Tzeri D'Zargo's page

What works for me is having an accent/specific way of talking. My characters each have a different voice and using that voice to speak In-Character really helps me get into the spirit.

I've always found at least 1-2 others get more strongly in character when I introduce my character with a completely different voice.

As others have said, if you're casting an [Evil] spell, but using it to help your group achieve its objective WITHOUT torturing or murdering na innocent, you'll be fine. It's been ruled on. There's no grey area and if your GM rules against you, take it up the appropriate channels.

I'm playing a Necromancer, almost level 4. As long as I'm using an [Evil] spell to help out, it seems like everyone's happy to travel with my guy. No GM has ever had an issue with anything I've done.

Don't be a dick and step on someone else's playstyle. If your traveling with a Cleric/Paladin of Pharasma, you don't need to prepare spells that Animate Dead. Just do one of a dozen more effective strategies at your disposal.

If you are a min-maxer like you said, try deliberately making a weaker character.

If he is running the game for a power level below what you are currently able to handle, then a weaker character shouldn't have too much difficulty.

I understand how fun face-stomping everything can be (I'm an absolute cheese monkey myself, but my group is okay with it, I go kill everything while they search for loot or whatever it is useless pansy elf-bards do when face-stomping happens), but some of my most rewarding roleplaying experiences have been with Wisdom 14 divine casters, or STR 12 Fighters...

Create a new challenge for yourself. It's easy to bump your main stat to 30+, it's impressive to be powerful with a main stat of "only" 20...

At least consider it.

Of course, this still doesn't help the fact that your GM won't even let you choose your weapon type...

I'm floating the idea of turning the Grippli into a Gunslinger by him - it fits his requirement that I use a different weapon if nothing else. It's a little unfortunate in that I have to sorta reimagine him from the ground up (like how does a marshdeweller learn to use a gun and ditch most of his divine aspects other than a few religious traits maybe) and I think it only treats the symptom of the core problem - he's still gonna show up the slayer and I doubt anyone's gonna care that I'm doing it with a gun rather than a bow.

I just can't see a way I can build a character bad enough to be competitive with him and still have fun. Sure, I could dump my stats to 14 max, take a bunch of Social Feats and somehow try to make this character work... the problem is, I'd just fail at everything just like the slayer does (he even gets frustrated as his own characters inability to handle content)... I just don't see how that's fun.

Sounds like the GM may be inexperienced or feeling challenged running the group/players/campaign. Also sounds like the Slayer character is sub-optimally built based on the prestige class target.

Overall, this is a player-GM-group social dynamics discussion, not a character build discussion. You could start by saying something like "I hear you have concerns about me overshadowing the Slayer. If the Slayer character wasn't an issue, is there anything else that concerns you about what I'd like to do? Is there anything I/we could do to help?"

Then tease out any issues - things like

• GM doesn't want a Grippli character (doesn't like the flavor)
  
• GM concerned about you playing 2 or more characters (not saying you're doing that, just an example)
  
• GM concerned about you being able to, in his/her mind, Min-Max a character to 'break' the game or make the GM up the difficulty thus making it no fun for other (especially Slayer) players
  
• GM concerned about your play style
  
• GM concerned about his/her campaign/game style
  
• Interpersonal stuff
  
• Etcetera

Would the GM and would the player running the Slayer be open to you providing build/rebuild advice or tactical advice on how to make the Slayer more relevant?

Maybe the GM is feeling overburdened running the campaign. Could you or one of the other players offer to co-GM or to switch off GM duties?

Overall, this is a social game where everybody should be having fun. If the GM won't let you have fun and won't discuss, then time to try another table. But try talking out & understanding the GM's point of view first. Discussing things in an open & friendly atmosphere can help identify and minimize issues that are detracting from fun for someone.

We have talked a lot over the months and I can safely say, yes, the DM doesn't like my playstyle as much as others. I do min-max - I draw the line at using stuff that's broken, but if I'm playing a melee character, they're almost gonna always have 18+ Strength and take feats that make him better at melee fighting. I do dump stats my concept/class doesn't need as well.

The GM, when he plays, will do things like play a monk with 8 Con... and get one shot and find it fun. He'll point out things he did, like in one-shotting him, the BBEG crossed a bridge a second time and fell off it, taking 4d6 damage. I can't help but point out: "You could have done that with a 14 Con as well."... but I'm not about to tell someone they're having fun the wrong way, even though I feel he sometimes doesn't extend to me that courtesy.

I've often wondered if I'm just not a good fit for him and his group. But then I realize the Hunter + his pet is actually better in combat than I am. The DM allows this - he's just very protective of other roles. For example, if I stayed with my Ranger, he basically told me he'd prefer I didn't get a pet at level 4. I was okay with that since it didn't fit my concept very well, but I probably would have had to fight with him if I decided it did.

Regardless, I'm very glad to see that the discussion isn't one side, one way or another... even someone calling us both obnoxious/ridiculous. haha. It's making me a little less protective of my concept.

Sort of yes, sort of no. You really don't want to step on another players toes - that's just bad etiquette. That said, have you worked with the slayer player at all or is it the GM being overly heavy-handed on the slayer's part? What's the slayer player's take on all of this - the way you're writing it sounds like it's all coming from the GM.

I will say that the slayer character agreed when I talked to him about my ranger being a switch-hitter, but it wasn't a non-issue for him. He didn't argue, but he didn't seem all that enthusiastic.

He's very passionate about his character and - in his defense - it's a great character. He's trying for this kinda wonky Prestige Class though that's really tying his hands and making him a 5th wheel in combat until much later, however.

