I think our DM's turning me into the final boss.


Advice

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

Well, actually, I get it to an extent. The use of Greek mythology through Zeus is actually a nice flair. In Greek mythology, and other mythologies I suppose, the idea is that in the age of Great Heroes, men were more mythic in nature, reflected in their superior stature.

This applies in practice in several ways. Some claim that George Washington's main qualification as a commander was his height, rather than actual expertise. The fact of the matter remains that superior size often demands respect. This also translates into better IQ due to confidence resulting from this respect. Jonathan's character in particular wants size since elves are typically marked with slightly greater height than humans and half-elves, allowing them to literally look down on others. So becoming a giant would allow this character to tower over its peers, gaining a sense of majesty and power.

The blue skin and vampirism are a bit much though.

Exactly what I was intending, was also thinking Xerxes in 300 as well.

Although, Blue skin?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And nothing ticks the rest of us off more than a player who wants to do something outside the setting but not deal with the consequences of it.

If you play a creature that will be unwelcome in some places, guess what happens in some places?

I'm pretty sure that Jonathan Michaels only wanted to be a giant. And from the story, he dealed with the fact that it happened a bit sooner than he was comfortable with. The switch of bloodline was a bit weird, but fit in with the story. The problem was involuntarily turning into a vampire.

So the consequences of wanting to be a giant is to turn into a vampire? I mean, sure, larger creature = more blood, but not that much direct correlation. "You stole a car so we tattooed a large bananna onto your face." Even if you are being passive aggressive, you need enough clues to give people a hint.

Sometimes things happen in the game, particularly when you read the really, really evil book.

Sometimes these things are scary and troubling, and things don't go exactly according to how you planned them.

That is why it is a game played with others and not a book you are writing for yourself.

At the end of the day, you either trust your GM to create a good story or you don't.

Perhaps, and this is a crazy idea so try to stay with me, perhaps this is all part of a larger quest that won't end up with him as a vampire but will end up with him as a giant.

Maybe, crazy I know, the GM is giving him what he asked for in the context of a larger plot that will force him to deal with challenges and conflicts.

Heaven forbid!

Or the GM might be a dick. That happens too. But more likely this is one of those crazy tables run by a GM who created a story that is so engrossing that players are talking about what is happening to their imaginary people on the interwebs, feeling legitimate anxiety about what might happen next in the story.

How. Horrible...


Jonathan Michaels wrote:

Exactly what I was intending, was also thinking Xerxes in 300 as well.

Although, Blue skin?

For some odd reason I thought you were a frost giant. Now I have no idea how I got that impression. Maybe I caught a word and got it thrown back into the wrong place in my head.

And ciretose, I realize that it might be part of a larger story arc, I was just questioning how it seemed like some were giving Jonathan a "this is the punishment you get for wanting to be something different" for wanting to be a giant. Plus my psych classes generally make it obvious that it would be hard to get that idea across by making him a vampire.


lemeres wrote:
Jonathan Michaels wrote:

Exactly what I was intending, was also thinking Xerxes in 300 as well.

Although, Blue skin?

For some odd reason I thought you were a frost giant. Now I have no idea how I got that impression. Maybe I caught a word and got it thrown back into the wrong place in my head.

And ciretose, I realize that it might be part of a larger story arc, I was just questioning how it seemed like some were giving Jonathan a "this is the punishment you get for wanting to be something different" for wanting to be a giant. Plus my psych classes generally make it obvious that it would be hard to get that idea across by making him a vampire.

Well, considering the Zeus thing, I'd be more of a storm giant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:

Well see this is a problem that results from changes in the game... over the years.

[ . . . ]

This why Evil alignments weren't allowed. Why Giants weren't PCs, why all orcs were evil and if you became a vampire you were an NPC.

Original D&D couldn't ban evil alignments, because it didn't have evil alignments. Same with B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia. None of those had bans on chaotic characters in their three-alignment system, either. Holmes Basic had LE and CE alignments, and didn't ban PCs of those alignments - it specifically said, "Players may choose any alignment they want and need not reveal it to others." AD&D 1st Edition shipped with an evil-only class in the PHB, and not a word in either the PHB or DMG against evil PCs. The AD&D 2nd edition PHB in its alignment chapter explicitly says there is no prohibition on playing characters of evil alignment.

So, evil PCs being allowed isn't remotely new.

Now, on the subject of giant characters, let me quote the 1974 D&D's Men & Magic booklet, page 8:

Quote:
Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.

Yep, right there in the very first booklet for the very fist published version of the game, we've got a section saying it's fine to play "virtually anything", with a dragon as the example. Giants seem tame by comparison.

Just as obviously, orcs weren't all evil, because there was no evil alignment. But that's not all; they weren't even all of the "bad guy" chaotic alignment. Yep, over on page 9 of Men & Magic, orcs are established as being either chaotic or neutral.

And, finally, the cleric class was invented as a reaction to a PC vampire, Sir Fang, in Dave Arneson's game. That's right, PC vampires have been around longer than PC clerics.

