Moving back on topic and past the inevitable east-west weeaboo-westaboo bashing...
.:Dirty (and statistically worthless - AcceptingNod@AnnoyingOrange) Results List:.
- Cavaliers\Samurai x26
- Gunslingers x16
- Bard x11
- Ninja x10
- Inquisitor x9
- Summoner x8
- Paladin x7
- Antipaladin x6
- Witch x5
- Monk x4
- Sorcerer\Wizard\Alchemist\Druid\Oracle x3
- Fighter\Barbarian x2
Exempting the homebrewed Ebberon artificer and soulblade I've seen (and the accompanying homebrewed Kalashtar race update), here's the total quantity of characters I have either player or seen played in my local circle. Pardon the parentheses with character names; it helped to count, and this way if I get any more relevant data or are reminded by my group of other characters I can fit them in if I don't see them there already.
5 Clerics (Cordelia, Gunnar, Inger, Madella, Uriel)
4 Sorcerers (Ansari, David, Carrol, Kar)
3 Alchemists (Sawbones, Guyleal, Lycus)
3 Druids (Both of K's ridiculous druids, Keck)
3 Bards (Lucan, Mjrn, Guybrush)
3 Magi (Jasmir, Mal, Captain)
2 Paladins (Nathaniel, Chorbak)
2 Barbarians (Randver, Etrigan)
2 Wizards (Diocletian, Vicenzo)
2 Gunslingers (Finklestein, Alejandro)
2 Oracles (forget the character's name because he never talked, guy only played with us once, Atsthata)
2 Cavalier/Samurai (Baalak, Georgianna)
2 Inquisitors (Varek, Shadi)
2 Monks (Long Qu, Siddarth)
2 Rangers (Gelfur, Bastian)
2 Fighters (Crowley, Venge)
2 Witches (Darius, Srouc)
1 Rogue (Maxwell)
1 Summoner (Kemshim)
1 Antipaladin (Zoram)
Also, the races and alignments, since some people were wondering about those disparities:
16 Humans (Kar, Lycus, the first of K's ridiculous druids, Nathaniel, Vicenzo, Alejandro, mystery oracle, Long Qu, Siddarth, Bastian, Crowley, Darius, Srouc, Zoram, Guybrush, Captain)
7 Half-Elves (Madella, Uriel, Carrol, Diocletian, Varek, Lucan, Mjrn)
5 Half-Orcs (David, Sawbones, the second ridiculous druid, Chorbak, Venge)
4 Dwarves (Gunnar, Inger, Randver, Gelfur)
3 Gnomes (Keck, Finklestein, Kemshim)
3 Halflings (Etrigan, Georgianna, Maxwell)
2 Aasimar (Cordelia, Shadi)
2 Tieflings (Ansari, Mal)
1 Elf (Guyleal) [I'm pretty sure that this is an aberration compared to most peoples' groups]
1 Suli (Jasmir)
1 Hobgoblin (Baalak)
6 LG (Chorbak, Nathaniel, Gelfur, Guyleal, Siddarth, Shadi)
10 NG (one of K's ridiculous druids, Keck, Darius, David, Guybrush, Kemshim, Cordelia, Lucan, Varek, Darius)
6 CG (Kar, Alejandro, Carrol, Mjrn, Gunnar, Inger)
6 LN (Long Qu, Ansari, Jasmir, Baalak, Lycus, Diocletian)
8 N (K's other ridiculous druid, mystery oracle, Madella, Bastian, Sawbones, Venge, Maxwell, Atsthata)
4 CN (Captain, Crowley, Uriel, Randver)
2 LE (Vicenzo, Srouc)
2 NE (Georgianna, Mal)
3 CE (Zoram, Finklestein, Etrigan)
So, the least played class for my group is Ninja, and the least played base race (exempting variants and monstrous races) is Elf. The least-played alignment is Lawful/Neutral Evil. The most played areNeutral Good, Cleric and Human (surprise), although ironically we have had no neutral good human clerics.
Ninja is an Archetype of Rogue. i consider it the same as Rogue. even their talents bleed together.
Antipaladin is an Archetype of Paladin. its abilities may be flipped. but it is still an archetype. just with flipped abilities.
