joriandrake's page

It sounds very lawful to me, as it would aid the group and also punish the person at the same time. Being good may be a reason he doesn't want its head on a spear.

What god does he worship though? That is also of importance.

interesting, that shadow spell, I guess the still/silent metamagic feats just gained a bit more worth

Well, let's break down what the doctor does.

He uses Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge engineering, Knowledge geography, Knowledge history, Knowledge local, Knowledge nature, Knowledge planes, Knowledge religion, Perception, Sense Motive, Use Magic Device.

He has a companion--or cohort.

He is good at guiding people. He helps them become their more perfect self.

He (generally) doesn't hurt people, but he does damage items and weapons.

I'm thinking some kind of Bard, possibly Rogue or Inquisitor or Alchemist, with some kind of ranged Sunder ability.

Actually, I'm thinking some kind of alchemist might fit best.

hm, I guess he could qualify as a level 9 Archeologist (Bard) with Leadership

For him, all past and future history is History already anyway.

Plus, you missed out Perform, and he is sure having a lot of Perform skills.

no

I never cared about Drizzt, I care about dual wielding bigass weapons ^-^

You should rather buy a Wand of Anvils

I can read, I will stop them from drinking it if I have to.

Korg wanders to the door and also tries to hear what is going inside.

1d20 + 6 ⇒ (6) + 6 = 12 Perception (Yes, I also hate the auto-dices just as they hate me)

As Korg hears the sounds he readies his weapon again, he is by now somewhat tired, and would like to avoid raging if possible.

"We could place trap here before opening door, maybe." He whispers.

/Shield

Torture is NOT good.

End of argument; this shouldn't even be up for debate.

It doesn't matter if you do it against undead or evil people.

If they harmed you, you can still be Neutral and out for revenge.

If they did nothing to you, you're evil, period.

The 'Dexter' character is still evil. He's just bound by his code to only take his evil out on other evil people.

Torture is good, it must be, it has a long tradition being performed ever since humanity exists up to today, often those who actually tried to resolve crimes were the torturers themselves, tormenting is an other thing :)

... now for real, I consider torture a chaotic act, maybe a lawful Neutral act, but not evil. It being evil just became a common reaction to it since about WW1, it is just another of a dozen+ examples how morale standards change, there are many things like sexual orientation or non-standard religious believes that were also considered once evil, in a lot of places even today.

houstonderek wrote:

Brian E. Harris wrote:

It's the officially-sanctioned interpretation of the publisher/game.

Not necessarily. I can't remember who said it (Jacobs, maybe?), but, when facing a TON of flack after promising no armor plated and spiked dire animals, and publishing exactly those type of pics in B1, the official line was "we really didn't like the art work, but we were pushing against a deadline and didn't have time to have it redone". So, the "official" interpretation is no spikes and armor, even though the art work depicted such.

So in other words, we are free to go with Catfolk that look like the B3 version, and with ones that look like the ARG version? Or heck, even go for the heresy of putting cat ears and a cat tail on a human and call it a catfolk*?! That should put this whole "you are doing it wrong" debate to a close.

* = Though I'd say that character is a catfolk-human hybrid if anything.

I pick the "heresy" one then :)

carryover or not, you should remind him this is Pathfinder and not some other game, he has to read and understand how DC on spells and skills work, especially at low levels

People who played D&D in earlier/other editions often think they know how things work, sometimes I also make this mistake and remember something not from Pathfinder

why not just : "Prince"?

then you can chase girls requesting them to kiss you, or you could dress up like the 80's and start a music career

I can't ever minmax like that, I cringe if I have more than one score at 8 or lower

See the link of Evil Lincoln, and stop saying something is "impossible". Especially in an RPG game with magic and whatnot. Too much realism can easily ruin a D&D game anyway, you kill off players just twice with the ideas you got and they will consider having an other GM or leave.

"A creature with blindsight, of course, could close their eyes and attack the target with no miss chance, ignoring the Mirror Image spell entirely."

This

Also, if the dragon knows there are a bunch of fake and a real enemy in a square it would be stupid to try to slash at them, and would most likely just use its breath weapon on the square.

/reads last pages

and this is why I love The Witcher and its grey-shade missions and stories

Darts: Nin, Nin!

seriously, a paladin that specialized to kill something be it dragons or undead or similar doesn't automatically have morale issues by doing so. torturing them? for no reason? now that is another issue

Oh, sorry I went and used "real life" in a subject thread that said nothing about being an "in game" subject.

