paizo.com Recent Posts by WPharolinpaizo.com Recent Posts by WPharolin2022-09-27T22:54:45Z2022-09-27T22:54:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Let's hear your most epic or ridiculous TPKs!!WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sekj?Lets-hear-your-most-epic-or-ridiculous-TPKs#502015-07-07T22:55:32Z2015-07-07T11:36:11Z<p>Some copypasta from a much older thread....</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">WPharolin wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Only time I ever encountered the Tarrasque as a player, a buddy of mine was playing a dwarven fighter. Tarraque shows up and he boldy announces that he's got this. That we should all just stand back and watch. He strolls on up to the damn thing carrying part of a heroes feast (I guess he thought he was more likely to be targeted if he had food. I dunno) and lets himself get swallowed whole. He then informs the DM that he is going to turn his bag of holding inside out and hands his character sheet over to the DM to look over his inventory. The DM looks at it for a moment and then looks up...looks back down...looks back up..."I f#~@ing hate you"</p>
<p>You see the dm had given him a bag of holding with infinite capacity. During a previous adventure he used the bag to catch water leaking from a planar rift. We had all forgotten about this. The entire elemental plane of water was inside this bag. Like the whole damn plane. So he opens the bag and the prime material plane is engulfed by the plane of water. Only the druid and the tarrasque survived. Although the tarrasque remained drowned for the rest of time.</p>
<p>And this behavior was completely in character. That's the scary part.</blockquote><p>Some copypasta from a much older thread....
WPharolin wrote:Only time I ever encountered the Tarrasque as a player, a buddy of mine was playing a dwarven fighter. Tarraque shows up and he boldy announces that he's got this. That we should all just stand back and watch. He strolls on up to the damn thing carrying part of a heroes feast (I guess he thought he was more likely to be targeted if he had food. I dunno) and lets himself get swallowed whole. He then informs the DM that he is going to...WPharolin2015-07-07T11:36:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Making encounters interesting instead of deadlyWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2scnm?Making-encounters-interesting-instead-of-deadly#142015-06-13T15:48:05Z2015-06-13T15:48:05Z<p>I'll second class levels now that I understand your meaning. I'll also add tactics. Lower CR creatures can gain a lot of longevity if you really understand the options they have available to them. Of course, this all comes back to what I said earlier about understanding the rules available to you. If you understand how to capitalize on your advantages while mitigating your disadvantages caused by things like weather effects and poor lighting or slippery surfaces, etc. then you can be better equipped to have your NPC's/monsters make more interesting choices. </p>
<p>For example, if the PC's attack a group of bandits and the bandits get their asses handed to them. Those same bandits might come back and ambush the party. They could use ranged attacks from behind cover on high ground. Maybe they buff their attacks with something like Flaming Arrows (an underused spell considering it's duration). Maybe they laid a pit trap or two to slow down the PC's advance. Those conditions alone could be more than enough to get the PC's interested in the fight because it gives them the feeling that the stakes have been raised. They aren't fighting programed monsters with attack routines anymore. Now they're fighting bandits that actually care about their success and their survival. It adds a level of verisimilitude that let's the players know you're invested in the game and willing to try to make things interesting and exciting. As long as you pay attention to the party and make sure not to make the situation unwinnable or unfair the PC's will (generally) respect you for it. It seems simple, but few DM's really use the tactics available to them. Which is odd to me because the returns you get from your players is so worth it.</p>I'll second class levels now that I understand your meaning. I'll also add tactics. Lower CR creatures can gain a lot of longevity if you really understand the options they have available to them. Of course, this all comes back to what I said earlier about understanding the rules available to you. If you understand how to capitalize on your advantages while mitigating your disadvantages caused by things like weather effects and poor lighting or slippery surfaces, etc. then you can be better...WPharolin2015-06-13T15:48:05ZRe: Forums: Advice: I shouldnt have to limit myself, just so someone can feel specialWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sclm&page=4?I-shouldnt-have-to-limit-myself-just-so#1932015-06-16T05:54:58Z2015-06-13T15:21:13Z<p>I honestly don't understand the idea that the player should be held to some kind of standard of fun for other players. Don't misunderstand me, everyone should be having fun and the disparity is a problem. But not one caused by the player. It was caused by the DM. He gave away a truck load of money and didn't give any spending guidelines. He even approved the choices that were made. If this was an oversight or a bad call or whatever, then fine. That's cool. But the answer isn't "Oh I gave you too much money and approved your choices? Oh well then this is your fault for not also being psychic." it's "Hey guys, yeah it's legal but I goofed. Here's a a few ideas for how we fix this, lets go over them and see what we can do."</p>
<p>Honestly, this all speaks to a greater problem that has existed for years. Some classes don't have rolls. Damage isn't a roll. This isn't an MMO. If all of your feats and class resources are spent to make you better at dealing damage than the conclusion isn't that damage is your schtik. It's that you don't HAVE a schtik at all. Being a big burly warrior comes with more aspects than just hitting things hard. If your entire contribution to the game can be supplanted by another classes features than the answer isn't to force others to abide by nebulous agreements (even if the vagueness can be mitigated by open communication). It's to fix the core problem.</p>
<p>Now, these problems can and do exist so a gentlemen's agreement IS necessary until they no longer do. My argument was never that it shouldn't exist. Merely that it's existence is problematic because it is merely a tool - an invisible and vague tool- that we use to sweep the large issue under the rug.</p>I honestly don't understand the idea that the player should be held to some kind of standard of fun for other players. Don't misunderstand me, everyone should be having fun and the disparity is a problem. But not one caused by the player. It was caused by the DM. He gave away a truck load of money and didn't give any spending guidelines. He even approved the choices that were made. If this was an oversight or a bad call or whatever, then fine. That's cool. But the answer isn't "Oh I gave you...WPharolin2015-06-13T15:21:13ZRe: Forums: Advice: I shouldnt have to limit myself, just so someone can feel specialWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sclm&page=3?I-shouldnt-have-to-limit-myself-just-so#1342015-06-13T02:14:09Z2015-06-13T02:14:09Z<p>The first post did indeed direct the flow of the conversation. But it in no way hinted to me that he wanted a dissection. And to be frank, I don't care too. He made an assertion that he shouldn't have to limit himself and gave an anecdotel reason why he felt that way. His build really couldn't be any less relevent if it tried. The gold his DM tossed at him is a complete non-starter.</p>
<p>Personally, I agree with you kestral to a degree. But I find it a troubling answer because it implies that we need shadow rules when making a character. These are always going to be nebulous because you are literally basing these invisible, self-imposed restrictions are based entirely on trying to feel out what is okay and not okay on a person by person basis. And you have zero control over the sensibilities of others.</p>The first post did indeed direct the flow of the conversation. But it in no way hinted to me that he wanted a dissection. And to be frank, I don't care too. He made an assertion that he shouldn't have to limit himself and gave an anecdotel reason why he felt that way. His build really couldn't be any less relevent if it tried. The gold his DM tossed at him is a complete non-starter.
