Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks


Pathfinder Online

301 to 348 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Davick wrote:
So then, it's complicated laziness. It still sounds like they're saying, "It is beyond our means to create content for this game, please, do it for us by killing each other."

Its not laziness at all. A game like PFO is going to have some developer created narratives but they are going to more overarching and less granular. When the focus of the game is developer created missions/quests/dungeons/raids (such as WoW for example), it essentially means that there is a finite amount of content. Once you exhaust that, there is really not much to do besides 1) farming the end level boss for minor increases or 2) turning to player based content, whether its PvP or community efforts.

Thats the beauty of a sandbox. It goes straight to what makes things interesting and focuses on giving players the tools for generating their own storylines. The amazing thing about PnP RPGs is that you can be actively involved in crafting a story, not being led by the nose through a series of hoops (notwithstanding campaigns which are exactly that).

Im not much of a PvP player and yet I will always play on an open-PVP server. Heading out into dangerous territory really gets your blood pumping and youre scanning everywhere to make sure you dont get jumped. It just makes things that much more interesting. Sure there are times when it can get frustrating, but to me thats preferable to a game where theres no thrill or risk.

That kind of game is not everyone. Yet GW, to their credit, have been up front about the kind of game they want to make. And there is definitely a market for it as evidenced by the people on these boards. We may not always agree with their decisions, but that doesnt mean that theyre being lazy in any way.

Btw, your understanding of EVE and the PFO Bandit mechanic is flawed, but this is already a wall of text, so Ill leave it for another post. :)

Goblin Squad Member

@Davick: The thing is narrative content in a mmorpg, is usually the units of quests with little stories and conditions to fulfill.

In Skyrim where the designers have control over all the quests and all the states of the world and where the character is progressing towards, the quests can appear more sandbox/more open world in fact, because nested or branching of quests can be more complex.

In the mmorpg with many players, each quest is repeatable content by other players moving in to do this for xp. The most sophisticated form of this recently appears to be Dynamic Events in GW2, which are "movable, scalable, branching, interconnecting" etc and a few other variables than the old fedex kill 10 rats. But they are still EVENTS ie discrete units of content that the old quests are that run in cycles repeating and mostly self-enclosed narratives within that don't change the world so much, only a small form of persistence before they are pushed back or reset.

PFO is going for contracts for players to perform which allows them to operate under universal conditions of resource use and cost via the economy. So instead of the units of content aka quests, we have player-player interaction as the unit of "content" which fits within a system of system such as economic > (settlement, trade, crafting, dungeoneering etc). From the interactions we're hoping to see story emerge from this.

The difference I'm hoping to see in PFO, settlements becoming diverse so that like a membrane for players who want a safe place to PvE they can find that kingdom in a section of the map or if players enjoy constant conflict they can find that somewhere also.

The key take-homes: Characters/players as elements in the system are given more freedoms (less dev control) to interact and change the state of the "world" thereby driving a narrative eg EVE has such stories. Secondly comparing to content that is finite repeat-value such as fed-ex quests (filler content with different skins and 10, 100, 1,000... rat-kills) the narrative is on-going without an end to it. In a themepark mmorpg your char is full-level and completed the story. Now raids, game #2: Which is not very interesting narrative imo. In PFO if your char is 20 they still have skills to learn and roles to perform eg running a settlement, various diplomatic missions, reacting to war or change in the trade agreements... just pulling out of thin air.

Sure PvP online has real issues, but I still wait to see the day where it can be integrated and the benefits outweigh the problems. I don't see a scam on the scale described as doing-over a whole settlement as anything other than another chapter in the story,a admittedly a catastrophic one for those who put their money/trust into the banking system of that settlement... *wink*.

Goblin Squad Member

Davick wrote:
...I was unaware that my opinions were invalid because they aren't as old as others.

No, the validity of your opinions are not characterized by age, but by the congruity they have with the case. If you do not know the case, as you admitted when you said you have only just begun, your opinions are formed without reference to the case, right or wrong. This in itself is no cause for blame, but insisting that your expectations are the case when others try and inform you of the difference is indeed cause for blame.

If your expectations are your only concern, you are not here talking about Pathfinder Online but about your expectations.

'Sandbox' means we are to be provided the tools and furnishings to craft our own storytelling, and 'persistence' means the consequences of our stories will be lasting and meaningful. If you cannot evolve beyond the square peg of your expectations you are unlikely to fit into the round hole we look forward to fulfilling.

Either accept that and adapt, or fail and move on.


