Yeebin's page

People in general take the path of least resistance and Paizo is made up of people just like you and me. That being said, the least resistance is usually dumping on whoever will accept it, even if they are right.

Michael's character is of someone who doesn't want a lot of drama and problems therefore its easier for him to get dumped on and then people unaware of the situation to think he was at fault. Its a sad thing but that is human nature.

The people of Raleigh see this injustice and therefore are aggressive to intervene on his behalf. But unfortunately the gatekeepers have a ruling to enforce and can not flip flop despite the witness testimony that is contrary to their decision.

I wish Paizo the best of luck and while I would love to be all in on 2nd edition, I am off the PFS/Paizo bandwagon for good.

I like that eversmoking bottle. That's sweet. It is a home campaign I might be able to get the party on board with a smoke strat. If it works too well, I feel like the GM will eventually nerf it or me or both and then I'll have wasted a level in Oracle for nothing.

Is the smoke stick the cheapest way to produce smoke consistently?

I'm looking to do a flame oracle/Ninja build with the gaze of flames revelation and I'd like to produce a small amount of smoke that I can be in so I can sneak attack over and over again. 20g per encounter is expensive at low levels but likely manageable.

My GM said gaze of flame would work with obscuring mist so I have that but a 40 ft diameter of mist isnt fun for the rest of the party.

Advice?

I think part of it is that it is not clear if Nigel is just really bad at his job, or really good at a job that is impossible.

It all comes down to how you phrase the following sentence:

Under Nigel's leadership, the Blacros Museum blows up once a year.
or
Under Nigel's leadership, the Blacros Museum only blows up once a year.

This is very clever and I appreciated reading it.

I know there was some brief discussion about power attack but I cant imagine that the author expects the constructs in encounter 1 to use their spears 2 handed and power attacking. At high tier that literally +10 1d8+19 + 1d6. min damage 21 max damage 33. times 4 constructs? Even if your average party of about 3 melee pcs has adamantine weps, its still going to take several rounds to kill all 4 of these and enough time for them to easily kill a pc or 2 doing that much damage....especially if they are intelligent and go for flanks and charges. Whew.

Fromper, I must heartily disagree with your last statement. For me as a GM it was a big relief to finally run the monsters my way and I experienced the lack of tactics to be a great improvement on older scenario's. It leaves much more up to the GM's interpretation and experience and as such can be tailored to the group.

It finally felt like I could make autonomous decisions instead of running a script. For example, in my games they only closed the doors to the entrance not because they wanted to 'trap' people, but because I wanted to prevent a bottleneck fight at the entrance and because I felt like they were frantically trying to keep out more intruders than were already on their doorstep.

Carla,

I think the tight hand holding by scenarios tries to alleviate this issue a bit. Its unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin the whole trusting the GM from Paizo. It makes legit GMs have less chance to change a few things here and there to make it ultimately more fun for the group at the table.

Also, there's always fun to be had in specializing in skills too. My sorc is a bluff master who is sometimes a princess, queen, pauper, merchant, guard, captain...etc. I've lied so many times Im not sure even I know what my real back story is. :)

I also built a crossblooded Marid/Draconic White sorc who does rime. The traits metamagic master and magical lineage but I decided to go burning arc and fireball instead of burning hands. The rimes dont kick in until you get to lvl 4 with burning arc, but then you have much more control over damage and who to CC since its not a cone attack but its still has AOE abilities even if only to entagle. I am not sure of long term viability but so far with Varisian tatoo doing 4d4+4 with "frost hands" at level 3 seems pretty fun.

Are you running over cause you the GM didn't manage the time well? If so, you can't really hurt your players. The players dont know whats coming and they dont know how much is left. You the GM do, so you have to keep things moving along at a solid pace. If the players are goofing off and are wasting a lot of time despite your best efforts to keep things moving along, then I could see penalizing them by skipping encounters or withholding GP, xp, or PP. If there is no real reason why things are moving slow or running out of time then I think its GM discretion.

All these are my opinions and there may be rules that contridict them so take it for what its worth.