Personally, I agree with you kestral to a degree. But I find it a troubling answer because it implies that we...WPharolin2015-06-13T02:14:09ZRe: Forums: Advice: I shouldnt have to limit myself, just so someone can feel specialWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sclm&page=3?I-shouldnt-have-to-limit-myself-just-so#1292015-06-15T10:54:55Z2015-06-13T01:49:22Z<p>It seems to me the heart of this discussion SHOULD have been whether or not we should limit ourselves or hold back in anyway if it means not offending other Pcs. His story should have been an anicdote added to clarify his meaning and possition. It's a shame that the anicdote became the focus because I think a discussion could have been worth something. Why does anyone care how much money his DM throws at them? It isn't remotely relevent. "But his CP cost was too high!" Who cares? He's claiming he shouldn't have to cater to the feelings of the group. Shouldn't we address that...like...at all? I mean it is the thread title after all.</p>It seems to me the heart of this discussion SHOULD have been whether or not we should limit ourselves or hold back in anyway if it means not offending other Pcs. His story should have been an anicdote added to clarify his meaning and possition. It's a shame that the anicdote became the focus because I think a discussion could have been worth something. Why does anyone care how much money his DM throws at them? It isn't remotely relevent. "But his CP cost was too high!" Who cares? He's...WPharolin2015-06-13T01:49:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Making encounters interesting instead of deadlyWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2scnm?Making-encounters-interesting-instead-of-deadly#62015-06-14T16:41:32Z2015-06-13T00:16:07Z<p>Sort of a false dichotomy don't you think? Encounters can be deadly and interesting. </p>
<p>Anyway, my answer is know the rules and use them. You can utilize more of the rules than just the monster or NPC stat block. Throw some terrain features into the mix. Make sure you know the cover and concealment rules. Use those. Visibility, weather, slopes, flanking, high ground, difficult terrain, etc. You need to make sure that your players have interesting choices to make. The rules have plenty of ways to do that. There are plenty of other things that factor into making a memorable encounter but I think this is the most fundamental step. You need to know what your building blocks are. Unfortunatly, there seem to be far too few DMs who do.</p>Sort of a false dichotomy don't you think? Encounters can be deadly and interesting.
Anyway, my answer is know the rules and use them. You can utilize more of the rules than just the monster or NPC stat block. Throw some terrain features into the mix. Make sure you know the cover and concealment rules. Use those. Visibility, weather, slopes, flanking, high ground, difficult terrain, etc. You need to make sure that your players have interesting choices to make. The rules have plenty of ways...WPharolin2015-06-13T00:16:07ZRe: Forums: Advice: I shouldnt have to limit myself, just so someone can feel specialWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sclm&page=2?I-shouldnt-have-to-limit-myself-just-so#982015-06-15T09:06:29Z2015-06-12T23:00:52Z<p>When I DM I create the standards by which characters are created which sets a precident for what sorts of characters WILL be created. But the rules are BIG. You have to pay attention to what the party is making. Ultimately, nothing gets into the game I don't allow. Now I'm not all that draconian so most things are allowed. But if I see a power desparity I sure as hell wouldn't blame my players. Now personally I don't think damage is a role and thus nt something I care one bit to protect, but if it's an issue for the other player the DM should have interejcted. "Yes, it is legal and I allowed it. Here are a number of solutions. Let's figure this out." But this idea that we all hold the player accountable for building a character he was told would be okay is rediculous.</p>When I DM I create the standards by which characters are created which sets a precident for what sorts of characters WILL be created. But the rules are BIG. You have to pay attention to what the party is making. Ultimately, nothing gets into the game I don't allow. Now I'm not all that draconian so most things are allowed. But if I see a power desparity I sure as hell wouldn't blame my players. Now personally I don't think damage is a role and thus nt something I care one bit to protect, but...WPharolin2015-06-12T23:00:52ZRe: Forums: Advice: Is this unfair to the players?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2scmo?Is-this-unfair-to-the-players#492015-06-12T22:37:01Z2015-06-12T22:37:01Z<p>Here's how you make it fair... since you want this to happen at the end of the dungeon all you have to do is forshadow. This is incredibly easy. Put two or three things in the dungeon thathint at the possibility so that the players have a chance to figure it out and avoid reading random letters without investigating them first to be sure it's not a trap. Could be something as simple as a journal entry where he talks about botching the spell one time. Anything really.</p>Here's how you make it fair... since you want this to happen at the end of the dungeon all you have to do is forshadow. This is incredibly easy. Put two or three things in the dungeon thathint at the possibility so that the players have a chance to figure it out and avoid reading random letters without investigating them first to be sure it's not a trap. Could be something as simple as a journal entry where he talks about botching the spell one time. Anything really.WPharolin2015-06-12T22:37:01ZRe: Forums: Advice: I shouldnt have to limit myself, just so someone can feel specialWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sclm&page=2?I-shouldnt-have-to-limit-myself-just-so#762015-06-15T08:16:57Z2015-06-12T22:17:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dekalinder wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Craft (anything) is broken and people gets upset when someone brings them to the table.
</p>
Whoop-dee-freaking-doo.</p>
<p>Like, noone ever said that before in the history of Pathfinder.</p>
<p>If you plan on not upsetting people, don't chose broken stuff like crafting feats or thing like leadership. If you actually don't give two hoots about it and do it anyway, then don't be surprised when people actually do.</p>
<p>And don't try to pass up minmaxing a construct as an rp choice. </blockquote><p>That's a bad argument. If you as a player are told "here are the available options for making your character" you shouldn't have to guess which ones are in fact NOT legal because they were shadow banned or trap options or violate the secret gentlemens agreement you didn't know you were a part of. That's just silly.Dekalinder wrote:Craft (anything) is broken and people gets upset when someone brings them to the table.
Whoop-dee-freaking-doo.Like, noone ever said that before in the history of Pathfinder.
If you plan on not upsetting people, don't chose broken stuff like crafting feats or thing like leadership. If you actually don't give two hoots about it and do it anyway, then don't be surprised when people actually do.
And don't try to pass up minmaxing a construct as an rp choice.