You don't like evil PCs? You don't like "monster" PCs? You don't like non-evil orcs? You don't like PCs who are turned into vampires remaining PCs? Fine, you're fully entitled to your opinion. But they aren't a result of the game changing; they've all been in the game longer than you've been playing.


Pendagast wrote:
As Per RAW it's not listed with an evil descriptor, because of the above mentioned reasons as to why it's different. No permanent level possibility, it just suppresses life force... so it IS different from what a vampire does.

Spell descriptors have zero in-game effect and is only provided to give hooks to other mechanical effects such as immunities.

Quote:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.

The with alignment bit refers to creatures with resistances and other features with respect to "good" spells versus "evil" ones. It doesn't mean casting a spell marked evil shifts your alignment.

Liberty's Edge

lemeres wrote:


And ciretose, I realize that it might be part of a larger story arc, I was just questioning how it seemed like some were giving Jonathan a "this is the punishment you get for wanting to be something different" for wanting to be a giant. Plus my psych classes generally make it obvious that it would be hard to get that idea across by making him a vampire.

I have no idea what the GMs plan is. Neither does the OP.

This is not a bad thing.

It sounds to me like the OP talked to the GM about wanting to be a giant, and the campaign includes an evil book that turns people in vampires and he read the book.

Will he become the BBEG? Maybe. Does that mean it is over, not in a game where people can cured of vampirism. That may in fact, be the quest.

I've been in games where players became the BBEG. The guy was playing an evil character with a good group (we had mutual goals) and the GM told him if he played it in conflict with the party that could be something that happened.

He relished the idea, as he would get to keep control of his character as the bad guy in such a combat. A final showdown kind of thing.

If I were the OP I would e-mail the GM and ask if it is going that way an express my concerns. The GM already worked in the player being a giant, so I don't think he is an unresponsive GM. He will probably work with the player, as all GMs do.

But if you are never worried about what could happen in the game...seems boring to me. And this GM seems to be running anything but a boring campaign.


Umbranus wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
And besides: A gm wanting to show a player how nice it can be to not play a monster fits very well with me not liking people to play monsters (which dhampirs are imho). So no contradiction at all.

This kind of passive-aggressive nonsense pisses me off.

If you don't want anyone playing a certain kind of creature, tell them so up front. Just flat-out ban it and don't make exceptions. DO NOT do this BS of "Sure, you can play that" while silently adding "And I'm going to make the entire time miserable so you learn to never do that again in MY game."

What exactly makes you think that I am doing anything of what you accuse me of? In this thread I neither said I do things like that nor did I propose it*. In my games I forbid what I don't like. One of those things is playing a dhampir. And because I forbid dhampirs in my homegame some guys here on the forums think it's ok to attack me.

*For me the OP came across as someone who likes to play special snowflakes and I know GMs who could try to turn an PC into a very special snowflake to show the player how nice it is to be normal. I never said I would do that or that I think this is a good idea. It was just a guess as to what the GMs reason might be.

Perhaps I should make a disclaimer which I add to every one of my posts about how what I write is subjective and about how sorry I am that, being no native speaker, I sometimes seem to lack the perfect wording.

I recall you mentioning only that Pharasma's Clerics kill Dhampirs on sight, thinking them as undead (so they're stupid in your world?) despite that not being the case. So basically, your campaign world has Pharasma as a Neutral Evil racist (because not all Dhampir are Evil), and denying it as a DM just means you don't know what you are doing. Same goes for you claiming they are monsters when they are basically on the same level as the Aasimar and Tiefling as far as mortals go. Are they monsters in your world as well?

see wrote:

Just as obviously, orcs weren't all evil, because there was no evil alignment. But that's not all; they weren't even all of the "bad guy" chaotic alignment. Yep, over on page 9 of Men & Magic, orcs are established as being either chaotic or neutral.

And, finally, the cleric class was invented as a reaction to a PC vampire, Sir Fang, in Dave Arneson's game. That's right, PC vampires have been around longer than PC clerics.

You don't like evil PCs? You don't like "monster" PCs? You don't like non-evil orcs? You don't like PCs who are turned into vampires remaining PCs? Fine, you're fully entitled to your opinion. But they aren't a result of the game changing; they've all been in the game longer than you've been playing.

Amen!

Liberty's Edge

Or that Pharasma abhors undead and undeath, and so if you choose to play someone who worships her...well...you know.

Why make a character you don't want to play?

Edit: And by worship I mean, so devoutly you are granted access to magical spells and abilities directly from her.


@Icyshadow: In my games up to now they just don't exist. And should I happen to GM a module in which a dhampir appears I'd treat them as undead. Very simple. Is much better fit fluff wise, too. Their dad is undead, they are undead. It's contagious.

But really, is the fact that I don't like dhampirs and don't allow them in my games (which you will most likely never be part of) so important to you that you keep on harrasing me because of it and by that derail other people's threads?


ciretose wrote:

Or that Pharasma abhors undead and undeath, and so if you choose to play someone who worships her...well...you know.

