I like most sacred cows myself they define D&D. However, I do have one that I can not stand and am glad I ditched years ago. Experience points. I swear every time I hear a player say, "We cant go there! We are not high enough level yet" I die a little inside.
So do the players start strong enough to take on all challenges in your adventures or have you replaced XP with a different leveling system?
If there is any leveling or mechanic progression (point based, plot-based, or otherwise), the players will note when a potential challenge requires further progress along that line.
To Cows, humans are Lawful Evil
The cows will have their day.
On alignment and elves, some are apparently NG, but arrogance, dickery and snootiness to other races doesn't strike me as pure good.
Maybe it is a boundary thing... NG in, NE out.
I have a whip of snaring. I am basically wonder woman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a sacred cow that's been on my mind lately: the round based combat system.
The system leads to the implication that firing an arrow, stabbing with a dagger, swinging a greataxe, drinking a potion, and casting a spell all take the same amount of time--which makes the knife fighter severly handicapped to the point of unplayablility.
A rolling initiave count (similar to the one used in Hackmaster) would allow for variable "reset" times for different actions without adding too much complexity to the game.
It would also give developers one more knob to tweak when balancing weapons, spell, and other combat actions against each other.
Here's a sacred cow that's been on my mind lately: the round based combat system.
The system leads to the implication that firing an arrow, stabbing with a dagger, swinging a greataxe, drinking a potion, and casting a spell all take the same amount of time--which makes the knife fighter severly handicapped to the point of unplayablility.
A rolling initiave count (similar to the one used in Hackmaster) would allow for variable "reset" times for different actions without adding too much complexity to the game.
It would also give developers one more knob to tweak when balancing weapons, spell, and other combat actions against each other.
Oh I broke that too. My own system that I made doesn't follow the roll initiative and wait till your turn standard of so many games. We run a stock exchange situation, where the first to call out their actions goes first, the monsters move to do their acts, and if there is a tie, there is an opposed luck roll. The situation matters a lot, declare a charge, you go before those that stand still, but if they have a pike ready, they go first when you get into range (watch out for the pointy end)Works wonders. Course, in this system, it is second by second in combat, so no walking off for 30 feet, lol. Drawing an arrow is an action, aiming is an action, and if you do that while someone is up in your grill, you will be cut and can be stun locked for many many cuts (until you win a defence roll and get control again through successful avoidance, or die). More on my system in a thread I started.
Anyway, it can be broken, and in doing so, you can get the players more involved.
Here's a sacred cow that's been on my mind lately: the round based combat system.
The system leads to the implication that firing an arrow, stabbing with a dagger, swinging a greataxe, drinking a potion, and casting a spell all take the same amount of time--which makes the knife fighter severly handicapped to the point of unplayablility.
A rolling initiave count (similar to the one used in Hackmaster) would allow for variable "reset" times for different actions without adding too much complexity to the game.
It would also give developers one more knob to tweak when balancing weapons, spell, and other combat actions against each other.
Oh I broke that too. My own system that I made doesn't follow the roll initiative and wait till your turn standard of so many games. We run a stock exchange situation, where the first to call out their actions goes first, the monsters move to do their acts, and if there is a tie, there is an opposed luck roll. The situation matters a lot, declare a charge, you go before those that stand still, but if they have a pike ready, they go first when you get into range (watch out for the pointy end)Works wonders. Course, in this system, it is second by second in combat, so no walking off for 30 feet, lol. Drawing an arrow is an action, aiming is an action, and if you do that while someone is up in your grill, you will be cut and can be stun locked for many many cuts (until you win a defence roll and get control again through successful avoidance, or die). More on my system in a thread I started.
Anyway, it can be broken, and in doing so, you can get the players more involved.
Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the buy in from the rest of my gaming group to tinker with key elements of the rules like that. For my current campaign, I decided to swithc from a grid to hexes for the battle maps and nearly had a full on player revolt on my hands; though I did convince them to try it because it makes tactical movement simpler and more organic.
So, for the time being at least, this is one sacred cow that will be kept off the grill at my gaming table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelyrinth: The thing is, I DON'T like black and white morality and inherently evil acts (Casting Evil spells for Good is Evil! Good spells for Evil are Good!).
I think the whole idea is silly and I've said so and will continue to say so until such a day that it is no longer the truth (which should be right around the same time Paizo replaces their entire development staff since SKR and JJ at the very least love it. =/).
The absolute morality system is, hands down, the most harmful and ridiculous (in my eyes) "Sacred Cow" in the game.
Ah, you have one error there.