Davick wrote:


My knowledge of EVE extends only far enough to know that it is a game in which people are frequently screwed out of real money due to in game bureaucracy and economics and it is a game in which a new player was so frequently PVPed to death that he pleaded with his attackers to leave him alone, at which point they trolled him to commit suicide in real life. And that's what I expect to happen.

Lol, your knowledge of Eve is pretty whacked.

There are a couple of other posters that just come on to complain about the game and how it's not the game for them. Might keep an eye out for them, maybe you can hook up with them and you all can complain together?

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
Davick wrote:


My knowledge of EVE extends only far enough to know that it is a game in which people are frequently screwed out of real money due to in game bureaucracy and economics and it is a game in which a new player was so frequently PVPed to death that he pleaded with his attackers to leave him alone, at which point they trolled him to commit suicide in real life. And that's what I expect to happen.

Lol, your knowledge of Eve is pretty whacked.

There are a couple of other posters that just come on to complain about the game and how it's not the game for them. Might keep an eye out for them, maybe you can hook up with them and you all can complain together?

Davick expresses a different opinion very intelligently. Albeit the comparison with other "complaints" is the lack of information. Provide information and the number o solutions starts to diminish.

Eg "MANY" different inputs including "it costs too much to make Themepark content" aka "Themepark mortgage" leads to "ONE" Game Design of which Davick takes issue with the particular component of pvp integration aka open pvp. Even this focus can be broken down further:

- NPC guards
- Settlement laws
- guards career
- reputation/alignment flags
- threading, death curses, bounties
- reporting to GW
- groups, trash gear, frequency of conflict, risk vs reward....

The onus is still on GW to create positive pvp for the game, but I think it boils down to MMO = players^x = biggest asset = most efficient game design maximises here?


Being wrote:
Davick wrote:
...I was unaware that my opinions were invalid because they aren't as old as others.

No, the validity of your opinions are not characterized by age, but by the congruity they have with the case. If you do not know the case, as you admitted when you said you have only just begun, your opinions are formed without reference to the case, right or wrong. This in itself is no cause for blame, but insisting that your expectations are the case when others try and inform you of the difference is indeed cause for blame.

If your expectations are your only concern, you are not here talking about Pathfinder Online but about your expectations.

'Sandbox' means we are to be provided the tools and furnishings to craft our own storytelling, and 'persistence' means the consequences of our stories will be lasting and meaningful. If you cannot evolve beyond the square peg of your expectations you are unlikely to fit into the round hole we look forward to fulfilling.

Either accept that and adapt, or fail and move on.

I will say that there is no pretense concerning the style of game being developed. But, I don't believe this forum to be only for praise. The more GW is aware of dissenting opinions, even i they don't intend to change the style of the game, the better. Having your potential flaws pointed out is better feedback than constant praise. Even if I don't intend to play PFO (haven't decided, depends on if my friends do mostly), I hope it is a success for Paizo.

Though, I don't care for your terming my expectations as somehow "less evolved" than your own, as I'm sure I could use that analogy to describe something you would also "fail" at. That sort of talk doesn't help any discussion.

For perspective, I was an avid player of The Matrix Online where players were grouped into three factions and featured frequent story lines that pitted them against each other in combat but also racing against a clock to find MacGuffins and NPCs and in other ways. The storyline was organic and changed depending on which faction(s) won (or stalemated) at which events. It was an even and fair approach at mixing PvE gameplay with content driven, meaningful, and exciting PvP conflict, as opposed to random bandits griefing noobs.

Goblin Squad Member

Davick wrote:
... But, I don't believe this forum to be only for praise.

Of course not, but your 'dissenting opinion' is pointing at a game that isn't being developed.

Davick wrote:


Though, I don't care for your terming my expectations as somehow "less evolved" than your own...

Yet I didn't make any such comparison. This seems to be a pattern with you: Present your considered opinion about how bad X is when X has nothing to do with anything, then turn around and protest that your opinion is as good as anyone's in a completely relativistic universe independent of facts.

There is very little yet to either praise or criticise beyond ideas and concepts. We do have some parameters one of which is that the game will develop into a sandbox after a themepark-like beginning experience.

I have to wonder where it was you saw anyone praising the game?

Goblin Squad Member

@Davick: Just dug up this: The secret to EVE Online's success: It's all bottom-up

Some quality statements, so worth a read and even the admission with the problems of 2009 and losing focus on the successful side of the game. eg

Quote:
If you look at what makes EVE great, it's that it's brilliant to play with other people. It's not the best solo-player game in the world, but you can do so much more with it." "participation goes up, because it's not about giving players a feature to play through; it's about giving them tools to do their own stories."