I haven't seen anyone mention this but higher tiers take longer and cramming 3-4 combat situations as well as a moderate amount of roleplay very much make it difficult to complete an entire session in 4 hours. I imagine its even more difficult to do in 12+ tiers. A few of the tables I have been at especially in the 10-11 tier all seem to have a similar feel. Very rushed and/or running out of time at the end to complete the story or BBEG combat. Why not make your 12+ tier content 2 parters? So you can get your 1 xp over 2 sessions. I think this could even be an approach for some 7-11 tables as well. You'll say well then that sort of defeats the purpose of organized play and while that may be true to a small extent, it might be a better solution than only running 7-11s 1% of the time.

The goal here is to have fun in a structured environment so anyone can play.....Not necessarily to have a structured environment where you try to squeeze fun in. If you stick to the structure so much that you make the scenarios not fun, then its no surprise that 1% of the tables are 7-11. How about thinking about breaking the mold a bit to figure out a way where 7-11s are more fun.

I ran this last night and gave them an intelligence roll to solidify their mission at the beginning just to make sure they knew what the mission is. Box text and notes can easily be glossed over at the beginning so I wanted to make sure they knew what was expected so they at least had a fighting chance to get the secondary condition. I think it worked cause at the end they debated handing over the details about Merek but they remembered their mission and that they should side with the matriarch.

So the real question for a newbie GM is, Can I edit the secondary success condition to be less goofy? I really like tell the VC about Merek and let her decide how to handle it. Either that or stress at the beginning that the VC wants the PCs to acquire the Horn AND good standing from the Lebeda "family" (not just Lander)

Here's an example from a scenario I ran in PFS. NPC we approach is at -9 hp and stable with a con of 12. So 3 away from death but stable. My PC wakes him with smelling salts and he is belligerent and generally not helpful. I take the butt of my weapon to do non lethal damage to knock him out. My GM asks me to roll dmg...I roll a 6 and he tells me the NPC is dead. I would technically have to do his total HP +3 worth of damage to kill him. I think the GM misunderstood the rules but whatever. My PC killed a guy on accident so he didn't go all A-hole on me and make me get atonement. Is my thought correct and if he had say 12 HP max that I would have needed to do 15 NL damage to kill him and not 3.

Rise! thread of olden days!

But in your example, the creature would be unconscious but with 16hp right?

I am gonna ask a different question about BA since this thread isn't too old...

If I am 4th level and I have spell specialization Burning Arc I have a 6 CL. That still means I can only do 3 targets since 6d6 -> 3d6 -> 1d6

But if I am 4th level and I only have Varasian Tatoo for a 5 CL then I can only do 2 targets 5d6 -> 2d6

I don't get that final 1d6 since I can only get 1 additional target per the restriction

Is this correct?

Wow awesome...I totally misread that...Well that makes my build even better as I was worried about what to do when I came across frost resist.

I did not have to take a campaign trait according to the GM.

as a bonus you are also a fire mage in case enemies start preparing/you run into frost monsters.

Wait, how am I a fire mage too? I thought Marid converts all my elemental spells to cold and I don't get a choice in the matter.

I thought long and hard about that but I don't think the tripping will scale very well considering the CMB is Caster Level + 4 for a total of 5. At mid levels, that will become pretty worthless even at level 5 when its +9.

Well I didn't get any advice but here's what I have come up with. Not too many other frost mage's I've seen. Its a blaster and controller.

Based on PSF character rules but for a Carrion Crown AP.

Level 1
Human
Sorcerer
str 7
dex 14
con 12
int 14
wis 12
cha 18

hp: 8
AC: 12

crossblooded
Marid and Draconic (white)

Spells
Orisons: Light, detect magic, ray of frost
1st level: Burning Hands

Traits: Magical Lineage (Burning Arc), metamagic master (fireball)

Feats: Spell Focus Evocation, Varisian Tatoo (Evocation)

Abilities:
All my elemental damage gets converted to cold.
+1 per die for each elemental spell I cast

Offense @ level 1:
Frost ray +2 hit 1d6+1 7 times/day
Ray of frost 1d3+1
Frost (burning) Hands 2d4+2 4 times/day

situational scrolls such as enlarge person, mage armor, and color spray

From here I will want to take Rime Spell feat at level 3 and pretty much stick to Burning Arc or Magic missle depending on resistances. Until I get Fireball then that will do both CC and damage. And of course leave me open for a few rods and buffs. Core of the build is Burning Arc and Fireball though except of course they would be freezing arc and frost ball. I figure damage is not min maxed but I have great crowd control if needed along with support spells since I won't have to take a ton of blasty spells.

