Pathfinder Adventure Path: Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide (PFRPG) PDF

Then as James Jacobs has said, you can use your DM ability and Rule Zero, to work with the player on a trait that better suits them. It just means you will have to do a little more work in book 3.

Fair enough on those points. But I'll say once again that I know really a lot of players who explicitly don't plan their characters out, but want their leveling to be organic to the characters they are actually playing during the campaign.

I don't understand this for a home campaign unless you have a very large group.

In my home game, we have 3 or 4 players plus GM, so at the beginning, someone plays the arcane caster, someone the divine caster, someone the roguish character and either a DMPC or the fourth plays a martial character and we keep the same character type thru the whole campaign.

-- david

In my home group of the same size, everyone plays what they want, whether it makes a balanced party or not. The last AP I ran, we had no full caster, either arcane or divine, because no one wanted to play one. (It was fighter, monk, multiclassed rogue/ranger, bard.)

In my home group of the same size, everyone plays what they want, whether it makes a balanced party or not. The last AP I ran, we had no full caster, either arcane or divine, because no one wanted to play one. (It was fighter, monk, multiclassed rogue/ranger, bard.)

We tried that, but since we have run only adventure paths since the RotRL one came out, and before that modules that would link together, we had several TPKs or were just halted dead in our tracks because we did not have a caster that was able to do "level appropriate" things.

*Shrug* Different groups, different rules.

-- david

In my home group of the same size, everyone plays what they want, whether it makes a balanced party or not. The last AP I ran, we had no full caster, either arcane or divine, because no one wanted to play one. (It was fighter, monk, multiclassed rogue/ranger, bard.)

Same here. In the group where we have six players (where I solely GM), this is not as much of an issue, although in this campaign we will have a glut of melee characters and no offensive caster.

In the group where I get to play two thirds of the time ( rotating GM's with rotating campaigns, I'm up now for one or two modules of Jade Regent ), we have four players and the majority of the "I'll plan when I level" crowd, so we are also running into the problem DM Papa has been having. Jade Regent especially has a pretty eclectic crown ( Melee Sohei with CON 10, Magician Bard, Koya Mvashti as a PC, Witch who likes to think of himself as a melee character ), so that could turn out to be hard on them. ^^

Well, the purpose of my post was to suggest a way to avoid the need of such a discussion the next time a player's guide comes out...

A purpose which would have been better served by leaving out the digs. Or are you "incapable of grasping" that concept?

Sure, ripping into anyone seen as criticizing Paizo is tacitly permitted on the boards -- making for an easy target -- but that doesn't make it O.K. :(

I prefer the APs and their player guides to be setup with strong themes and specific suggestions. I, as the GM, can take the specifics and mold them to my group. The other way around is much more work for the GM.

Can I ask Paizo what the rationale is for farming most people's first taste of the AP out to an intern?

And, if it comes down to money,then Paizo really need to start printing and selling 5-packs again. I'd be thrilled to see five RotRL-quality player's guides added to my AP subscription.

Wow! Quite a response. After making sure the guide was ready for download and the blog was live I went out Friday night and then spent yesterday celebrating my wife's birthday, so I hadn't had much of a chance to hop in here and answer all the questions and allay fears. Thankfully James took care of all that. He'd know better than me anyway since he's developing the adventures and he wrote the campaign traits. (Which makes me realize my biggest error is that I left him off the credits! Sorry boss.)

Can I ask Paizo what the rationale is for farming most people's first taste of the AP out to an intern?

Jay helped me put this together, he didn't write the whole thing. The credits should have included James since he wrote the traits. Jay helped me out with the Guide, so I wanted to give him credit where credit was due. While he was certainly helpful, his hand wasn't the heaviest in this. That would fall to James and myself.

Speaking of traits, since there's going to be a link up with Adventure 3 is there a specific demon lord in mind (besides, say, Deskari) in regards to the Stolen Fury trait so that foreshadowing can be played up?

Funny. I'm one of those who has no interest in the Mythic rules and consequently have no intention of buying or playing in this AP. I was still curious about the PG, though, as I've always enjoyed reading those and seeing what news things are added to the game, especially traits.

Aside from the Mythic path part of the traits these look pretty good to me. I don't have a problem at all with limiting character build options to those that best suit a particular campaign or AP; that makes sense to me. The way the traits have been tied to the backgrounds and the potential for making them matter more to the AP further down the road are things I especially appreciate and I'm curious to see how they work out as the AP develops.