That's a bad...WPharolin2015-06-12T22:17:31ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: On the Nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not Legal')WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qpn8&page=3?On-the-Nature-of-Law-and-Chaos#1442015-06-05T23:12:47Z2015-06-05T23:12:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Envall wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Evil is Individualism </blockquote><p>O.o Not sure if I should be offended or not...Envall wrote:Evil is Individualism
O.o Not sure if I should be offended or not...WPharolin2015-06-05T23:12:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Is the world ready... for a halfing BBEG? (Minor spoilers probable)WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sbu7?Is-the-world-ready-for-a-halfing-BBEG#422015-06-05T21:20:27Z2015-06-05T21:20:27Z<p>Assuming my games have a BBEG at all (most don't) they tend to be overwhelmingly medium. But I have used a handfullof small ones as well as a Tiny sized BBEG who my group still talks about even several years later.</p>Assuming my games have a BBEG at all (most don't) they tend to be overwhelmingly medium. But I have used a handfullof small ones as well as a Tiny sized BBEG who my group still talks about even several years later.WPharolin2015-06-05T21:20:27ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What is everyone's fascination with...WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sbnx?What-is-everyones-fascination-with#182015-06-04T03:36:49Z2015-06-03T06:43:32Z<p>You know, there are happy mediums. It doesn't have to be random vs point buy. In my home games I have each player roll 4d6 drop the lowest six times. Pretty standard. But then I allow anyone to use any set that was rolled regardless of who rolled it. This creates more organic characters while also ensuring that everyone will have a set they can be satisfied with.</p>You know, there are happy mediums. It doesn't have to be random vs point buy. In my home games I have each player roll 4d6 drop the lowest six times. Pretty standard. But then I allow anyone to use any set that was rolled regardless of who rolled it. This creates more organic characters while also ensuring that everyone will have a set they can be satisfied with.WPharolin2015-06-03T06:43:32ZRe: Forums: Advice: So, what's the point of a Portable Hole?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s2mp&page=2?So-whats-the-point-of-a-Portable-Hole#752015-03-21T03:33:06Z2015-03-21T03:33:06Z<p>I don't know about other peoples games but in mine the point somehow became making cheesy Silent Hill references. "There was a hole here once, but it's gone now."</p>I don't know about other peoples games but in mine the point somehow became making cheesy Silent Hill references. "There was a hole here once, but it's gone now."WPharolin2015-03-21T03:33:06ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ryq2&page=13?Anybody-starting-to-have-trouble-recognizing#6142015-03-04T20:07:20Z2015-03-04T08:19:57Z<p>Everybodies over here talking about bloat and I'm just like "I'll pay you right now for a time travel book."</p>Everybodies over here talking about bloat and I'm just like "I'll pay you right now for a time travel book."WPharolin2015-03-04T08:19:57ZRe: Forums: Advice: How to Avoid Becoming a Murder HoboWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rwzl&page=3?How-to-Avoid-Becoming-a-Murder-Hobo#1052015-01-29T23:43:22Z2015-01-29T23:43:22Z<p>Murderhobo is a term that describes a character that exists in a system that mechanically encourages murder and that controls wealth in a way that encourages certain purchases over others in such a way that you have don't have the freedom to save money or invest in the setting or plot without limiting your character in some way. Such as a system with experience for killing and wealth by level. We CAN play 20 questions and solve the issue at the table, but it certainly doesn't address the cause of murderhobos.</p>Murderhobo is a term that describes a character that exists in a system that mechanically encourages murder and that controls wealth in a way that encourages certain purchases over others in such a way that you have don't have the freedom to save money or invest in the setting or plot without limiting your character in some way. Such as a system with experience for killing and wealth by level. We CAN play 20 questions and solve the issue at the table, but it certainly doesn't address the...WPharolin2015-01-29T23:43:22ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Some of your house rules that you like bestWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ruzc?Some-of-your-house-rules-that-you-like-best#442015-01-21T05:12:17Z2015-01-21T05:12:17Z<p>I had to pick I'd say I'd say my favorite is my NPC class called ...NPC. It replaces all of the existing NPC classes with a single 3 level class which generates a large number of character concepts rich and poor, skilled and unskilled, magic and mundane. At fist level they get a background which comes with a skill set and a very small list of feats and abilities appopriate to the concept. At 2nd and 3rd level they can choose a distinction. Each distinction has a background requirement. What they do is represent minor abilities appropriate to the concept that sets them appart from the lower level npcs with similar backgrounds. These range from things like feats, minor abilities, and spell like abilities to things like having contacts , increased fame, and so on. </p>
<p>The major difference is in the way the class stops at lvl 3. So if you wanted a 11th lvl shaman for example, you might make an 11th lvl adept. But with this class you'd make an 11th level druid/NPC or something similar.</p>I had to pick I'd say I'd say my favorite is my NPC class called ...NPC. It replaces all of the existing NPC classes with a single 3 level class which generates a large number of character concepts rich and poor, skilled and unskilled, magic and mundane. At fist level they get a background which comes with a skill set and a very small list of feats and abilities appopriate to the concept. At 2nd and 3rd level they can choose a distinction. Each distinction has a background requirement. What...WPharolin2015-01-21T05:12:17ZRe: Forums: Advice: I need to ban some spellsWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rwb2?I-need-to-ban-some-spells#222015-01-20T05:57:40Z2015-01-20T05:49:28Z<p>My suggestion is to start with another creature. The tarrasque is an over CR'd chump. But if you really want to use him, you would save youself a lot of grief (and time and effort) by beefing him up rather than banning dozens of spells (and items too if we're being honest) just to make a single encounter enjoyable. Here's the url of an old thread about t he tarrasque that may be worth reading.</p>
<p>http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgrc&page=1?I-found-a-way-to-defeat-the-Ta rrasque</p>My suggestion is to start with another creature. The tarrasque is an over CR'd chump. But if you really want to use him, you would save youself a lot of grief (and time and effort) by beefing him up rather than banning dozens of spells (and items too if we're being honest) just to make a single encounter enjoyable. Here's the url of an old thread about t he tarrasque that may be worth reading.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgrc&page=1?I-found-a-way-to-defeat-the-Ta rrasqueWPharolin2015-01-20T05:49:28ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=23?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#11472015-01-19T07:45:08Z2015-01-19T07:45:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Roan wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The wacky Mythic tricks were in response to Explosive rules stacks and other shenanigans. Some would call that "clever spellcasting" while I would call it disingenuous.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Oh, theres been plenty of disingenuous crap on both sides. As well as condescending, smug arrogance, and flippant disregard for valid points. I'm aware. And pointing it out while being flippant, smug, and arrogant is disingenuous. I do not mean that disrespectfully, but it certainly smacks of hypocrisy when you call someone out for their demeanor while treating them the same way.Roan wrote:The wacky Mythic tricks were in response to Explosive rules stacks and other shenanigans. Some would call that "clever spellcasting" while I would call it disingenuous.
Oh, theres been plenty of disingenuous crap on both sides. As well as condescending, smug arrogance, and flippant disregard for valid points. I'm aware. And pointing it out while being flippant, smug, and arrogant is disingenuous. I do not mean that disrespectfully, but it certainly smacks of hypocrisy when you...WPharolin2015-01-19T07:45:08ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=23?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#11342015-01-19T06:59:41Z2015-01-19T06:59:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Adept_Woodwright wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I agree with you entirely Senko. I don't like where I've needed to go to attempt to counter potential tactics.</p>
<p>My hope is that, should we get something that works, we can make it more fighter like. </blockquote><p>Wait, so your hope is to create a character with the maximum number of non-fighting man abilities that people will accept as still being a fighting man? The very fact that you require something that works first in order to begin making it more fighter like is telling don't you think?Adept_Woodwright wrote:I agree with you entirely Senko. I don't like where I've needed to go to attempt to counter potential tactics.
My hope is that, should we get something that works, we can make it more fighter like.