Where are my weaknesses that I might be overlooking?

offense @ level 4
Frost ray +5 hit 1d6+2 7times/day
Frost hands: 5d4+5 15' cone 6 times/day or 3 times with Rime and guaranteed entangle
Burning Arc: 5d6+5 1st target + 2d6+2 2nd target guaranteed entanglement for 1 round 3 times / day

I am building a new lvl 1 sorcerer for Carrion Crown and had a few questions. I am looking to build a frost sorcerer blaster/crowd control type. Now I know its not going to do as much damage as draconic/orc popular fire build but I am not going for max damage. I would like to do damage while also contributing to CC. Here's my plan

Human
Sorcerer

Crossblooded Archetype
Bloodlines:
Elemental (Frost)
Orc

I am still contemplating traits and feats but I am very interested in Rime Spell Feat.

Can I cast a 3rd level Fireball turned into frost for 3d6+3 level of damage and then it slows everyone as well for the cost of a 3rd level spell with magical lineage (fireball) trait?

Phylactery of positive energy. Makes your channel awesome at the cost of +2 wisdom head slot.

To the OP, I found your criticism fair and honest. To add my review after a few months of playing PFS in a very active market as well I will say there are good days and bad.

For every problem PFS solves, it creates the inverse problem. The wonderful thing about PFS that I have enjoyed is it allowed me who was completely new to Pathfinder 5 months ago, with no connections, ties, or experiences, to be introduced to the game in a very structured and sound environment and provided a vehicle to allow me to meet and establish myself in a network of people that I otherwise would not have been apart of. The variety of people you can play with and the GMs you can play under allows for unique experiences some great and some terrible. The nice thing is that it allows me to quickly figure out what I like and hate not only in GM styles but in other players, speed of the game, RP opportunities, strategic thinking, etc etc....

The problem that the first point creates is that once you know what you like and the type of people you like to play with and the GM you like to play under, it makes the bad experiences worse cause you are thinking this could or should be a whole lot better. So people who are not having a great time get bored and start checking phones and facebooks etc. while the people who are enjoying it get annoyed at the phone people. Then you have some people who love the RP and not as much the combat versus people who love the combat and not as much the RP. These people get put at the same tables all the time. Then you have experienced players paired with complete newbies who are asking what a 5 foot step is which leads to a whole different set of issues. PFS treats all these situations the exact same way. A very structured set of rules and tight margins for play. It has to due to the nature of the beast. You need a similar experience every time you sit down to play so you know what to expect.

Without going on and on, here's a few pluses and minues

Pros:
Quantity of players you meet
Variety of playstyles
Low barriers for new players
consistency in expectations
decently balanced scenarios, encounters, and classes

Cons:
Wildly varied quality from table to table depending on the GM/Players
Can not concentrate on the things you really enjoy doing
Dealing with other styles of GM/players you don't like
limited customizability of play (PFS is very structured)
limited time to complete the tasks expected for the rewards
allows MAJORLY for metagaming (which I hate)

When I think about my experience in PFS, I think of it as sort of the minor leagues of Pathfinder. Its a great introduction and a great way to network with a large amount of people, but to really enjoy Pathfinder (the big leagues), you have to go home game with people/gm/environment/styles that can be controlled and agreed upon by everyone. Most of every 'established' person in PFS is also in a homegame or 3 that most would admit is a better overall experience. But they also stay in PFS games in order to keep meeting new people and helping the pathfinder community to grow as a whole which is a really awesome thing in my opinion.

I am of the same mind where I am now currently looking for a homegame or 2 with people I really enjoy gaming with but will keep up in PFS with a healthy amount of patience in order to meet more cool people and contribute my part to the community's growth.

Granted if your couple of new players were normal people in that situation, I think that they would have realized that these dbags were advanced know it all players and would disregard their opinion. If I were learning something new say badminton for example and some douchebags came over while someone was trying to teach me how to play, I would dismiss them immediately and continue.

Its likely that your people saw it would require a lot of time and effort to learn and didn't want to invest the time. Meaning even if the tools didn't come by, they may have left never to return.