All in all, for someone who didn't expect to like the Player's Guide and was at first amused to see so many people complaining about it, the PG actually made me kind of wish I were likely to play in it. So for me, at least, the PG did exactly what it's supposed to do. Good job, Paizo.

@Tel Alber, I agree with you. I think the main job of a Player's Guide is to make a potential player's mouth water, and I think the traits suggest that thought has been put into how to make the AP "matter" to individual characters more on a personal level. I also like the sketch outline of the previous crusades, giving players a sense of where their characters fall in the Grand Scheme of Things. (The rules on redemption? Not so much. I prefer their place in Ultimate Campaign as a suggested option for GMs and players shopping for optional system, not given to all players of this AP.)

Back to the mouth watering: I think this Player's Guide could have used a short description of the campaign at the beginning aimed at getting players excited about this particular AP. A selling pitch of sorts, just something like: kick some demon butt, save all of Golarion from catastrophe, rise to become the mythic legends of your time, etc. As GM, I of course will do my part to spread the Good Demon-Stomping Word. But this is also likely the only concrete thing in writing I'll be giving potential players, and I think if I'm doing my part, it should do its part as well. (By the way, I don't give my players the product descriptions of APs since they usually give way too much of the plot for my tastes.)

Overall, I'm happy with this Player's Guide. (More so than with the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition players guide, which ugh compelled me to write a lukewarm review about it--it said nothing about the hometown, gave info I considered too spoilery, and used most of its space on a gazetteer of Varisia, most of which never was going to come up in the AP anyway.)

Can I ask Paizo what the rationale is for farming most people's first taste of the AP out to an intern?

And, if it comes down to money,then Paizo really need to start printing and selling 5-packs again. I'd be thrilled to see five RotRL-quality player's guides added to my AP subscription.

This is abusive. Even before the update from Daigle, you had no reason to link the specific items you take issue with to any particular person. Assuming that his work is poor (or not to your taste) because his is an intern is baseless.

I haven’t been worried by the traits. Some observations:

1.The gods of good are coming off a four crusade losing streak, and the player’s guide really emphasises it. After four crusades of throwing Paladins at the problem, the answer is – more Paladins? Isn’t it time for them to start thinking outside the box? It’s the storyline element that I thought would have justified the inclusion of a wider variety of alignments and viewpoints in the AP.

2.At the moment I’m assuming that it’s an artefact that grants the players access to mythic tiers. But even if it is, I’d still probably like a storyline reason why the gods of good have sat by and let hundreds or thousands of people die without trying the mythic tiers option before now. I thought the player’s guide would have explained it.

3.The redemption section at the end of the player’s guide was a bit of a depressing way to end the guide. I catch up with my friends once a week to play Pathfinder and have fun. Struggling for redemption (or helping others to do so) by undergoing various indignities doesn’t sound like fun.

1) Calling upon PCs is pretty outside the box, since PCs are so unique! :)

2) The storyline reason is that the gods simply don't step in to fight mortals' fights for them. If they did, there'd be no reason to have heroes, like PCs. Or perhaps the game instead would be about players rolling up gods to play instead of mortal heroes.

3) Redemption is a big theme of Wrath of the Righteous, and we wanted to include those rules, which were published already in another product, so that GMs would have access to the rules (and players as well if they want to go the redemption route for NPCs they encounter) rather than requiring the purchase of that book.

I got the impression that the redemption rules are more for NPC's the party meets in the AP, not mainly for the PC's themselves.

That being said, I'm not much of a fan of putting a methodical resolution mechanic on a mainly roleplaying related situation. It has way too much potential to devolve into another "stacking bonuses instead of RP" situation, like the relationship mechanics did for many people playing Jade Regent.

Maybe you need to wait to see how it's handled in the adventure.

Speaking of traits, since there's going to be a link up with Adventure 3 is there a specific demon lord in mind (besides, say, Deskari) in regards to the Stolen Fury trait so that foreshadowing can be played up?

If you want to play up foreshadowing... honestly, your best solution is to delay the start of your game until you have all six adventures in hand.

An adventure path is a HUGE thing; covering nearly 600 pages of content. One of the reasons we split it into 6 parts is because giving out all that content and creating all that content is impossible to do in one lump sum.

That all said, the Stolen Fury feat is not linked to a demon lord.

Lord Snow wrote:

Well, the purpose of my post was to suggest a way to avoid the need of such a discussion the next time a player's guide comes out...

