...
And I wonder how he got so many levels without killing a single monster.
...
Survive traps.
Lots and lots of traps.Or perhaps he gets xp from the gp of the stuff he steals (AD&D! :)
Or he could win on attrition.
T-rex: I bite you
Paradigm: I cast cure
T-rex: I swallow you whole.
P: I cast cure.
T: I digest you and gullet-pummel you.
P: I cast cure.
T: I digest you and gullet-pummel you.
P: I cast cure.
T: I digest you and gullet-pummel you.
P: I cast cure.
T: I get sick and throw you up.
P: I bless you brother, for seeing the error of violence.
T: I get sick and thow up.
Personally I think it is the traps.
Still! kudos for the approach!
(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.
Steven:
There is an arguement to be made that buddhism in Tibet did a lot of damage to the people of tibet before the invasion by china. And there is certainly enough historic evidence to suggest that when discussing Tibets history we should atleast avoid being misty eyed about Tibets past. My personal view lays very much in the middle ground, in that i consider there to have been a lot wrong with pre-chinisse invasion tibet, but also a lot of worth.
The point is, that tibet does offer an example of what a theocracy based around certain virtues can be like. After all Religious extremeism of any sort can be a very bad thing.
I really do have to strongly disagree though about If a villain in this style can work in Pathfinder. This villain is certainly flawed, but the underlying concept can be mad to work. Combat is not the only way to threaten PCs. The leader of a theocracy can decree that it is a religion crime to give shelter or trade with the outsides. He can issue decrees that they are demons and evil spirits in human form, which led to tribel peoples in the surrounding area attacking the player or angry mobs trying to beat them with brooms until they leave the city. Letters sent to neighbouring rulers can cause other kingdoms to treat them as outlaws. He can send out missionaries to activing attempt to convert the PCs families and friends, to use them as emotional weapons and human shields.
Then their is the enviromental threat of being in a city which has such a priest ruling it. Disease, mobs of beggers needing help, dangerous monsters attacking the people and so on. All of which are caused by the priests actions. lastly, direct combat and magical threat. Just because he will not kill the PCs doesn't mean that he and his organisation cannot be a physical threat.
cause fear, command, hold person, blind/deafen and bestow curse are obvious examples of spells which can be used in combat to disable. Then their is the possiblity of hoards of monks using non-leathal damage to down the party. Once incapasitated a villain can sell the PCs into endentured survitude, and sell their gear to pay for a new temple to the radience of the goddess. He can lock them away in dungeons and brain wash them with magic, torture, sleep deprevation and apologetics until they become loyal worshippers of his god or goddess.
The only thing that blocks this core concept as a villain is a wall in most peoples imaginations that says 'if it cant hurt my PC, it isn't a villain.'
Step one: disable with magic.
Step two: secure opponent
Step three: transfer opponent to re-education camps
Step four: apply diplomacy rules to adjust attitude
Step five: meet your new friends
Step six: repeat
With sufficiently high diplomacy score further boosted through circumstance bonuses and Aid another actions, this works.
And if you wanted something more complex, but outside available sources to this contest, Quintessential Cleric and BoED both have conversion mechanics. Heck, you could use the voting mechanic from Dynasties and Demogogues.
As for other sources of XP, you DO give PCs XP for overcoming obstacles through skills and role playing, yes? That would work here too. Experts and Commoners can get levels through DM fiat, but the system models them getting levels by means other than war service or dungeon delving too.
|
Step one: disable with magic.
Step two: secure opponent
Step three: transfer opponent to re-education camps
Step four: apply diplomacy rules to adjust attitude
Step five: meet your new friends
Step six: repeatWith sufficiently high diplomacy score further boosted through circumstance bonuses and Aid another actions, this works.
This can work as the rationalisation for how a Diplomancer NPC rose to high station, by brainwashing other NPCS prior to the start of the campaign.