Samurai is an Archetype of Cavalier, the same orders are available to both, they both get a mount and banner, the main class features, the only difference is Cavalier Gets Tactician and the Samurai gets to specialize in one weapon from a limited list.
If you're going to be picky, you might as well do a good job of it.
Samurai and ninja are not archetypes, they're alternate classes. And because they are classes, not archetypes, they're worthwhile mentioning separately.
To me it's especially interesting if people either especially like or dislike Eastern flavor, or perhaps the more powerful version of the rogue. Seems like players are mostly disinterested in both the western and eastern classes.
Hmm lets see. In Council of thieves. We had a fighter, ranger, cleric, sorcerer/fighter dragon disciple and a rogue.
In Legacy of fire. Wizard, paladin, sorcerer, fighter, cleric, gunslinger and ninja.
We are playing carrion crown atm, and we have a wizard, alcemist, inquisitor, paladin and a magus.
I don't like ninjas and samurai because they are derivative/unoriginal in terms of Pathfinder, and because they simply do not belong in traditional Western fantasy.
What is "traditional Western fantasy"?
Edit: Sorry, premature post.
is "traditional Western fantasy" meant as like an American western (movie) or like medieval western Europe, or something else?
medieval central and western europe, but with fantastic creatures spawned from those cultures. some parts of eastern europe, I suppose. Read some Tolkein.
|
Here's a list of characters I have played. With archetype if used
Fighter (Two-handed)
Ranger (Spirit Ranger)
Cleric
Sorcerer
Wizard (base and Spellslinger)
Inquisitor
Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger)
Witch
Monk (qinggong)
Magus
Bard (sandman)
Oracle
Summoner
Rogue
Classes I have characters for but haven't played yet
Barbarian
Samurai
Ninja
And with the exception of the anti-paladin I have seen at one of the other classes.
Just a note though I find it hard to play a good aligned character and just about impossible to play a paladin. This is more due personal reasons then game mechanics reasons.
If we include races then my most common races
Human 9
Tiefling 4
Elves 2
Half Elf 1
[edited, remembered I have played a rogue]
I've got a spreadsheet going for PFS in our area (GTA, Ontario, Canada). Currently it's accumulated over 100 characters. Most popular class so far is Fighter, and least popular is Cavalier (at zero).
This by no means includes ALL players in our area, but it definitely covers a large portion:
Home games are completely different story for me, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
medieval central and western europe, but with fantastic creatures spawned from those cultures. some parts of eastern europe, I suppose. Read some Tolkein.I don't like ninjas and samurai because they are derivative/unoriginal in terms of Pathfinder, and because they simply do not belong in traditional Western fantasy.
What is "traditional Western fantasy"?
Edit: Sorry, premature post.
is "traditional Western fantasy" meant as like an American western (movie) or like medieval western Europe, or something else?
I wouldn't want to play that. Life was horrible in medieval western Europe for most people. Women were virtually slaves (as were all peasants). A monotheistic religion dominated all aspects of life. There was no sanitation. And the rulers were generally selfish thugs. No thanks!
I prefer my fantasy to focus on what could be accomplished (for weal or woe) in a world with magic. What my players like is akin to Heroic Bloodshed with monsters instead of gangsters.
medieval central and western europe, but with fantastic creatures spawned from those cultures. some parts of eastern europe, I suppose. Read some Tolkein.I don't like ninjas and samurai because they are derivative/unoriginal in terms of Pathfinder, and because they simply do not belong in traditional Western fantasy.
What is "traditional Western fantasy"?
Edit: Sorry, premature post.
is "traditional Western fantasy" meant as like an American western (movie) or like medieval western Europe, or something else?
Tolkein has a bit of noneuropean influence.
the armored elephants were a persian thing. and the soldiers riding the elephants looked like something akin to persian ninja.
and playing a lot of female characters, i don't want to be told that my little elf girl or whatever has to work in the kitchen her whole life to impress a dominant husband, and i sure as hell don't want to hear that my tiny savage asian woman isn't allowed to have levels in barbarian because combat is a man's job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Women were virtually slaves.
