| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i accept those beings may have some genocidal and racist members, but i won't accept that an entire race is genocidal or racist.
yes, the majority of orcs, demons and such might be racist and genocidal, but there would be a handful of exceptions that aren't.
Then this is a major problem Umbriere. Your entire analysis is an apples vs piston rods argument.
Because you are rejecting out of hand a fundamental premise of the game these people are playing. In other words you are asserting that in THEIR WORLDS, that THEY MADE UP, creatures MUST conform to your expectations, and that races of wholly irredeemable monsters can't exist. Period.
That's a problem Umbriere, not because those people are gaming wrong, but because you won't accept a fundamental premise of the way they game.
Because, I suppose, you just think you know better or something.
i don't know why, but it hurts my immersion when a character doesn't choose to be evil, but is born evil due to their species.
the whole "Orcs are Evil because they are Orcs" makes no sense to me. now, a background that encouraged the majority of Orcs to make choices with evil inclination, i can understand, the issue, isn't that "orcs are always evil", it's when there is no reason to explain "why orcs are evil."
my opinion, is that the culture of a species would vary with the setting, and every setting should have a cultural explanation for the species ethnic group in question, i can handle the species in the bestiaries if the included a more detailed explanation of their cultures rather than focusing exclusively on their stats.
for hybrid races, i can assume their culture is based off the parent species that raised them
but "if orcs are evil" then i want to know "why orcs are evil."
in my opinion, alignment should be a choice, and if the majority of a species chooses to follow a given path, there better be a good cultural reason why.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umbriere, why are you so insistent that other people game according to your expectations and preferences?
Why is it important to you that other people game in a way that "makes sense to you?"
Do you consider Chess to be a racist game? Chess is an abstraction, and the chess pieces are supposed to represent different armies. But one is black the other is white, and each attacks the other with utter intent to destroy.
Pathfinder is not the real world. It is an abstraction with rules to allow people to game.
Just like Chess.
If you want to play the game with morally flexible goblins, orcs and frickin' DEMONS nobody is stopping you. Why do you insist that people play the way you want to play, or else they are racists?
Based on your continued insistence on pursuing your perspective, I doubt you will acknowledge my points here, but I have to think the vast majority of readers are seeing this and saying "yeah, what's up with that? Why does everyone have to play according to Umbriere's rules or else they are racist?"
Umbriere, why are you so insistent that other people game according to your expectations and preferences?
Why is it important to you that other people game in a way that "makes sense to you?"
Do you consider Chess to be a racist game? Chess is an abstraction, and the chess pieces are supposed to represent different armies. But one is black the other is white, and each attacks the other with utter intent to destroy.
Pathfinder is not the real world. It is an abstraction with rules to allow people to game.
Just like Chess.
If you want to play the game with morally flexible goblins, orcs and frickin' DEMONS nobody is stopping you. Why do you insist that people play the way you want to play, or else they are racists?
Based on your continued insistence on pursuing your perspective, I doubt you will acknowledge my points here, but I have to think the vast majority of readers are seeing this and saying "yeah, what's up with that? Why does everyone have to play according to Umbriere's rules or else they are racist?"
i guess i have become the opposite of what i pursued
in pushing the concept that not every member of a specific abstract race or culture needs to be identical, i seem to be unintentionally pushing for a different form of uniformity
i guess as punishment for transgression against my own objectives, i shall harm myself by hammering my face against the wall until it hurts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually agree with Umbriere's premise, I just don't care if other people follow that methodology or not :P I just know that in my games, the whole "this race is evil because they're this race" never happens. As she said "a background that encouraged the majority of Orcs to make choices with evil inclination" might be common, but that doesn't mean they're all gonna be evil.
Also: I've only ever encountered one character in any game that I played/gm'd that was "murder hobo", and the party killed him for being a prick.
I actually agree with Umbriere's premise, I just don't care if other people follow that methodology or not :P I just know that in my games, the whole "this race is evil because they're this race" never happens. As she said "a background that encouraged the majority of Orcs to make choices with evil inclination" might be common, but that doesn't mean they're all gonna be evil.
