Syberfang's page

An NE would have a good well benefiting reason for killing a child, I've never known them to just randomly kill unless they were in a high position of authority, or a thief or something. NE are smart and would rather not deal with consequences of horrific actions, like hey one of my party is a cleric of Iomedae, I'm gonna kill a child. That is definitely CE territory.

If I were an NG Cleric of Iomedae in that situation, that kobold would be dead. Immediately. I think Iomedae is pretty strict on the "no murdering children" thing.

I played a Paladin of Iomedae and that is one of her laws. She is a no leeway goddess if the cleric knows this happened and did nothing about it short of killing him themselves or locking them away forever they have a vary high chance of loosing there powers. just saying

in D&D this wouldn't be a wrong doing since the most common explanation on CN was "Might save your life, might steel your car" but since pathfinder changed the idea of CN, which I have decided weather I agree or disagree with it, I find it perfectly acceptable to change his alignment. However I think switching him to CE would have been better since NE means that there actions are based personal gain, and even NE have second thoughts about killing children. CE doesn't give a F... and will kill and torture those who wrong them.

Your answer is in your question. You stated that according to you dragons can only reproduce when humanoid. So if they aren't dragon when born than the dragons wouldn't exist. Have them be born as dragons, just like an infant, they wouldn't have good motor controls so they wouldn't be able to pollymorph.

Just a side bar but i was under the impression dragons laid eggs. Hence the term hatchling for baby dragons. Being all powerful they can reproduce anyway they want but food for thought.

Most games I play/run in, the GM states up front what races and classes are available in the world (and if necessary, why). These things, by agreement with all parties involved, are generally immutable (with exceptions where there are vagaries, in which a player may ask for clarifications and reasonable exceptions -- in a campaign I ran, I did not allow drow as a player race, but a character wanted to play a character who was a mixed race elf with drow ancestry, which mechanically he himself offered to write up as a normal elf--he just wanted the flavor. I was fine with that.

If a race or class you want to play is not in the list, you either put that character concept aside, alter that concept to fit the specs, make a new character that fits the specs of the campaign, or you find a campaign where your concept is allowed. There shouldn't have to be drama over that. Either the campaign is for you, or it isn't. Either the GM for you, or it isn't. But trying to force the campaign or GM to be something other than what they are is just going to make you frustrated and everyone frustrated with you.

It's different if a GM says, "Play what you want" and then starts vetoing things randomly. That's BS. Consistency and fairness are essential. You find a better GM at that point.

But otherwise, it's the GM's world, and the parameters established are there for a reason--and ultimately, IMO, that is so everyone can feel like they are in a real, living world with consistency and consequences. It's not even about the "GM is always right" it's that, as LazarX notes, "the GM is busting his ass to design you a cool world that makes sense, and will continue to bust his ass so you can have fun in that world." The GM also has the right to want to have fun as well, for that matter, and if excluding something makes it easier and more fun to run--ultimately that also means the game is easier and more fun to play for everyone. Happy GMs generally equal happy players -- and where that is not true, find a better GM or better player....

well put

Playing unusual races has nothing to do with how experienced a player is. Your statement is elitist in nature, and I hope you take it back. As for Riuken, I am going to DM the next Kingmaker starting at the end of this month. They're rolling mostly normals, but I made it clear that they WILL run into at least one of the homebrew races that I have established as canon on Golarion. The only one voicing any negative on that was that DM (who is now a player), but only because of one race of mine he just seems to hate.

I wasn't being elitist, i don't care if people play unusual races, but if you let people be uncontrolled, and play walking gods or just obscene characters it's not fun for anybody. I am against power gaming.

like i said playing a character that obscene throws off the legitimacy of the whole game and makes you look like a fool to experienced gamers. Trust me on that.

I'm curious as your previous example states. Playing "a half demon lizard man with flaming wings and a pet huge sized flaming spider" seems quite ridicules. I deal with this by reject the player to play a "half demon lizard man with flaming wings and a pet huge sized flaming spider." Especially if the rest of your characters are playing regular races. Correct me if I'm wrong but i believe pathfinder hasn't made a book for humanoid races. So if you wanted to play one you would have to take it strait from the Monsters Manuel, leaving the character completely overpowered. If the person insists to play such a cacophony I would have city guards attack them on site and peasant folks run in terror, but most importantly I would face him against enough guards that they could not survive.

Unusual characters are okay in my book but there is a limit that people should not cross. Characters like such i think are only useful in bs level 20 campaigns. Not for a module, and damn sure not for low level.

Either your playing with children who have wild imaginations, no offense, or you need to take control of your games and keep them realistic. Unless the a random and just for lulz.