I'm truly sorry I used referenced the all-mighty christianity for their acts in the crusades, and are even now, travelling in droves to third world countries indoctrinating natives in asia and africa because they have nothing else to believe in under brutal dictatorial rulerships.

I'm sorry I used "real life" historical references as recent as 70 years ago to support my argument.

If you're going to wave the "oh, we were discussing an imaginary society moral" flag, you've already lost the argument.

no, read what I wrote: no other group, be it religious, cultural, or anything else is better than christianity, since ancient times one group (be it a culture, clan, nation, religion, or anything) was never any different

just as your examples of what christians did it is also true that arabs conquered and spread out in north africa and eradicated last remnants of ancient egyptean and persian cultures, also similar to how communism tried to dominate the lives of people and make decisions for them on how to live, or how caucasians spread out in the world or recently how han chinese repopulate wast amount of lands, same is true on how homo sapiens dominates the world to begin with

What I said was only that pulling the "ooh religion is evil, especially christianity" card is nonsense. Because humanity is stupid with or without it the same way, and without this trait we wouldn't even be human.

EDIT: also, do you seriously need a clarification that it is an ingame subject if the question of the OP is about the morale aspects of torturing undead?
Either way, I'm off to work.

"it's evil to torture an innocent human bystander because they did nothing to deserve the pain. but it's good to torture an intellegent undead because they did everything in thier power to deserve it. slaying legions of human lives, feasting on humanity, creating more of thier tainted kin."

So, what about undead that were turned without them wanting to? without them ever making others into one, or attacking anyone without a good reason or for self defense?

and what about wizards who became one just to gain immortality so they can be an eternal bookworm in some hidden library? what about elven liches that are chosen as guardians of burial grounds and ancient cities, or of secrets and lore?

Not all undead are evil, just because they are undead, that is what I call generalization
Sure, some religions and paladins and such, like inquisitors or witch hunters may be perfectly fine with eradicating anything and everything, but that doesn't make it right from an outside perspective

if you meant torturing, perhaps, it depends on a lot of things

if you torture a vampire with sunlight to get information out of it that could help save a city, it can count as a necessary deed to rescue innocents

of course there are always those who either agree or not with a decision or action, so even ingame RP should represent different opinions on some events, probably even among various Inquisitors some deeds would be considered acceptable or even preferable while among others inacceptable and abhorrent

some knightly orders and thus I assume also paladins may list among things not to do like backstabbing, lying, or attacking fleeing/unarmed enemies also the ban on torturing, same can be true for some religions and thus clerics and just mere followers who take it seriously

if the vampire mentioned would be tortured just for fun and not to gather information of any kind, then yes I would list the deed among evil acts

"I don't see how my comment was anything bad or "not cool" considering it only hinted at something you decided that it had to be about rape , but even if it were true, my character is mine to decide what I would act and speak like with it.
If you want to kill me feel free to try, I didn't pour my points into strength because before the GM said this is just about lvl 1 I planned for advancement and life story, and my character is giantblooded and at lvl 3 would take yours over if you remain pure fighter. Anyway, I stop this discussion right here, it already irked me how you criticized that some players decided not to eat something, if you have further ooc complains about how others play like talk to the GM. I did, and I don't want this debate take up any more IC room.
EDIT: I see you deleted a part of your comment, meh"

An arrow to the knee, most naturally.
Then you can go visit him later on guard duty.

sunshadow21 wrote:

Don't blame me; you did it to yourself with your loose interpretations and misquotes of pretty much everyone else in the thread.

At least you aren't misinterpreting him :)

The thread is at this point nothing more than a trolled desecrated cave where "A Man In Black" continues to flame/troll/ignore the meaning of what others write, and where he slips more and more towards personally insulting the people he disagrees with.

I am honored that you quote me, truly, it makes me feel important. Still, it would be preferred if you also write the name to those who wrote it, I can't take credit for others either naturally.

/facepalm

What is not real isn't real, and people shouldn't feel insecure about nonexistent things, nor should law do anything about it. Otherwise we would all go to jail or worse because we kill goblins and orcs constantly. I enjoyed Knights of the Old Republic played as dark side villain the best, but that doesn't make it untrue that in RL I am a kind and helpful guy, I won't force choke anyone, promise.

I don't see how my comment has to do anything with being apologetic

imagined rape in an imagined world should affect them less than imagined killing in a FPS, sexual phantasies when one looks at someone, or drawn nude people

oh the horrors! woe is me! if we don't ensure the safety if these nonexistent people and/or from nonexistent events the world is doomd, doomd I say! Let us quickly create the thought police, and quickly imprison or castrate everyone who thinks nasty nasty things! Did I mention yet we should also imprison all the artists who dare to draw nekkid people, even if they are long gone and their paintings are in museums?