Also: I've only ever encountered one character in any game that I played/gm'd that was "murder hobo", and the party killed him for being a prick.
that is my point. said better than i ever could
the majority of orcs might have a history of related backgrounds that encouraged them to make choices with evil inclination if they grew up in a society that continued to encourage those choices, but you might have the rare orc who chooses to break the cycle, or even the rate orc whom grew up in a more civilized human society whom was raised by mostly human influential figures and makes choices with a different inclination than they would have had if they were raised by members of their parent races
but i prefer, if PCs try to be less Murderhoboey, it's just, that the murder hobo tendencies are bred and encouraged by attaching alignments to the species rather than the background. when you attach it to the background and personal choices, PCs will be less murderhoboey
the same race could produce multiple cultures with different reputations
as an example, maybe the "White Fang" Clan of Orcs, a fairly recent local to Oakshire, were driven out of their former home by a greedy dragon whom threatened their clan, and because of their massive numbers in recent years, they don't have enough food to feed their clan, so the "White Fang" took the difference they required by Raiding the people of Oakshire, the humans of Oakshire paint them as evil bandits in need of slaughter, but really, their people are simply starved and need to survive.
instead of the mission being "kill the orcs" being the only solution, the alternative solutions with proxy rewards attached could be, "Set up a peaceful resolution between Oakshire and the White Fang", "Defeat the Dragon that frightens the White Fang and restore their former home" or "Negotiate an arrangement with the dragon that helps the White Fang and stops the raids on Oakshire"
it could be a lot more interesting than "protect the town from the orcs" or "clear this orc infested den" and an example of fleshing out why the orcs are raiding
i personally like shades of grey and questionable yet flexible morality. but some people like having a species they can kill with relatively no qualms or social drawbacks.
My usual group enjoys making murder hobo jokes a lot. However since we heard the phrase our first goal in any game was to establish a home base or some place we can call home so we can say we aren't murder hobos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the reason we have "monstrous species" with "always evil alignments" is so players have something they can slaughter and pillage without moral or legal repercussions.
i personally like exotic species that have a motive for their actions and choices, something more than just "LOL WUR ORKS!" to me, a villains motive for villainy is very important, and makes a better excuse than using their species as a crutch
having "Always Evil Monsters" is the same as having "this species is a justified kill because they are evil, but this species is bad to kill because they are good." it encourages, breeds and justifies murderhobos whom can slaughter massive volumes of a given creature without any moral stain because "LULS DER EVUL!" but completely worry about the moral repercussions of fighting another race because "ROFL TER GUD!"
it breeds a form of in game racism, i know chess is an abstraction and know it isn't intended to be racist, but in my opinion, Slaughtering a Species because of what they were born is, is pretty darn racist. yes, in a lot of modules, Orcs raid human settlements, but the majority either never explained, often handwaived, forgotten about, or simply omitted, is why the Orcs are raiding the town in the first place.
throughout history, humans have raided the homes of other humans, are these humans any less evil than the orcs doing the raiding in a fantasy setting? but because they have green skin and sharp tusks, we have to demonize them further. the orcs don't even have the ability to oppose their demonization because they don't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me the issue is the existence of an objective alignment. We don't have that in the real world, but if it were a real, objective, detectable "thing" the way it is in Pathfinder, automatic prejudice against evil groups would be rational (and probably moral as well, by definition). It's also more reasonable to deem it an inheritable trait than it would be in reality (since "good" and "evil" are tangible concepts, rather than social constructs of some description).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, it still doesn't make all PC's actions not "much different than those of a bandit, pirate, mercenary, or thug."
Even leaving aside the "some races are always evil" argument, not all games involve slaughtering humanoids on sight. Some take a more nuanced approach and not all interactions are murderous. Some might involve fighting particular groups of humanoids that actually are a threat: say a group of bandits or a mercenary band working for some larger (possibly human?) evil. Some might not even involve such creatures at all.
I mentioned above one game in which our party freed a lizardman village from a group of elven slavers. Obviously we were racist murderhobos.
This.
I can honestly say all of my characters have been far more inclined to stab the guy trying to kill "monstrous" non-combatants than the other way around.
Total Murderhobos played: 0
Total Murderhobos slain/subdued: This is going to take a while...
|
Xather...etc.
I too resent the term Murder Hobo...
All the Murders the Pathfinder Society asks me to commit are done so in only the Finest of attire. At the very least I'm a Murder Fashioniesta.
Hobo indeed.. I have at least 5 outfits and a Hat of Disguise.. I use Prestidigitation hourly, whether I need it or not... When's the last time you saw a Hobo drinking Tea spot on 3:30pm! Hobo indeed..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. Banditry is only banditry when you don't get a cut of the loot, otherwise it is like collecting taxes or borrowing property indefinitely-- perfectly legal.1.says a representative of a Union of Wanderers whose primary profession involves slaughtering intelligent creatures like they were sheep and robbing valuable possessions from their corpses with little more than their own pursuit of wealth and power as a motivation
2.what does your organization do?