Wait, so your hope is to create a character with the maximum number of non-fighting man abilities that people will accept as still being a fighting man? The very fact that you require something that works first in order to begin making it more fighter like is telling don't...WPharolin2015-01-19T06:59:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=23?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#11182015-01-19T04:54:07Z2015-01-19T04:54:07Z<p>While I agree that the tactics you've been mentioning dont really require a build to show or discuss as just about any high level pointy hat can exploit it thus rendering the tactic external to a specific build, I also disagree that builds don't demonstrate the power of the class. True, this power will fluctuate based on the builders game mastery and mind for strategy, but each build serves to demonstrate the various potential states of the class. Yes, that includes the power levels of the class in less adept hands vs expert builders. But both sets of information are useful. Especially when judging the classes learning curve and over all barrier of entry due to complexity as well as coming to understand the most common and outlier strengths and features.</p>While I agree that the tactics you've been mentioning dont really require a build to show or discuss as just about any high level pointy hat can exploit it thus rendering the tactic external to a specific build, I also disagree that builds don't demonstrate the power of the class. True, this power will fluctuate based on the builders game mastery and mind for strategy, but each build serves to demonstrate the various potential states of the class. Yes, that includes the power levels of the...WPharolin2015-01-19T04:54:07ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=14?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#6942015-01-18T00:19:52Z2015-01-17T15:34:59Z<p>Okay, let's say we throw these two in the arena. "Round one, FIGHT!" and then in this strange void where they battle without any consideration for what they actually DID with their previous levels, one of them performs his fatality on the other. What does it prove? It doesn't say anything about one classes ability to influence the game world over the other. Or their ability to contribute to the plot. It doesn't say anything about how they perform on a team. It doesn't say anything about their ability to contribute to appropriate challenges. Negotiations and bartering, exploration and travel, healing/dealing with injury, surviving extreme conditions, bypassing barriers or traps, handle outlier hostiles, etc. etc. etc.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, even if the fighter or the wizard or the candle stick maker came away from this as the Undisputed Heavy Weight Champion of the World! We'd still be left with zero information of value.</p>Okay, let's say we throw these two in the arena. "Round one, FIGHT!" and then in this strange void where they battle without any consideration for what they actually DID with their previous levels, one of them performs his fatality on the other. What does it prove? It doesn't say anything about one classes ability to influence the game world over the other. Or their ability to contribute to the plot. It doesn't say anything about how they perform on a team. It doesn't say anything about their...WPharolin2015-01-17T15:34:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=13?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#6392015-01-17T00:11:43Z2015-01-17T00:11:43Z<p>Honestly, you don't need the extra wealth from crafting to create a winner. Just let the rule stand.</p>Honestly, you don't need the extra wealth from crafting to create a winner. Just let the rule stand.WPharolin2015-01-17T00:11:43ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Most worthless spellsWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ru5l?Most-worthless-spells#382018-10-18T00:05:13Z2015-01-05T05:44:04Z<p>Similacrum. It lacks enough information to be usable without the DM writing the rest of the spell first.</p>Similacrum. It lacks enough information to be usable without the DM writing the rest of the spell first.WPharolin2015-01-05T05:44:04ZRe: Forums: Advice: Spell Duel between two 20th Level SorcerersWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rudi&page=2?Spell-Duel-between-two-20th-Level-Sorcerers#832015-01-05T05:31:19Z2015-01-05T05:31:19Z<p>I'd cast plane shift and exit stage left.Cause the only high level sorcerer I've ever played couldn't make a saving throw to save his life.</p>I'd cast plane shift and exit stage left.Cause the only high level sorcerer I've ever played couldn't make a saving throw to save his life.WPharolin2015-01-05T05:31:19ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: If there is "DR/-", why isn't there "Resistance/All"?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rro9?If-there-is-DR-why-isnt-there-ResistanceAll#362014-12-11T14:30:01Z2014-12-11T14:30:01Z<p>I have something similar house ruled into my home games. I have a condition called [Indomitable] which simply causes a creature to take half damage from everything. There are a very few creatures that just have this straight up, but usually it's a temporary benefit granted by meeting a condition (Such as a feat that grants it whenever you take total defense with a heavy or tower shield). It's generally not all that big a deal. Half damage is a different kind of beast than flat reduction in damage, but I just can't see it being so much different that a Universal Resistance would swing to the other extreme and break the game.</p>I have something similar house ruled into my home games. I have a condition called [Indomitable] which simply causes a creature to take half damage from everything. There are a very few creatures that just have this straight up, but usually it's a temporary benefit granted by meeting a condition (Such as a feat that grants it whenever you take total defense with a heavy or tower shield). It's generally not all that big a deal. Half damage is a different kind of beast than flat reduction in...WPharolin2014-12-11T14:30:01ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: How do you use alignment? Do you?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rqn6&page=5?How-do-you-use-alignment-Do-you#2412014-12-10T19:36:44Z2014-12-10T08:46:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Digitalelf wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote> Except you forget the most important part. I didn't.</blockquote><p>Usually, in a polite setting, when one person says something, and another takes offence to the remark, the first person, unless the remark was intended to offend that person, will offer up an apology.
<p>I know that whenever I say something on these boards and someone says "Hey! Not cool dude." my post history shows that I sincerely apologize (first) and then offer an explanation of why I said what I did, or what prompted me to say what I did in the first place.</p>
<p>Did I expect too much? Would it have been so awful to, at the very least, acknowledge that even though you don't think or believe you said anything wrong, that perhaps, just perhaps, you might inadvertently had?</blockquote><p>Frankly sir, I must very vehemently disagree with you. Of course, we should all be polite to one another. But there are things you should not apologize for, regardless of who it offends. A well constructed criticism is one of those things. In a debate being passive aggressive is, in my opinion, annoying but also a little insulting. We should not be attcking each other. But we most certainly should be attacking the possition of the opposition in the debate (in an honest and well reasoned way). It is just respectful and plain good form.
<p>That said, the debate is becoming about your feelings. That is a derail. If you still feel dejected than perhaps a private conversation would be best.</p>Digitalelf wrote:Ashiel wrote: Except you forget the most important part. I didn't.
Usually, in a polite setting, when one person says something, and another takes offence to the remark, the first person, unless the remark was intended to offend that person, will offer up an apology. I know that whenever I say something on these boards and someone says "Hey! Not cool dude." my post history shows that I sincerely apologize (first) and then offer an explanation of why I said what I did, or...WPharolin2014-12-10T08:46:33ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: How do you use alignment? Do you?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rqn6&page=5?How-do-you-use-alignment-Do-you#2382014-12-10T19:37:11Z2014-12-10T08:21:45Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rynjin wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Aelryinth wrote:</div><blockquote>re: what Deadman said. It's been the ruling for YEARS. I'd personally like to see the ruling where using Evil magic is NOT an Evil deed. </blockquote><p>In fairness, if you're of the RAW camp that feels that creator opinions aren't relevant and you don't use Golarion...there's nothing in the actual core rules to suggest this (at least not directly).
<p>So...in a non-Goarion setting, you're on pretty solid footing to argue that ruling it as a non-Evil act isn't even a House Rule, just a rules interpretation. And a pretty straightforward one. </p>
<p>Personally, I favor going with what the folks at Paizo state as the RAI in most cases, but I can see why some folks go the other way. </blockquote><p>The problem with using creator opinions is that the creators have different and often conflicting opinions, either with each other or with what the actual rules state.
<p></blockquote><p>To further complicate things, many creators can't even be bothered to stay consistant or non-cntradictory with their own writing. It goes beyond things like 'summoning demons is neither evil nor good' getting published in one book and then 'summoning demons is totally evil' getting published in another book. Andy Collins and Skip Williams basically had no idea how the whole thing worked and didn't much care. They just changed their possitions to suit the moment because reasons. And 3x suffered for it. Not so much at the table. But forum arguments become kind of a circle jerk when quotes from books and the sage say two different things but are both written by the same dude. It was almost like they were trolling us. Pathfinder hasn't made any steps to improve the communities snow ball fights on good n' evil either.