The problem with this as a tactic vs PCs is that most games allow players to veto the effects of social skill rolls on their precious PCs, being assumed to have full control of their actions at all times.
There are spells that can change attitudes and allegiances, but these are dispellable, and of finite duration.
A GM who wishes to use such methods needs a mature group, capable of separating in-character knowledge from out-of-character. Simply declaring 'He rolled 40 on his Diplomacy check; you have to be his friend' is just not going to fly with many players, despite the fact they believe they should be able to do exactly that in reverse.
This is the reason Paizo staff said they rarely saw any Bards as major campaign BBEGs; their abilities work best as a PC. Against PCs, they lose much of their toolkit. Though Paizo have made many attempts to reverse this lack in their recent adventures.
This can work as the rationalisation for how a Diplomancer NPC rose to high station, by brainwashing other NPCS prior to the start of the campaign.
The problem with this as a tactic vs PCs is that most games allow players to veto the effects of social skill rolls on their precious PCs, being assumed to have full control of their actions at all times.
I agree. I was unclear in my post that I was putting this forward just for advancing the villain to his current level.
The idea that the PCs are the only ones who have even some immunity to this guy once he gets his well-intentioned cult going is kind of a neat idea, though.
Step one: disable with magic.
Step two: secure opponent
Step three: transfer opponent to re-education camps
Step four: apply diplomacy rules to adjust attitude
Step five: meet your new friends
Step six: repeatWith sufficiently high diplomacy score further boosted through circumstance bonuses and Aid another actions, this works.
This can work as the rationalisation for how a Diplomancer NPC rose to high station, by brainwashing other NPCS prior to the start of the campaign.
The problem with this as a tactic vs PCs is that most games allow players to veto the effects of social skill rolls on their precious PCs, being assumed to have full control of their actions at all times.
There are spells that can change attitudes and allegiances, but these are dispellable, and of finite duration.A GM who wishes to use such methods needs a mature group, capable of separating in-character knowledge from out-of-character. Simply declaring 'He rolled 40 on his Diplomacy check; you have to be his friend' is just not going to fly with many players, despite the fact they believe they should be able to do exactly that in reverse.
This is the reason Paizo staff said they rarely saw any Bards as major campaign BBEGs; their abilities work best as a PC. Against PCs, they lose much of their toolkit. Though Paizo have made many attempts to reverse this lack in their recent adventures.
This frame work has always annoyed me greatly. I can understand not including a social system at all, making all social elements of game play be hard skilled.
And i can understand having a system that effects every one. But having a system that affects every one but the PCs?
After all, do we allow a PC to say, 'i do not accept that the minatour hit me with his act and i will not take the damage as a result. My character is far to good a swordsman for that to have happened.'
No, ofcause we do not. So why should PCs be insulated from social manipulation by skilled NPCs?
It is one of the reasons i have called repeatedly for a more robust social system in the core rules.
And I can understand having a system that effects every one. But having a system that affects every one but the PCs?
.....
No, of course we do not. So why should PCs be insulated from social manipulation by skilled NPCs
Yeah, this always threw me off a little as well. I certainly understand the design philosophy anytime a player is not in control of his character’s actions he/she is not having fun but certain spells do just that and most players would not argue their PCs should be able to disregard a domination or charm.
Sorry for the threadjack……
Now back to the Villain
An interesting annoyance, perhaps, but one that is likely to appear in only a single scene. This just isn't a villain by any definition of the word - it's a minor antagonist. No vote from me, I'm afraid.
|
|
I agree. I was unclear in my post that I was putting this forward just for advancing the villain to his current level.
That's quite true.
And I agree we are in danger of jacking this poor poster's thread; although, bumping it into the 'recent top 10' might actually do him good? Hmmm, swings and roundabouts.
It's also premature to discuss the Diplomacy rules, since it's not been stated that this character will use such means. Until we see an actual stat-block, and a Tactics breakdown, we don't know that.
And I agree we are in danger of jacking this poor poster's thread; although, bumping it into the 'recent top 10' might actually do him good? Hmmm, swings and roundabouts.