Using a Good spell for an evil act is NOT Good. Remember, the whole universe of actions is available to the Evil person, including using 'good' things to foul ends.
Good actions, however, do not include things that are explicitly Evil. In other words, evil can do things Good cannot.
Using an Evil spell to Good purpose is still furthering the goals of evil.
Evil using Good is still furthering the goals of Evil.
Good has to use Good, or at least non-evil, methods to stay good. It's one of the worst things about being Good.
Alignment will probably be around until all Grognards are dead and gone, and by then our second generation will enforce it.
And you might hate it, but others love it just as fervently. C'est la vie.
==Aelryinth
Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the buy in from the rest of my gaming group to tinker with key elements of the rules like that. For my current campaign, I decided to swithc from a grid to hexes for the battle maps and nearly had a full on player revolt on my hands; though I did convince them to try it because it makes tactical...Here's a sacred cow that's been on my mind lately: the round based combat system.
The system leads to the implication that firing an arrow, stabbing with a dagger, swinging a greataxe, drinking a potion, and casting a spell all take the same amount of time--which makes the knife fighter severly handicapped to the point of unplayablility.
A rolling initiave count (similar to the one used in Hackmaster) would allow for variable "reset" times for different actions without adding too much complexity to the game.
It would also give developers one more knob to tweak when balancing weapons, spell, and other combat actions against each other.
Oh I broke that too. My own system that I made doesn't follow the roll initiative and wait till your turn standard of so many games. We run a stock exchange situation, where the first to call out their actions goes first, the monsters move to do their acts, and if there is a tie, there is an opposed luck roll. The situation matters a lot, declare a charge, you go before those that stand still, but if they have a pike ready, they go first when you get into range (watch out for the pointy end)Works wonders. Course, in this system, it is second by second in combat, so no walking off for 30 feet, lol. Drawing an arrow is an action, aiming is an action, and if you do that while someone is up in your grill, you will be cut and can be stun locked for many many cuts (until you win a defence roll and get control again through successful avoidance, or die). More on my system in a thread I started.
Anyway, it can be broken, and in doing so, you can get the players more involved.
Hexagons are so damn good, squares do not even compare. Another great thing from the old days of gaming.
Why the revolt? What form did the revolt take?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Cows, humans are Lawful EvilThe cows will have their day.
On alignment and elves, some are apparently NG, but arrogance, dickery and snootiness to other races doesn't strike me as pure good.
Maybe it is a boundary thing... NG in, NE out.
Neutral Good doesn't mean Neutral Nice.
==Aelryinth
Using a Good spell for an evil act is NOT Good. Remember, the whole universe of actions is available to the Evil person, including using 'good' things to foul ends.
If you believe using spells with descriptors does change alignment it is.
That's a heavy double standard you have there! My gosh. No wonder you treat good like you do. That is not how it works for everyone.
Probably best to move the alignment derailment to the thread about alignment that was made to keep the thread from derailing about cows to alignment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelyrinth: The thing is, I DON'T like black and white morality and inherently evil acts (Casting Evil spells for Good is Evil! Good spells for Evil are Good!).
I think the whole idea is silly and I've said so and will continue to say so until such a day that it is no longer the truth (which should be right around the same time Paizo replaces their entire development staff since SKR and JJ at the very least love it. =/).
The absolute morality system is, hands down, the most harmful and ridiculous (in my eyes) "Sacred Cow" in the game.
Ah, you have one error there.
Using a Good spell for an evil act is NOT Good. Remember, the whole universe of actions is available to the Evil person, including using 'good' things to foul ends.
Good actions, however, do not include things that are explicitly Evil. In other words, evil can do things Good cannot.
Using an Evil spell to Good purpose is still furthering the goals of evil.
Evil using Good is still furthering the goals of Evil.Good has to use Good, or at least non-evil, methods to stay good. It's one of the worst things about being Good.
Alignment will probably be around until all Grognards are dead and gone, and by then our second generation will enforce it.
And you might hate it, but others love it just as fervently. C'est la vie.
==Aelryinth
Ah, no, that ISN'T how it works. There was a thread a while back and either JJ or SKR chimed in about it I believe.
Aligned spells shift your alignment with each casting regardless.
Using Holy Smite to kill Neutral targets is a Good act. Using Infernal Healing to save your friend from dying is Evil.
The wonders of absolute morality.
That's not a double standard at all, Mr. Sin. That's how good and evil WORK.
You're assuming they have identical standards, subbing 'good' and 'evil' freely. Uh-uh. They have very, very DIFFERENT standards, Mr. Sin. As you well know.