<p>I always have a new appoach and good intentions walking into these threads. But I always walk away from them them feeling like a junky.</p>Rynjin wrote:Deadmanwalking wrote: Aelryinth wrote:re: what Deadman said. It's been the ruling for YEARS. I'd personally like to see the ruling where using Evil magic is NOT an Evil deed.
In fairness, if you're of the RAW camp that feels that creator opinions aren't relevant and you don't use Golarion...there's nothing in the actual core rules to suggest this (at least not directly). So...in a non-Goarion setting, you're on pretty solid footing to argue that ruling it as a non-Evil act isn't...WPharolin2014-12-10T08:21:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Do deities shape alignment, or does alignment shape deities?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rrgj&page=2?Do-deities-shape-alignment-or-does-alignment#602014-12-10T07:51:56Z2014-12-10T07:51:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scythia wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">WPharolin wrote:</div><blockquote> In the Forgotten Realms there are 20 deities that are lawful good. In Golarion there are 9. In Eberron there are 3. The idea that alignment is handed down from the gods requires some extreme justification to function at even a cursory level. It simply isn't an idea that is compatible with the game. </blockquote><p>Who else but the divine could be a source of morality in a game setting? Are you suggesting that all morality within the game world is inherently humanist in origin?
<p>Good and Evil are universal forces, that aren't adjudicated by any beings or powers, rule over deities, aren't spread by the gods, and yet somehow everyone knows what they are and how actions interact with them.
<br />
A bit confusing. </blockquote><p>The player decides because that is the only answer that is coherent.Scythia wrote:WPharolin wrote: In the Forgotten Realms there are 20 deities that are lawful good. In Golarion there are 9. In Eberron there are 3. The idea that alignment is handed down from the gods requires some extreme justification to function at even a cursory level. It simply isn't an idea that is compatible with the game.
Who else but the divine could be a source of morality in a game setting? Are you suggesting that all morality within the game world is inherently humanist in origin?...WPharolin2014-12-10T07:51:56ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Do deities shape alignment, or does alignment shape deities?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rrgj&page=2?Do-deities-shape-alignment-or-does-alignment#552014-12-10T01:21:53Z2014-12-10T01:21:53Z<p>In the Forgotten Realms there are 20 deities that are lawful good. In Golarion there are 9. In Eberron there are 3. The idea that alignment is handed down from the gods requires some extreme justification to function at even a cursory level. It simply isn't an idea that is compatible with the game.</p>In the Forgotten Realms there are 20 deities that are lawful good. In Golarion there are 9. In Eberron there are 3. The idea that alignment is handed down from the gods requires some extreme justification to function at even a cursory level. It simply isn't an idea that is compatible with the game.WPharolin2014-12-10T01:21:53ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Do deities shape alignment, or does alignment shape deities?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rrgj?Do-deities-shape-alignment-or-does-alignment#432014-12-09T08:03:05Z2014-12-09T08:03:05Z<p>There is clearly a wrong answer here. It's the one that doesn't put two gods at war with each other over minor disagreements over right and wrong.</p>There is clearly a wrong answer here. It's the one that doesn't put two gods at war with each other over minor disagreements over right and wrong.WPharolin2014-12-09T08:03:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=18?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#8842015-01-20T23:10:39Z2014-12-05T22:47:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DominusMegadeus wrote:</div><blockquote> Redemption does not equal forgiveness, btw. If you never meet the people you've wronged again and they die cursing your name, that doesn't make you Evil. You turned a new leaf for all the right reasons and became a Good person, regardless of what you did before. Other people do not decide your alignment. You do. </blockquote><p>I agree with you. Full stop, that is how things should be. Unfortunately, the rules want to be both subjective and objective. If alignment were entirely subjective like it tells you it is just before going on to contradict itself repeatedly, this would be true of the game too and I probably would never have actually house ruled alignment away. I'd have just ignored it because there wouldn't have been a difference between using alignment and not using alignment. Then the people who claim that alignment is a useful tool for DM's would be right and I'd have no issues at all.
<p>But that isn't the way the game is. The game uses objective standards as well as physical objective evil force. And in a universe with objective standards you DON'T choose. You just are. And in order to change alignment you have to work at it. You can't just stand up and decide to be good now. You have to do actions which will change you from good to evil. Which is of course, a level of mind-numbing stupidity I'm more than happy to avoid. </p>
<p>Oddly enough, there is already a universe that has evil and good as physical forces which can be effected by trivial acts of good or evil. It's called the Care Bears. The Care-o-Meter tilts one direction or the other based the total sum of trivially good or evil deeds. Splashing mud in someones face can cause the global "care" amount to drop. While helping an old lady across the street has the inverse effect.</p>DominusMegadeus wrote:Redemption does not equal forgiveness, btw. If you never meet the people you've wronged again and they die cursing your name, that doesn't make you Evil. You turned a new leaf for all the right reasons and became a Good person, regardless of what you did before. Other people do not decide your alignment. You do.
I agree with you. Full stop, that is how things should be. Unfortunately, the rules want to be both subjective and objective. If alignment were entirely...WPharolin2014-12-05T22:47:01ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: How do you use alignment? Do you?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rqn6&page=3?How-do-you-use-alignment-Do-you#1072014-12-09T02:40:29Z2014-12-04T07:23:14Z<p>The current argument on morality is why I do not use alignment in my home games. Alignment doesn't resolve conflicts. Granted in most games they dont cause them either, but that's very near always because alignment and alignment rules are ignored rather than because they are functional. The truth is that very nearly all instances of alignment coming up at all is an out of game argument about it. It's just not a set of rules that actually does things.</p>The current argument on morality is why I do not use alignment in my home games. Alignment doesn't resolve conflicts. Granted in most games they dont cause them either, but that's very near always because alignment and alignment rules are ignored rather than because they are functional. The truth is that very nearly all instances of alignment coming up at all is an out of game argument about it. It's just not a set of rules that actually does things.WPharolin2014-12-04T07:23:14ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What 8 Classes Would You Keep?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rcrt&page=4?What-8-Classes-Would-You-Keep#1712014-11-30T04:40:41Z2014-11-30T04:40:41Z<p>Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Magus, Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard</p>Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Magus, Paladin, Ranger, and WizardWPharolin2014-11-30T04:40:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=12?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#5682014-11-30T12:02:12Z2014-11-29T16:33:33Z<p>About Rogar Stonebow's water and ink analogy. It's similar to "When the paper's crumpled up, it cant be perfect again" ~Linkin Park. The reason his analogy fail's has nothing to do with which substances used, and I personally think it did a reasonable job of demonstrating incorrectable flaws. I don't think anyone had any actual trouble understanding his point. In fact, I think people have been unfairly nitpicking his analogy rather than tackling the actual flaw in it.</p>
<p>The real reason his analogy fails is because it turns morality into something simplistic and objective, which it is most certainly not. Actions are not color coded for our convenience and no one is entirely good or entirely evil and the context and intent of our actions matter. However, calling him out for ink containing water is disingenuous in my opinion as it hand waves the point he was trying to make entirely.</p>About Rogar Stonebow's water and ink analogy. It's similar to "When the paper's crumpled up, it cant be perfect again" ~Linkin Park. The reason his analogy fail's has nothing to do with which substances used, and I personally think it did a reasonable job of demonstrating incorrectable flaws. I don't think anyone had any actual trouble understanding his point. In fact, I think people have been unfairly nitpicking his analogy rather than tackling the actual flaw in it.