Why make a character you don't want to play?

Edit: And by worship I mean, so devoutly you are granted access to magical spells and abilities directly from her.

You know, a DM can make your character into something you don't want to play. Like if my Half-Elf Cleric of Sarenrae would get bitten by a werewolf and turned into one without me wanting that. Dhampir ARE NOT UNDEAD, and anyone with even one rank of Knowledge Local (to identify Humanoid traits) would know that. Umbranus is going by a houserule and making Pharasma seem both evil and stupid instead of just reasonably annoyed by undeath.

Hell, our next Carrion Crown campaign (not sure when it is going to start) features a Dhampir Inquisitor of Pharasma in it, and so far as I know how things go in Golarion, no other follower of Pharasma would try to kill him with fire just for being there. There's even an Inquisitor Archetype made for characters like that!!

Assistant Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I cleaned up some posts.


see wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Well see this is a problem that results from changes in the game... over the years.

[ . . . ]

This why Evil alignments weren't allowed. Why Giants weren't PCs, why all orcs were evil and if you became a vampire you were an NPC.

Original D&D couldn't ban evil alignments, because it didn't have evil alignments. Same with B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia. None of those had bans on chaotic characters in their three-alignment system, either. .....

So, evil PCs being allowed isn't remotely new.

Now, on the subject of giant characters, let me quote the 1974 D&D's Men & Magic booklet, page 8:

Quote:

Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything.....

Just as obviously, orcs weren't all evil, because there was no evil alignment. But that's not all; they weren't even all of the "bad guy" chaotic alignment. ......

And, finally, the cleric class was invented as a reaction to a PC vampire,...

ROFL. I've been playing since my Chaotic Elf.

There are multiple references in game especially AD&D to not playing evil alignments and monsters.

There is even one in Second Darkness (2008) stating NO DROW PCs.

You're funny.

Please don't assume how long I have been playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pendagast wrote:
Please don't assume how long I have been playing.

So, you're saying you were in either Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax's pre-publication games? Because, even if your entry to the game dated back to buying the very first copy of D&D off the press, and immediately sitting down and playing, you started playing after evil PCs, monster PCs, non-evil orcs, and vampire PCs were all already in the game.

Yes, they were discouraged in later books. So? That doesn't change that they were already there.


Why are people getting upset and insulting each other?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Why are people getting upset and insulting each other?

good/wrong/bad/fun


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Jonathan Michaels wrote:
Proley wrote:

Unless you fail some will save, your PC is your PC. It would be helpful if you could tell us how you ended up a giant vampire though as the method by which you're changed can help determine if you're being picked on willy nilly, or if it you're just the victim of circumstance.

If talking to the DM doesn't work though, and he ignores you (he may just be yanking your chain) and ends up doing something you don't like, have a contingency. For example, maybe you bought Giant Bane, garlic laced weapons, and arrows of Reduce Person?

Short version.

We entered an ice cave, there was a gate encased in ice, also a dais with a shield identical to one I had picked up early in the campaign.

We melted the ice, we determine that to activate the gate, we need to take the sword that came with the shield and insert into the dais, The sword is too small, so I enlarge myself and try again, the gate activates and I become permanently large, and my bloodline goes from Aberrent to Stormborn.

We go through the gate and find Olympus, where my character's father, unknown to her at this point, greets her.

It's Zeus.

Activating the gate awakened the dormant storm giant blood in me. (This part I like, because my character eventually wanted to be a giant, not necessarily this soon in the campaign, though.)

Zeus tells us we need to visit all the gates and restore them to prevent the world from ending, shortly after a mysterious book comes out of the gate and a black cloud poisons Zeus, knocking him out.

I am the only one who can touch the book without being harmed, because earlier in the campaign, we defeated an evil wizard that stole my body, and his archenemy, a vampire named Chance, took a liking to me and gave me an amulet to protect me.

We determine we need to destroy the book, so we head to the next gate.

In the dungeon, the party has several near fatal encounters, and a couple of fatal ones.
(Two characters dropped and I went from 84 hit

...

The OP said that they were like 20s and 30s yoa when I asked.


see wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Please don't assume how long I have been playing.

So, you're saying you were in either Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax's pre-publication games? Because, even if your entry to the game dated back to buying the very first copy of D&D off the press, and immediately sitting down and playing, you started playing after evil PCs, monster PCs, non-evil orcs, and vampire PCs were all already in the game.

Yes, they were discouraged in later books. So? That doesn't change that they were already there.

Nope. I played the original 3 Vol set, since 1974. There was no Evil, just Chaos. No Monster PC’s, no Vampire PC’s, and yes, true, there were non-evil orcs, but that’s because there was no Evil. Orcs were Chaotic.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Jonathan Michaels wrote:
Proley wrote:

Unless you fail some will save, your PC is your PC. It would be helpful if you could tell us how you ended up a giant vampire though as the method by which you're changed can help determine if you're being picked on willy nilly, or if it you're just the victim of circumstance.

