“Stop this immediately!” cries the priest, causing the dwarf to freeze in place unnaturally. “What do you hope to gain by killing this man?”. Not waiting for an answer he continues: “Cutting off this man's head will not bring back your loss, only breed more vengeance against you. How about I make you a deal? Put that axe away and your hefty bar tab is on me.”. The dwarf loosens up just in time to nod timidly, walking back into the bar and rubbing the new bare spot on his chin.
Paradigm Theoguard, Pacifist Poet-Priest of Shelyn
Male Half-elf Bard 1 / Cleric 8
Description: Paradigm weighs 165 lbs, standing 5'8” tall, appearing blissful and determined. His long blond hair is adorned with colorful feathers. His sharp, wide features make wearing a big grin come naturally. He wears embroidered white vestments, a matching headband, and trinkets around his arms and neck. His time spent training acolytes has given him the habit of speaking in rhetorical questions.
A man of peace, Paradigm takes great measures to ensure his life causes minimal harm to others. He eats only food which is magically generated to prevent even a single worm to suffer from farming. He drinks through fine silk to make sure he never swallows a fallen gnat by mistake. None in his city go hungry after his harmless and affordable stone to flesh food program was implemented, and even the requisite stone was left over from a statue he is constructing to his beloved goddess. His clothing is also magically generated, but has been known to use naturally shed feathers from the rare birds he keeps to construct more elaborate attire. The townsfolk consider Paradigm to be a blessing and a saint.
Motivations/Goals: Paradigm has known for years the importance of a life of total nonviolence: “Do not all creatures have a capacity for beauty in the eyes of Shelyn? What could excuse murder which ends all that glorious potential?”. He seeks to teach others how to maintain a life of peace which he is counter-intuitively aggressive in advocating. Occasionally he takes special interest in those that can be helped the most, hoping to add yet another abandoned weapon trophy to his cluttered church walls.
Hook: Tales of the party's murderous (and possibly exaggerated) exploits make their way to Paradigm's desk, so he plans on visiting them via sending and his acolytes to show them the virtue of a life of peace. Though he and his servants would not dare directly harm the party, they are not above stealing weapons, removing spellbook pages and even giving a quest to the especially spite-ridden.
Things turn from troublesome to dangerous when the party finds out that agents of wrath plan to destroy the town, yet Paradigm can't be convinced that these forces will not listen to reason. In fact, this threat may not even notice him. Unless the party stops Paradigm's interference the town and party are doomed.
As a person who considers himself a pacifist in general but is willing to make exceptions when it is practical, this sort of person always annoyed me as a complete idiot. He's the sort of person who would berate someone committing a murder but wouldn't actually stop the murder from happening. Which means he is evil, even if he thinks he is doing good. So he's either a fool or insane.
If I met him as a PC, I would dislike him right away. If I were an evil PC, I would kill him if he got in my way. If I were a neutral or good PC, I would attack him the moment he or his agents stole from me or sabotaged my equipment. And if the townsfolk tried to protect him, I'd leave town and let whatever evil fate befell it.
And I wonder how he got so many levels without killing a single monster. Hard to do quests if you won't kill anything or defend yourself.
If he's really a pacifist, he won't try to stop anyone who wants to kill him. Which means he fails as a villain, as the PCs are usually wandering morally-gray cowboys, and odds are they'll deal with this "villain" as they might any active evil--with violence. And he won't fight back, so it's easy to stop him. And then the PCs leave town.
Yes, he's an antagonist, and yes, he can be proactive against the PCs. But he's punishing the adventurers for being adventurers. It sort of defeats the purpose of playing the game when your GM doesn't want you to do what your characters and the game are designed to do. It's like a racing game that you can't win because driving over the speed limit is illegal. It's this sort of thing that crops up in campaigns where magic is shunned or illegal... you're punishing people for wanting to play spellcasters in a game that's about magic and dragons. It sets up an antagonistic relationship between the GM and the players, and that's not fun.
Rec: do not advance.