A purpose which would have been better served by leaving out the digs. Or are you "incapable of grasping" that concept?

Sure, ripping into anyone seen as criticizing Paizo is tacitly permitted on the boards -- making for an easy target -- but that doesn't make it O.K. :(

I did already apologize and voiced my regret about the way I phrased the post you were referring to. It wasn't justified, but I was well and truly annoyed by what some people said, which evoked a strong reaction from me.

Can I ask Paizo what the rationale is for farming most people's first taste of the AP out to an intern?

And, if it comes down to money,then Paizo really need to start printing and selling 5-packs again. I'd be thrilled to see five RotRL-quality player's guides added to my AP subscription.

I have to agree. This is a pretty uncool thing to say.

We don't "Farm out" things to folks if we don't think they're capable of writing what we want them to write.

And we put everything we publish—even the stuff that's only electronically published, like a Player's Guide, through the same level of development.

And as Adam said, the character traits, which is the part of this Player's Guide that seems to have a few folks worked up, were written by me.

I understand that some folks have been disappointed by this Player's Guide, but that's no excuse for insults. Please keep your criticisms constructive.

And in the interests of trying to keep this thread on-topic... please focus on feedback and discussion about the Player's Guide.

Short on time, but I gotta say:

I'm very excited about playing this AP. :)

Short on time, but I gotta say:

I'm very excited about playing this AP. :)

I am as well! Doubly so after seeing the Player's Guide. :)

I'm excited to read it - I've been hoping the mythic stuff will be a breath of fresh air. The APs are all quite different, but something that's so different will be a welcome read (even though I doubt I'll ever get to use it).

I'm currently working in planting the idea of GMing this into a fellow GM's mind...

Also: the picture of Kenabres atop the cliff is breathtaking! Imagine someone (capable of flight) standing on the battlements (or even better, on top of the extensions used for supplying the city with water from the river below), witnessing the deployment of a demonic host only to swoop down and joining the fray!

Ruyan.

I'm currently working in planting the idea of GMing this into a fellow GM's mind...

GM Inception. I like it :)

I have been asking for traits like this more connected to the story for some time. I am glad to see em. They are not very equal mechanically though, which is rougher since I want to push my six players to each take one of them. In particuoar the one day save rerolls are particularly lame compared to the spell per day. I think I will change it to always roll twice and take the better for those specific situations.

I really like this guide. Felt a need to say something with all the discussion.

For once we have the ability to tie characters back story into an adventure that comes out later without the whole path in hand. It teases things like mass combat, my players always enjoy the change of pace mechanics. I get the feeling that this path is NPC heavy, so redemption will be something that we will find fun. I'm even not banning leadership based on my belief that it will be NPC heavy and the blurb about leadership.

It got my players excited and will be a good departure from our first all evil campaign (Runelords).

I'm really hurting for skill and archtype advice for this upcoming AP. I don't mind the trait limits so much, possibly because I was looking more for build insight. Its no fun to pick an aspect of your class and have it be dead weight.

If the player's guide doesn't help this anymore, is there somewhere else I can go?

Wolfstone - I'd suggest the Demonhunter's Guide - due out this Thursday (electronically).

Should give you pretty strong guidance on how to build to kill demons... which you'll be doing a lot of in the AP.

After thinking it over and listening to their explanations I can see why they would do the traits the way they did. It's sort of a difficult balancing act that is just impossible to have both unlimited player wishes for their backgrounds and have their backgrounds be integrated into the plot, at least without a lot more GM work. I'm of the mind that it's easier for the GM to put something in than to surgically extract something that already exist if they don't like though.

I guess as long as the players know that at the start and don't mind it doesn't make me mind as much either. I still think it could become a treacherous road to go down if every AP starts having it. It does limit the options for player concepts more than APs before it. Players being able to choose a character and play them how they want within reason is one of the cornerstones of RPGing.

I do like the players backstories being worked into the game, and I also like having a lot of the work already done for me so I can't complain too much. I would like it to be a more optional thing. Maybe make side areas or quest like used to be in APs years ago to help both integrate things like this and also make it easier to take out if it's a problem.

The Player's Guide makes me want to play this AP.

Well, they all do... but still.... Myyyyythic.

I guess as long as the players know that at the start and don't mind it doesn't make me mind as much either. I still think it could become a treacherous road to go down if every AP starts having it. It does limit the options for player concepts more than APs before it. Players being able to choose a character and play them how they want within reason is one of the cornerstones of RPGing.