For what it's worth I welcome all comments, even if only tangentially related to my villain. I look forward to responding to all of them and especially appreciate some of the more recent comments.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I get the 'anti'-free tibet argument. Admittedly most of my experience with the issue revolves around asking people what they know about tibet, and then asking them why they have a bumper they know nothing about.
I don't pretend to be on a side of the issue, but I sure can't stand those pretensious types who pick a position without any facts just so they can feel smart. When folks like that vote, we get minimum wage increases, and then the poor people lose money. Grr!
But I just wanted to snark in an point out that the claim to 'keep it all about Superstar' included an incindiary political comment itself.
I had a brief talk with Nick Logue about Tibet back at Gen Con. He and his wife have a pretty soft heart about the issue, so it was great to not have to roll my eyes while someone threw out a cause and left it there.
I don't buy the pacifist priest as a fantasy adventure villain. I get he could solve a lot of problems, much as Andy Griffith or a Catholic priest in a remote setting. If you want crops and healing, you'll make these interlopers unwelcome in our village.
But that would never fly in a Pathfinder game. When the locals can't use violence, and the guy in charge has no power against them that they respect, they'll roll through, kill the bad guys and move on. They'll either think it's the heroic thing to do, or they'll feel like the pacifists can't take care of themselves. An entire urban adventure of in-character roleplay and opposed skill checks is possible, but not good design.
Less than 24 hours left to vote and I still think I might be just a few votes away from making it into the next round. So, I'd encourage people who only had very brief comments to expand on what they said, and don't worry about repeating something that somebody else said.
Finally, I think I could impress a lot of people with a surprising and menacing stat block. I look forward to redeeming myself in many paizoite's eyes if I manage to progress.
This is some stuff I was writing up as I read the comments, perhaps the most important part I still can't share since it possibly relates to the next round.
First, the name: Remember how I mentioned I play some weird characters? The name is from a Lumi (MMIII) Incarnate (Magic of Incarnum) I had all stated up but never played for Age of Worms. The name was actually almost my starting point, I loved it so much I thought I'd see if I could make a character deserving of such a name. I'm a huge fan of really over-the-top expressive names (I liked the names of all the characters in The Spirit as well as standard warforged names in Eberron, for example), and noticed last year there was some criticism of Lovecraftian names composed of jumbled letters and apostrophes so I wanted a readable and pronounceable word. I don't think anyone tried something like this last year so I don't think it was my lack of research that lead to the big flop on the name, just sort of a different preference I suppose. For what it's worth "Jonas Nightengale" or something close would have probably been my second choice, but that's ripped off of a Steve Martin movie.
I didn't get a lot of comments on writing, just on the concept. I don't know if that's because my writing was decent (at least an improvement of the writing in my item), or the concept was just so distasteful that people didn't bother mentioning anything else. Just a quick question: Did anyone catch that in the leading story Paradigm was using magic to hold the dwarf still? I felt silly mentioning verbal or somatic components explicitly.
In response to comments about this being a so-called swing for the fences I'd say that is partly correct. Hindsight being 20/20, if I had known the showing for this round was going to be so poor I totally would have gone with one of a few safer concepts I had worked out.
Now, onto the main issues that it seems this villain had. Just a few minutes after 2 I read Ed Greenwood's review, which defiantly pointed out some serious vagueness problems I had. These were mostly a case of being worried I would spend too much time talking about henchmen and not Paradigm himself, as well as trying to keep my villain very portable, which was another heavily criticized point last year. Then I got to Sean and read “He's the sort of person who would berate someone committing a murder but wouldn't actually stop the murder from happening.“ and thought to myself “Really? He is? Huh.” but then I got to “If he's really a pacifist, he won't try to stop anyone who wants to kill him.” and was shocked. I panicked when I realized there was going to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of my villain unless the other two judges greatly disagreed. Obviously they did not. I believe more than one comment mentioned they figured Paradigm would simply run away if encountered. I'm not sure if there was some misunderstanding in the word “Pacifism”, maybe I should have left it out of his title. For what it's worth, in my understanding one can be pacifist and simply be opposed to war as a solution to a problem, and plenty still resort to violence when it comes to defending themselves or others. Paradigm though, with the use of magic, doesn't need to resort to violence in these instances. Strictly what I mentioned was that Paradigm has a problem killing any creature for any reason. There was some mention of non-violent positive action Paradigm could take (the Charm domain, for example), but let's just get something straight: a pacifist can do the following things, right?