Quote - *I'm gonna sing the doom song now!*

I find it offensive if anyone finds it OOC offensive if a villain or any other character in the game does anything. This is not Real Live, laws/morals/ideals are not the same, nor should be. Especially not for a villain.

I don't like to take RL religion into these discussions but I am a Catholic, I still don't care about what happens in an imagined world.
Actually, I think it gives interesting situations for when a good PC group realizes their evil mass murderer nemesis has a loving family he did everything for without them knowing, or that the greatest chaotic good champion and leader of a city state (which would fall apart and turn into a bloody anarchy if he is gone) loves and buys as slaves little girls. (Which could very well be a standard and accepted thing in their culture)

Making a villain that sexually abuses victims or uses either itself or the victims to breed is nothing different from how Dragon Age has the broodmother. I say it adds to the setting and theme, and makes the character more easy to remember. Think about how themes in RL like homosexuality were abhorred or accepted in different eras. just as you can show good and bad characteristics for people both good and bad, you could tackle cultural themes and shock your group with a revelation that your benevolent and kind Merciful Healer granny actually hates gays or is a racist. Heh, a totally cool guy could be into necrophilia. Would that bother you? Him? The Dead? Extra fun if it is a necromancer.

Sorry, this one will be long.

Hm, the most fun/balancing house rule(s) I think is when our group play a Gestalt campaign:

You choose 2 classes as normal, you can use any compatible archetypes for each as normal, but you have to pick either BAB or one of the saves from the class with the slower progression of it.
Your skill per level is decided by the average skill per level of the two classes you choose, if there is just one step difference between the two you get the better one.
Your hit dice is decided by the average hit dice of the two classes you choose, if there is just one step difference between the two you get the better one.
You can't take levels in any other class that has 20 levels by advancement but you can take other ones, as example prestige classes.
You have the possibility to forfeit/trade in a class ability of both chosen classes to gain a synergy ability in their place, details have to be discussed with the GM.

To clarify here is an example of a Fighter/Sorcerer going by these rules:

The player has the idea/concept of a fiery battle mage, a warlord wielding arcane might. This background will be the most important at the last step explaining the rule.

In addition I will create 3 Feats she can take if she wants, like being able to form a blade purely from fire and use that the same way but with -2d6 to the granted fire damage dices. ("Firesword")

If she would have chosen Battle Sorcerer instead of Sorcerer then she would have some less spells but a better hit dice.
The reason for the "take the better one if one step difference" on skill per level and hit dice is for the few cases similar classes are used for a gestalt. As example a Bard/Rogue would get the 8+Int skillpoints while both classes have a d8 hit dice so that wouldn't improve. The advantage of such gestalt concept is thus even lower here than gestalts without the Hegemony Rule.

I call these rules the "Hegemony Rule" based on the multiple games I GM-ed in the custom Hegemony setting. As you see it can be quite balanced and fun, especially with the last option for getting something unique and fitting. In such a gestalt campaign you don't just amass all the benefits from the two classes, you get and lose from them at equal level.

crafting needs to be able to allow the maker customization in multiple ways

size of item, resources used to make it, colors and design of it, option to carve runes in it, option to have a weapon name or the name of the crafter appear on it, and lots and lots of designs

also, a variant of such crafter could be architect, I would rather play a noble and architect than the usual classes, so I can build and influence the game world on many levels

I wish to be able to build settlements and castles, design it to the lowest details, I want to raise statues from NPC-s and player characters, and an ability to hold festivals and raise an army

I think I just began to like Darts better, you get a cookie too =)

So, I guess just as with humans/elves/etc in Pathfinder, there is no issues with males/females in certain positions of society, right?

they have slavic stuff too now, wonder when there will be a culture or realm based on hungarian myths and legends

heh, I actually considered calling my goblin either Darts or Needles

I will try to create the Ghost Elf subrace, it was barely mentioned in a Dragon Magazine, but I loved the flavor and concept

Bladebound archetype uses up the slot for 3rd lvl Magus Arcana, Hexcrafter archetype has the option to pick Witch hexes instead of Magus Arcana

Is a Magus which is both Bladebound and Hexcrafter a working concept, which uses the 3rd lvl for the Black Blade while giving a choice about the Hex/arcana on other levels, or do these two archetypes interfere with each other and are thus unable to coexist?