I'm not going to pull any punches.
This villain should not advance. This is poorly designed. And I am surprised. But it is just flat bad. An annoying pacifist poet? 'Nuff said. Oh and I had such high hopes for this author.
Obviously, I DO NOT recommend this villain advance.
And this was from the guy who did the maw, an item I liked so much I put it in the top 32 TWO years in a row. Wow. I'm stunned.
Clark
PS: Hopefully we wont have a repeat of last year's blink dog fiasco where my strong criticism strangely led to people rallying behind a poor submission, but you never know. I may have just done you a huge favor by bashing this submission so strongly. We'll see...
Disclaimer: please remember I am critiquing this villain as an entry, not the author as a person. I am as surprised as you that this submission is as bad as it is.
Edit: reading Wolf's review, I am more apt to believe that this was a huge miss on a swing for the fences. Its the only thing that makes sense to me.
Kobold Press
|
The opening flavor text was bad enough that I had to reread it to be sure it said what I thought it said.
Then the pacifist bit got me very interested ("Wow, how's he going to pull THAT off?!").
Unfortunately, this was a very risky design decision that flopped. A pacifist villain is difficult for all the reasons Sean spells out, and this particular example is not overcoming the design challenges of making a pacifist a credible and entertaining threat to the party.
I can totally buy "Paradigm" (wow, poor name) as a humorous annoyance and/or secondary-level NPC. But a major villain with staying power? Not a chance.
Recommendation: Sometimes when you swing for the fences, you miss completely. Good on you for taking a huge creative risk, but this villain strikes out; not recommended.
First off, I think you took a big risk on your entry, and I can respect that. That said, as I was part way through your entry, I was thinking, "Ok, this is great. He's presenting a public face as a pacifist, but really he's a ... pacifist?"
I think this could have worked really well if he was a pacifist in action, but subtly urged his followers to acts of violence -- sort of a "Who will rid me of this troublesome adventurer" feel. As it stands, he's an obstacle, and an annoying one. I don't think he's a villain.
CR
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
There's not a single thing I like about this entry. I am sorry, but it is a complete and total whiff. Well, I am not sorry. So much was made about villains who are not villainous in last year's competition, and yet the first four villains I've read are all boring, or not bad guys, or aren't well-written, or don't make sense.
To take another example from last year, I would rather gamble on a villain that is too controversial an evil for the hobby (like the terrorist ghoul who eats the victims of his zealous followers), than to have one of these lame, unimaginative characters and attempt to present them as a villain simply because they inconvenience the bad guy.
The mischievous bard isn't the villain, the white dragon she goads into attacking the PCs is a villain. A pacifist priest in a world where undead and devils rule entire kingdoms?
I've got to stop here. There's nothing more for me to say and this is certainly not about you, the author. It's just a bad villain and given another chance you would likely do much better.
Better luck to both of us next year, eh?
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8
|
Paradigm, really?? The name alone made me roll my eyes before I even clicked in.
This is almost a hero, not a villain, you missed the mark by several light years I think.
This does not work on any level as a villain. I'm kinda surprised to see something so off the concept for a villain as this in a round two.
Like Clark, but no where near as cool, this is only a feeling of the submission not the guy/gal that created it.
WW.
Wow, it's ummm, oddly reminiscent of this week's episode of Clone Wars. And I'm afraid that isn't a compliment. I usually don't say anything if I haven't got something nice to say about it, but this really bothered me because it's so clearly not a villain.
Okay, this is very difficult for me, because i really loved the Maw.
I think you pulled your punch here. For Pacifism or any other virtuous and altruistic standpoint to be villainous you have to take it to a logical extreme, coupled it with true naivety. It should impinge upon the liberty of peoples and disrupt their lives.
Eating anything that has been alive is evil and people should not do it. Right, what does some one who believes that in a consuming and fanatical manner do about it? They Ban farming, and foraging for food, they preach asceticism and prayer as a substitute for food. Their fanatical followers starve as they try desperately to do what the gods want of them.