I don't know about you but all of these variations are pretty chilling. Reveling the in suffering of others is plain psychopathic, sure we all get a little kick when we see someone we hate trip up but to put ourselves in situations so we can see and enjoy that suffering...

Conversely,

Yeebin is a grunt in the military. He has seen many of his fellow soldiers die at the hands of insurgents. He now takes thrill in the hunt for finding them, entering into combat, and killing them. Afterwards he goes up to the corpse, spits on it and shoots it in the head again for good measure. He clearly takes pleasure in killing these guys and adds to their suffering whenever possible.

As chilling as Yeebin the police officer?

What's going on in 'Yeebin's' head is kind of important, which is not something you elaborate on.

In any case, Shelynites are only supposed to use violence as a last resort, which is clearly not Yeebin's MO.

Why is what's going on in Yeebin's head important? The actions of a man should manifest what's in his heart. Meaning if Yeebin is volunteering in the soup kitchen at the local temple to Shelyn, would it matter if he was daydreaming about slicing the local hobos in half with his glaive while he serves them food? He's doin good acts while evil thoughts run through his head.

This is just a sort of extreme example and is no way a reflection on the actual bloodthirsty Yeebin of Shelyn.

Ah-ha. So this isn't a "is this evil thread" but more a "look what a great role player I am" thread.

sigh...if by me hinting that I hate players and GMs who metagame means that I am trying to tell the internet how good of a RPer I am is then so be it.

If people tell me my solution to my problem is to metagame more then ya I am going to reject that pretty harshly.

Soapbox cause you got me started: If players and GMs were to metagame less, I think their experience would be much more enjoyable overall. It would evolve from lets just roll dice and move minis around a table to really enjoying a imaginative experience. That's not 'Im better than you' speak, but rather 'I wish everyone were like me' speak. Get it right :)

Your GM plays your god. If you act in a way that causes your GM to declare your god would be displeased with your cleric's actions and you lose all of your class abilities, then you might realize you might need to consider that from his POV more and how they might interpret your actions. That doesn't have to be an alignment issue per se, even, it just has to violate the god's portfolio dramatically enough the GM would smite you with the anvil of depowering.

Actually, I was thinking about this more and you have a point. If the GM expressed to me that Shelyn has made me aware she is not happy with my current actions and she is contemplating removing me from her good graces therefore stripping me of my clerical powers, I would care what the GM thought at that point. This would be a legitimate concern my cleric would have since his deity has made it clear she is not happy with his actions.

But my point is that if the GM or organizers think that I should be RPing differently because I am a NG cleric of Shelyn and someone who followed Shelyn wouldn't act that way so I should change my RPing. I say screw that. Essentially my GM would be telling me that my PC is incapable of backsliding or having his view of his faith warped or changed over time due to his experiences. If that was the case, RPing would be boring and bland just like 90% of the people I have played with.

Its all good to come up with some creative backstory or history of your PC but then to think that over the course of 12 levels (36 scenarios, and likely 75-100 enounters with 200-300 enemies) your chacater would stay static in his views, outlook, perception, faith, etc. and that his actions would always remain the same, is a bit myopic and I personally think if you played this way, you are selling yourself and your experience short.

Sounds like the GM and other players are already on board with it, and he's just opening things up for hypothetical internet discussions. But it wasn't entirely clear from what he's posted...

"I RP, because this is a ROLEPLAYING game, I don't just come up with a half-ass excuse for 'rp' just to satisfy the GM with as little rp as possible."

But maybe I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt...

I don't need to reply to Deathquaker cause this is exactly my response. Did you cast a message spell and listen to my thoughts :D

And finally, there's Yeebin the Cleric. He started off one of those sucker LG's. All he wanted to do was help people. But years of battle wears on a man's soul, and after a while righteousness just didn't seem to matter as much. But Yeebin still did his best to follow the rules of the Church, because it's his job (LN). But lately he's started to notice that the thrill of battle and the rush of victory have started to alleviate the crushing apathy he's been feeling. And suddenly it's not enough to just beat a powerful foe. Now you have to crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women! Motorboat their entrails and teabag them! Coincidentally, not a lot of people hang out with Yeebin much anymore. He's kind of creepy. But hey, he doesn't go looking for trouble, he only gets weird when trouble comes looking for him. Let's give him a pass for now. Yeebin is now the Diet Coke of Evil. Just one calorie! Not quite evil enough. (CN)

And finally, the sad end of Yeebin's tale. It's not longer about doing good (who cares about that anyway?). It's no longer about being the best. It's about pain. The delightful music that screams make. The myriad of colors that blood can turn. Puppies? Delicious. Babies? Hate 'em. Set 'em on fire. Yeebin is now Evil. Time to reroll!