3.abduction for Ransom, your organization kidnapped 3 of my 8 younger sisters
4.conscription of the desperate, your organization abducted poor Rin and conscripted her, telling her promises of freedom, you turned her into a lowly sylph trapspringer for a random group of murder hobos
5.attempting to murder for loot and wealth without provocation. look at what you did to my Cousin Nera. he was simply playing the role of a worthy Nymph Blooded Female Calistrian Courtesan but because he was wearing nobles clothes, had a magic saber, and some of your representatives wanted his wealth and sabre, mistaking him for a woman, they pretended to hire his services, just so they could ambush him, leave him bleeding out and take his stuff. i barely made it in time to save him. not only did your people rob him, they horrible defaced his clothing and Etched "i am really male" upon his forehead in marvelous pigments. the poor actor had a major hit to his screen time, commonly used to portray wealthy female roles.
Dear Mrs. Moonwhisper,
We, the Golarion Union of Murderhoboes for the Betterment of Others, GUMBO, appreciate you inquiring with us in such a civil, respectful, calm, and rational manner. Hopefully we can answer your queries effectively below.
1. First off, those happen to be the minority of the things we do. Most of our day-to-day lives are spent in a wide variety of professions ranging from soldier to baker, from scribe to sailor, from herald to strumpet. We do it all. Many of us also clean streets, and windows, and spittoons as well as panhandle, do street performances, and engage in predatory lending. Secondly, Wealth and power are far from our primary motivation, usually it is entertainment. Besides, most people we kill fought back rather effectively. The only times that they get slaughtered like sheep is when they are up against one of our members doing this drug called "pahwurr gaimeng". Nasty side effects though, a complete and utter lack of personality in most cases, as well as delusions of grandeur and antisocial behavior with a tendency towards aggression.
2. We keep the lands of Golarion safe from the great evil overlords from beyond the veil of the Material Plane while also caring for our spouse and any children and kittens in our households. For more information, please visit your local union chapter and attend one of their open house meetings. There you will encounter a welcoming group of murderhoboes from your local community who will be sure to help you to see things our way by any means necessary.
3. That incident was the result of an ongoing custody dispute between the estranged parents, due to a series of public disturbances involving a wand of beguiling gift, cherry marmalade, and a hornet's nest. The town guard placed the children in protective services with us while the litigation was sorted out.
4. Rin did well and was quite happy for several years in the jobs we helped place her in. However, the recent recession has put all of us on harder times. We will be sure to keep her in our prayers.
5. We will not comment on this issue beyond stating that GUMBO is supportive of all lifestyles and decries any and all attempts to devalue those lifestyles. We take these sorts of issues with the utmost levels of seriousness and wish it to be known that they are not representative of the murderhobo union as a whole. We have cooperated with the higher authorities on this matter and can say that the individuals responsible have been forcibly excommunicated from the union and have also received suitable punishments for their heinous crimes. It is our sincere hope that the perpetrators' untimely accidental deaths after their hearings, as well as restitution in the form of all of their gear and loot, can make it up to Nera for all of his property and emotional damages suffered.
Thank you for your time, courtesy, and civility.
Sincerely yours,
~Jaspar "Shank Him Louis" Kahrdboordebachs~
your local GUMBO representative
P.S. OOC: In the future, I would like to avoid topics that touch on hate crimes like those discussed in your fifth paragraph. It is a sensitive subject for many people, including myself, and would like to see it handled in a tactful manner and discussed as something of the utmost seriousness. While it may make for a dramatic anecdote, it is not one that is appropriate for this context.
My group of players are not murderhobos, we're just trying to get to that one town. Everything we kill is in self-defense.
I kinda like Manslaughter Nomad. More accurate, but it doesn't roll of the tongue ligue Murder Hobo does...
Also since the Union rep is here I would request you tell these people to stop using our word. The politically correct term is "Adventurer". Only a murderhobo should be able to call people murderhobos. Less Lawful murderhobos can, will and have killed NPCs for that kind of insult.
Also I would like to point out that the murderhobo code is completely against hate crimes of any type. Murderhobos can come from any walk of life and be from any race, species, gender, alignment or religion. In fact, we actively encourage people from marginalized subgroups from society to join in as murderhobos, we offer freedom from accepted roles in society, great economic mobility and enormous opportunity to meet new peoples and experience new cultures.
And while the code is not specifically against the selling of living sophonts, it's well know that only Evil aligned adventurers dabble in that sort of thing.
Besmirching the name of all murderhobos because of a few with Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid alignments is derogatory, perjorative and frankly prejudiced.
Regardless, it still doesn't make all PC's actions not "much different than those of a bandit, pirate, mercenary, or thug."
Even leaving aside the "some races are always evil" argument, not all games involve slaughtering humanoids on sight. Some take a more nuanced approach and not all interactions are murderous. Some might involve fighting particular groups of humanoids that actually are a threat: say a group of bandits or a mercenary band working for some larger (possibly human?) evil. Some might not even involve such creatures at all.
I mentioned above one game in which our party freed a lizardman village from a group of elven slavers. Obviously we were racist murderhobos.