This is actually a very common misconception. Common women and common men actually ended up just about equals. Both had to work to feed the family--there was no "men's work" vs. "women's work," everyone did everything. Yes, life totally sucked and all, but it was an equal sucking.
It was the upper class that could afford to oppress their women. They did not need to produce anything to survive, so they didn't have the same pressing necessity to share roles. Obviously, it is this upper class that we know the most about since they left the most behind, thus leading to the common "women were treated terribly" thing.
And just a side note--the cultures most oppressive to women in history (the Greeks, feudal Japan, etc.) have been pagan and gay. Do not take this to mean, "oh man, gay/pagan people hate women!" because that's ridiculous--I only mean to point out that it is just about the polar opposite of Christianity that were worst to females.
If you are encouraged to find true love in the soldier bunk next to yours, and your deity walked the Earth raping chicks in the shape of various animals (and weather?!) rather than elevating women, teaching equality, and even specifically saying, "hey, treat women better," it's a lot easier to hate women and consider them useless for everything except a baby factory.
Women were virtually slaves.This is actually a very common misconception. Common women and common men actually ended up just about equals. Both had to work to feed the family--there was no "men's work" vs. "women's work," everyone did everything. Yes, life totally sucked and all, but it was an equal sucking.
It was the upper class that could afford to oppress their women. They did not need to produce anything to survive, so they didn't have the same pressing necessity to share roles. Obviously, it is this upper class that we know the most about since they left the most behind, thus leading to the common "women were treated terribly" thing.
And just a side note--the cultures most oppressive to women in history (the Greeks, feudal Japan, etc.) have been pagan and gay. Do not take this to mean, "oh man, gay/pagan people hate women!" because that's ridiculous--I only mean to point out that it is just about the polar opposite of Christianity that were worst to females.
If you are encouraged to find true love in the soldier bunk next to yours, and your deity walked the Earth raping chicks in the shape of various animals (and weather?!) rather than elevating women, teaching equality, and even specifically saying, "hey, treat women better," it's a lot easier to hate women and consider them useless for everything except a baby factory.
even if it is a misconception, it doesn't do a thing to stop the "Realism" DMs from oppressing female PCs in favor of "Realism" against the player's will.
Women were virtually slaves.This is actually a very common misconception. Common women and common men actually ended up just about equals. Both had to work to feed the family--there was no "men's work" vs. "women's work," everyone did everything. Yes, life totally sucked and all, but it was an equal sucking.
It was the upper class that could afford to oppress their women. They did not need to produce anything to survive, so they didn't have the same pressing necessity to share roles. Obviously, it is this upper class that we know the most about since they left the most behind, thus leading to the common "women were treated terribly" thing.
Sorry, I should have said "women from the social castes most likely to have access to the training and equipment needed to become adventurers".
And just a side note--the cultures most oppressive to women in history (the Greeks, feudal Japan, etc.) have been pagan and gay. Do not take this to mean, "oh man, gay/pagan people hate women!" because that's ridiculous--I only mean to point out that it is just about the polar opposite of Christianity that were worst to females.
All non-Abrahamic religions are "pagan", and not all of them are oppressive to women. And celebrating homosexuality isn't the cause of other cultures oppression of women, it's a product of militaristic culture.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Women IRL =/= Women in roleplaying games.
Most RPGs are idealized to the point where there is no difference between men and women. Even the real and legit differences (physical strength, bodily functions etc) are not covered in the rules.
It makes me chuckle every time some GM starts rambling about "historical <insert topic> realism" in a game where you can play an elf that shoots lightning from his or her fingertips to defeat dragons and magical beasts.
Currently I have only two campaigns which have really "gone Pathfinder" (others are still stuck in 3.5 and one - run by another GM - has dipped its toe into the 4e pool).