Good has higher standards. Violate the standards, and you fall. It is NOT forgiving of using evil methods to Good ends. What good are standards if you can violate them willy-nilly?
Evil doesn't give a hoot what you do. It's perfectly acceptable to use good methods to bad ends. They are very forgiving of anything you might want to do. Using Good to do evil is a HOOT! keep doing it!
==Aelryinth
@Aelyrinth: The thing is, I DON'T like black and white morality and inherently evil acts (Casting Evil spells for Good is Evil! Good spells for Evil are Good!).
I think the whole idea is silly and I've said so and will continue to say so until such a day that it is no longer the truth (which should be right around the same time Paizo replaces their entire development staff since SKR and JJ at the very least love it. =/).
The absolute morality system is, hands down, the most harmful and ridiculous (in my eyes) "Sacred Cow" in the game.
Ah, you have one error there.
Using a Good spell for an evil act is NOT Good. Remember, the whole universe of actions is available to the Evil person, including using 'good' things to foul ends.
Good actions, however, do not include things that are explicitly Evil. In other words, evil can do things Good cannot.
Using an Evil spell to Good purpose is still furthering the goals of evil.
Evil using Good is still furthering the goals of Evil.Good has to use Good, or at least non-evil, methods to stay good. It's one of the worst things about being Good.
Alignment will probably be around until all Grognards are dead and gone, and by then our second generation will enforce it.
And you might hate it, but others love it just as fervently. C'est la vie.
==Aelryinth
Ah, no, that ISN'T how it works. There was a thread a while back and either JJ or SKR chimed in about it I believe.
Aligned spells shift your alignment with each casting regardless.
Using Holy Smite to kill Neutral targets is a Good act. Using Infernal Healing to save your friend from dying is Evil.
The wonders of absolute morality.
Infernal helpful.
So is there a slider I can look at? 10 heals and you are a baddie?
It does make sense if you are using the very powers of hell to re-knit flesh. You are not being put together by wholesome or even neutral forces. Something might be... left inside you.
I love rules on soul taint.
Ah, no, that ISN'T how it works. There was a thread a while back and either JJ or SKR chimed in about it I believe.Aligned spells shift your alignment with each casting regardless.
Using Holy Smite to kill Neutral targets is a Good act. Using Infernal Healing to save your friend from dying is Evil.
The wonders of absolute morality.
You have a classic biased example.
An Evil Caster using Holy Smite (no, it's not possible in core PF) to kill Neutral people for an evil purpose is an evil act...Good will not offset it. It's not a zero sum gain.
Using Evil even for a Good purpose is still evil (your healing example...you're basically shouting to everyone that you should rely on the power of Hell for your healing needs!) And given the posts I see on it, Infernal Healing has a lot of adherents who love to 'ends justify the means' their morality...
So that IS how it works.
Now, someone who keeps using Good magic for non-Evil ends is showing a bias towards Good, true enough. Never argued otherwise. But if using it for evil, nope...and that was the original example and mention of a 'double standard'.
==Aelryinth
That's not a double standard at all, Mr. Sin. That's how good and evil WORK.
You're assuming they have identical standards, subbing 'good' and 'evil' freely. Uh-uh. They have very, very DIFFERENT standards, Mr. Sin. As you well know.
It how you say they work. It is a double standard. Your standards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hexagonal grids become an obvious problem when trying to have neat spaces. When you're trying to draw the walls of a dungeon and the hexagons are all split its likely to cause confusion. This would be my guess.
Mmmm, reminds me of a few times I've been dming and I've said, the world is not nice neat boxes. It is roughly this much, this distance, this space. It doesn't cleanly correspond to squares (maybe it is a triangle room, gasp!).
I don't use grids, distance counts to me. Sometimes squares would fit, sometimes hexs, sometimes circles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a classic biased example.
An Evil Caster using Holy Smite (no, it's not possible in core PF) to kill Neutral people for an evil purpose is an evil act...Good will not offset it. It's not a zero sum gain.
Using Evil even for a Good purpose is still evil (your healing example...you're basically shouting to everyone that you should rely on the power of Hell for your healing needs!) And given the posts I see on it, Infernal Healing has a lot of adherents who love to 'ends justify the means' their morality...
So that IS how it works.
Now, someone who keeps using Good magic for non-Evil ends is showing a bias towards Good, true enough. Never argued otherwise. But if using it for evil, nope...and that was the original example and mention of a 'double standard'.
==Aelryinth
Oh no, doesn't have to be an Evil caster to kill neutral people. Don't even have to be innocent people.
They could be attacking you, and deserve retaliation. Except whereas bashing their brains in with a mace is an unaligned act, killing them with holy light makes you a better person all around.
