VacantFanatic's page

Sorry, but I seem to be on a tirady roll tonight:

My #1 issue with this whole thread:

WHAT MAKES FOR BETTER ROLEPLAYING, AND A MORE FUN GAME?

If we accept that:
- Goblins are universally evil, and may be killed no matter what the circumstance, as long as it is not intentionally cruel
- Good and evil can be defined consequentially

Then there is no roleplaying here. No moral dilemmas. No drama. No questions or discussion. Just "roll a die. Kill the goblin. Move on to the next creature labeled with an (E). Kill it. Repeat ad nauseum."

This eliminates all need to roleplay.

In a roleplaying game.

And I think that's why I've gotten all uppity on this thread -- It's a heck of a lot more fun to play/GM paladins and other "good" characters when they actually have hard choices to make, instead of just giving them carte blanche to slaughter anything with an (E) without even thinking about it. I'd rather say, "No, your god does not approve of that action," and see how they deal with it, than remain silent and let them kill everything in their paths.

P.S. Yes, I've edited this post to remove any reference to other posters. When I have time, I enjoy intellectual debates, but I realize that I'll be working 15-hour days and preparing an 8-player campaign next week, so I really need to bow out of the board and focus on 'real life' for a bit...

Well said QFE.

VacantFanatic wrote:

To the OP if you're the DM and you say it's an evil act. It's an evil act , explain your rationale to the player and move on. Unless the individual is a class that requires devout behaviour does it really matter? At this point it sounds like it's more about being right for the player that anything game related.

Well, it's a little bit more than that. This game was run using PFS, which is organized play, and evil alignments aren't allowed. If he commits enough evil acts, I'm forced to move him to evil and retire his PC. So it does matter.

Ah I had missed the bit about PFS, in that case yes it does matter as the acts become divisive.

My usual course of action for that sort of scenario, is to provide the player a warning and take it offline after the game and lay out a "moral framework" for people so it's clear from their perspective what constitutes a moral "transgression" in the eyes of their deity. I think a lot of people will evaluate "evil" from a Judeo-Christian framework; when they should instead consider what's "evil" for a worshipper of Calistra Vs. Sarenrae. I find people having a clear understanding of what the deity expects should minimize these arguments (IMHO).

Kolokotroni wrote:

can you give us more details then 'over the top'? How much damage was he doing? What feats did he have? etc.

Over the top is handing out on the order of 100 damage in a round on touch attacks. Nobody will convince me that is unbroken.

Quote:

"Loading a Firearm: You need at least one hand free to load one-handed and two-handed firearms. In the case of two-handed firearms, you hold the weapon in one hand and load it with the other—you only need to hold it in two hands to aim and shoot the firearm. Loading siege firearms requires both hands, and one hand usually manipulates a large ramrod (which can be wielded as a club in combat). "

A relevant quote from the OGL Gunslinger section:

Lightning Reload (Ex): At 11th level, as long as the gunslinger has at least 1 grit point, she can reload a single barrel of a one-handed or two-handed firearm as a swift action once per round. If she has the Rapid Reload feat or is using an alchemical cartridge (or both), she can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action each round instead. Furthermore, using this deed does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

The bolded bit was discussed as important in the previous discussion I found on this subject. It would appear to indicate you can reload as a free action once per found.

As that is a bit ambiguous, I was hoping an errata or FAQ had addressed this point.

You missed the important bit about "he can reload a single barrel of the weapon as a free action"

So people's experiences are that the current rules for character levels beyond 20 don't work very well?

My personal experience is that it's less to do with the "rules" and more do do with: "How do I engage the players.", you're quite literally forced to throw Angels, Demons, Avatars of Destruction, etc. at the PCs. Telling a compelling story with people who have the abilities of minor deities becomes somewhat challenging, unless you go into a "War on the gods establish a new pantheon" direction.

...and THIS is why people shouldn't care about alignment (unless the PC was a cleric, paladin or someone with a strict code of behaviour). It's an antiquated hold over from the 70's and it doesn't work well.

And the end of the day, who cares? It's a game and it's an alternate rule.

To the OP if you're the DM and you say it's an evil act. It's an evil act , explain your rationale to the player and move on. Unless the individual is a class that requires devout behaviour does it really matter? At this point it sounds like it's more about being right for the player that anything game related.

Tarrasque. Its all fun and games til the avatar of destruction wakes up.

Sure if you're going to get upset about that whole "Mines of Bloodstone" Incident...I mean it did say "Deadly" on the cover. :-)

Seriously though, post 18 it devolves into:
- "Hey you know what we should do? Let's descend into the lowest layers of the abyss and STEAL the wand of a demon prince just for SnG's!!!"
- "Sure that sounds like something we can pull off! He's gonna be SOOO angry!"