Classes played:
- Barbarian
- Bard
- Cleric
- Fighter
- Inquisitor
- Monk
- Oracle (NPC only so far)
- Paladin (both examples will most likely lead me to ban Paladins in future campaigns, or at least house-rule Smite Evil's ability to penetrate all forms of DR)
- Rogue
- Sorcerer
Not seen at the table yet:
- Alchemist
- Anti-Paladin (and won't be allowed for alignment reasons)
- Cavalier
- Druid
- Gunslinger and other classes' grit-using archetypes (and won't be allowed for flavour reasons)
- Magus
- Ninja (and might not be allowed - the jury is still out on this one)
- Ranger
- Samurai
- Summoner (and won't be allowed for book-keeping/speed of play reasons)
- Witch
- Wizard
I suspect that Samurai would be played more often in general if more players were aware of the Sword Saint archetype in the Dragon Empires Primer - it's mount-free. Now if only a similar mount-free archtype could be made for the Cavalier ...
While I don't mind the eastern flavour of the Ninja, I do object to it being better at being a Rogue than the Rogue itself.
medieval central and western europe, but with fantastic creatures spawned from those cultures. some parts of eastern europe, I suppose. Read some Tolkein.I don't like ninjas and samurai because they are derivative/unoriginal in terms of Pathfinder, and because they simply do not belong in traditional Western fantasy.
What is "traditional Western fantasy"?
Edit: Sorry, premature post.
is "traditional Western fantasy" meant as like an American western (movie) or like medieval western Europe, or something else?
Read some Tolkien, there were Asia and Africa people in their world. So Ninja and Samurai are appropriate.
|
In my experience, cavalier and samurai were, hands down, the least played classes. I've never encountered a samurai, and the only time I've ever encountered a cavalier was because -I- was the one who played it. Most campaigns end up in enclosed spaces, which means the cavalier basically turns into a low-rent fighter.
Of the core classes, druids are the least played in my experience. I've played them once or twice myself, but outside of that I've seen them twice I can recall offhand.
Barring PFS, most games I’m involved with don’t allow Gunslingers (including any I run – reasons being more for the mechanics than the aesthetic).
Barring the “banned ones”, I see very few ninjas, cavalier/samurai, or paladins (though this may be skewed by games that ban paladins).
Paladins are a weird class in that it’s the only class that completely prohibits adventuring with certain other PCs (namely those that the paladin believes are evil). It becomes a weird meta game of “who was here first” and “who is the worst offender, the guy who can’t get along with the other characters (the paladin) or the guy who is evil, but is good for the team?”.
The ones I see most are fighters and rangers, followed by wizards and oracles.
-TimD
medieval central and western europe, but with fantastic creatures spawned from those cultures. some parts of eastern europe, I suppose. Read some Tolkein.I wouldn't want to play that. Life was horrible in medieval western Europe for most people. Women were virtually slaves (as were all peasants). A monotheistic religion dominated all aspects of life. There was no sanitation. And the rulers were generally selfish thugs. No thanks!
I prefer my fantasy to focus on what could be accomplished (for weal or woe) in a world with magic. What my players like is akin to Heroic Bloodshed with monsters instead of gangsters.
Actually, everyone worked their butts off, both male and female. Only ones who didn't were the nobles, and those were expected to constantly train to fight.
Actually, there was forms of sanitation, as well as bathing. The no bathing thing started back in the late 1300's, and resulted in people who were probably cleaner than those who founded the USA.
All rulers are generally selfish thugs, when you get right down to it. Some are just more subtle than others.
You have a lot of preconceptions about that time period that are in error, but it might help to think of it as the same society that modern fantasy writes about, the post-apocalyptic time period. Where do you think all those zombie movies about the end of the world came from? Back then, people thought the end was imminent all the time.
As for medieval sexism, it's not what you think. Back then, when you bought a product from a crafter, merchant, or farmer, you bought one from an entire family, NOT just the guy whose symbol was on the stamp. Women did a goodly portion of the work, enough so that at least half of it was their own.
Also, it was a lot wilder than people expect. I have this book on medieval criminals, and honestly its shocking to see what people got away with. It's more wild than the so-called Wild West ever was in real life.
Paladins are a weird class in that it’s the only class that completely prohibits adventuring with certain other PCs (namely those that the paladin believes are evil). It becomes a weird meta game of “who was here first” and “who is the worst offender, the guy who can’t get along with the other characters (the paladin) or the guy who is evil, but is good for the team?”.
