do to your ears while he 'enjoyed' you and the others laugh in response. The other party members are still not in sight yet. What do you do?"

Female player playing a female elf magus character "I attack the nearest goon with my blade and then burning hands the three of them, while saying "You should be less concerned with whether I got hair "down there" and more concerned with the blade in my hand and the fire from my finger tips"

Typical game discussion stuff from my two female players... and both of them are mothers with small children. Go figure.

Bottom line - it comes down to knowing your players and their temperaments. It works for our group because everyone realizes it just a game and mature themes is part of the game. But it is entertaining to listen to the two ladies talk smack when they really getting into roleplaying.

With the utmost respect to you, I believe that how you're handling this is both important and illustrative. I imagine many gamers are okay with more mature elements--with the following caveat:

It's about who has the power. For example, sexual assault and harassment is about power. If in your games you allow the players/NPCs victory against the abuser instead of further harming the victims, then more gamers will be accepting of these elements within the game.

This is a fine point that's often difficult to explain. Someone more literally-minded I think, is likely to go: but they involve the same topic! How can this be objectionable in one case and not the other!

The answer is that it's nuanced. If the topic is enabling the victims, is a story of triumph, etc. then it's more likely to be accepted. If it's about exploiting the victims further, then less so.

...another part of nuance: it also happens to correlate with the "creepy vibes" given off by the other players at the table. If one player is a known misogynist, or say, a supporter of the KKK, then yes, any time they get near certain topic, other players at the table will be understandably wary.

In other words, involving these elements in a game involves basic social awareness.

As others have pointed out, forcing people to buy you books is pretty much the same thing as holding their builds ransom. Point is, don't do it.

Instead use PFS rules for it if you don't want to use SRDs: The must either A) Have a physical copy of the book, or B) have the pages they are referencing printed out and available. Either way they do not have to prove ownership of said pages or books.

When I read the B clause I figured that I might actually give PFS another look. It means that if someone has the book I need, or a PDF that I need that I can barrow or print out pages from their stuff to use.

My impression here is that many posters are skimming and not reading. For example, the OP stated:

- He isn't able to conveniently access the internet when they play, because they play at someone else's house
- His device which can access PDFs does not do so well...at all
- He isn't able to afford the books aside from Core
- It's his first time DMing PF and he needs time to learn the rules, too
- The player who had initiated the request was afterwards so embarrassed by his friends' demanding behavior that he left their second group

Somehow demanding he be able to access the resources otherwise, or produce funds that he doesn't have, doesn't solve our issue.

The printout suggestion isn't a bad one, and would be useful if a similar situation comes up. Unfortunately for just this instance...and please correct me if I'm wrong, the OP meant "they aren't leaders" to be: they aren't the sort of personalities who step forward on their own, or in more common parlance, "they don't tend to take initiative." In a case like this, you may need to initiate the, "If you'll let me borrow your books" conversation.

Having to initiate that conversation in itself, though, shows perhaps not only a lack of forward thinking on the players' part, but also in general politeness. If someone's in need, then offer to help out. It's part of what a gaming group is--you help eachother.

The one player who had initially made the request was also so embarrassed by the other players' behavior that he left that group...all of which suggests that yes, the players had acted in an entitled manner.

Perhaps they're just young and more socially awkward than most?