So needlessly longwinded post, short version: I'd say by straight alignment you've had one instance of a Chaotic Neutral act at the absolute worst. However, RP-wise your character could arguably be showing signs of slowly heading down a dark path. This is indeed something your deity may start to take issue with.

I'm pretty sure I would enjoy playing with you. That was awesome.

Although Yeebin the Cleric is trending in the dark side direction, he still only kills when provoked, still defends the innocent, still protects his companions, and still respects art and love. Just when he's confronted with conflict, he embraces is and enjoys his victory.

The above example is exactly what I was talking about. Solid justification. My problem with the original post is the blood bit. That is gratuitous.

Gratuitous that there would be blood from killing a guy? or that I mentioned it in my RP description? I play with friends who take RP pretty serious and we try to be as descriptive as possible. Go watch the movie Braveheart...blood spatter gratuitous or accurate? either way needed for the setting and effect.

A good rule to go by is Necessity. Do I really need to do this? If yes, you're good or atleast neutral. If no, you tread into neutral leaning evil.

Does my paladin need to enjoy smiting evil foes? Probably not but does he think smiting Evil brings more glory to his God and therefore enjoys it? Probably...Is he Neutral because of that? Definitely not.

This is where my cleric is. He's not smiting evil persay but his view is changed into thinking any enemy on the battlefield of his is automatically Evil unless proven otherwise. Therefore he is good and maybe leaning Neutral.

I think that enjoying what you are doing, is condusive to you continuing to do it. With that being said, I do not believe that drinking the blood of the fallen is evil. Heck, i'm in the "cannibalism and necromancy is not evil"-camp, so getting lost in the thrill of battle does not strike me as evil at all.

:)

I was about to do the exact thing I thought you were doing. Assume the opposite of your statement.

Just because something is not evil doesn't mean it's good. While I may agree that drinking blood of your enemies, canabalism, or necromancy may not be ourright evil, they certainly aren't outright good acts. Depending on the situation I am sure. If you go around eating people cause you enjoy it...probably evil. If you are shipwrecked and you need to eat the remains of your fallen captain to survive, probably not evil. Enjoying eating the remains cause you haven't eaten in weeks, probably not evil. Drinking and bathing in the blood of your fallen evil enemies, while gross is probably not evil. Doing that to goats, sheep, and dogs cause you have a fetish, probably evil and defintely disgusting. Doing that to said kidnergarten, hmm still on the fence on that one :) just kidding.

Enjoying the defeat of evil? Not evil.

Enjoying the thrill of combat and victory? Not evil.
Enjoying the act of killing because it is killing? Evil.

This is exactly my thought and I play my cleric as a NG cleric of Shelyn but has devolped from not caring about combat to now being in 1 and 2 but NOT 3.

These people on here keep trying to say that if you are in 1 or 2 then Shelyn would reject you or you would need to attone. I disagree.

But no, if you disagree with my assesment of your standpoint, I take it that you meant that:

Killing, hurting and oppressing is not ALWAYS evil, but it is if you do it to innocents.

And that Showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, self sacrifice and altruism is not always good, but it is if you are motivated by a desire to protect the innocent.

Is that a correct assesment of the point you were making, because if I'm off on both cases, I'm afraid this does not make sense to me.

Yes that is exactly what I meant. Killing hurting and opressing is evil when you do it to innocents and maybe good and maybe not if you do it to evil people on the battlefield. In the same regard as doing acts to harm evil people may or may not be good or evil depending on the act.

For example, If my paladin has a smite spell (yes I know its evil but bare with me), is it evil if he smite's evil? probably not. What if he smite's good? Probably....What if he smite's evil and enjoys it? Hmm that's the question.

You'll have a hard time getting everyone to agree to an alignment question.

I agree but the discussion certainly helps me waste the time away while I'm at work :)

By your logic, since killing, hurting and oppressing is only evil if it adheres to the opening paragraph, showing respect for the dignity of sentient beings, committing an act of self-sacrifice or altruism that is not directly motivated by the intent to protect the innocent, is not a good act.