-TimD
Paladins aren't like that. You may note that most games don't allow Evil alignments, and neither do Paladins. That's no restriction, that's the norm. A Paladin will gently try to shift Chaotic types to Neutral, by getting them to see the consequences of their actions on those around them. But not adventuring with them? That doesn't happen, at least not with anyone who hasn't spent time considering the ramifications of the game rules.
2. Ask anyone about the relative status, burdens, and opportunities afforded to Catholic Nuns vs. Priests, and you'll see that misogynistic attitudes have not drifted very far from their midieval lows. Given that the Catholic Church still to this day prohibits the use of birth control shows some very hostile attitudes towards women. The fact that most charges of witchcraft were brought up by Priests looking to eliminate rural wise women as compeitition does not speak well for the Church's history towards women.3. Serfs may have been equally oppressed, but many feudal lords exercised the right of prima noche over marriages performed in their lands,...
2 That was actually medieval medical doctors, not priests. They were both educated in ecclesiastical colleges though.
3 prima nocte is a myth, it never happened.
Paladins aren't like that.
Actually, paladins are EXACTLY like that:
a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance
Translation: if I want to play one of my favorite lawful evil assassin-themed characters, who plays well with groups, I can't play in the same group as a paladin.
You may note that most games don't allow Evil alignments, and neither do Paladins. That's no restriction, that's the norm.
Your “norm” and mine differ greatly.
The only time I see “no evil” as a “norm” is when dealing with PFS organized play, when playing with inexperienced GMs, or when playing with minors.-TimD
From what I've seen and hard from different players and gaming groups, Cavaliers are the class that most people ae uninterested in. Even SKR said that was probably the case.
So if all classes are available, I say Cavalier players will be prety rare.
|
Paladins aren't like that.Actually, paladins are EXACTLY like that:
a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual allianceTranslation: if I want to play one of my favorite lawful evil assassin-themed characters, who plays well with groups, I can't play in the same group as a paladin.
You may note that most games don't allow Evil alignments, and neither do Paladins. That's no restriction, that's the norm.Your “norm” and mine differ greatly.
The only time I see “no evil” as a “norm” is when dealing with PFS organized play, when playing with inexperienced GMs, or when playing with minors.-TimD
Only if the Paladin finds out you're evil.
Actually, everyone worked their butts off, both male and female. Only ones who didn't were the nobles, and those were expected to constantly train to fight.Actually, there was forms of sanitation, as well as bathing. The no bathing thing started back in the late 1300's, and resulted in people who were probably cleaner than those who founded the USA.
All rulers are generally selfish thugs, when you get right down to it. Some are just more subtle than others.
You have a lot of preconceptions about that time period that are in error, but it might help to think of it as the same society that modern fantasy writes about, the post-apocalyptic time period. Where do you think all those zombie movies about the end of the world came from? Back then, people thought the end was imminent all the time.
As for medieval sexism, it's not what you think. Back then, when you bought a product from a crafter, merchant, or farmer, you bought one from an entire family, NOT just the guy whose symbol was on the stamp. Women did a goodly portion of the work, enough so that at least half of it was their own.
Also, it was a lot wilder than people expect. I have this book on medieval criminals, and honestly its shocking to see what people got away with. It's more wild than the so-called Wild West ever was in real life.
Actually, I don't have misconceptions, I know all of this. However, sanitation was far worse than it was in Rome. Doing half (or more) of the work, and being uncredited for it(while your husband is), while not being allowed to any property, IS sexism. The not bathing started in response to the plague.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, can we please stop cluttering up this thread with the discussion on East vs. West and what was "real" history?
For those interested in continuing some of those discussions, Detect Magic started an East vs. West thread (the link is in his post, which is #71 in this thread). For the other discussions, please start your own thread. :)
Paladins aren't like that.Actually, paladins are EXACTLY like that:
a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual allianceTranslation: if I want to play one of my favorite lawful evil assassin-themed characters, who plays well with groups, I can't play in the same group as a paladin.
You may note that most games don't allow Evil alignments, and neither do Paladins. That's no restriction, that's the norm.Your “norm” and mine differ greatly.