The real reason his...WPharolin2014-11-29T16:33:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=11?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#5202015-01-18T00:12:33Z2014-11-28T22:22:45Z<p>My group calls the "Trust in the magical superpowas of the DM" argument the Willy Wonka argument. Because it usually boils down to this...</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>Feel free to add a line or two about where you buy your vegetables.</p>My group calls the "Trust in the magical superpowas of the DM" argument the Willy Wonka argument. Because it usually boils down to this...
[Spoiler omitted]
Feel free to add a line or two about where you buy your vegetables.WPharolin2014-11-28T22:22:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why zombie livestock is a bad ideaWPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rqj3?Why-zombie-livestock-is-a-bad-idea#32014-11-28T02:25:44Z2014-11-28T02:25:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">ryric wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Where are these rules on Int of which you speak? I really can't find them. Mindless means that a zombie or skeleton has as much brainpower as a cricket. It follows literal orders from its creator or someone with Command Undead or such. Giving an automaton accurate orders is more like computer programming than it is farming. Someone experienced/knowledgeable with magic knows how to phrase commands to get what they want - that's probably not the farmer.
<br />
</blockquote><p>It would be reasonable for him to turn your argument around with "Where are these rules on computer programming in which you speak?". You may have extrapolated that giving orders to undead is similar to programming from your interpretation of the rules, but you are literally trying to pull the same tactic on him that you just called him out for trying to use on you. You BOTH are looking at the rules and then extrapolating. Either you both are allowed to do that, or neither of you are.ryric wrote:Where are these rules on Int of which you speak? I really can't find them. Mindless means that a zombie or skeleton has as much brainpower as a cricket. It follows literal orders from its creator or someone with Command Undead or such. Giving an automaton accurate orders is more like computer programming than it is farming. Someone experienced/knowledgeable with magic knows how to phrase commands to get what they want - that's probably not the farmer.
It would be reasonable for...WPharolin2014-11-28T02:25:44ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=10?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#4682014-11-27T14:07:14Z2014-11-27T14:07:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Eh. No more than the rules for changing Alignment do to start with. </p>
<p>Besides, who doesn't like a good magical tea party?</blockquote><p>Nothing wrong with that at all. That is exactly what I advocate. No alignment means not having to justify the side effects of having rules with horrible implications because there aren't any implications at all. Players are more than capable of just deciding for themselves.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Not exactly. I'm just clarifying my own position. And it does involve having rules, they're just fairly freeform. </blockquote><p>If a player can't look at rule and immediately gauge it, of it it basically puts him at the mercy of the DM's sensibilities, then the difference between having the rule and not having the rule is that one of those takes up word count. Since having alignment doesn't solve debates about the story any better than just not having alignment does than freeform is really the only sane option.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The Alignment rules are extremely useful to the GM as a shorthand for 'What is this NPC likely to do?' and a measure of what spells effect them in what manner. They're a lot less necessary for PCs, but there for consistency. And pretty codified.</blockquote><p>I have a question: Have you ever played another system, not D&D or it's legacy games, that did not use alignment? If so, did you ever once feel as though you couldn't get a handle on the characters because it lacked alignment?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The rules for changing alignment, on the other hand, are pretty freeform, and adding a category of actions to them doesn't make them less so. </blockquote><p>No it doesn't. You're right. Every argument in favor of [alignment] affecting alignment in this thread has been one that does not require rules. I would go so far as to say, they CAN'T have rules. That the very notion of a concrete system for alignment shifting is impossible. My issue is that that makes the whole argument kind of pointless.
<p>Example:
<br />
If good spells lean toward good than casting good spells can make you good. Even if you have committed rape and do not feel remorseful. This statement is true.</p>
<p>It becomes false statement when you counter it with what basically equates to not having rules. It's a gentlemen's agreement of sorts. And that's cool. But it's also confusing because it isn't a position that actually care what the hypothetical rules are. Thus the confusion that you were agreeing with people whom you were not.</p>Deadmanwalking wrote:Eh. No more than the rules for changing Alignment do to start with. Besides, who doesn't like a good magical tea party?
Nothing wrong with that at all. That is exactly what I advocate. No alignment means not having to justify the side effects of having rules with horrible implications because there aren't any implications at all. Players are more than capable of just deciding for themselves. Deadmanwalking wrote:Not exactly. I'm just clarifying my own position. And it...WPharolin2014-11-27T14:07:14ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=10?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#4672014-11-27T13:40:09Z2014-11-27T13:40:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Paul Watson wrote:</div><blockquote><p>WPharolin,
</p>
Ok. That's fair. My post was very badly phrased and aggressive. <b>My central point, which I can see you not getting, is that alignment is pretty much "magical tea time" all the time.</b> There aren't going to be hard rules on it because morality is something that varies a lot between tables and defining things strictly from Golem HQ would just not work. For people who like the rules to be more codified and precise, <b>I see how alignment which is messy as all hell drives you nuts.</b> However, if <b>byou are already using alignment</b> and judging whether giving orphans bread is a good act or how it balances with you making them orphans, then an aligned spell falls into the same bracket. It is defined by the table, and that's the only way alignments can work at all. So saying <b>this particular part is "magical tea time" </b> when all alignment is seems a little dismissive and patronising to people who don't share your distaste for alignment in general. </blockquote><p>Please go back and read my posts. You're current argument is not one I can even begin to address as it misrepresents my position on a level that makes it unrecognizable.Paul Watson wrote:WPharolin,
Ok. That's fair. My post was very badly phrased and aggressive. My central point, which I can see you not getting, is that alignment is pretty much "magical tea time" all the time. There aren't going to be hard rules on it because morality is something that varies a lot between tables and defining things strictly from Golem HQ would just not work. For people who like the rules to be more codified and precise, I see how alignment which is messy as all hell drives...WPharolin2014-11-27T13:40:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=10?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#4592014-11-28T19:03:34Z2014-11-27T12:08:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Paul Watson wrote:</div><blockquote><p> And WPharolin,
</p>
Please show me in the rules where the acts requried to change alignment are expliclty spelled out. They're not, so casting aligned spells simply falls into the same area as adjudicating any other act and its effects on your alignment. So kindly stop the patronising "magical tea party" b•$~%&#+. </blockquote><p>No. Plain and simple. Because asking me to do so shows a ridiculous lack of understanding in what my position actually is or what my point was. I'm sorry you were offended by a common, well understood phrase used in the rpg forum community. But I won't feed your knee jerk reaction to an innocent remark.Paul Watson wrote:And WPharolin,
Please show me in the rules where the acts requried to change alignment are expliclty spelled out. They're not, so casting aligned spells simply falls into the same area as adjudicating any other act and its effects on your alignment. So kindly stop the patronising "magical tea party" b*$~%&#+.
