The Dwarf Carlos's page

137ben wrote:

Indeed, even among other culture's Very Evil slavery practices, the U.S.'s version was arguably the most brutal and cruel in human history.

You apparently don't read much history...especially the history of slavery in the Caribbean islands.

Your point on that comment is well taken, however there were many plantations in the Caribbean that were owned by U.S. citizens/concerns. Then of course there is the Haitian Revolution. The history of slavery in all of the Americas is really complex and horrifying.

For the last few days I have been questioning the entire alignment mechanic in RPGs and this thread has provided me with more grist for the get rid of alignment mill. Alignment (at its worst) seems like a mechanic designed to justify the slaughter of most everything players come across. In practice, it seems to come down to this: If you are good, neutral or evil you kill things that get in your way. I realize that there are nuanced campaigns but that seems to be a common way that play goes.

At its best I suppose alignment can help players create personas for their characters. Most of the time it seems flat or irrelevant in game. Setting up moral conundrums like this one seems to highlight that: do characters shift alignment every time they have to make a choice with no outcome that fits the alignment slot they have been assigned? -

Unless deontological ethics really are desirable for ease of setting up role play, I think that virtue becomes more interesting and dramatic when it is relative and situational.

The question I'm wrestling with is whether getting rid of alignment all together in PF makes for a more or less interesting game (and obviously the play style of the group in question is central to this).

Sorry to distract from the main question - the thread just struck a chord with me.

good work!
My attempts will likely be less ambitious - I just want to transport over the magic and divine caster rules.

I have yet to try the multiple level 0 characters idea. Not sure if it would work as easily in PF given how much more involved character creation is, but it would be worth a try.

Overall it looks as though you have opted to keep most of the DCC rules with a pathfinder setting. That should work out without too much grief. I think I will be taking the opposite tack, mostly Pathfinder with a little DCC thrown in to make things a bit more dangerous.

Yea - a lot of OSR stuff speaks to me event though I mostly DM PF(hence the alias) but race as class didnt appeal to me much back in the day and still doesn't. Overall they did a great job with DCC though.

Incorporating their treatment of magic into PF would be awesome.
Also - I looked up PEACHING in the urban dictionary and got scared.

Huitlacoche is about as gross as blue cheese. In other words it's tasty. That picture made it look foul though.

I'm thinking about mushing them as well but not along the lines of class. The thing I really like about DCC is the idea that magic can fail and have consequences as well as work better than you expect it to. THAT sounds like magic to me - it's a nice change of pace from cookie cutter spell effects. I also like the idea that your deity can become displeased at you for casting clerical spells. It creates a richer relationship between clerics and gods I think. The idea that clerics have to atone for bugging their god too much is again something that I think is a real improvement to the way divine magic is handled typically.

I know Pathfinder has Spell Blights - so I may look into expanding those rules rather than creating effects lists for every spell like in DCC.

Look forward to hearing more about what you come up with.