The only time I see “no evil” as a “norm” is when dealing with PFS organized play, when playing with inexperienced GMs, or when playing with minors.-TimD
If you actually roleplayed LE correctly, you would eventually murder your fellow PC's to gain advantage. The very nature of Evil is selfish and destructive. If you don't understand what I mean, try looking in the Bestiary for LE creatures, and examining how they are supposed to behave.
LE is not an allowed alignment in Pathfinder rules, period. Your DM is obviously making an exception, and just as obviously, doesn't know the meaning of LE, imo.
Actually, I don't have misconceptions, I know all of this. However, sanitation was far worse than it was in Rome. Doing half (or more) of the work, and being uncredited for it(while your husband is), while not being allowed to any property, IS sexism. The not bathing started in response to the plague.
Sort of. You have to remember that it varied wildly based on culture and locale.
Second, you are applying YOUR values to a wholly different world. It would be interesting to note what the medieval women themselves wrote. In fact, I have a book on that. Most were nobles, since those were taught to read as part of managing the estate. Yes, women had far more power than you thought. Want the name of the book? It's entirely primary sources.
Never assume, and always be ready to revise your beliefs and opinions. That is the way of the scientist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, you are applying YOUR values to a wholly different world.
Of course I am applying MY values. That is the whole point. I don't want to play in a world where what is "good" or "correct" constantly offends my values.
If you actually roleplayed LE correctly, you would eventually murder your fellow PC's to gain advantage.
This is completely NOT true. There are plenty of LE people, creatures, and cultures in PF that do not eventually murder their companions/associates/followers/citizens/etc. If LE eventually murdered all it's associates, there couldn't be an LE nation, which there is. An LE character will murder someone to gain an advantage, but it is certainly not an eventuality.
LE is not an allowed alignment in Pathfinder rules, period.
You are confusing Pathfinder Society Organized play with playing Pathfinder. There is a big difference. Nowhere does it say Evil alignments aren't allowed in pathfinder. I personally ban* them from my table (and I am neither inexperienced as a GM, nor a minor), but that is my privilege as GM, NOT a pathfinder rule.
*This is a soft ban, not a hard one.
For my group I would say Wizard is the least played. You don't need it when Magus and Sorcerer are better options.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you actually roleplayed LE correctly, you would eventually murder your fellow PC's to gain advantage. The very nature of Evil is selfish and destructive. If you don't understand what I mean, try looking in the Bestiary for LE creatures, and examining how they are supposed to behave.
LE is not an allowed alignment in Pathfinder rules, period. Your DM is obviously making an exception, and just as obviously, doesn't know the meaning of LE, imo.
You'd be more likely to cooperate with other Lawful Evils to solidify your power structure. Why kill them when they can be of use?
Please do not turn this into an alignment thread...
If you actually roleplayed LE correctly, you would eventually murder your fellow PC's to gain advantage.
Obviously “He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order” means that I should always murder-face my party like a dumbass. [/sarcasm.]
I’ve been playing LE characters in AD&D and its variants and descendents for about 25 years now. I think I may possibly know something about it.LE is not an allowed alignment in Pathfinder rules, period. Your DM is obviously making an exception, and just as obviously, doesn't know the meaning of LE, imo.
PRD quote for that?
I see “Assassin” and "Red Mantis Assassin" listed as a Prestige Classes, not an NPC classes. I see Anti-Paladin listed as an alternate paladin class, not an NPC class (unless you are argueing that CE is ok, but LE is not). I see the Iconic Magus, Seltyiel, listed with an LE alignment. I see that there is a whole 3PP adventure path (Way of the Wicked) which pretty much focuses on LE characters.I short, I see you are playing in a whole different world, than what I see on the Paizo site and the books I own.
Please do not turn this into an alignment thread...
Valid – apologies, I should know better than to use the p-word.
-TimD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
even a Chaotic Evil PC doesn't have to murder their allies.
in fact, every character, regardless of alignment or intelligence, would know that they need somebody to cover the areas they lack, and to help them take on the bigger fish they personally cannot take down on their own.
Lawful Evil, isn't about betraying your companions, it is about milking the benefits they provide to your own selfish ends. sometimes you have to give in order to continue taking. even evil characters know this.