Reassures me, I was not talking complete ghibberish.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You can safely leave the gibberish all to me, Avena: it is my especiality.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
meaningful, and exciting PvP conflict, as opposed to random bandits griefing noobs.

I think the problem is that you are arguing against this, but that isn't what PFO is. There is a wealth of information to suggest that this is not what GW wants in PFO. In fact, the volume of blogposts and dev posts dealing with combat and inter-player conflict and how these systems are going to guide players to behaviors that the devs wish to encourage actually has some people that are uninterested in this aspect of the game somewhat upset.

Ryan's posts suggest that he will be monitoring the social interactions in the game closely and he is not afriad to make drastic changes to the system as necessary in order to foster 'meaningful player interaction,' as opposed to random bandits griefing noobs. Maybe you will like PFO, after all =)

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think this thread is being trolled but I do think is being baited. No good comes from telling someone their subjective opinion is wrong.


Being wrote:


Yet I didn't make any such comparison.

Oh, really?

Being wrote:

If you cannot evolve beyond the square peg of your expectations you are unlikely to fit into the round hole we look forward to fulfilling.

Either accept[b] that and adapt, [b]or fail and move on.

But I'd prefer not to derail the subject with a squabble.

And I've not presented opinions on how bad "X" is. I've presented how bad I think "X" is going to be and I've cited Y evidence. I know nothing of this protest you speak of.

I find your replies to be dismissive, persecutory, and unconstructive to the actual discussion, as opposed to AvenaOats, or even Quandry for that matter. If your aim is to drown out dissent with drivel, I'd prefer if you refrain from replying to me and use your time better elsewhere.

Moving on...

Quote:
If you look at what makes EVE great, it's that it's brilliant to play with other people. It's not the best solo-player game in the world, but you can do so much more with it." "participation goes up, because it's not about giving players a feature to play through; it's about giving them tools to do their own stories."

I can completely agree with this. It's not so much that I'm complaining about the style of game presented, as much as I just have deep reservations about it... and maybe some complaints. Like I said, I hope to be pleasantly surprised. It's a matter of risk/reward. Player conflict has limitless potential, but for both good and bad, and based on my interactions with the online world, the scales seem to tip towards bad. And it's a shame to see that happen when I personally don't think all PVP all the time is even necessary to create great character driven conflict.

I'll catch up on the whole article later, Even something that short looks daunting at this hour.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
You can safely leave the gibberish all to me, Avena: it is my especiality.

Always several moves ahead of me... ;)

Typical case of known forum members understand each other's ways and new poster does not have the luxury of that context. I do agree however, that if people post they should (preferably) show they've (or seek to use) what's already readily available about the game to use to jump off with in conversation. But I don't have to-o much of a problem with encouraging that as it's standard with online forums. Davick has a history of posts with paizo forums, so (s)he's obviously made of superior stuff to the common variety of new poster in this sub-forum. And we have to concede pvp/online has a terrible starting position mostly. ie 9/10 fun gameplay but 1/10 bad incident/behavior and it ruins those previous 9's. That's the issue with negative = this is not fun, I quit; vs, positive = baseline standard = fun in games, I play on presently. Maybe.

Goblin Squad Member

Davick wrote:
Being wrote:


Yet I didn't make any such comparison.
Oh, really?

Yes, really. I said nothing about myself, I spoke of getting over preconceived expectations when those expectations do not map to the game design that has been presented. Holding fast to preconceptions about the design when advised of the difference is not constructive conversation, and asserting that anyone who disagrees with your preconceptions is just trying to quell dissent is at best mistaken.

I am asking you to question your preconceptions. I am recommending to you that the community here has thought and argued over what we know of this design, and your preformed concept of it does not map well.

Just as you presume I am an evil troll when I am not, so too are your presumptions about the game in serious error.

The conversation isn't about what you imagine of PFO until what you imagine of PFO is more accurate.

My aim is absolutely not to drown out dissent, my aim here is to make your dissent valid. Unless your image of what you intend to question matches what is there to question you are not dissenting against PFO but a phantom of your own imagining.

~~edit~~
However, perhaps what Avena has implied may be the case, and that I have preconceptions about you as well and should question those.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Being wrote:
You can safely leave the gibberish all to me, Avena: it is my especiality.