No. Plain and simple. Because asking me to do so shows a ridiculous lack of understanding in what my position actually is or what my point was. I'm sorry you were...WPharolin2014-11-27T12:08:30ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=10?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#4562014-11-27T18:43:36Z2014-11-27T11:34:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote><p> That's not precisely the position I or, say, ryric are arguing. We're arguing that [alignment] spells being aligned acts only results in the 'cosmic vending machine' problem if you ignore context...which likewise results in the 'cosmic vending machine' problem if you ignore the context of non-magical acts.</p>
<p>In short, casting a spell is equivalent to a minor act of that alignment. Logically, if someone would let you 'buy your way to heaven' (or Hell) by spamming such a spell, they must also allow it for donating the money used to some charity for the same purpose. I mean, donating to charity is clearly a Good act. </blockquote><p>Unless you are up for the insane task of grouping actions into tiers of Alignment-ness and ranking them all individually in a way that rape can't be paid away with trivial tasks, what you are asking is that people use their heads and keep things sensible. But asking people to do so is the same as asking them to not have rules for alignment shifting at all. You are asking people to play magical tea party with it. That's a totally okay possition. In fact, it's one step away from my possition of zero alignment rules whatsoever.
<p>The question then becomes why bother defending rules with a possition that necessitiates having no rules? You're basically asking for people to think you're agreeing with them.</p>Deadmanwalking wrote:That's not precisely the position I or, say, ryric are arguing. We're arguing that [alignment] spells being aligned acts only results in the 'cosmic vending machine' problem if you ignore context...which likewise results in the 'cosmic vending machine' problem if you ignore the context of non-magical acts.
In short, casting a spell is equivalent to a minor act of that alignment. Logically, if someone would let you 'buy your way to heaven' (or Hell) by spamming such a...WPharolin2014-11-27T11:34:41ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=10?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#4512014-11-27T09:41:48Z2014-11-27T09:41:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Digitalelf wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">WPharolin wrote:</div><blockquote>The position of the Yes camp is inconsistent, and relies on a stance of 'evil spells send you to evil, no exceptions for intent', but when shown the implications, suddenly 'Nuh-uh, good spells can't do the reverse, because intent matters!'.</blockquote><p>...
<p>YMMV... </blockquote><p>I did not say that. Please adjust your quote tags.Digitalelf wrote:WPharolin wrote:The position of the Yes camp is inconsistent, and relies on a stance of 'evil spells send you to evil, no exceptions for intent', but when shown the implications, suddenly 'Nuh-uh, good spells can't do the reverse, because intent matters!'.
... YMMV... I did not say that. Please adjust your quote tags.WPharolin2014-11-27T09:41:48ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=9?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#4472014-11-27T18:44:51Z2014-11-27T06:30:23Z<p>At this point the Skeleton ox rentals are becoming a derail. They were meant to demonstrate a point. The point could have been made with any number of other skeletal animals performing any number of other tasks. My own campaign has a necromancer who sells skeletal watchdogs and in one city zombies pull sedan chairs. However, worrying about whether an Auroch is an Ox kind of misses the point.</p>At this point the Skeleton ox rentals are becoming a derail. They were meant to demonstrate a point. The point could have been made with any number of other skeletal animals performing any number of other tasks. My own campaign has a necromancer who sells skeletal watchdogs and in one city zombies pull sedan chairs. However, worrying about whether an Auroch is an Ox kind of misses the point.WPharolin2014-11-27T06:30:23ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=8?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#3922014-11-26T10:32:17Z2014-11-26T10:32:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">WPharolin wrote:</div><blockquote>My very first sentence said actions. I was very clear that I was using spells as an example of actions and that my problem was with the implication that trivially "good" actions somehow allow you to atone for horrific evil acts. So unless your trying to agree with me I fail to see what your point is. </blockquote><p>Ah. Well, in that case my point is that you're seriously off-topic since this thread is specifically about how and whether spells effect Alignment, not about whether Alignment is a good system to start with.
<p>It's also misleading due to the spell example thing. </blockquote><p>You may be right about it being misleading, in which case I apologize. I disagree however that it is off topic. When we discuss whether Alignment tags affect alignment, asking whether it's even a good idea for that to be the case because of the implication that doing so comes with seems a pretty solid starting point to me. It may be part of a larger alignment issue than just spell descriptors, but that doesn't mean that fixing or understanding the larger issue doesn't directly portain to the smaller.Deadmanwalking wrote:WPharolin wrote:My very first sentence said actions. I was very clear that I was using spells as an example of actions and that my problem was with the implication that trivially "good" actions somehow allow you to atone for horrific evil acts. So unless your trying to agree with me I fail to see what your point is.
Ah. Well, in that case my point is that you're seriously off-topic since this thread is specifically about how and whether spells effect Alignment, not about...WPharolin2014-11-26T10:32:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=8?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#3902014-11-28T18:51:58Z2014-11-26T09:30:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deadmanwalking wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>Uh...this is poor logic whether spells apply or not. Using this logic, no spells involved, someone can commit an act of rape or murder and then become Good over time by, say, giving a lot of money to charity, coincidentally having a career involving helping people, being friendly and politely affable to people on the street, or a host of other things. All with no real intent to reform.</p>
<p>The problem with this idea isn't spells being aligned acts, it's the idea that by performing a relatively minor action defined as Good repeatedly and by rote, your Alignment will change. Which is, y'know, b~+!•#$#. Whether spells are involved or not. </blockquote><p>My very first sentence said actions. I was very clear that I was using spells as an example of actions and that my problem was with the implication that trivially "good" actions somehow allow you to atone for horrific evil acts. So unless your trying to agree with me I fail to see what your point is.Deadmanwalking wrote:Uh...this is poor logic whether spells apply or not. Using this logic, no spells involved, someone can commit an act of rape or murder and then become Good over time by, say, giving a lot of money to charity, coincidentally having a career involving helping people, being friendly and politely affable to people on the street, or a host of other things. All with no real intent to reform.
The problem with this idea isn't spells being aligned acts, it's the idea that by...WPharolin2014-11-26T09:30:15ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=8?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#3892014-11-28T18:52:04Z2014-11-26T09:24:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">WPharolin wrote:</div><blockquote> One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you. </blockquote>Why does casting a spell bother you? Do you have minor good or evil acts in your game? Do they affect alignment? Can you "wash away" rape by donating to the poor? </blockquote><p>It is not the spells that bother me. It is the idea that trivially good deeds in large quantities somehow make you good. I used spells as an example because that is what has been talked about and it's relvent to this thread.
<p>No. I don't use alignment in my games so I don't have to account for such idiocy.</p>Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:WPharolin wrote: One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a...WPharolin2014-11-26T09:24:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=8?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#3852014-11-28T18:52:21Z2014-11-26T07:27:36Z<p>One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called lawful good after killing and raping because you cast protection from evil enough times. It's offensive whether you believe it's RAW or a house rule. No thank you.</p>One of the ideas repeated in this thread is that performing evil or good actions, in this case via flagged spells, can shift your alignment one way or the other if cast enough times. If casting evil spells turns a good man evil over time and casting good spells turns an evil man good over time than you have just created a system where you can rape and then "wash it away" by casting good spells. I can't even fathom why anyone would want to play in a setting where its possible to be called...WPharolin2014-11-26T07:27:36ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=5?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#2482014-11-24T04:53:42Z2014-11-24T01:49:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">TriOmegaZero wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">WPharolin wrote:</div><blockquote> Which, of course, leads to the question why even have alignment? </blockquote>Because they choose to. The only reason to have any rules. </blockquote><p>I disagree. Having rules is a fair way to end debates about how to resolve a part of the story. It can also inform the player how strong they are in relation to the world around them, give them a clear idea of what their characters can and cannot do, etc. But alignment doesn't really do that. Or anything really. Sure you CAN just have it to have it. But that's a lot of word count for a rule that's history has caused more debates than it's resolved.TriOmegaZero wrote:WPharolin wrote: Which, of course, leads to the question why even have alignment?
