cannen144's page

Quandary wrote:

This thread is still going? OK, how about this: Alignment should be metric. Discuss.

The fundamental unit of evil is the Jerk, J. 0 J is pure good without the least hint of evil. Neutral characters tend to be in the 33-66 megajerk (MJ) range. Anything over a 66 MJ is full on evil. There is no upper limit, most demon lords are somewhere in the gigajerk range.

The fundamental unit of chaos is of course the Chao, C (pronounced cow). Similarly anything under 33 megachaos (MC) is in the lawful band while the neutral goes up to 66 MC. Chaos is of course also limitless. Anything over a gigachao is pretty much incomprehensible to a human mind.

So now evil acts can be described in their Jerk value. A routine bad act might be worth something like 10 kilojerks, a worse one might be in the megajerks, while truly heinous acts can be hundreds of megajerks or even into gigajerk territory depending on severity.

Batman is undefinable in these scales, and instead will simply punch you in the face for suggesting such a thing. But he does totally make use of the Bat-Alinometer to determine the alignment of criminals. The Joker makes both needles go crazy.

See, I would place Neutral at 0 on both axes, such that good becomes negative Jerks, and evil positive Jerks, while lawful would be negative Chaos and choatic positive Chaos, thereby allowing for both ends of the spectrum to be limitless.

Speaking of which, why did the U.S. fail to introduce metric properly? I've heard rumors about bin Laden's attack on New York invoking fervent patriotism nationwide having to do with its last straw, but surely that alone can't be the whole story...

You need to take in account that there are roughly 4.12 million miles of road (roughly 6.63 million kilometers), and if there is a speed limit sign roughly every mile, plus mile markers on highways (roughly 164000 miles, or 264000 kilometers), that's a lot of signs that have to be removed and replaced. On top of that, there are roughly 263.6 million cars in the US, a decent fraction of which have speedometers that don't read in kilometers-per-hour, which would mean a not insignificant amount of required work that would need to be performed on those vehicles, either at the expense of the owners, who may or may not be able to afford the cost, the government, which would be contentious, or either manufacturers or insurance companies, who may not (read: will not) be happy about being forced to pay for it. Ultimately, it would be a minor logistic nightmare to try and force a switch-over, even if it was phased over a period of time. And that's not even taking into account the states that would sue to prevent such a change from ever taking effect.

I was once asked to come up with a name for a dragon by one of my players. Being that I was unprepared for this as the dragon was more of a setting piece, I ended up coming up with "Spicy Steve".

So not Spicy Steve.

I had a lot of fun playing my Unchained Monk, and a Paladins.

but wouldn't 'dah-mon' be spelled "Damon"?

Nobody tell Matt...

All opinions are not worthy of respect, right to an opinion is but not the opinion itself. Racism is an opinion for example that I would reckon vast majority of people would not find worthy of respecting.

And tradition for traditions sake doesn't rank any higher on that scale. If the tradition can't stand on the merit of it's own value it should be discarded as needless. And DnD has a whole lot of those holy cows that need to be taken to the slaughterhouse.

Okay, I'm sorry, but did you just put people wanting Paladins to stay Lawful Good on the same level as Racism? Because that's, to make an understatement, a bit of an reach, not to mention rather offensive. If were talking about, say, excluding certain races or genders from having ability scores above a certain point, then maybe it'd be a fairer comparison. But people wanting a certain class to keep what the identity that they attach to it? That's too far.

There's always the Pathfinder society pre-generated characters. They aren't built specifically for the beginner box, but I believe they should work. There's one for every class.

They can be found at this link.

How do you screw up a Ratfolk Alchemist? Every rule and every bit of lore bends over backwards to make it functional from level 1.

And in Iron Gods as well. An AP deliberately designed for nerd tinkerer PCs to shine.

Tsk.

I'm honestly not sure. and I'm a bit baffled as to why he had such a mediocre intelligence, given he had no qualms about breaking every other character creation rule I gave him, especially when it came to wealth. He didn't even give himself a headband...

In the Iron Gods game I ran, there was a player who joined halfway through book 2 for one session and played a Ratfolk alchemist and had a 13 in intelligence, and a 5 strength, but insisted on carrying a greatsword for some reason and charged into every fight. He even had the gall to chastise the Wizard for having magic missile prepared because it was "sub-optimal". There was a reason he wasn't invited back after that session...

I believe in canon most of the Pactmasters are that four armed race that can catch magic missiles. They're in one of the Bestiaries but I can't remember their name >_<

Witchwyrds

cannen144 wrote:

Furthermore, where is the fact that Torag approves of genocide of orcs et al. coming from? is it actually written down somewhere, or is it an extrapolation? Because I find it hard to believe that Paizo would actually put that down as something a Good deity would encourage or endorse, especially given their track record.

Paladin code of Torag

Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

I know that genocide is.. well. About the worst thing you can do in our world. But try to imagine a D&D world where someone's species actually DOES make them almost irredeemably evil. The orc tribe that surrenders now is just going to wind up raiding you or someone else and then good people are going to wind up dead.

Yeah, that's an extrapolation. Again, I can understand coming to that conclusion, but I disagree with it. There is a difference between not showing mercy, and outright slaughter and genocide. Furthermore, it only says "the enemies of my people". That could mean the tribe of maruading orcs that are burning down villages and destroying crops. Or it could mean the humans who have enslaved kinsfolk. But it doesn't necessarily mean EVERY orc/giant/human/whatever to exist, and I'd be willing to bet that Paizo would agree on that point.