If you ban all weapon ownership and make all violence a religious, including that police and army must use? What happens? Bandits move in to take advantage of the defenceless people knowing no one will oppose them. The break down of law and order as people either break the law out of self-defence or become victims and have no one to protect them.
No wine or ale to drink because they require once-living ingredients? Sure enough, but who deals with the massive levels of sickness from drinking water un-boiled water?
I like the idea i see at the core, but you seem to have held back from really making the point.
I think you pulled your punch here. For Pacifism or any other virtuous and altruistic standpoint to be villainous you have to take it to a logical extreme, coupled it with true naivety. It should impinge upon the liberty of peoples and disrupt their lives.
Eating anything that has been alive is evil and people should not do it. Right, what does some one who believes that in a consuming and fanatical manner do about it? They Ban farming, and foraging for food, they preach asceticism and prayer as a substitute for food. Their fanatical followers starve as they try desperately to do what the goods want of them.
This is pretty much what I felt was missing here - I know, logically, that anything taken to an extreme usually ends in disaster, and pacifism is no exception. It was just hard to imagine the disaster until it was pointed out here. My heart wants to believe, but my eyes couldn't see it.
Eating anything that has been alive is evil and people should not do it. Right, what does some one who believes that in a consuming and fanatical manner do about it? They Ban farming, and foraging for food, they preach asceticism and prayer as a substitute for food. Their fanatical followers starve as they try desperately to do what the goods want of them.If you ban all weapon ownership and make all violence a religious, including that police and army must use? What happens? Bandits move in to take advantage of the defenceless people knowing no one will oppose them. The break down of law and order as people either break the law out of self-defence or become victims and have no one to protect them.
No wine or ale to drink because they require once-living ingredients? Sure enough, but who deals with the massive levels of sickness from drinking water un-boiled water?
Ooh, I rather like that.
The thing about Paradigm that I'm seeing is that his modus operandi is really vague from this entry. A lot of time is spent telling us how goodly he is, but not much about what he can actually do to the party. There's the mention in the hooks about his agents stealing weapons and spellbooks, but if Paradigm gets into combat (because most adventurers will want to hurt this guy), will he just run? Or use nonlethal means of conflict resolution (hold and charm spells, CMB-based stuff like grappling, disarming and tripping)?
I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said; he's not a villain. He attempts to provide illumination, but doesn't really do anything else.
He's a lamp post.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7
|
Reckless Ratings
ConceptNegative 5
(Is this villain villainous?)
Content3
(Grammar, Format,Spelling, Etc.)
Coolness1
(Would my players be impressed by this? Am I?)
Credibility1
(Does the villain’s motives make sense?)
Clarity3
(How good a sense of how to stat this villain do we get?)
Scores out of 5 and completely based on my opinion only.
Total Score3
I have to disagree, he is a villain. It is just that he hasn't lived up to his own potential for villainy.
As a DM, I'd find this guy a challenge to run, which isn't a criticism. Basically, his power would be in his hordes of believers grappling and restraining PCs. And he is a villain... to a party of evil PCs. While I don't run such campaigns, they ARE out there and there ARE settings that allow players to play those kind of characters. I can easily see this guy being INFURIATING to a mercenary party. And that's really what you want from a one-off mid-level villain, right?
Yes, it's a type. But it's only a stereotype if it doesn't work at your table. If it works, it's an archetype. And that's why I think it would improve matters if the submission didn't throw a bone to the good parties with its second adventure hook.
I would, however, have preferred that the contestant go whole hog in the direct action vein. There's not enough ideas here on how to run a pacifist, let alone one who is a villain.
Side note: He can't cast Quest, which is a 6th level spell.
Think of it this way: Baltar's a villain and he directly kills one person. And he's pretty scary right now...
::blink:: I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it didn't. Can't see a villain here, sorry.
|
|
As a DM, I'd find this guy a challenge to run, which isn't a criticism. Basically, his power would be in his hordes of believers grappling and restraining PCs. And he is a villain... to a party of evil PCs. While I don't run such campaigns, they ARE out there and there ARE settings that allow players to play those kind of characters. I can easily see this guy being INFURIATING to a mercenary party. And that's really what you want from a one-off mid-level villain, right?