**List of spells and tactics omitted until round 3 is announced, just in case**
I could have mentioned these things, yes, but the more I thought about it the more I realized that these are tactics, and therefore belong in the tactics section of a stat block (Robert McRae got this exactly right). In fact I was worried that I had even mentioned a few spells by name in a villain description. I also didn't think anything I mentioned was so mechanically radical that I'd need to remind everyone that it was at his disposal. I could have also said “He'll send disabled party members to prison if they committed a crime” but that also seemed a bit redundant. The standard procedure for a town is to lock up or kill people who attempt to murder others, why do I need to bother explicitly mentioning that in this town you'll just be imprisoned?
Finally I saw the phrase "Not a villain" a bunch in my entry, but I don't know if it's just the feeling that Paradigm isn't threatening enough which like I said I can't say too much about right now. I think I should move further discussion of villainy to another thread.
Thanks again for everyone's comments and to those of you that voted for me.
I didn't get a lot of comments on writing, just on the concept. I don't know if that's because my writing was decent (at least an improvement of the writing in my item), or the concept was just so distasteful that people didn't bother mentioning anything else.
Actually, while Paradigm didn't get my vote, he was in contention for my final vote slot (along with four or five others) based on the writing. Less for the prose itself (for the record, I'm not a fan of intro stories for this sort of thing. Makes me feel like I'm reading a White Wolf product...) than for the fact that you went to great lengths to detail exactly what his pacifism entailed as far as is day to day life and being a leader in the community. (The bit about the stone-to-flesh meal services creeped me the hell out, in fact, just because I've always assumed that spell creates... well. Human flesh.) In that sense, he was pretty evocative. In a round that included at least two other pacifistic villains, Paradigm stood out as the most well developed in that regard, to me.
Ultimately he didn't get one of my votes for the reasons that everyone else has stated, which comes down to the concept. I thought he was definitely interesting, and an NPC I wouldn't mind using/having used on me, but still... an NPC. An antagonist. A thorn in the PCs side, but not really doing more than inconvenienceing them. But then, he was hardly alone in that, and ironically, a lot of those NPC types were more interesting to my eye than a number of the entires that were just straight up villains. If I'd had just a few more votes to spread around I'd have been happy to spend them on some of the not-so-villainous villains just because I'd like to see those writers have a chance to advance and get another shot. But with only four... well, that wasn't a luxury I had.
Still, for all that, I do hope you're in the top half of votegetters, if I can say so without being hypocritical.
The bit about the stone-to-flesh meal services creeped me the hell out, in fact, just because I've always assumed that spell creates... well. Human flesh.
I'm glad you liked that. I was defiantly trying to create this idea that as a result of Paradigm the town has some pretty weird evil cult-like behavior like eating human flesh, even if it didn't actually come from a human.
Just as a little sidenote, and not that I'm the first person to discover D&D economics is a little wonky, but Stone Meat is actually a viable guiltless meat alternative, math under the spoiler.
Data:
flesh / lean ground beef
1050 kg/m^3 (65 lbs/ft^3)
70 cubic stone feet/casting
stone is 1gp/cu ft
70gp for a 70 cu ft stone pillar
4,270lbs of meat per casting
660gp per hired casting
Therefore:
1.7 sp/lb to break even on hired casting.