Logic!
Holy glory, for I used the powers of a mighty being of cheese and goodness to roast you up, instead of soiling myself with this messy melee business.
For good!
In Champions of Purity, casting a spell with the good descriptor is specifically called out as a good deed. (Or rather penances are described as 'good deeds' and casting a spell with the good descriptor is listed as an example penance).
It is pretty clear that just doing good deeds isnt sufficient to be good (ie that intention matters). It seems to me that Good and Evil are qualitatively different in the way Aelyrinth is suggesting - nonetheless, casting a spell with the good descriptor is a good act in pathfinder, even if not sufficiently good on its own to change your alignment.
I am doing *ZAP!* penance!
I am doing *ZAP!* penance!
I am doing *ZAP!* penance!
Good... all dead.
It how you say they work. It is a double standard. Your standards.That's not a double standard at all, Mr. Sin. That's how good and evil WORK.
You're assuming they have identical standards, subbing 'good' and 'evil' freely. Uh-uh. They have very, very DIFFERENT standards, Mr. Sin. As you well know.
Uh huh.
You care to make some kind of example where good and evil have the SAME standards? Because that's what a double standard means...saying two forces adhere to the same standards, when in reality they don't.
I'm saying, in reality they don't. Are you trying to say they do? Because I'm going to have to laugh and say you are flat out wrong if you think Good and Evil have the same standards.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a spellcaster sits in a cell and casts good descriptor spells all day, do they become a saint?
Is this illegal according to most churches?
Is it a form of alignment masturbation?
Are you trying to say they do? Because I'm going to have to laugh and say you are flat out wrong if you think Good and Evil have the same standards.
I'm saying your presuming your standards are the games and everyone's standards, I didn't say that evil and good had the same standards. You kinda skipped that part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a spellcaster sits in a cell and casts good descriptor spells all day, do they become a saint?
No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying to say they do? Because I'm going to have to laugh and say you are flat out wrong if you think Good and Evil have the same standards.I'm saying your presuming your standards are the games and everyone's standards, I didn't say that evil and good had the same standards. You kinda skipped that part.
Then kindly explain where your 'double standards' comes from.
To accuse me of having double standards, you must have standards that are the same for everyone.
And then one of the parties must be held to a different standard.
So, yes, that IS what you were saying.
The alignment system is actually a nonuple standard, complete dwarfing your double standard.
==Aelryinth
Then kindly explain where your 'double standards' comes from.
Yes, I accuse you of double standards because your using them. Evil for good is evil, good for evil is evil, evil for evil is evil, good for good is the only good? That is the definition of a double standard. Good and evil put to the same standards are being treated differently. You specifically stated you were using a "higher standard" for good, and then applying that as though that were the rules and you had to be correct.
Definition of double standard (n)
Bing Dictionary
dou·ble stan·dard
1.standard applied unfairly: a principle, rule, or expectation that is applied unfairly to different groups, one group usually being condemned for the slightest offense while the other is treated far more leniently
What about a halfling standard?
:D
Then kindly explain where your 'double standards' comes from.Yes, I accuse you of double standards because your using them. Evil for good is evil, good for evil is evil, evil for evil is evil, good for good is the only good? That is the definition of a double standard. Good and evil put to the same standards are being treated differently. You specifically stated you were using a "higher standard" for good, and then applying that as though that were the rules and you had to be correct.
Definition of double standard (n)
Bing Dictionary
dou·ble stan·dard
1.standard applied unfairly: a principle, rule, or expectation that is applied unfairly to different groups, one group usually being condemned for the slightest offense while the other is treated far more leniently
Um? Excuse me? to have a double standard you must first say they have the same standards, and then argue otherwise.
Since when did I ever argue they had the same standards? Your accusation is exploding in an empty room, unless YOU are arguing they have the same standards.
To be a double standard, good and evil would be perfectly swappable in your arguments, i.e. on the same standards. And then I'd have to break it.
I've never said that. Now you're saying you never said that. Will you kindly clarify your argument?
==Aelryinth
What about a semantics standard?
What about a halfling standard?
:D
Too short. The bulettes kept eating them.
==Aelryinth
What about a semantics standard?
Gawd, English gets enough problems with arguing rules.
==Aelryinth
Um? Excuse me? to have a double standard you must first say they have the same standards, and then argue otherwise.
Erm... No. If they had the same standards there wouldn't be a double standard. Your specifically giving evil leniency, then saying good doesn't get that leisure and is damned at the slightest offence. Just like the definition said.
Edit: I posted the very definition of double standards, and your trying to tell me that's not true. Stop that.