This is sort of a stretch since I can't even find a way you can put those words in my mouth at all.

Killing, hurting or oppressing are not good or evil acts in and of themselves. This is why you can't paint these acts with a broad brush. Which is also why the word innocent is so important to the Alignment statement.

Consider the following (edited to add EVIL and EVIL PEOPLE):

Good implies altruism, respect for EVIL life, and a concern for the dignity of EVIL sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help EVIL PEOPLE.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing EVIL PEOPLE. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill EVIL PEOPLE without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing EVIL PEOPLE for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

When you consider the sort of people you are committing the acts against, the lines blur and what once was evil or good might not be so any longer.

To echo what TOZ and Death quaker said......"It doesn't matter what you think it is, it matters what the organizers think it is."

People kept bringing up this point, but I never mentioned that I had a disagreement with a GM or even other players as to how this should be handled. I was simply asking for my own understanding as it would guide how my player proceeds. I will move my guy to neutral myself if I think that's how he's devolping. I don't RP in PFS to make some GM satisfied with my character's actions. I might respect and play by his rules sure but that doesn't stop how my PC progresses.

By the way...This post really should have nothing to do with Shelyn. She just so happens to be the god of my cleric but the discussion is more about the acts of enjoying killing your enemies as a good character. The Shelyn banter sort of railroads the discussion as now the thread has evolved into 2 separate discussions.

My opinion is based on my reading of the alignment chapter. The bit where I differentiate between the alignment of characters and the alingment of actions, is based on a comparison of the alignment section in the Gamemastery guide, and a section of the alignment section in the core rulebook. Let me illustrate my train of thought

Alignment wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Now, I've always found this bit lacking. After all, if it is evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, adventurers would have trouble if they hoped for a long career, and to die with a G in their alignment. And Paladins had to be pacifists, otherwise they'd insta-fall.

The problem with your statement above is that you totally ignore the word innocent when you are reading the alignment description. It is not evil to hurt, oppress and kill others, its evil to hurt, oppress and kill the innocent. There is a big difference between an innocent child and a person attacking you with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill you. Your sort of glossing over that fact and equating killing anything to killing an innocent child.

Even though I think this is soundly thought out and in the real world is probably the case, by RAW I do not believe killing is an evil act in Pathfinder. Otherwise it would be impossible to be a good adventurer seeing as how adventurers' main job is killing. The best you could do would be to be neutral.

In the real world "good" people turn the other cheek. In pathfinder good people kill the offender and then kill all of the offender's friends in the vicinity too as standard practice.

This is exactly right. If killing was a blatantly evil act, all of Pathfinder's would be evil since that's sort of what we do.

Its an argument that comes down to the basic fundamentals of justified killing.

If you kill your enemy on the battlefield in a time of war, you are not a murderer. If you kill in the confines of a peaceful society, youre a murderer. But what if you kill the enemy on the battlefield and you enjoy it. Still not a murderer but maybe a bit questionable. This is where my PC has gone to. I don't think its evil to enjoy killing your enemies on the battlefield. Neutral at best.

Sounds to me like you just want to argue.

Clearly you didn't get the memo on what you are supposed to do on message boards :)

Well here goes. Tomorrow is my first scenario...Here's what I got. My idea for this PC is a young girl who never could quite learn how to mimic her father's aptitude for the sword. She was however, very agile and learned the bow very quickly. Her natural ability for magic has led her to learn how to summon a clone of herself who is very strong and very capable of handling the sword she's always wished she could learn. After all, she has come to the pathfinder's to make her Father proud despite his clear favoritism of her brother.

It should be noted that there was no actual drinking of blood. Just because some dripped on my face while I was shouting to the sky in enjoyment doesn't mean I was drinking the blood of my slain enemies.

No more than you drink water when you are in the shower even though you may enjoy a mouth full of shower water to wash away a bit of your morning breath...assuming you shower. Yes I've been to some pf games with some ppl where I would seriously question that. :)

In any event. As I may have been a choir boy cleric of Shelyn at one point, I am clearly not that cleric any longer. I am complicated. How my level of barbarian will factor in from here on out....I'm very curious to see how that will go.