Yes, it's a type. But it's only a stereotype if it doesn't work at your table. If it works, it's an archetype. And that's why I think it would improve matters if the submission didn't throw a bone to the good parties with its second adventure hook.
I would, however, have preferred that the contestant go whole hog in the direct action vein. There's not enough ideas here on how to run a pacifist, let alone one who is a villain.
Side note: He can't cast Quest, which is a 6th level spell.
Think of it this way: Baltar's a villain and he directly kills one person. And he's pretty scary right now... ** spoiler omitted **
Exactly. Even the name "Paradigm" pisses me off.
I've often found myself vowing to strangle the next person who says "Paradigm" in real life. This.....this character is that person.I think he'd be difficult to run as a villain; in defense of his level, I have a 7th level cleric that was working the combat medic angle so much that he didn't even hit anybody in combat for about 3 levels of advancement. It is theoretically possible, or maybe he USED to not be so much of a pacifist; he killed some orc babies in a fit of rage and now he feels bad.
I think he is extreme in his views, and that's a good first step to a good villain; I think he's on the way to true villainy. Maybe he needs a little fleshing out or he gets there as the story advances, and his psyche becomes unhinged.
I think this guy works as a villain, but would definitely need another villain to play off of...
I must say, though, I think that he's been sold a bit short. I mean, as for the argument that, because he's a pacifist, the party can just kill him and he can't stop them, I think that's one of the awesome things about this game. There are most certainly options on ways to defend oneself without harming anyone.
Spells like sleep and enthrall would be ones that Paradigm would make excellent use of. Blindness/deafness would be another great one, because it is a huge obstacle for those in battle, without actually hurting them at all, and it is easily reversed. True, perhaps these options should have been brought up in the description for him, but I think a lot of people had trouble with that in this round, as it's more mechanics than concept.
Honestly, I really like this guy. More so because he's not at all what you would expect to show up as an antagonist, and because he encourages the PCs to be inventive in dealing with him. I mean, yeah, they could just kill him, but one hopes they'd at least try something else first, at least if they're Good. I was sort of hoping for more of this kind of thing from this contest... villains that have very different goals than one would expect.
It would be more engaging if he performed heinous acts in secret. Then there would be something more substantial for the party to come up against.
I enjoy this idea; its extremely close to what I planned for round two and had written up and prepared if I had been lucky enough to have written as good an item as you did in round one. :) Congrats on making it this far, by the way.
The only problem I see is that his villanous execution seems a bit limited.
I see no problem with him playing himself completely straight, but I'd like to see more depth and possibility to make him a truly heinous villain.
This is the problem:
"The townsfolk consider Paradigm to be a blessing and a saint."
More intriguing would be
'The townsfolk consider Paradigm a burden and a pest."
Many holy people in the past met their end as martyrs. Founders of philosophies were poisoned (Socrates), beheaded (Chinese Legalists); Jesus was crucified, Ali of Islam fame was killed in battle, etc. People don't like people who are "holier than thou" (arguably of the above, only Socrates acted holier than thou.)
Maybe consider the townsfolk hire the players to "remove" or "end" paradigm... and Paradigm has to contend with them, in non-violent ways. Paradigm tries to trip up the players, he sends them to another plane, a prison-planet. He binds them with rope, he evades them and tries to use elemental forces to stop them. He consults with gods, takes a vow of poverty, gains "super powers", then attempts to "smack down" the characters and forcibly brands them with curses so they cannot kill a creature or be visited with d10 constitution drain. He resurrects all of their dead-villains, etc.
I'd just like to thank everyone for commenting. At the time of this reply I believe I'm tied with Legendsinger for the most number of comments, so at the very least it looks like I'll have the most to learn from this round. For those of you that are concerned, I in no way take personal offense from any of the comments so far and understand that it is only my villain which is being evaluated. Of course, regardless of the results I'll do my best to answer questions and respond to comments once voting ends and I am permitted to do so.