Yeah, I have to agree with Captain Yesterday and Rysky. As it is, people still see Erastil as "the sexist god", despite that having been stated by the development team (I want to say James Jacobs, specifically) as being an error and not something they want to associate with a Good deity. I'm all for having deities being flawed and having shortcomings, but to given a good deity such a flaw is really just not productive.

Torag, Erastil, and Apsu - because they mesh well with my favorite character archetypes

Achaekek - because I love the red mantis assassins

Ya don't say? :3

I, too, was shocked.

Tacticslion wrote:

Dot?

I'm sorry, you'll have to expand your question, I don't understand what you mean.

It means they're posting as a way to mark the thread.

Demons because they fill more roles and can be used in far more different kinds of stories, including evil cults, summoned wizard minions, otherworldly invasions, or left over guardians of lost cities or tombs.

Dragons feel like they should be final bosses or at least high ranking minions, and just feel a bit cheap if not used as such.

...I think you may have posted this to the wrong thread...

Is this the one you meant to post in?

We should all just say to heck with it and play FATAL.

No. Oh dear, sweet, merciful gods no.

How do you pronounce "yhi" in english? ihi, aihi, aihai, whyhi, whyhai, ihai???

I'd probably say yhee (like yee, but with a slight exhalation before the ee).

cannen144 wrote:

Quote:

And like I said, at your table, rule how you want. But don't go and say that everyone has to rule that way and that they are wrong for ruling otherwise.

This is the rules forum. The entire point of these forums is do try and decide what is right and wrong within the context of the rules. If you don't like that type of discussion, then you are in the wrong forum.

Fine, if you'd like to discuss rules then here, let's use the example of the Uskwood druid, from the Inner Sea NPC codex:

Inside the shadowed, silent reaches of the Uskwood Forest in Nidal, albino druids watch for intruders and enforce the natural order as they see it. These “pale ones,” as those who live near the Uskwood all them, serve the majesty of the Midnight Lord, Zon-Kuthon. Sworn and bonded to the Uskwood’s bleak power, they celebrate the inevitable pain and death inherent to the natural order. To live is to know suffering, and the druids of the Uskwood ensure that any intruders in their forest know the full measure of pain.
...
An Uskwood druid who wins such a battle captures and shackles the animal companion of his slain rival, keeping the creature alive for as long as possible but never freeing it or giving it any release from its suffering.

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

If someone respects someone in a way you disagree with, but they do it out of genuine respect, that is veneration.

Demonstrably false. If your idea of respect is slapping someone in the face, it's irrelevant that you think this is veneration. It's not. Your definition is irrelevant. The terms are defined based on an objective set of behavior. There are acts that are objectively respectful and there are acts that are objectively disrespectful. The community that you live in is what determine what those acts are. That is why respect and veneration are based on the public/communal concepts of what it is to respect and venerate someone, not your individual misconceptions.

Actually no, respect is very much a personal and subjective concept. Respect is dependent on both the subject and the actor. If a person decides that spitting in visitors eyes is respectful, that doesn't mean someone else is going to find it respectful. Hell, if an entire group decides something is respectful, but someone else disagrees, that person isn't required to feel respected.

Quote:

You don't get to decide for someone else how they revere someone or something.

As the GM, I absolutely do get to decide. And I evaluate you based on your actions, not on how your intentions when you act. And that's exactly why the court system employs the reasonable person standard, so that people that have a legal duty or obligation to others can't weasel out of it by claiming they thought stealing all this money was the best way to help their client.

As a GM, I also get to decide. See, that argument is functionally useless when you are using a qualification that absolutely anyone can claim. And as for the standards of a court of law, they are irrelevant. We are not in a court of law.

And like I said, at your table, rule how you want. But don't go and say that everyone has to rule that way and that they are wrong for ruling otherwise. One of the key tenets of Pathfinder is that everything is subject to table variation, regardless of what anyone not at any given table says.

Honestly, just treat them the same way you would treat any other player, if you're the GM. And if you're both playing, just stay focused on the game during sessions. Also, unless you're in a group that's cool with it, avoid PDA during play and check relationship stuff at the door.
I've both ran and played in games with my girlfriend and the easiest thing to do is treat it like any other gathering with other people.

As the title says, which deity or faith do you think you would worship or belong to if you lived in Golarion and why?

For me, I feel like I would worship either Erastil or Torag, mostly because I've always felt a strong sense of community with those around me and have always felt a need to help protect them.

Whoo, thanks for all the replies guys (rhyming not intended...)
So I've had a chance to talk to all of my players about the issue, including the offending party, as well as play a session, and so far, it looks like he was a combination of a little confused about how exactly to play a chaotic neutral character without being a bit of a sociopath, and was slightly annoyed at being told he couldn't play chaotic evil. After I had a chance to explain my reasoning behind not allowing evil characters, as well as providing some suggestions about how to play chaotic neutral (with some help from a couple of the more experienced players in the group) without being a jackwagon, he agreed to try and work with the group. The rest of the group and I also agreed that he would be on what amounts to probation, so if he starts getting disruptive again, he will be asked to leave. We have since played a session, which went rather well, and I am hoping that things continue to follow this path.
Thanks again everyone for your input and help.