"Meat, Chunk of" from SRD: 6 sp/lb
So Stone-Meat is about 28% the cost of conventional meat, assuming sufficient overhead.
Still, for all that, I do hope you're in the top half of votegetters, if I can say so without being hypocritical.
No worries at all, and thank you for your consideration. Love your username, by the way.
Oh, yeah, and I was really tempted to drop the weird little intro story and am still not sure it was a good idea. I saw them a lot last year and were mostly disapproved of by the judges, I finally decided that it might help paint the picture of someone strictly enforcing nonviolence in a town to being intensely creepy.
Damn. Oh well. Congrats to the top 17. Here's the omitted part from that previous post.
hideous laughter, hold person, charm person, dominate person, suggestion, calm emotions, ray of enfeeblement, silence, blindness deafness, bestow curse, sleep, symbol of sleep, symbol of stunning, command, greater command, mark of justice, quest, cause fear, symbol of fear, symbol of persuasion, symbol of weakness, bane, doom.
Grappling, Tripping, Disarming, Sundering, binding and shackling disabled foes.
And though not his first resort there are nonlethal unarmed strikes,merciful weapons, and ingested/inhaled/contact poisons (all but Con-damaging can be used without risk of death)
So what I imagine is he's got a solid set of tactics against any particular foe.
Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian. bestow curse for strength plus a ray of enfeeblement and he's out of the fight. Not only can they not actually fight anymore, but their medium or heavy armor is probably enough weight to prevent them from moving. And of course add calm emotions to cancel out rage and bardic bonuses.
Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard? A silenced monk (either from Paradigm, another cleric, or via an oil) runs up and grapples them. Can't cast any spell, and even if they do break the grapple it costs them a standard action so they'll need to pass a few in a row just to get an standard action to themselves.
Rogue? One blindness spell and there goes all of his precision based damage (right?). After that use something like one of the tactics above.
The aforementioned symbols were going to be in his lair/church, and to address that and the comment about not being able to cast quest I was assuming he wasn't necessarily the highest level cleric in this town, just the political leader.
Once foes are disabled you bind and shackle them and lead them off to prison (Or just repeatedly cast enchantment spells until they fail and they take themselves), which as far as the adventurer is concerned is just as bad as death.
I really like the basic idea behind this NPC and I expect I will use him in one of my games. However, that name has to die a rapid death. "Paradigm" is bad enough (unless you are Bruce Cordell and you're having trouble remembering whether your novel is 2001: A Space Odyssey or something set in the Forgotten Realms) but teamed with the pseudo-Latin "Theoguard" it has become an evil abomination that needs a very powerful smite evil attack to blast it out of existence.
But I do like the concept a lot. If you have access to 2nd edition Dungeon magazines you might find The Knight of the Scarlet Sword adventure interesting as a slightly different take on something similar.
I don't know if it would have saved Paradigm but making it clearer that he was the political leader and specifically indicating he had higher character level adherents/supporters might have made him more credible to the voters.
You sort of hinted at it with the stone to flesh program, but pehaps it was too subtle.
He's a highish level priest and a religious leader. That he is a powerful political figure is implicit.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
One thing is for certain - the character doesn't work at all if he is not a political leader.
And, thinking on medieval and purely fantasy civilizations, how does one become a high-level cloistered cleric without being also an important local figure? Either he fends off the orcs and wolves, or he's blessing the crops and chastising the charlatans, or he heals the sick and exhorts them to peace.
Did he get all those eeps running his keep and minding his own business?
One thing is for certain - the character doesn't work at all if he is not a political leader.
And, thinking on medieval and purely fantasy civilizations, how does one become a high-level cloistered cleric without being also an important local figure? Either he fends off the orcs and wolves, or he's blessing the crops and chastising the charlatans, or he heals the sick and exhorts them to peace.
Did he get all those eeps running his keep and minding his own business?
You could become high level somewhere REALLY far away (another plane perhaps even), and then move to a locale that you happen to be completely anonymous.