Because they choose to. The only reason to have any rules. I disagree. Having rules is a fair way to end debates about how to resolve a part of the story. It can also inform the player how strong they are in relation to the world around them, give them a clear idea of what their characters can and cannot do, etc. But alignment doesn't really do that. Or anything really. Sure you CAN just have...WPharolin2014-11-24T01:49:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=5?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#2452014-11-27T23:42:53Z2014-11-24T01:28:49Z<p>I can kind of understand why people get so confused by this. It's easy to rationalize why a spell is tagged as [Evil]. They do this using nothing but real world cultural ideas rather than using the ideas implicit in the setting, but they do it. It isn't wrong or even terribly difficult. As long as a thing "makes sense" in some fashion many people are willing to call it a day and claim that it's a perfectly functional rule. It's not really worth your time to debate whether a thing should be evil because there is more than one context in which a thing can be rationalized as evil and when you tell them they're wrong it completely goes against what they know and understand about evil.</p>
<p>Conceptualizing Alignment the way Ashiel does is really the only sane way to go if you value non-contradictory rules. But it is also really freakin' HARD. Remember you're not asking people to spit Evil into Evil and Evil. You're asking them to divide Evil into two overlapping but distinct versions of Evil with both subjective and objective applications and contradictory rules in both axis, as well as sub-categories of evil which are also conveniently called evil in a system that has authors that can't agree on the definition of evil. And then you're also asking them to do that for Good, Chaos, and Law (the absurdity of [Alignment] tags becomes more recognizable when you examine it on the [Law] and [Chaos] axis).</p>
<p>TOZ is right. [Evil] spells aren't actually evil actions except when they are used in an EVIL way. But that's confusing as s@#%. It's so confusing that it's easier for people to just tell you you're wrong and rationalize it somehow. After all, it doesn't effect most games. </p>
<p>Which, of course, leads to the question why even have alignment?</p>I can kind of understand why people get so confused by this. It's easy to rationalize why a spell is tagged as [Evil]. They do this using nothing but real world cultural ideas rather than using the ideas implicit in the setting, but they do it. It isn't wrong or even terribly difficult. As long as a thing "makes sense" in some fashion many people are willing to call it a day and claim that it's a perfectly functional rule. It's not really worth your time to debate whether a thing should be...WPharolin2014-11-24T01:28:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=4?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#1672014-11-25T12:40:30Z2014-11-21T23:04:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Orfamay Quest wrote:</div><blockquote><p> If the DM says that <i>infernal healing</i> is an evil spell, he is under no obligation to explain to you why, either in-character or out. Similarly, if he decides that <i>fireball</i> or <i>cure light wounds</i> is an evil spell, you are not entitled to an explanation.
</p>
</blockquote><p>As a DM I dislike this mindset. Of course I owe you an explination when I change the rules. I absolutely do. Hell in my opinion I don't even get to change the rules without talking to the players about it first. It's not even a reasonable possition
<p>Just a personal observation but generally the players I've gamed with who treat me with some kind of special reverence as if I was like unto a god, are also the ones who wait around for me to tell them what to do. I really wish players would start seeing the dm as a human being again.</p>Orfamay Quest wrote:If the DM says that infernal healing is an evil spell, he is under no obligation to explain to you why, either in-character or out. Similarly, if he decides that fireball or cure light wounds is an evil spell, you are not entitled to an explanation.
As a DM I dislike this mindset. Of course I owe you an explination when I change the rules. I absolutely do. Hell in my opinion I don't even get to change the rules without talking to the players about it first. It's not even...WPharolin2014-11-21T23:04:35ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Should the use of Evil aligned spells affect your alignment as a PC?WPharolinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rpr8&page=3?Should-the-use-of-Evil-aligned-spells-affect#1192014-11-27T17:21:14Z2014-11-21T01:40:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote><p> It's entirely relevant as you claimed "But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. " No D&D game I have ever played (exception, a Evil campaign) gave any benefits at all for "murder". You might as well say that when playing A wargame you get "mechanical benefits for murder".
</p>
</blockquote><p>No. I'm sorry but how you play the game is irrelivent to what the game actually promotes. It it adds nothing whatsoever of value to the discussion. And frankly, I'm not willing to debate "but my group has never gained anything for murdering someone" because thats not a rules debate and therefor pointless to a debate about rules. It's no different than me trying defend a rule in monopoly by telling you about my free parking house rule. Regardless of your personal experience the game clealry promotes killing.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
And you do get exp for those if doing so is the encounter or quest. </p>
<p>"Experience points are awarded for overcoming challenges and completing major storylines. " "As a character overcomes challenges, defeats monsters, and completes quests, he gains experience points." "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short). .....
<br />
Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. Feel free to award Story Awards when players conclude a major storyline or make an important accomplishment. "</p>
<p>Not a single mention of "murder" or even "killing". </p>
<p>And "completing major storylines" "completes quests" and "completing adventures" are all called out. More often than "defeating monsters". </blockquote><p>Well that's reasuring. Progress has been made. It feels good knowing that killing a goblin bags me clearly defined loot and xp but if I heal a goblin, and it happens to be part of a quest, which was likely to include killing (especially if it was a prewritten AP), that my DM may find it in his heart to grant me rewards on par with killing. And I'm relieved to learn that if I establish a trade route to help with commerce that I'll be rewarded, but only if the DM agrees it was a quest or major story and only however much he guesses is appropriate. Look, if they can't even be bothered to actually write the damn rules for non-murder hobo xp clearly than the game still promotes murder hobos.
<p>The system defaults to lethal damage and penalizes non-lethal. Levels are gained through an exp system that, as you've just shown, makes it easier to kill for xp than to build, explore, or heal for it, wealth translates to power in d&d and can be aquired easiest by killing, and published adventures- which like it or not inform the public as to the way the game is intended to be played- almost always include encounters which the players are expected to kill first and ask questions later, if ever, and usuallly even encounters with alternative solutions often do not penalize the kill first ask questiosn later solution. D&D has always promoted killing. It isn't even that big a deal. The problem is that alignment issues become insanely absurd in that context. You can kill the behir and nobody bats and eye. But raise it as a zombie? Oh no, now you've crossed the line</p>DrDeth wrote:It's entirely relevant as you claimed "But every edition of D&D that has ever existed inherently promotes this style of play through mechanical benefits for murder and looting. " No D&D game I have ever played (exception, a Evil campaign) gave any benefits at all for "murder". You might as well say that when playing A wargame you get "mechanical benefits for murder".
No. I'm sorry but how you play the game is irrelivent to what the game actually promotes. It it adds nothing...WPharolin2014-11-21T01:40:43Z