Always several moves ahead of me... ;)

Typical case of known forum members understand each other's ways and new poster does not have the luxury of that context. I do agree however, that if people post they should (preferably) show they've (or seek to use) what's already readily available about the game to use to jump off with in conversation. But I don't have to-o much of a problem with encouraging that as it's standard with online forums. Davick has a history of posts with paizo forums, so (s)he's obviously made of superior stuff to the common variety of new poster in this sub-forum. And we have to concede pvp/online has a terrible starting position mostly. ie 9/10 fun gameplay but 1/10 bad incident/behavior and it ruins those previous 9's. That's the issue with negative = this is not fun, I quit; vs, positive = baseline standard = fun in games, I play on presently. Maybe.

Avena it might look sometimes that I am moves ahead, but in fact I merely cover all the bases I can imagine, hence the post count. In fact your post have a much higher rate of accuracy than mine and I can only aspire to be so succinct as you.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I don't think this thread is being trolled but I do think is being baited. No good comes from telling someone their subjective opinion is wrong.

Ryan I should have to think that my own understanding is in error to expect that a radically different image of the game finds domain, and if I thought my understanding is in error it would be unnatural to hold it.

I have been wrong, but it always comes as a complete surprise. I will accept surprise, as that state means learning has occurred.

My question is whether someone can have an opinion of something when their image of that something appears widely inaccurate? I would venture that if your opinion of an elephant exhibits characteristics of a mouse, then perhaps your opinion is instead of a mouse rather than an elephant.

Goblin Squad Member

However, I have found that new perspective, even from the blind examining an elephant, may lead to new insights. In my experience the person without the preconception derived from previous exposure may (but not always) open new approaches to known problems.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
However, I have found that new perspective, even from the blind examining an elephant, may lead to new insights. In my experience the person without the preconception derived from previous exposure may (but not always) open new approaches to known problems.

Your point is profound, Harad. How better to think 'out of box' than to not begin within? While it does not address the nature of opinion, it does present a practical advantage that should be invited rather than confronted.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
AvenaOats wrote:
I do agree however, that if people post they should (preferably) show they've (or seek to use) what's already readily available about the game to use to jump off with in conversation.

I see this sentiment expressed a lot, and I have to disagree.

I think it's our responsibility to be friendly and engaging to new posters, and point them to good sources of information that are relevant to what they're posting about. Or if they're just venting, to basically ignore them.

Goblin Squad Member

What to do if we have presented the information and provided the links, yet they persist with preconception and appeal to some sacred reverence for an opinion with cute furry ears and quivering whiskers rather than tusks and ears like vast leather wings?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
What to do if we have...
Nihimon wrote:
Or if they're just venting, to basically ignore them.

It ain't easy, though :)

Goblin Squad Member

I think Davick is legitimately expressing an opinion that is not unexpected given the games IP of "Pathfinder Online" and it's one that we've seen repreated by a number of other people who came hear and posted.

Lets face it, when you pick a well known IP, there is a certain amount of baggage in terms of expectations that go with the IP... and those expectations won't be universaly the same.

Probably we wouldn't see the same volume of such posts of the game was named "McCluckety-Cluck Online".

For many, a large part of the "Pathfinder" experience is that it's a cooperative rather then competitive form of play.

Personaly I wouldn't play EvE Online as the game seems explicitly design to encourage META-GAME dishonesty, scamming and OOC player nastiness. I THINK and am hopefull that PFO has a different emphasis.

For example, I fully expect PFO to support IC player scams....but I don't expect them to support scams based on mechanical flaws of the game, such as weaknesses in the trade or permissions systems or because it's too hard to tell a decimal point from a comma in the GUI, etc.


GrumpyMel wrote:


For many, a large part of the "Pathfinder" experience is that it's a cooperative rather then competitive form of play.

Exactly this. I've always played Pathfinder as a ways to hangout with friends, and while we may be of the power gaming sort more often than not, we've never been the type to "battle our characters" and never had to worry about the party rogue robbing everyone. The announcement of PFO excited me as a way to play Pathfinder with people I now live too far away from to play with in person. And when we are adventuring into a dungeon, the last thing we want interrupting our Star Wars trivia and Monty Python jokes while we're pretending to strategize is a band of marauders of horribly inappropriate challenge rating killing us and taking all of our gear. Were anything remotely like that to happen in an actual game of Pathfinder, it would be a setup for a later game villain that we were supposed to hate, leading to it's own epic adventure planned by the GM all along. In PFO, it's Tuesday.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. But all I ask now is that GW keep exactly that scenario in mind and try their best to see that it never happens and to make sure those players (me) still want to play this game. Because I don't think I want to play this game, but I want to want to.