I can't find it anywhere but am I to assume that the base ability scores of Eidolons are not adjustable at creation?

Meaning the default Biped is Str 16, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 11 and can not be adjusted to Str 16, Dex 12, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10 for example.

There is no clear rules in the APG on this and no one at least in a google search has ever asked the question.

Working in direct opposition is very different from just doing something unrelated. Actively pursuing the destruction of artwork for instance is likely a problem, but stopping evil and enjoying your job isn't exactly on my list of bad things.

This is my sentiment exactly. I will continue to RP in this way and not feel like I am going against PFS rules.

I think the majority of players look at their character's alignment, motivations, mentality, outlook on life, etc.. as a static thing. This seems to me at best as a less interesting way of RPing and at worst plain ole boring.

I like to think as we all do in real life that my PCs evolve and change based on their experiences.

Imagine if you will a priest in the catholic church. He's mid twenties and has a good heart and wants to help people. Then he's drafted into the army, trained as a soldier, sent to Iraq, has a machine gun in many battles, kills some terrorists, comes home from his tour in Iraq, gets out of the military and returns to his priestly profession. Now let's compare priest in the church pre and post war. Same guy but I would imagine his experiences in war has at least changed something about his outlook.

My point is just because my PC grew up loving art and beauty and worshiping Shelyn and using his Glaive for good, doesn't mean that his battles and killings while apart of the society has not changed him in some way. In this case, he's still interested in protecting the innocent and helping the weak, but he has sort of taken pleasure and enjoyment of killing his enemies in battle. This is starting to warp his view and what he considers art. His skill on the battlefield is in his mind an art form and giving glory to Shelyn. He just took a level in barbarian as he realized the rush of his rage could help him focus on the battlefield.

All of his previous experiences make him what he is today, a good cleric of shelyn, but that doesn't automatically mean that's what he will continue to be. If that means an alignment change to Neutral, I'm ok with that. That's how he's evolving. I just wanted to know if its evil.

With your friends maybe, but with total strangers that sometimes include children... Hit or miss imo.

Just because I RP doesn't mean don't have any decorum. I likely wouldn't even say the word blood, death, or even kill if I was playing with kids.

This PC is evolving into a bloodthirsty Cleric. As time goes on his thirst for battle grows and grows and his twisted sense of glory to his Good God is becoming more and more demented. I am just curious if his love of justifiable killing on the battlefield is considered evil for PFS rules.

I would also argue if you are not having a 'too creepy RP moment' every once in a while then you're not doing it right.

Sounds like Dexter. If you kill because you like it, but only kill bad guys because it allows you to avoid attention from the law, or to claim the mantle of "goodness," you are evil. You have just chosen prey that society does not value as highly, making you clever, not virtuous. Motives matter as much as actions.

BUT....I only kill those who fist attack me. Unlike Dexter, I don't go looking for people to kill good, bad, or indifferent. I only delight in the victory because you have first declared me your enemy.

A good character who fights to defend the weak and innocent but revels in the blood of his enemies.

I stabbed a human enemy through the sternum instantly killing him, raised my glaive above my head, yelling to the sky in a rage. While the glaive was over my head, some blood dripped off my blade and fell onto my face and into my mouth and I enjoyed it.

Is that evil?

obviously your experience might be different, but my best advice (for whatever its worth) if you want an atypical summoner is to use a reach weapon instead... summoners are already proficient with the longspear- take combat reflexes at first (and weapon focus at 3rd) and you can do damage with your AoOs and still have your actual turn for casting (or using your SLA).

My battle cleric already uses this approach. And it is fun to play. Unfortunately I don't get to attack all that much as I'm usually channeling and healing by round 2-3.

Bow damage from a level 9 character with the Feats to match, ie, Many Shot at L9 is anything but embarrassing. The only issue I'd have with playing archer/summoner is that at some point you just get tired of playing archers...

This will be my first archer and at this point its all I want to play. I am not interested in going fighter or ranger so I can't imagine I will get tired of being an archer. I am not looking at this PC as a caster but rather an archer with conjuration abilities. I think I am going to build the edilon as tank or flank creature rather than a dps or ranged.

According to the description on the link of Heirloom Wep, you would only get +1 or +2 if you had an AoO or CBM respectively. I would not think that it would add wep proficiency.