If talking to the DM doesn't work though, and he ignores you (he may just be yanking your chain) and ends up doing something you don't like, have a contingency. For example, maybe you bought Giant Bane, garlic laced weapons, and arrows of Reduce Person?

Short version.

We entered an ice cave, there was a gate encased in ice, also a dais with a shield identical to one I had picked up early in the campaign.

We melted the ice, we determine that to activate the gate, we need to take the sword that came with the shield and insert into the dais, The sword is too small, so I enlarge myself and try again, the gate activates and I become permanently large, and my bloodline goes from Aberrent to Stormborn.

We go through the gate and find Olympus, where my character's father, unknown to her at this point, greets her.

It's Zeus.

Activating the gate awakened the dormant storm giant blood in me. (This part I like, because my character eventually wanted to be a giant, not necessarily this soon in the campaign, though.)

Zeus tells us we need to visit all the gates and restore them to prevent the world from ending, shortly after a mysterious book comes out of the gate and a black cloud poisons Zeus, knocking him out.

I am the only one who can touch the book without being harmed, because earlier in the campaign, we defeated an evil wizard that stole my body, and his archenemy, a vampire named Chance, took a liking to me and gave me an amulet to protect me.

We determine we need to destroy the book, so we head to the next gate.

In the dungeon, the party has several near fatal encounters, and a couple of fatal ones.
(Two characters dropped and I went from 84 hit

...

Actually, everything has tied together quite nicely, that was just the short version, and this was only the last few sessions.


see wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Please don't assume how long I have been playing.

So, you're saying you were in either Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax's pre-publication games? Because, even if your entry to the game dated back to buying the very first copy of D&D off the press, and immediately sitting down and playing, you started playing after evil PCs, monster PCs, non-evil orcs, and vampire PCs were all already in the game.

Yes, they were discouraged in later books. So? That doesn't change that they were already there.

AD&D's alignment system under alignments:

"The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains"

Specifically what I was referring to.

Lawful neutral and Chaotic, the first alignments technically didnt have evil. In the novels the L/N/C was based off of most of the lawful people came off like hell knights , the chaotic people were kinda heroes but in the anti hero sense. And you got the idea that the neutral people were ideal.
In the original system alignments didnt really have a bearing on much. It was about as important as character name.

My first elf was chaotic, because the example for building characters was a chaotic elf.

I didn't realize until years later when I read those books that the character i had played the first time was, essentially, as near as you could make in that system. Elric.

Gygax expanded on the system because with the L/N/C system, you COULD be a bad lawful or a good lawful... he wanted to have it be more precise... how do I know? I listened to him say so once.

When the nine alignment system went together, the above quoted line was there. Because, that was the intention of the game designers. To keep evil as monsters and villains.
Dave Arneson had nothing to do with the nine alignment system, so his evil vampire character wasn't taken into consideration. Gygax and Arneson Didnt agree on a lot of things when this all came out.

2E is based on 1E and ran exactly the same.

3E was a reimagination of the game. Until then, the basic system, OD&D.Basic. whatever you like to refer to it as, was a different system altogether, TSR even said so. So quoting something from THAT system and saying it applies to the grandson systems of the 1E nine alignments, is about the same as saying starwars or palladium or white wolf should be considered for who/what/when/where regarding playing evil monster characters.

The precedent was set with the nine alignment system, backed up with entries in the DMG and Monster manual with statements like if you become undead or a werewolf you become an NPC and the GM controls your character roll a new one.

So don't dig up things from way back in the beginning when Arneson was playing around with blackmoor and chain mail, or a system with no actual evil alignments and say that what I am saying is wrong. I was there too. I read it also, and quite frankly I understood the intent and why they did it. To avoid the goop and issues that are being discussed now..... rules exist to stop/avoid/prevent conflict.

Well I want to play a vampire, and I want to be chaotic evil. Sure, run it by your DM.
Oh but that's a HOUSE Rule, why does every one treat that like it's sooooo bad?
That's what this game primarily is.
Golarion IS a house rule.
If JJ had gone on to invent a new engine for the space shuttle and not work in game design, it might have remained a house rule world.
Doesnt make it different or wrong.

But house rule is set off as wrong, because people cant dig through dusty tomes to PROOVE you are wrong.

doing that is the same as arguing law in court, or digging through scriptures and arguing what God REALLY said..... you can quote on portion of the scriptures or law on the books and use it to refute another.
The only result here is people spending time to dig through books and cry NO your WRONG.

IF that makes you feel super brilliant, Fine.

It doesn't achieve anything else.

My quote is 1E RAW and has, at the very least been carried as RAI ever since.... I stand clearly by my original statement, and see no need to dig further into other printing of the books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nearly all fantasy stories sound like Twilight fan fiction when you try to summarize them, whether they're published in a novel or dramatized on tabletop. I'm sure this campaign is just fine.

The bottom line, Jonathan, is that a Dungeon Master's ability to affect his player characters is defined by three variables: the content of their backgrounds, their choices in game, and his out-of-game conversations with them.