I guess I'm just looking for some confirmation bias one way or another - right now, I personally feel like the DMs being unreasonable... but I'm open to the possibility that maybe I'm not wearing clothes.

Hi all,

I've been recently butting heads with the DM of my home game.

Let me paint the picture:

We're running Rise of the Runelords and the party consists of a sorcerer, shaman, slayer, hunter and ranger (me). The slayer is an archer - great character, mechanics aren't very sound. He had no rapid shot or precise shot by level 3.

I wanted to play a switch hitter style, but I was told that if I were to do it, I would be required to use throwing weapons - as that cramps the style of the slayer.

I relented and we played through Book 1.

Starting in Book 2, I wanted to explore a new concept, so I opted for a Grippli Inquisitor who would be using a bow. I'll own it, knowing the fight I had with even becoming half-an-archer, that was ultimately resolved in a borderline nonsensical way, I should have expected major pushback. The problem was the character concept came to me with a bow and I *really* am tired of playing a melee - my other 2 characters are also melee. If I rolled a straight divine caster or straight arcane caster, I'd be equally stepping on toes, so I looked at Bards/Inquisitors as a sort of hybrid, ideal 5th man option.

Unfortunately, without a bunch of free feats for things like Quick Draw, a throwing weapon build isn't really viable at all - my anti-hero human ranger had enough to make it work, but Hero Grippli with only 2 at level 4 cannot. Besides, as I said, the character concept just loses so much of its flare if I have to ditch the bow. Maybe that's a personal problem of mine though.

Even before the mechanics were done up, I've been told I'm not allowed to use a bow.

Like I understand the potential is there to steal the "thunder" (I use that term loosely, the slayer is - far and away - the most useless member in the party when Initiatives hit the table.) of an archer, but I don't understand why this is a problem, especially since the Hunter and the Ranger both were two-handed melee fighters. The DM pointed out I used a Greatsword, he used a Glaive. And that made it okay. I was a little baffled at that explanation, but didn't fight him on it. Why can't two archers be in the same party and ... share the thunder?

Or am I being unreasonable/delusional/obnoxious... or all the the above?

Hello,

I'm sorta of new to society, but I've always loved roleplaying paladins. I've done a little homework seeing how they work in Society as Pathfinders, searching the forums and whatnot.

I know a lot of this will come down to whoever is running the game and will vary on a table to table basis, but I was wondering if some of the following conclusions were acceptable - my goal is to play a paladin who is an asset to the team, who doesn't bring down the fun at the table or just come off as this insufferable dink everyone just has to endure.

1. Evil Outsiders as pets. A paladin is, technically, under oath to destroy these whenever possible. Whenever possible being the operating word. Since we're geased to prevent attacking other Pathfinders and their pets, it's not possible.

My approach: Fall back on the Pathfinder mantra: Explore, Report, Cooperate and just ignore it. The Society allows them to have an imp - you are not a legitimate authority here. Besides, being overtly critical can severely jeopardize the ability to cooperate with this individual and may lead to chaos, which my character is every bit as against as evil. There's always a greater evil to pursue - pick your battles. Being uncompromising is the fastest way to insure chaos.

2. Surrendering Prisoners. A paladin is under oath to be honorable. Many interpret this as providing quarter to surrendering enemies or being agents of the law, required to take them prisoner and to a legitimate authority.

My approach: When in a city or any place with a legitimate legal structure, quarter is given by the paladin in accordance to his oath to respect the laws of society. He'll asks others do the same - it's not like spending 5 minutes turning over prisoners to guards will pose any undue burden. Sometimes, however, a paladin finds himself outside a structured society where the only law is natural law. In wilds, dungeons or lands ruled by evil (such as evil societies and monsters), he is within his right to be judge, jury and executioner and is by no means required to jeopardize the greater good or recklessly endangering his companions by taking dangerous foes prisoner.

3. Party members are endangering civilians. A paladin is under oath to protect the innocent. Being violent to others who may not have posed a threat to the party or, for example, an alchemist or wizard lobbing his bombs/fireballs at an enemy in a crowded room are severe ethical problems for the paladin.

My approach. Judgment call. If there's a clear and present evil, continue fighting it. You can't stop the alchemist from blowing up civilians (as you are geased to prevent direct action against another Pathfinder), but you can stop the evil he's trying to attack who's probably just as dangerous to the common good. After it's done, you tend the wounded as much as possible. You can try to preach the error of the guy's way, but more likely, my character would just write a lengthy report to his supervisors calling for the removal of the character from the Society. Also, if any legitimate authority comes to arrest the offending characters, the paladin does not interfere.

4. Others using ambushes, killing foes while they sleep, poisons... etc. Paladins don't use poisons and are encouraged to fight honorably and encourage those notions in others.

My approach. Not only is foiling an ambush or waking a target the party witch put to sleep so you can all 'fight honorably' a violation of the Pathfinder tenant to cooperate, I would argue it's actually a selfish act. What if a party member died because you had to go do something tactically unsound because your honor demanded it? Putting your own moral code above the wellbeing of your allies and, by your actions, forcing them to adhere to it is a Lawful Evil act. You are forwarding your own agenda without a care to how it may impact others. As for poisons, since it's explicit in his personal code, the paladin forgoes using them of course... but since it is allowed by the Society, it's not his place to criticize others for using it.

Anyway, please let me know if you take issue with any of these interpretations on how to play a paladin in society. At the end of the day, I want to play a character that adds fun to the table, not subtracts it - like so many paladins seem to do. The eye-roll when you say your class from the rest of the players who don't know you is always a sign of that.

Also, if you've bumped into issues playing a paladin that I didn't cover, please let me know how you handled it. I'm curious.

Thanks!