I do like the players backstories being worked into the game, and I also like having a lot of the work already done for me so I can't complain too much. I would like it to be a more optional thing. Maybe make side areas or quest like used to be in APs years ago to help both integrate things like this and also make it easier to take out if it's a problem.

This is true of every one of our APs to a certain extent. Skull & Shackles assumes the PCs want to be pirates. Curse of the Crimson Throne assumes they all share a villain in common. Legacy of Fire assumes they want to help rebuild a town. Jade Regent assumes they're friends with certain locals.

By making assumptions like this, we can delve into all sorts of different story lines.

And the MAIN REASON we put out player's guides in the first place is so the players know the AP's assumptions from the start. The "you get perks for your characters" is a secondary goal.

An adventure path has the word "path" in its name for a reason—it's a set plotline that follows a path, or a railroad, if you prefer (I don't). The path can be relatively narrow or quite wide, but it's still making assumptions. You won't have as much fun if you make a character who wants to spend an entire career in Irrisen in the Reign of Winter AP, and so we made sure players knew that the AP only spends a short time in Irrisen. If you want to play an urbanite character who wants to stay in a big city and hates rural and wilderness games, you'll hate Kingmaker.

Part of the player's job is adjusting the type of character they wants to play to at least try to fit in to the game the GM wants to run. And if the GM wants to run an Adventure Path, that imposes a new set of "limitations" on the player's options for types of character. If you really have your heart set on a paladin who's afraid of the water and focuses on fighting evil cold undead... don't make that character for Serpent's Skull. Save the character for another campaign. We publish LOTS of them.

Can I ask Paizo what the rationale is for farming most people's first taste of the AP out to an intern?

And, if it comes down to money,then Paizo really need to start printing and selling 5-packs again. I'd be thrilled to see five RotRL-quality player's guides added to my AP subscription.

Ripping into any individual like this is not acceptable behavior here, especially given that you have no idea who wrote what in any given product. If you have an issue with the quality of a particular product, we welcome your feedback. Baseless assumptions about and attacks on individual contributors, however, are neither useful nor acceptable nor welcome here.

I, for one, love the new trait idea, explicitly tying into part of the AP. I have no problem requiring one of these traits, but my players will also know, up front, that they'll be playing mythic. My only lament is that my group has six players, and there's only six traits. It's fine if a couple want to use the same trait, but I'm thinking I might need to expand it a bit (and then come up with something for WotR #3), just to encourage variation. Obviously that's a space limitation issue for Paizo, which is fine. I'd love to see more traits like this in the future! My biggest complaint about adventure paths is that they often feel impersonal, and this is a good way to make it more personal.

Disclaimer: My husband and I are running Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, and Reign of Winter in our various campaigns, and NONE of those are straight-up-as-written. So we don't really have a problem making modifications. :)

James Jacobs wrote:

EVERY campaign benefits when the GM takes the time to customize it to their game. Wrath of the Righteous is no different. And the fact that we're trying something of an experiment out with the traits by making them more intrinsic to character backgrounds does mean that GMs should NOT be afraid to change things as needed for their games.

I wholeheartedly endorse this message.

GM adjustments help make a campaign the group's campaign rather than a campaign simply run for the group. :)

Having the ability to make things more fun for everyone by adjusting the rules, etc is why I wanted to be a GM in the first place :)

Seriously, call me CN, but I find the rules and campaign setting of Pathfinder to be wonderful treasure troves of SUGGESTIONS, not hard-and-fast-sent-down-from-Aroden-himself LAWS, and I do believe that's what all of the developers at Paizo have said forever.

Drock11 wrote:

I guess as long as the players know that at the start and don't mind it doesn't make me mind as much either. I still think it could become a treacherous road to go down if every AP starts having it. It does limit the options for player concepts more than APs before it. Players being able to choose a character and play them how they want within reason is one of the cornerstones of RPGing.

I do like the players backstories being worked into the game, and I also like having a lot of the work already done for me so I can't complain too much. I would like it to be a more optional thing. Maybe make side areas or quest like used to be in APs years ago to help both integrate things like this and also make it easier to take out if it's a problem.

This is true of every one of our APs to a certain extent.

Absolutely. As long as one understands that the extent matters.

It is interesting how quickly people will jump to assumptions.

I made no criticism of any intern. I made a criticism of Paizo's policy on writer selection.