If your DM is changing your character in ways that are not reflective of these variables, you have every right to object simply on the grounds that you are not enjoying his actions. If he wants to direct the action through a character, then he has to introduce an NPC to do it -- otherwise the entire purpose of having players is subverted.

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:


You know, a DM can make your character into something you don't want to play. Like if my Half-Elf Cleric of Sarenrae would get bitten by a werewolf and turned into one without me wanting that.

Choices you made and the dice you rolled made that happen, not the GM.

A good GM will then create a plot to help you correct this, because that is what your player would want to do.

What I'm reading is the player wanted to be a Giant, and the GM created a plot that made that happen. And the player wanted to read an evil book, and the GM had the consequences unfold and the player may very well be in the middle of the quest to correct this, because that is what a GM does when the player decides to read the super-evil book.

I played in a game where we had years of war because a player pulled a sword out of a tomb that basically said "Don't pull this sword out of this stone or bad things will happen."

If the player had said the GM made that happen, we all would have smacked him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never got the negative energy = evil thing. Neutral clerics can channel either - choosing to do one or the other doesn't switch them to being good or evil instead of neutral. They remain neutral. I think it would be more accurate to say that negative energy isn't good, and positive energy isn't evil, rather than they are good/evil.

But yeah, the OP can either talk to the GM and raise the concern that they aren't comfortable ending up as a big bad, or play it out and see how things go while keeping a solid eye on not staying Vampira the Large.

Liberty's Edge

And on the other side, Neutral Clerics lose access to lots of things Evil and Good characters get access to.

I think healing is good, harming is bad, and neutral is the one with the gun :)


I ban Good characters from taking Weapon Specialization because harming is bad.

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:
I ban Good characters from taking Weapon Specialization because harming is bad.

It's just sad.

Assistant Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I removed a post. Civility, please.


ciretose wrote:

But more likely this is one of those crazy tables run by a GM who created a story that is so engrossing that players are talking about what is happening to their imaginary people on the interwebs, feeling legitimate anxiety about what might happen next in the story.

How. Horrible...

I have yet to see a debate that couldn't be resolved along these lines...

Nemo_the_Lost wrote:

Nearly all fantasy stories sound like Twilight fan fiction when you try to summarize them, whether they're published in a novel or dramatized on tabletop. I'm sure this campaign is just fine.

The bottom line, Jonathan, is that a Dungeon Master's ability to affect his player characters is defined by three variables: the content of their backgrounds, their choices in game, and his out-of-game conversations with them.

If your DM is changing your character in ways that are not reflective of these variables, you have every right to object simply on the grounds that you are not enjoying his actions. If he wants to direct the action through a character, then he has to introduce an NPC to do it -- otherwise the entire purpose of having players is subverted.

OP, hopefully you don't lose control of the character; even if you turn out to be the BBEG. I had something trending this way and regret I never got to finish that campaign. Looking back, I'm sure everyone would be freaking out about that plot line too. I for one would love to hear how this plays out for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

And on the other side, Neutral Clerics lose access to lots of things Evil and Good characters get access to.

I think healing is good, harming is bad, and neutral is the one with the gun :)

Honestly? I don't seem them either as being evil or good. I'd have to go with the whole, 'it's the use you put them to argument'. Just as using a gun or a sword to defend a defenceless person is a good thing, using one to kill them is bad. Using Negative Energy to torture someone would be evil - using it to take out a Orc Cleric who likes to tattoo the description of the horrible things he does to people between bouts of rape and torture less so.

Equally, that same Cleric using Positive Energy (via wands, spells and the like) to keep healing a victim so they don't die thanks to his torture and he can keep going for longer would be evil.

Liberty's Edge

JonGarrett wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And on the other side, Neutral Clerics lose access to lots of things Evil and Good characters get access to.

I think healing is good, harming is bad, and neutral is the one with the gun :)

Honestly? I don't seem them either as being evil or good. I'd have to go with the whole, 'it's the use you put them to argument'. Just as using a gun or a sword to defend a defenceless person is a good thing, using one to kill them is bad. Using Negative Energy to torture someone would be evil - using it to take out a Orc Cleric who likes to tattoo the description of the horrible things he does to people between bouts of rape and torture less so.

Equally, that same Cleric using Positive Energy (via wands, spells and the like) to keep healing a victim so they don't die thanks to his torture and he can keep going for longer would be evil.

I'm speaking more in terms of "If we are going to assign values of good and evil to X, logically it would be harm bad, heal good."

Expanding this to a larger philosophical basis in the game was not intended.


Wow this topic has gone off course :p And to add to the off course I have played an evil bard that the party never knew that he was evil even when he became a lich because of spell, magic items, and good role playing. I even became the end bad guy. The whole group had fun. But on what your saying about your game I would talk to the GM and maybe he can tell you what he has planed for your guy.


ciretose wrote:


I'm speaking more in terms of "If we are going to assign values of good and evil to X, logically it would be harm bad, heal good."