Thanks again and happy voting.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I appreciate trying to do something new here, and make a villain that breaks the mold. Unfortunately, in this case, there's a reason for that mold, and that's that a villain should be villanous. I'm with the crowd on this one, I fear - Paradigm fails on nearly all levels, including the name. I'll dissent on the idea itself, which I think has merit. There's a worthwhile seed here, but it needs more depth and power behind the priest to make it work - and more hidden fear of this tyrant of ideas in the town.
I'd just like to thank everyone for commenting. At the time of this reply I believe I'm tied with Legendsinger for the most number of comments, so at the very least it looks like I'll have the most to learn from this round. For those of you that are concerned, I in no way take personal offense from any of the comments so far and understand that it is only my villain which is being evaluated. Of course, regardless of the results I'll do my best to answer questions and respond to comments once voting ends and I am permitted to do so.
Thanks again and happy voting.
That is absolutely the right way to handle it. People could decide to pass you into the next round based on the maw and your swing for the fence chance-taking. Or they could judge you just on this round's submission. It went both ways at different times last year. Only time will tell. You know I wish you luck. I was sorry to have to critique your villain so harshly.
Does it grab me? No
Can I use it? No
End result: no vote from me
Not a villain.
Honestly, I really like this guy. More so because he's not at all what you would expect to show up as an antagonist, and because he encourages the PCs to be inventive in dealing with him. I mean, yeah, they could just kill him, but one hopes they'd at least try something else first, at least if they're Good. I was sort of hoping for more of this kind of thing from this contest... villains that have very different goals than one would expect.
Exactly. Sure, the PCs could just kill everyone and take their money in the style of Knights of the Dinner Table, but considering that he does have community support should make it clear it is a bad idea.
But yes, this is more a nuisance than a villain, and I was expecting at least some strange twist how this guy could seriously threaten and damage the PCs. Yet it didn't come. No vote but the submission has some fun ideas to exploit...
|
|
well about the level... I do remember experience isearned by DEFEATING enemies... not just killing them... so charming, outsmarting, diplomatically making them your allies... all those are good ways to have liveled so high....
aside of that... my commentaries are very much like the ones Idid with Father Avon... so i will not repeat them here...
other thing I also had in mind a 'good' character that would be considered villanious, and actually was planing to submit him if I have passed... My players hated him a lot even when they knew him was good (which hit them in the face after they checked all the facts along for 6 months)
in my idea he was a general who went rogue to fight the established society that had roots of evil everywhere... why he was a villian? because he choose to fight fire with fire... he forced orcs and drows tos erve as his minions, sending them to assassinate those he 'knew' were part of the corruption and to kill those who allied with them, in the mean time his cohort anothergeneral still in the country forced Martial Law so the cleaning progrom could continue... in the end the players confronted him, he was ready to let himself killed to atone for the necesary crimes he had commited... the players instead took him to confront charges using his honor to force him...
they remembered him as a great 'villain', but he was still the lesser of 2 evils...
See, I would love it if a character like this then got a Ozymandias-like swerve to him . . . for years he tries to stop violence, and it just doesn't work. People just resort to it too much, and the like it too much to give it up.
So he finds some kind of Pandora's Box to start a Year of Blood where violence and evil go on constantly, because he's sure that if he unleashes the worst evil and destruction ever, people will never want to think of violence as an answer ever again.
Heck, then you get to have him try to explain his reasoning to the PCs, and they may even be tempted to see things his way.
But as it stands? No real traction.