His "knowledge" of Eve is pretty whacked though..

Quote:
My knowledge of EVE extends only far enough to know that it is a game in which people are frequently screwed out of real money due to in game bureaucracy and economics and it is a game in which a new player was so frequently PVPed to death that he pleaded with his attackers to leave him alone, at which point they trolled him to commit suicide in real life. And that's what I expect to happen.

If that we're the way Eve was it would be horrible. If he is basing his opinion of what PFO might be like using that info from Eve, it's no wonder he formed the wrong impression of what GW is doing.

Goblin Squad Member

Then welcome, Davick: Know that many already here share that very desire.

What encourages my hope is the idea that PvP can be reimagined to more fully integrate with the PvE experience we always hoped for but seldom actually found.

While aspirations that shine most bright are as unreachable as the stars, still without aiming high we can never hit the far target.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Davick, it may be a lot to ask, but I would ask you to trust that getting PvP right is probably the single most important consideration on the minds of the developers. There are a lot of us - myself included - who started out very, very skeptical of Open PvP. It's taken a lot of work on our part to read up on the proposed systems, and actually listen to Ryan's stated priorities, to realize that Open PvP doesn't mean wholesale Griefing.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend you read A couple of comments about PvP / Griefing.

It's a little rough around the edges, but you might find useful some of the links in my Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links list. That thread on PvP & Griefing is the 2nd one under Suggested Reading - High Priority.

[Edit] I just want to point out that the PvP & Griefing thread is from November of 2011 - well over a year ago. A much more recent thread is Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict. This is very much something that Ryan and Goblinworks takes seriously, and they're obviously committed to avoiding the problems that have grown up around Open PvP in other games.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Davick

I have alot of the same play preferences that you do. I'll tell you honestly that I'm NOT expecting PFO to provide them. I'm thinking/hoping that PFO will provide it's OWN unique/interesting and hopefully fun style of gameplay...as I like alot of different varieties of gaming.

However, when I'm really looking for something that harkens back to the kind of sitting around the gaming table with freinds (that are now geographicaly dispersed/have busy lives) PnP game experience...I pretty much look to Virtual Table Top gaming. I've done that a bit now...and I think it provides the closest experience to sitting around the gaming table RPing that one can find Online.

I just don't see PFO...or frankly any other MMO, even entirely PvE ones, matching up very closely with that experience. Though I do think a PvE one would be closer to what I'm expecting to get here. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

@Davick

I have alot of the same play preferences that you do. I'll tell you honestly that I'm NOT expecting PFO to provide them. I'm thinking/hoping that PFO will provide it's OWN unique/interesting and hopefully fun style of gameplay...as I like alot of different varieties of gaming.

However, when I'm really looking for something that harkens back to the kind of sitting around the gaming table with freinds (that are now geographicaly dispersed/have busy lives) PnP game experience...I pretty much look to Virtual Table Top gaming. I've done that a bit now...and I think it provides the closest experience to sitting around the gaming table RPing that one can find Online.

I just don't see PFO...or frankly any other MMO, even entirely PvE ones, matching up very closely with that experience. Though I do think a PvE one would be closer to what I'm expecting to get here. YMMV.

I think GrumpyMel is spot on. To consider equally it seems if specifically it's PnP small coop experience: Paizo Announces Game Space

That said, as GrumpyMel says, I hope to see some interesting experiences in PFO and that includes the Adventure content of a party entering a dungeon within the wider workings of the game world. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Some of the biggest concerns I've seen with regards to PVP stem from the IP baggage that Pathfinder comes with, both from the TT (Tabletop) Pathfinder RPG and from the Fantasy MMO genre. In the case of Pathfinder, GrumpyMel nailed it: it's generally a cooperative affair. Combat within it also revolves around maintaining a good relative challenge rating. Generally speaking, Fantasy MMOs and Pathfinder both rely on a character level mechanic to represent relative power and ability of the characters. This results in a large disparity between the new and old players, and typically means that a new character doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against an old player. Most people from a fantasy MMO background have either heard or experienced the unpleasantness that comes from being curb-stomped by a high level character and not being able to do anything about it.

Goblinworks has taken a different approach in that they are focusing specifically on a open world PVP sandbox, and as a result the character level model has been defenestrated. The relative power and ability ratings between a new and old character are low, an old player with decent gear has an advantage over a new character, but it's not insurmountable with friends and tactics.

