Telvent the Tame's page

Thank you all for your promt responses. I ask because someone in our group did in fact get a racial boon (oni?) at PaizoCon and we were discussing restrictions and applicaitons of that boon.

Thanks again everyone!

I am sure we will all have a hearty chuckle at how silly I am being when I ask this question because it feel slike one that would have already been asked and answered a few times. The problem is I can’t find the documented result of any other those times. So, without further adieux . . .

The question I have is specific to racial options.

The Guide states:
Step 2: Race and Class
Select your character’s class and race from the choices offered in the Core Rulebook. Additional class and race options from resources like the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player’s Guide, Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic, Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat, and Pathfinder Campaign Setting: The Inner Sea World Guide are generally available with few or no alterations, as well.

I cannot find documentation of the “few or no alterations” except in the class changes discussed later in this same step.

So if I find a playable race in one of these books that is not one of the core races, is it automatically allowed in a PFS game or is it a GM by GM decision?

Scott Walsh wrote:

The descriptions of alignment are pretty clear, there is no lying needed, they give you pretty defined definitions on how those types of people should behave if they are that alignment.

Its not clear at all, its VERY blurry, especially for NPCs. How far does "I was just following orders" go with a Lawful neutral character before they go all the way to evil?

I think they are unclear because they are concepts that exist outside of the characters themselves. They are guides for the palyer, no the character, which means character could belive they were CG while torturing children to find the big bad boss, but the players would clearly know he was CE. The characters are often, just like us in real life, ignorant of their true alignments. Players can play an evil caharcter who thinks he is LG but really is CE only because the character is not aware his or her alignment.

it's not evil, it's pragmatic and a smart tactic. nothing in the paladins code forbids torture. and torture isn't an even an evil act. intellegent undead are assumed to be evil and a good paladin wants to see the undead follower suffer.

Um. What? Torture isn't an innately evil act? I would argue that point.

Oh Porphy, that's too nice. I'd love to play with you some day!

Allowing one player's curse to "splash" over onto other player is a GREAT idea. I remember when Skills and Powers came out and you could buy additional benefits by taking disadvantages. There was one that got you 10 points called "Powerful Enemy". I was in a game once when a player took that disadvantage and the GM simply said "Hmmm. Sounds good to me."

He used that at every turn to mess with the party. Every time we walked into a new town, that character just happened to look like the public enemy number one in that town. Took no time and there was no over-reaching story arch. Just a lot of pain all the time.

Nothing better than making the entire group pay for the sins of one person.

If you two have a shared backstory and you are looking to have some fun role playing consider playing the same “type” of fighter and competing.

My PFS char is a dwarf fighter specializing in range attacks with a bow. My friend is playing his brother, a ranger specializing in ranged attacks with a crossbow. The two are competing to see who is the better “death from afar” warrior.

The role play is a lot of fun and we have a rounded group with two other tanks up front so the overall impact to survivability was fairly low, which is why we felt ok with this choice.

I have to say it is one of the most fun relationships I have ever role played due in huge part to the group being encouraging and enjoying the exchanges. Sometimes when in a fight, and not at legitimate risk of someone dying, one of us will delay until the other is attacking and CMB bump to him to make him miss. We as players never do this when it may result in the group being at risk, but it is a mechanic that adds to the role play and the entire tables enjoys watching us go after each other from time to time.

I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.

Although I have seen some folks advocating this, I think the general opinion seems to be that all players need to curb their desires in one area or another to ensure they have a character other people want to tolerate. This is the reason I have problems playing a Neutral character at times.

A cowardly wizard who screams and runs from any enemy who gets within 10 feet but otherwise helps the group and has hopefully been the difference between life and death at least once is a quirky character, if played right. A strong independent wizard who is open about the fact that if things get rough he will bail and safe his own skin is also a quirky character if played right.

The difference between the two is that people may want to stay in a group with first one and would likely not choose to group again with the second one.

You as a player have some measure of obligation to the rest of the group to bring a character others want to be around, coward or not.

I think James makes a good point. As this curse progresses towards some form of a climax, so should its manifestations. What began as dreams should start creeping into the waking world. First in flashes then in long moments, then in larger chunks of time.

You could pull him out of the room durring a conversation with NPCs. Play his character with the rest of the group and then give him a completely seperate conversation. This forces the players and the characters to try and figure out what is going on. It does create more work for you but it sounds like you are pretty supportive of this side story.

I guess my only point is, if you are going to let him fall or at least get to the point where he has to choose to fall, this curse itself needs to continue building up until the point.

I would like to see somnething set in a completely urban setting. Rogues, Bards, urban Rangers, and a heavy requirement for skills like bluff, diplomacy, and the ability to investigate. Even better is it was all set in one huge city . . .

I have to agree with Pan and J3C. First and foremost a group of players has to want to play together. There are lots of ways a player can justify not killing someone when they think their character would believe it was justified. The simple fact is that players killing players is often indicative of a poorly composed group. You could have discussed alignment with him and argues about what should have happened but that monster would likely have reared its head somewhere else.

I'd say count yourself lucky and move on.

Consider giving him multiple personalities. When the lawful good personality is in control he is in office and when the lawful evil personality is in control he is setting “himself” up to lead the PC astray. Think Tyler Durdon in Fight Club. The evil personality actively works to sabotage his lawful good alter ego and the PCs. The evil personality is aware of the good personality and alters his reports and assignments so he truly thinks he is doing good and the good personality is none the wiser. This makes the alignment issue super simple. The Captian is lawful good when the PCs meet him; end of story. As they get closer to ending the story you can even play with them walking in on him as “evil” captain and when he notices he faints and wakes up good as part of the transition.

Just a thought.