Expanding this to a larger philosophical basis in the game was not intended.

Eh, I'm all for moral greydom and over complicating things.


JonGarrett wrote:
ciretose wrote:


I'm speaking more in terms of "If we are going to assign values of good and evil to X, logically it would be harm bad, heal good."

Expanding this to a larger philosophical basis in the game was not intended.

Eh, I'm all for moral greydom and over complicating things.

Well the Pathfinder devs tend to take a black/white view on morality in Pathfinder. A few days ago, there was a discussion on why drinking blood as a Damphir from an unwilling intelligent person is always considered evil.

People pointed out that if you bite someone and spit out their blood, its okay. If you swallow the blood, its okay. But if you have the Blood Drink feat and swallow it, its evil.

The devs response was that if you don't see why drinking blood is evil then they can't help you.


Our next session is on Thursday and I'll update after for those who want to hear what happens next.

The player controlling the deceased dwarf talked to me and he says I shouldn't worry TOO much, his new character is a cleric that can channel negative energy so at least someone can heal me.

His theory is since the dwarf got killed, the party needed a new tank and I've been drafted.


I say turn your whole party into vampires, and begin a tortured collective existence of overthrowing evil with your own evil acts. Surely there is no shortage of evil humanoids to feed on. But yes, you will be evil. Possibly with an army of goblin thralls...

How about taking a nibble from your friends and apologizing profusely? Give them some juice and a cookie afterward.

Even if you manage to keep making will saves, I would argue you would be too riddled with angst to make the switch to being good as long as you have to drink blood to survive. I would hope your DM wouldn't steamroll your alignment like this, especially if you're trying to be good. Pathfinder vampirism is a pretty black and white issue...there is no good vampire. Either you and your DM are going to be comfortable running an evil campaign, or you and your DM are going to get rid of this vampirism eventually...the sooner the better.

In regards to the slightly off topic necromancy = evil conversation...yes, I think someone who specializes in raising corpses would MOST LIKELY be evil. Exceptions would include any worshiper of Nethys, who is in favor of all magic used for any purpose. A neutral cleric of Nethys could spend his adventuring career perfecting the use of necromancy without being evil...he's being true to his deity. Still wouldn't call that good, though. At true neutral any necromancer could merely be unconcerned with the perception of necromancy and see it as merely a means to an end, a tool to be used. "This battlefield is littered with orc corpses...can't I raise a few of them to help get our wounded to the nearest temple?" Yes, this is an exception to a general rule...but role playing is littered with these exceptions, and Pathfinder even suggests some (good Tieflings, evil Aasimar).


No good vampire? Cough * angel cough * , find a way to bind his soul to a item that he'd have to wear to keep your humanity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jonathan Michaels wrote:

Our next session is on Thursday and I'll update after for those who want to hear what happens next.

The player controlling the deceased dwarf talked to me and he says I shouldn't worry TOO much, his new character is a cleric that can channel negative energy so at least someone can heal me.

His theory is since the dwarf got killed, the party needed a new tank and I've been drafted.

I think it sounds fun what your DM did to you. You might end as the BBEG, but not necesarily with a fatal outcome for you. I think the blood drinking saves are a hint, that your DM wants to tell the story of a character that struggles against evil in him, not only outside him.

You could consider that your character is having deep thoughts about his morality because of this, and a result of the inner struggle is that your character wants to change towards good (maybe neutral good even), having realized how close he walks with evil, and not liking it, and that his CN alignment will make it very dificult to stay focused enough to avoid turning evil.

And you might need to explore bufs and items to save better, maybe reroll, as well as search for alternatives to feed with fatal outcome for an intelligent being.

Enjoy the development, very few people get to play something that extrarodinary... :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tandriniel wrote:
Enjoy the development, very few people get to play something that extrarodinary... :-)

Yes, enjoy the unique and rare and extraordinary experience of basically any session of Vampire the Masquerade ever played.


So what happened with this? Do tell! :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tandriniel wrote:

So what happened with this? Do tell! :-)

Okay, gang, here's the update.

We found ourselves in an extremely long hallway with prison cells on either side, we walk for a long time, eventually the cells are all occupied by black skeletons, a hideous, nauseating demon with a series of keys appears at the end of the hall as the cells open and sixty black skeletons begin to surround us.

The demon has significant spell resistance, rendering my magical attacks useless, the cleric (the dwarf's replacement) begins taking the skeletons out in clusters while the Druid is assaulted by the demon and the rogue hides behind me.

I eventually draw the demon's attention, we grapple and I use the slam attack to knock a couple levels out of it, weakening him enough to allow us to take him down.

The rogue takes the keys, which can be used to summon skeletons, I fail the will save and feed off the disgusting demon.

We keep going, finding a room with six different paths, each representing different temptations and sins, we figure out which room is which in terms of what they do to us (my perception right now is +26)

We decide the room representing the darkness is the best option.

The imp at the entrance hands us a single torch and we enter.