I have no issue with the quality.

I have an issue with giving a product of such importance to an inexperienced writer. Paizo has made it clear that writers need to prove themselves before being given a shot at the AP line... but that policy is neglected for the PG.

What happened to proving yourself on PFS or RPG Superstar?

CC - Mark
CoT - JJ, Wes, Amber Scott, Hank Woon
JR - JJ, Patrick Renie
KM - JJ, Wes, Mark
RoW - Daigle
RotRL - Wes / Daigle, Sutter
SS - Mark
S* - Daigle, Mark, Wes, Sutter
S&S - Rob
SD - JJ, Wes, Amber Scott, Greg V.
LoF - Brian Corjito, Stephen Greer, JJ, J. Kieth, Wes
CotCT - JJ, Mike McArtor

The only one on this list who I hadn't heard of was J. Keith, who seems to have earned his stripes on... PFS!

Honestly, I was seduced to Paizo by reading the RotRL Player's Guide. That directly led me to buying Burnt Offerings and taking my first subscription.

Curse of the Crimson Throne was similarly popping.

Since then they have seemed hit-or-miss and sometimes I have had the sense that while Paizo takes pride in the quality of all their products they've not recognised how important PGs can be to a lot of players.

I hope Jay didn't feel offended by what I wrote. But I bet that he's classy enough to admit that he doesn't have the Pathfinder writing pedigree of Sutter, Vaughan or Amber. It's cool that you are so keen to leap to his defence but I'd prefer to be judged on what I wrote rather than how it could be interpreted by people stung by some of the criticism in this thread.

I am a fully signed-up Paizo fanboy: I don't think it is illegitimate for me to ask Paizo to give the PGs a higher writing profile.

Again, the PG experience of RotRL and CotCT was so excellent that I want that experience for all of the APs. Which includes choosing Paizo staffers of the JJ/Wes quality to write them.

I'm taking issue with the fact that you decided whatever problems you had with the product were caused by the involvement of an intern. Not an acceptable thing to say. Full stop.

I'm taking issue with the fact that you decided whatever problems you had with the product were caused by the involvement of an intern. Not an acceptable thing to say. Full stop.

Except, according to his post directly above yours, as well as the original post, he made no such decision. Nor did he make any such statement.

Now, I don't agree with his actual statement that the Player's Guide is such an important project that it should exclude help from interns, but that was the only actual statement he made regarding interns.

And, Jessica "Full stop."???? Really?

Except, according to his post directly above yours, as well as the original post, he made no such decision. Nor did he make any such statement.

Now, I don't agree with his actual statement that the Player's Guide is such an important project that it should exclude help from interns, but that was the only actual statement he made regarding interns.

And, Jessica "Full stop."???? Really?

Oh for heaven's sake. This is a real 'Popeye' moment, because I have had all I can stand, I can't stand no more.

Can I ask Paizo what the rationale is for farming most people's first taste of the AP out to an intern?

Reckless,

When you frame things in terms of "what was the rationale" and then add a word like "farming" what is implied is purely negative. Its like saying "We pushed this drudge work off on some peon." To me it engenders the same level of contempt.

It is dismissive and condescending by any reasonable standard.

Furthermore I am absolutely confident Adam was busting his ass to get that PG done before the weekend—and he's a fair man who worked hard for the position he got. He's absolutely the sort of person who would want to share some credit with someone else so they could have an opportunity to advance.

If you and Geraint don't understand how this can be interpreted as a wretched thing to write—allow me to so inform you. It was horrible.

Yeah, let me be clear that I liked most of the player's guide, I just had a problem with the traits seeming to straitjacket players too much (all adressed by now extensively by the devs) and that there was not much help for integrating non-good (although still non-evil) characters. The rest was very well done.

....that there was not much help for integrating non-good (although still non-evil) characters.

Well, we know the adventure gets underway with a Wardstone cracking and demons possibly getting out. Paladins can work with Antipaladins if they have to when the situation is desperate enough, so a guy who picks through the corpses looking for loose change when the world's coming to an end...just stress that the campaign itself is one of those exceptions to the code against working with questionable individuals.

Yeah, I don't want to pile on, but if your defense is "I wasn't technically being an insulting jerk" you might want reconsider your comments (or at the very least put some thought into how they might read on the internet).

Gorbacz's Law:

The amount of grar and rampant customer entitlement (with the special dose of "Customer criticism is always valid no matter how I express it, grow a thicker skin, company! FIRST AMENDMENT! I CAN WRITE WHATEVER I WANT, NANANANA BATMAN!") increases as the price of the product approaches zero.