Sorry, this is a villain contest and you lost my interest at Pacifist Poet-Priest.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
Wow, another "interesting NPC who's not really a villain". In addition, while it's a big failure to have too much backstory, this one didn't really have any. With a villain concept this unusual, I was left thinking, "ok, how in any D&D world I've ever seen, did this guy become who he is?" Goblins attack villages, dragons raid, armies invade, people hunt, etc. How does someone become a pacifist to this extent? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but without a reason why, I simply don't buy it. I simply can't buy this guy existing in the same world as all of the events from Rise of the Runelords for instance, between the goblin raids killing dogs, children and villagers, the skinsaw cult, the Grauls, giant armies, etc., this guy, if he ever did live in Golarion, he died when he was 10 since he didn't fight back.
Wow, another "interesting NPC who's not really a villain". In addition, while it's a big failure to have too much backstory, this one didn't really have any. With a villain concept this unusual, I was left thinking, "ok, how in any D&D world I've ever seen, did this guy become who he is?" Goblins attack villages, dragons raid, armies invade, people hunt, etc. How does someone become a pacifist to this extent? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but without a reason why, I simply don't buy it. I simply can't buy this guy existing in the same world as all of the events from Rise of the Runelords for instance, between the goblin raids killing dogs, children and villagers, the skinsaw cult, the Grauls, giant armies, etc., this guy, if he ever did live in Golarion, he died when he was 10 since he didn't fight back.
In fairness, varisia is a frontier wilderness and a very dangerous place. There are however place on Golarion where this kind of NPC could fit in. The problem is that the concept isn't taken far enough and i really wish it had been, because it would have rocked.
Sorry, this is a villain contest and you lost my interest at Pacifist Poet-Priest.
You might want to read a little about pre-comunist tibet before saying things like that.
4/10
A forceful pacifist. OK, at least that's different... The name is awful. And you'd better have a *really* good-aligned party, or else they'll just catch his minions stealing something and terminate them (likely legal in most medieval municipalities).
I like it. A villain needs to oppose the PCs and hinder their pursuit of their goals; the best ones are the ones that do something that really screws you up, and then escapes to taunt you another day. It's not just a big boss fight.
I also don't see "he wouldn't last a minute against an evil party" arguments. He'd last every bit as long, which is quite a long time if he's sundering all their phat lewt. He'll piss off your players, both in and out of character, he'll be maddeningly difficult to defeat; in fact, I can easily imagine an outcome where the party would have to defeat him indirectly, because you just can't kill him without a sword or a spellbook. (Unless you're a monk, druid, or something else with good unarmed strikes or natural weapons.)
Sorry, this is a villain contest and you lost my interest at Pacifist Poet-Priest.You might want to read a little about pre-comunist tibet before saying things like that.
Let's maybe keep the comments focused on the topic of the thread (although now I'm probably forced to also break this in rebuttal) and not start flaming other posters. If you disagree with me, fine... you may not be alone. (On a side note, I am very familiar with Tibet's history, and a deep sympathy I harbour is that they didn't have vast oil reserves to "encourage" help from other more powerful nations.)
Maybe my group of players are just immature, but if I were to plunk down a "villain" called a Pacifist Poet-Priest, I would be laughed out of my own house.
I've posted once to encourage comments, so now it's time to encourage voting. I remain optimistic since it will only take a few 4th votes to get into the next round given the very small number of widely popular entries. Since Mr Peterson compared my entry to The Blink Dog Nation, I'll see if I can come up with a suitable analog to “Think Blink”. How about:
It's time for Paradigm!
Primed for Paradigm! or even
Voting Paradigm is not a crime!
PS: Hopefully we wont have a repeat of last year's blink dog fiasco ....
Ugh. Yeah. Those blink dogs were bad. Don't remind us.
Sorry, this is a villain contest and you lost my interest at Pacifist Poet-Priest.You might want to read a little about pre-comunist tibet before saying things like that.Let's maybe keep the comments focused on the topic of the thread (although now I'm probably forced to also break this in rebuttal) and not start flaming other posters. If you disagree with me, fine... you may not be alone. (On a side note, I am very familiar with Tibet's history, and a deep sympathy I harbour is that they didn't have vast oil reserves to "encourage" help from other more powerful nations.)
Maybe my group of players are just immature, but if I were to plunk down a "villain" called a Pacifist Poet-Priest, I would be laughed out of my own house.