Chaotic Evil, though typically seen as savage, doesn't necessarily mean you are the Joker, or even Henry from Fire Emblem Awakening for the 3DS. you can simply be the blunt jerk with no morals and no code of conduct, whom despite otherwise being a team player, doesn't give a damn whether your next mark is a woman, child. or puppy. work and survival supersede morals. getting that next meal is more important than saving the maiden 3 towers across. though saving the maiden may potentially give you the funds for more meals.
Thread refocus - away from alignment issues.
I would say the least played classes are those that are most banned, either for flavor or concerns about balance: Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, Monk, Summoner, Alchemist, Inquisitor.
In my group personally, the bard gets no love. I'm the only one to have played one in the last 15 years. Every other core class has been played at least a few times, although the paladin is less popular due to concerns about roleplaying and party cohesion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you actually roleplayed LE correctly, you would eventually murder your fellow PC's to gain advantage. The very nature of Evil is selfish and destructive. If you don't understand what I mean, try looking in the Bestiary for LE creatures, and examining how they are supposed to behave.
LE is not an allowed alignment in Pathfinder rules, period. Your DM is obviously making an exception, and just as obviously, doesn't know the meaning of LE, imo.
1) LE characters are not necessarily murderers. You can have an LE character who is completely opposed to the very IDEA of murder. The master of an orphanage who abuses and berates children under his authoritarian command is LE. The land baron who uses his knowledge of the law to swindle people out of their land is LE.
Hell, you can have a LE character who doesn't perform a single evil act during the campaign because it would not be in his or her best intrest. Sure there are lawful evil characters who DO backstab the party the first chance they get, but in general these are stupid evil characters more than anything else.
It's obvious you're the one who doesn't understand the meaning of lawful evil.
Anti-paladin and paladin are the same class so the anti-paladin is probably not a contender here, as I know of plenty who play a paladin.
Same with a Samaria and Ninja, they are alternate classes of the Cavalier and Rogue.
Our group has not explored classes as much to a few long running game to level 20. Thank you Turin the Mad!
I played a bard in our last modal run, and played a 2nd bard in the campaign but died due to bad luck in our first session, and probably will run one again soon.
I don't remember us ever playing a Gunslinger, Summoner (Probably about to play this one next), or an Inquisitor. However I maybe wrong/incomplete.
If I were to take a guess based upon the page views at D20pfsrd and the general talk of the forums (and this page), I'd vote:
Shadowdancer
I think it has a higher number of page views than a few other classes simply because it has an intriguing name. However when people read it, they realize they'd rather be just about any other rogue alternative.
I watch these forums fairly regularly, and I've probably seen threads on every class except never a "Help me with my Shadowdancer" thread.
but Kimera you are discounting 'special flower' syndrome
everyone wants to be different and be that unique snowflake
so often the fringe classes get more play because they are seen as fringe and different
but Kimera you are discounting 'special flower' syndrome
everyone wants to be different and be that unique snowflake
so often the fringe classes get more play because they are seen as fringe and different
I see why, isn't 1/3-1/2 the point (Depending on the player) of the game to feel special?
I see why, isn't 1/3-1/2 the point (Depending on the player) of the game to feel special?but Kimera you are discounting 'special flower' syndrome
everyone wants to be different and be that unique snowflake
so often the fringe classes get more play because they are seen as fringe and different
it is more like 32.333 (repeating of course)
and yes it is good to feel specialbut we are just crunching numbers, man, cold hard maths, there is no room for feelings here
|
|
Cavalier and Gunslinger are probably tied for the least common.
Cavalier is perceived as way too niche (mounted combat), its niche is not popular to begin with, and it is not even the best within that niche thanks to Summoners and RAGELANCEPOUNCE.
Gunslinger simply because the majority of fantasy players don't like guns in their fantasy for some reason.