The torch only lights a five foot radius around us, my dark vision does nothing, and any attempts to create light in any way fail as arms claw at us and try and steal our torch, it gets grabbed a few times but we get it back, the cleric thinks the lesson is to be selfless and suggests giving them the torch voluntarily, we immediately put the kibosh on that.

The rogue gets panicky and starts to seperate, trying to flee, but when she get several feet away the light starts to dim and I devise the solution.

Everyone hug the giantess.

The rest of the party wraps themselves around me and the light grows brighter, we shuffle our way across the hall, making all the reflex saves and get to the exit.

(DM later tells us that we picked by far the best possible option)

We make our way out of the hall and make camp, the rogue snoops around the next area and finds a pearl with an etching of Charon the ferryman on it.

We continue on the way, making our way to the river Styx, we hand the pearl to Charon and climb aboard.

Partway across the river a number of tentacles shoot out of the river and grab at us, one snags the Druid, who turns into an air elemental and escapes, the rogue uses her chainmail shirt the king gave her to fly into the air out of reach, and I debate using Righteous Might to become too big to grab before deciding to just turn into mist.

The cleric and Druid make fairly short work of the tentacles and move on.

Further down we each hear voices calling for us to jump off the boat and follow, it somehow even affects me, despite my vampire powers, we all make our saves and escape the sirens.

We're almost at the other bank, when an undead Beholder appears (the DM had a hard time figuring out how to put one into Pathfinder) it shoots a ray and disintegrates the druid's leaf leshy companion, leaving only the jewel in its chest, I immediately cast blindness on the beholder and it quickly flees.

And that's where we stopped, we're halfway to our goal (we have to throw the book into the mouth of Orcus), and we discover that we've dinged twice, bringing us all to level eleven.

I'm not out of the woods yet, there's still plenty of time for me to turn somehow, but we're more optimistic now.

The improvement to the skills are invaluable (nothing like rolling a 20 on a perception check and telling the DM you got a 56) and the improved AC and DR are keeping me out of death's cold grasp.

There's still the uneasy feeling something bad is in store, but my friends theory that I had to become powerful to keep us alive may have been correct.

In general, we had a lot of fun, but we had to work to stay alive.

And on a side note, I assume Bolstered Resilience would be a good idea to take as my new feat?


"Remember, it's OK to kill things... just DON'T EAT THEM."

johnlocke90 wrote:


Well the Pathfinder devs tend to take a black/white view on morality in Pathfinder. A few days ago, there was a discussion on why drinking blood as a Damphir from an unwilling intelligent person is always considered evil.

People pointed out that if you bite someone and spit out their blood, its okay. If you swallow the blood, its okay. But if you have the Blood Drink feat and swallow it, its evil.

The devs response was that if you don't see why drinking blood is evil then they can't help you.

The ultimate arbiter of morality in this cosmology is a Jehovah's Witness, apparently. :)


Excellent update :-)


Tandriniel wrote:
Excellent update :-)

Thanks, one day I might post some of the mor interesting bits from the earlier part of the campaign, like a more detailed account of our time in the underdark where half the party nearly died in a church and my character had her body stolen by an old pervert wizard.


Coming within the next 24 hours or so, the conclusion of the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:

Spell descriptors have zero in-game effect and is only provided to give hooks to other mechanical effects such as immunities.

Quote:
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
The with alignment bit refers to creatures with resistances and other features with respect to "good" spells versus "evil" ones. It doesn't mean casting a spell marked evil shifts your alignment.

Not according to James Jacobs. But then again I have seen too many people argue with James because they don't think his rulings hold any weight to expect this to ever change anyone's mind. Ironically though I have seen on multiple occasions people ask James for his opinion and when he vote in their favor they say "thank you!" but when he votes against them in another thread they say "well you're not a designer so your ruling doesn't count!".


Please tell me that everyone in your campaign just died or something...


Could it be that you just had bad luck?
You decided to put the sword in. You could have let a party member do it.

You also read the book, when you could have given it and the protective item to someone else. Might have been bad luck.

I once put rust monsters in small cages, and there were holes along a corridor on the other side of the room. Our fighter put his magic sword inside because he was curious. Do not put metal sword in a rust monsters cage. It was just bad luck, there was no specific agenda, he simply put his sword in a bad place at a bad time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[

Ramza Wyvernjack wrote:

Could it be that you just had bad luck?

You decided to put the sword in. You could have let a party member do it.

You also read the book, when you could have given it and the protective item to someone else. Might have been bad luck.

I once put rust monsters in small cages, and there were holes along a corridor on the other side of the room. Our fighter put his magic sword inside because he was curious. Do not put metal sword in a rust monsters cage. It was just bad luck, there was no specific agenda, he simply put his sword in a bad place at a bad time.

The sword thing was intended for her, she was the one who could grow and put the sword in, it was setup to bring Zeus into it, I knew nothing about it until it happened..

And we believed she was the only one who could safely carry the book, because the black energy that came out of it was absorbed by the amulet the vampire Chance had given her when they left the Underdark.