Saying 'I do not like the way Casey has handled this Pasifistic villain and here is why...' would have been a useful, but discarding and entire and very cool group of villain concepts, just because they dont set out you physicially hurt your character, is frankly lazy. This kind of Villain has huge potential and it really is you and your groups loose to dismiss it out of hand.
I won't be voting for it, but that isn't because it is a Pascifist Villain, but because i personally think it is a poorly done one.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Ummm... feathers in his hair? Pacifist, with little trinkets on his clothes. Worships with goddess of music, love, and beauty... So... this guy is basically a hippie from Woodstock.
I will agree that the "aggressive pacifist" can be a pretty annoying character (your adventure hook reminded me of the Tinkers in the Wheel of Time series), but it just doesn't rise to the level of a villain for me.
If PCs (or other NPCs) don't go along with his peace program, what does he do? It seems like this guy just keeps going around doing good deeds. He notices the PCs are violent and goes and gives them a stern talking-to. They tell him to kiss their shiny metal kiesters, and... then what?
Does he reveal their location and movements to other, less peaceful types, and betray them? That wouldn't be very peaceful, just passing the violence buck onto a second party.
Does he follow the party and keep interrupting their battles with spells that prevent people from fighting? Again, this is a more directly involved way of letting other people do violence to the PCs.
Your adventure hook presents him as a deluded patriarch of a village that loves him, and certainly through his inaction the village may come to ruin unless the PCs and their redemptive violence step in and save the day, but that just makes him a frustrating NPC, not a villain.
I'm just not buying him as a villain, and the name and the hippie outfit aren't helping.
I will go on record with Casey gets my vote.
Much has been said that the concept does not work, 'that the character is not a villain because he is too kill-able'. I disagree, I believe characters would not simply dispose of a town’s blessing and saint like some random monster in a dungeon.
The other big complaint seems to revolve around the fact the character lacks development showing how he would cause ‘trouble’ to the characters.
I am guessing Casey was planning to expand in this area in the next round, as the character concept is nearly at the 500-word limit. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that by stat block the author was going to include a tactics entry to answer these questions, and (mis)understood that this round was all flavour, no crunch.
Casey, I wish you luck on getting to Round 3. I loved the Maw, see the potential here, and look forward to seeing this villain fully realized.
I will go on record with Casey gets my vote.
Much has been said that the concept does not work, 'that the character is not a villain because he is too kill-able'. I disagree, I believe characters would not simply dispose of a town’s blessing and saint like some random monster in a dungeon.
The other big complaint seems to revolve around the fact the character lacks development showing how he would cause ‘trouble’ to the characters.
I am guessing Casey was planning to expand in this area in the next round, as the character concept is nearly at the 500-word limit. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that by stat block the author was going to include a tactics entry to answer these questions, and (mis)understood that this round was all flavour, no crunch.
Casey, I wish you luck on getting to Round 3. I loved the Maw, see the potential here, and look forward to seeing this villain fully realized.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for your vote.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
(On a side note, I am very familiar with Tibet's history, and a deep sympathy I harbour is that they didn't have vast oil reserves to "encourage" help from other more powerful nations.)
And this self-righteous jab at the supposed 'War for Oil" is an example of keepng the comments constructive and about villains?
I agree that the pacifist is a poor design choice and not a thrilling villain, but your comments themselves are not about the contest, or really about defending your knowledge of Tibet (I get along with Zombie Neighbors, but I'm still trying to find out what that was about). Your words words go beyond that, and possibly offend some folks who venerate our soldiers and believe in the efort. You might disagree, but if we're really keeping this abott the entries...let's not be snarly with each other about other stuff.
And if the Tibet thing was going where I think it was going, a pacifist villain might have oppressed folks with his politically enforced moral superiority in the real world, but that hardly makes it a compelling Pathfinder villain.
Don't y'all be mad at me. I just want the snark to be limited to fictional villains before some of us go off accusing one man's hero of being another man's bad guy.