RAGELANCEPOUNCE doesn't work according to RAW and Sean K Reynolds so you can't hold that against the Cavalier.
|
|
Oh, this kind of looks fun! Let me think, in my game circle:
0 Antipaladin
0 Samurai
1 Druid
1 Magi
1 Ninja
1 Ranger
1 Sorcerer
1 Wizard
2 Gunslingers
2 Witches
3 Alchemists
3 Bards
3 Cavalier
3 Inquisitors
3 Rogues
3 Summoners
4 Monks
4 Oracles
5 Paladins
10 Barbarians
12 Clerics
15 Fighters
And that's only in the past three years or so! I'd say that the Advanced Guide really diversified our options; if I added in all the third party and old 3.5 classes, that'd only be about 10 more classes. I'm not surprised by the Antipaladin, no one even wants to play CE, and the Samurai? Can we all agree that class was just a worse version of the Cavalier? I'm sure that is the only reason that class doesn't get any play in my group.
As far as alignments, the only alignment that is NEVER played is CE, and I'm sure the evil alignment characters are less than 5 total. Otherwise, its a pretty even spread.
As far as races, no one in my group ever plays a halfling or half-elf, followed closely by the half-orc, who has only been played 3 times. Someone always plays a human, a dwarf, and either an elf or gnome, and then something less traditional. Of the less traditional races I've seen played, it has been Tiefling which makes an appearance at least once every-other-game (once, when I offered it up, everyone choose it!), followed by Tengu at about once every three games, and then Dhampire, Changeling, Catfolk, and Undine, all of which are campaign specific, with Carrion Crown for the Dhampire and Changeling, and Skull and Shackles for the Catfolk and Undine. And 3.5 races abound...just kidding. Almost no one plays those in my group anymore. When I used to run 3.5 pirate games, I had a fair share of Hadozee and Darfellan. Just a year ago, when I ran, someone looked through the Dragon Compendium, and I was suddenly over run with 5 Tibbits; it made for a VERY different game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks as if certain people have spilled stuff from another thread into this one.
Anyway, right off the bat, the least played classes will be the ones NOT from the core rulebook, because most people are going to default to that book first, or buy it first, or only own that and not the other sourcebooks.
Other than that, in my campaigns the most popular classes are:
-Barbarians, Druids, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues. Everyone in my group seems to like melee, lots of action, and "tough" characters.
Sometimes played classes include:
-Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Wizards. They tend to avoid spellcasting in large amounts.
The unloved classes are:
Bard (Because who wants to sing monsters to death?)
Monk (Because it tends to not fit in with our games)
As for the APG classes, there's interest in Alchemists and Summoners, and of course the Gunslinger and Magus accrue some attention.
But the least played class would certainly be bard.
|
|
Women were virtually slaves.This is actually a very common misconception. Common women and common men actually ended up just about equals. Both had to work to feed the family--there was no "men's work" vs. "women's work," everyone did everything. Yes, life totally sucked and all, but it was an equal sucking.
It was the upper class that could afford to oppress their women. They did not need to produce anything to survive, so they didn't have the same pressing necessity to share roles. Obviously, it is this upper class that we know the most about since they left the most behind, thus leading to the common "women were treated terribly" thing.
And just a side note--the cultures most oppressive to women in history (the Greeks, feudal Japan, etc.) have been pagan and gay. Do not take this to mean, "oh man, gay/pagan people hate women!" because that's ridiculous--I only mean to point out that it is just about the polar opposite of Christianity that were worst to females.
If you are encouraged to find true love in the soldier bunk next to yours, and your deity walked the Earth raping chicks in the shape of various animals (and weather?!) rather than elevating women, teaching equality, and even specifically saying, "hey, treat women better," it's a lot easier to hate women and consider them useless for everything except a baby factory.
I'm sure other people have replied to this already but I will briefly say that you have taken a very little information and come to horrible generalized conclusions. Yes, greeks lived in a pre-christian society and followed completely different social norms. Yes, women in greek society were generally relegated to home-making. No this does not make ancient greeks homosexual women haters who oppressed women. Greece followed the same traditions regarding sex roles as most of the near east at the time. Women were a valued part of society if not generally equal to men.(You might as well same the same thing about almost every society in the history of the world until 40 years ago) Greek literature and myth is filled with powerful female role models. One of the biggest mistakes you can make is to judge ancient peoples by today's standards. Medieval settings and ancient settings both make perfectly good settings for play even if we follow history closely. But guess what, we don't have to. This is fantasy gaming afterall.