Which brings me to what happened.

We entered a hall with an obsidian wall and eight paths, each one marked with a riddle, the solutions would tell us what demon laid behind each door.

We solved the riddles eventually, and decided to fight a Nalfeshnee, We climb the stairs and eventually they get bigger and bigger until each step is thirty feet high (thank the gods for fly spells).

The Nalfeshnee proves extremely difficult, it uses tactics and keeps it's distance from us, but we finally corner it and manage to put it down, but not before we lose the Druid.

Until the gem the Leaf Leshy left behind when it died brings her back to life.

We continue up the stairs ip until we reach a veil of darkness, we peek inside and see twenty small demons, paired up at writing desks, making more books.

In the center of the room, slumbering and talking in his sleep, is Orcus.

The demons spot us and each pull out a wand, at which point twenty magic missiles come right at us, and every single one is aimed at me.

I take 79 points of damage, at which point I am forced to flee back down the stairs since I can't take another hit like that.

The party proceeds to attack the demons, wiping them out fairly easily, they're low level.

Meanwhile, before I get more than 100 feet away from the fight, a voice emerges from the darkness.

"Pathetic"

I turn around and see a huge storm giant sneering down at me.

Ares.

He says he's going to do Zeus a favor and eliminate me for being weak, he swings his weapon, the DM rolls damage and tells me the blow would do 108 points of damage.

But before it hits me, instinct kicks in and I clutch the amulet and disappear.

I appear before Chance.

He's been expecting me.

He said he knew I would return to him.

It wasn't the book that turned me, it was the amulet.

It was Chance.

He said how wonderful it was that I had returned, DM asks me for a will save.

Natural 20.

At which point my character breaks down in tears.

I tell him I was so close, mere feet away from destroying the book and quelling the dangers threatening the gates, that I had failed, and now everyone I loved was about to die.

DM asks for another will save, I pass.

I tell him I have to go back.

He say he understands, but he refuses to let me go again.

Final will save. I pass.

He hands me a scroll of teleport, with a time restriction built in.

I have one minute to finish the job and say goodbye.

Ten rounds to throw the book in Orcus's mouth and save the world.

He then hands me a spear, which he calls a Titan Slayer.

He says it used to belong to an old storm giant, one I might know.

So now I know, he knew everything, he knew who I was, that's why he's not surprised that I've become a giant since we last met, he planned for all this to happen.

I sigh, resigned to my fate and use the scroll.

Meanwhile, the party has wiped out almost all the small demons when Ares appears before them, chuckling that if this is the best Zeus could do, then this would be too easy, because nothing will distract him from his beautiful war.

When I teleport behind him and run him through with the spear.

But it's not enough to even knock him down (it was a critical hit doing 146 points of damage) and I take 26 points of electricity damage from the weapon as well.

The fight is on, I immediately go into gaseous form and make a beeline for the mouth, I know I'm screwed, but I'm going to make certain that book goes in the mouth, Ares attacks me, knocking me down to two hit points.

The blow takes me out of gaseous form and knocks the book out of my hands, the rogue rolls to dive for the book and knock it into the mouth, she succeeds.

Ares prepares for the killing blow, when two more Titan Slayers strike the ground from above and land in front of the Druid and the Rogue.

Ares screams, cursing his father, they each grab a spear, I grab the third and we strike at the same time.

All hits.

The combined damage is enough to take him down as the book is swallowed, the abyss trembles, Zeus appears to take the party out of there before it's too late.

All except Felandria, the damage from using the Titan slayer was enough to drop her, She's back in gaseous form, floating around, looking for her coffin, Zeus drops his head in mourning as the cloud disappears, teleporting back to Chance's realm and into her new coffin.

Zeus gets the others to safety, the gates are saved and the campaign is ended.

So, I wasn't the final boss, but turns out he had something pretty diabolical planned anyway.

He basically put us in a position where the last battle, against our toughest opponent, had only ten rounds before it was game over.

If we hadn't had some darned lucky dice rolls, we'd have failed, everything had to go exactly right, but fortunately it did.

Turns out ever since the turn into a vampire, the periodic will saves I was rolling were to keep me from ditching the party and running into Chance's arms.

One failed save and I'm out.

I would have still gotten the minute to say goodbye and pass the book over, because it turns out the rest of the party could have carried the book, it was a collective misunderstanding on the party's behalf, nobody else wanted to touch the book to double check, fearing the worst.

And I also shouldn't have let the party convince me to read the book, turns out the right move was for nobody to read it and just focus on destroying it.

So the rogue ended up saving the day with a key roll, we beat the final boss, but now my character's stuck as a vampire bride, basically, Chance wasn't malicious, he wasn't wishing doom on the party or it's goals, he just really, really wanted to make my character his bride.

Which as fates to, could be worse, but it'll be a long time before she gets over the whole being tricked into becoming his bride.

And hey, it gives the party something to do now.

Go rescue her.

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / I think our DM's turning me into the final boss. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.