There are many ongoing discussions specifically focused on PVP, especially the topic of griefing. There is a fantastic cross-section of interests and experiences among the interested playerbase here, and a number of great ideas have been posed. Because PFO is still very much a work in progress and the powers that be do read the discussions here it's good to make your voice heard, though the less confrontational the tone the better the chance to be heard.

The best thing is to keep an open mind, particularly about PVP. Think of all the PvPers who might be after you as NPCs with (sometimes) more advanced intelligence.

Goblin Squad Member

Davick wrote:
...a band of marauders of horribly inappropriate challenge rating killing us and taking all of our gear.

A couple of quick points to add to those our friends made above:

1) "horribly inappropriate challenge rating" won't happen (per Ryan's statements), as the power-curve is going to be much flatter here than other games folks often use for comparison. People who've been in the game for a day will have the ability to attack, defend against, and be useful to people who've been in the game for a year.

2) "taking all of our gear" won't happen (per Ryan's statements), because you'll have threaded your most-important items so they'll re-spawn with you at your bind-point, and the rest of your stuff will be cheap crap that you've bought specifically because you can afford to lose and replace it hundreds of times.

Goblin Squad Member

It will be our responsibility, yours and mine, to make the game good.

We players must ultimately build the long game content and provide long game rewards.

The developers are building the environment, the initial player experience, the tools, and trying to think through all the myriad consequences of what they include and what they prevent.


Richter Bones wrote:


According to that site, failure to complete a contract "Oath Breaking" would be considered a heinous crime and you would be killed on site.

Note how much lower Oath Breaking is on the list. The only higher Freedom than "Slavery is an Abomination" is the right people have to defend their possessions, and while that appears to be a very important Freedom, it's not as harsh on offenders.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Holy necrothread, batman!

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver is my herald. And I am the herald of pharasma.

So it has been spoken.

So it shall be.

So it is.


Very confusing being on these forums lately, what with all the dead threads.

Some of the things in the blogs seems to have changed, and for someone that havenøt followed the game closely, I can see why people get confused.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Absolutely ridiculous, Zael. Necromancy is not Pharasma-phriendly.
I will instead be the herald of Norgorber, the god whose name sounds like something the Swedish Chef would say.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cirolle wrote:
Very confusing being on these forums lately, what with all the dead threads.

Yet without dead threads, dead heads would run nekkid.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Absolutely ridiculous, Zael. Necromancy is not Pharasma-phriendly.

I will instead be the herald of Norgorber, the god whose name sounds like something the Swedish Chef would say.

Pharasma has some Necromancy followers, they just can't raise undead.

Goblin Squad Member

They are rather efficient at putting the undead back to rest, I am given to understand.


Exactly. If my act was an act of necromancy in the sense of animating the dead, I'm clearly not aligned with Pharasma.

Goblin Squad Member

Norgorber and not the Pallid Princess?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Soon we will all be working under Kobold Cleaver...or dead by his hand.

In all seriousness, keep posting to the forums. Your posts are great :)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beleriand wrote:

Soon we will all be working under Kobold Cleaver...or dead by his hand.

In all seriousness, keep posting to the forums. Your posts are great :)

I expect some will be both. *shudder*

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Exactly. If my act was an act of necromancy in the sense of animating the dead, I'm clearly not aligned with Pharasma.

No, we are bringing for the dead threads to pass judgement. or at least I have been...... >.< hmmmm.... *uses sense motive*


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Norgorber and not the Pallid Princess?

No. Norborkbork is a much better god. The Pallid Princess is a sissy god for sissies.

BrotherZael wrote:
No, we are bringing for the dead threads to pass judgement. or at least I have been...... >.< hmmmm.... *uses sense motive*

Sense Motive? HA! My Bluff score is through the f!#@ing roof!

Wait, did I say that out loud?

Beleriand wrote:
In all seriousness, keep posting to the forums. Your posts are great :)

For future reference: It's Beleriand's fault.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

BrotherZael wrote:
No, we are bringing for the dead threads to pass judgement. or at least I have been...... >.< hmmmm.... *uses sense motive*

Sense Motive? HA! My Bluff score is through the f@#@ing roof!

Wait, did I say that out loud?

You do realize my character is an inquisitor (well ex-inquisitor) right? :I


Hm...there's a "jealous ex" joke there somewhere. Maybe if I was playing a cleric of the same god...

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Hm...there's a "jealous ex" joke there somewhere. Maybe if I was playing a cleric of the same god...

I was part of the cult of Erecura :I good luck with that...

301 to 348 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online