Free stuff generates the most nerdrage, 500 USD Limited Turbo "You Must Be Insane or American To Buy It"* Editions yield next to zero.

* These are NOT mutually exclusive.**
** In fact, if you're from Texas, they're pretty much synonymous.

If you and Geraint don't understand how this can be interpreted as a wretched thing to write—allow me to so inform you. It was horrible.

Oh no, I get how it was interpreted. Jessica made it clear in her first post how it was interpreted.

I also read his clarification of his concerns after the interpretation.

Then I read Jessica's response to his the clarification, and I was horrified that a Paizo employee posted such a dismissive, unthoughtful, and awful response to a customer's explanation of intent, and ended with the demonstratively uncommunicative internet slang phrase "Full Stop."

I've already weighed in on my feelings on the work done on this product in my review, a few days ago.

I also read his clarification of his concerns after the interpretation.

I did as well, but it didn't have the same effect on me as perhaps it did you.

I am not going to post to this thread any further. If there are replies directly to me, I won't see them.

... well, I'm just excited that that traits can be tailored with ease. Means I can play my Kobold Paladin without having to explain how generations of my family were in the crusade.
>.>
<.<

Jim Groves wrote:

If you and Geraint don't understand how this can be interpreted as a wretched thing to write—allow me to so inform you. It was horrible.

Oh no, I get how it was interpreted. Jessica made it clear in her first post how it was interpreted.

I also read his clarification of his concerns after the interpretation.

Then I read Jessica's response to his the clarification, and I was horrified that a Paizo employee posted such a dismissive, unthoughtful, and awful response to a customer's explanation of intent, and ended with the demonstratively uncommunicative internet slang phrase "Full Stop."

I've already weighed in on my feelings on the work done on this product in my review, a few days ago. ** spoiler omitted **

Geraint's problem is that his new interpretation stretches credulity in light of his other comments. His complaint here followed another, similarly uncalled for dig in which he felt the need to castigate an intern by name. For example, "The first taste anyone has of an AP is written by an intern..." That is not, on a fair reading, a comment on Paizo's selection of authors. The post ALSO contained what could have otherwise been a fair request to assign certain authors, but that was not all it contained.

In general, I think an apology for a misunderstanding or for causing offense goes a long way. But when you give a non-apology apology and pretend you haven't said what demonstrably you have said, it doesn't go so far.

As to Jessica, first, full stop is not an internet colloquialism, it is the British word for the period punctuation mark, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop , that has been used to describe that mark since at least 1593. Second, you get some leeway in standing up for support staff when people treat them poorly AT WORK. While Paizo is fun and games for most of us, it is work for that intern. I would expect most employees to stand up for their support staff who get unfairly treated at work.

... well, I'm just excited that that traits can be tailored with ease. Means I can play my Kobold Paladin without having to explain how generations of my family were in the crusade.

>.>
<.<

I can totally see the Crusaders hiring tribes of kobolds to help them build defenses/set traps along the border of the worldwound.

That's the great thing about demons, they're so awful that even the usually evil mortal races seem ok by comparison. :D

... well, I'm just excited that that traits can be tailored with ease. Means I can play my Kobold Paladin without having to explain how generations of my family were in the crusade.

>.>
<.<

That DOES mean that your GM is going to have to figure out why a kobold paladin is in the crusade, though. Which means your GM is going to have to adjust things in the adventure anyway to account for the fact that your 1st level kobold paladin is going to AT THE MINIMUM be turning heads and getting the city guard nervous even before the adventure begins.

AKA: At the point your'e making a character that's so unusual, your GM is likely already resigned to the fact that he'll be needing to rework and rewrite parts of the AP anyway.

In_digo wrote:

... well, I'm just excited that that traits can be tailored with ease. Means I can play my Kobold Paladin without having to explain how generations of my family were in the crusade.

>.>
<.<

I can totally see the Crusaders hiring tribes of kobolds to help them build defenses/set traps along the border of the worldwound.

That's the great thing about demons, they're so awful that even the usually evil mortal races seem ok by comparison. :D

Actually, I see the more cynical and less righteous crusaders using kobolds the way many PCs of old used sheep and herd animals in the Tomb of Horrors: "Send them in first to see if the way is clear!" ;)

At least that way the kobolds can correctly claim, "We helped!"