I once introduced Gersheteks to a gaming world.
Minotaur standard form of measurement. They are labyrinth loving jobbers, and I read they love math, mazes with a keen sense of direction, so it fits. It might have been 15 miles, and the typical time it takes to cover that while moving 30ft with purpose. Oulthep is 3 Gersheteks away.
One player really got into them. Cultural exchange I suppose.
Um? Excuse me? to have a double standard you must first say they have the same standards, and then argue otherwise.Erm... No. If they had the same standards there wouldn't be a double standard. Your specifically giving evil leniency, then saying good doesn't get that leisure and is damned at the slightest offence. Just like the definition said.
Edit: I posted the very definition of double standards, and your trying to tell me that's not true. Stop that.
Read your definition.
It's 'a standard' applied unfairly. I never said both alignments had 'a standard' they shared. HE was the one trying to use logical arguments as if they DID have a shared standard, and then claimed I violated it because "Evil using Good to do Evil is still Evil" is not the inverse of "Good using Evil to do Good is still Evil".
But then he said they didn't have the same standard, so it couldn't be a double standard, even though that's what he was arguing.
His whole example was that evil and good were logically interchangeable, i.e. they had the same standards. By that measure, sure, not being transitive is a double standard.
But I never had that argument; so how can I be violating it? Good and Evil have very separate standards. Not the same one applied differently.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once introduced Gersheteks to a gaming world.
Minotaur standard form of measurement. They are labyrinth loving jobbers, and I read they love math, mazes with a keen sense of direction, so it fits. It might have been 15 miles, and the typical time it takes to cover that while moving 30ft with purpose. Oulthep is 3 Gersheteks away.
One player really got into them. Cultural exchange I suppose.
Do you know what a 'bloit' is? Google it with zork.
There's a unit of measurement for you.
==Aelryinth
Healing is actually called out as an example of a neutral act. Healing an evil person can be seen as aiding evil. Healing can be very charitable, but the act is as neutral as applying a sword to someone. The reasons behind using it, as opposed to the object used, define that act.
==Aelryinth
Um? Excuse me? to have a double standard you must first say they have the same standards, and then argue otherwise.Erm... No. If they had the same standards there wouldn't be a double standard. Your specifically giving evil leniency, then saying good doesn't get that leisure and is damned at the slightest offence. Just like the definition said.
Edit: I posted the very definition of double standards, and your trying to tell me that's not true. Stop that.
Read your definition.
It's 'a standard' applied unfairly. I never said both alignments had 'a standard' they shared. HE was the one trying to use logical arguments as if they DID have a shared standard, and then claimed I violated it because "Evil using Good to do Evil is still Evil" is not the inverse of "Good using Evil to do Good is still Evil".
I wasn't talking about Rynjin, or anyone else. I was talking about you. I read the definition I posted. Now we're suddenly using different standards? I think you'll just keep avoiding things. Its not worth talking to you when you do that.
You have several times placed them at different standards. That's why your putting them at a double standard. Good has to excel at being good, but evil can do anything. Law has to be law, but chaotic is almost jerktastic! Its ridiculous, but then you make the claim that that's how the game works even though multiple people take offence. Do you enjoy doing that?
If you have different standards, by DEFINITION you can't be using a double standard.
A double standard is ONE standard applied unevenly.
I've always said they have different standards.
You're the one arguing against the reality that Evil can do whatever it pleases, but Good has to adhere to a higher moral code. Those aren't double standards, those are different standards.
You're the one arguing against the fact that the Lawful have to abide by a code and disciplined set of behavior...it is what it means to be Lawful. Chaotics can act without adherence to any kind of a code whatsoever...including acting like they have a code.
That is ALSO two different standards.
if you are saying that is NOT true, then please, explain it to me. Explain how Law is unrestricted, chaos must adhere to a code, good doesn't have to be moral, and evil must always be immoral. I'd LOVE to hear that defense.
==Aelryinth
Mechanically, casting a good spell turns you good, casting an evil one turns you evil. They are evil/good acts respectively. That's what you argued against earlier. You said it was okay for evil to cast good and stay evil, but if good used evil it was evil. It is a double standard your using, in the same situation evil and chaotic are always favored, given more options and don't get a strike against them, but good and lawful almost always have a strike against them because they aren't given the same freedom(held to a higher standard/code). Your attempts to justify it are also very one sided, because lawful and good don't look attractive, they look very unappealing from the view that they don't get to do as much or that they have to act a certain way, but chaotic and evil get all this freedom of choice, even to use good and lawful actions!
This is probably way off topic in a thread about cows.