In our kingmaker campaign, we did what we needed to to eliminate the violent threat of the Boggards, the kobolds, the lizard men .... And then invited the remainder into our kingdom, and spent tons of build money building up cities for them. And no, not an evil party.
We did have to do a bit of religious prostletizing to try to gradually convert them towards calistria instead of demon lords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need a definition of murderhobo that everyone can agree on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need a definition of murderhobo that everyone can agree on.
Yes! Let's start a half-dozen threads where we all argue that our particular favorite definition of the word is the one true definition. It'll be just like the time we did the same thing with powergamer/munchkin/minmaxer. That was very productive!
I actually agree with Umbriere's premise, I just don't care if other people follow that methodology or not :P I just know that in my games, the whole "this race is evil because they're this race" never happens. As she said "a background that encouraged the majority of Orcs to make choices with evil inclination" might be common, but that doesn't mean they're all gonna be evil.
Also: I've only ever encountered one character in any game that I played/gm'd that was "murder hobo", and the party killed him for being a prick.
Fly, I pointed out in my first response to Umbriere that I was making a general defense. Like you I actually tend to play similarly to how Umbriere does too. But that doesn't mean I think people who play with unrepentent irredeemable monsters are racist. Which is all I was pointing out.
Geez AD, now you're talking like the game designers shouldn't consider the feeling of orc or goblin customers at all when they portray them in-game . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh... nice HD
I actually think this is a worthwhile discussion to have, in spite of the complaints that we should focus our efforts on all the other real world -isms that cry out for being addressed. In the final analysis this is still a GAME to most people, not a cultural responsibility simulation. My Chess analogy was carefully considered, because I think there is a completely valid and reasonable argument that you can play Pathfinder at different levels of "realism" not only in the areas of magic or human limitations, but also in terms of cultural differences.
Just as Chess ignores the moral implications of knights slaughtering pawns, it is, to me, a perfectly acceptable way to play Pathfinder to create races of unrepentant, irredeemable monsters whose purpose is to allow people to be heroic and nothing more.
That doesn't mean that it is appropriate to simply embark on indiscriminate slaughter of even those irredeemable races, and frankly I have never seen that in any published AP or module, it is always presented as the irredeemable races have raided a town and the town now needs to be defended, the enslaved captives released and the monsters pushed back from the town's borders.
That's just one level of cultural abstraction. Another level of cultural abstraction is the level where there are no irredeemable races and all races are presented as analogues to human races, and the game can then provide a useful lesson in diversity and sensitivity.
The game works both ways. It can be played both ways without one way being "right" and the other being "wrong."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to negatively comment on this thread, but it has turned out to be a damned interesting read.
Because, I suppose, you just think you know their world better than they do or something.
It's surprising how many very vocal posters on this board think they know the game better than it's designers, and that they could do a better job of designing a game, even tho they have never published anything.
I actually agree with Umbriere's premise, I just don't care if other people follow that methodology or not :P I just know that in my games, the whole "this race is evil because they're this race" never happens.
And, that's a great homebrew campaign setting. But it's not Golarion.
Have you or Umbriere ever played a wargame? Even one as simple as Risk? You know you're killing millions and millions of people, right? Do you stop and ponder the morality of that, or is a a Game, where the Red pieces are your enemy and you can't win and have fun unless you eliminate them?
Just for the sake of comparison, my own campaign world has some "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters" that are "kill on sight" for most good-aligned adventurers. But those aren't kobolds, goblins, lizardfolk, orcs, etc.
Those do definitely include demons though. As well as my own version of mind-flayers. They eat the brains of sentient species. That's universally acknowledged by the powers in my world to be an actual threat. Skeletons, zombies, ghouls and most of that sort of undead are also "destroy on sight" targets.
It is quite possible to run into a goblin or orc in a city or village, and while they may find it difficult to be trusted, in most places they would be allowed to take care of their business without being molested by the locals. Unless there is an active conflict between races going on, which happens from time to time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, I suppose, you just think you know their world better than they do or something.It's surprising how many very vocal posters on this board think they know the game better than it's designers, and that they could do a better job of designing a game, even tho they have never published anything.
Lets not go there. Safe to say some of us could, some of us couldn't, and that this is something that we shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a murderhobo ate your baby!The union kindly requests that you recant and apologize for this slander.
We all know that murderhoboes, adventurer or otherwise, are a goodly people who do not deign to eat babies. We just kill, abduct, sell, or conscript them. Cannibalism is immoral and wrong and as such is solely the purview of the evil and insane, not murderhoboes.
Please apologize in a timely fashion, it would be quite unfortunate if something untimely were to happen to you in a secluded gutter of the city streets...
Sincerely yours,
~Jaspar "Shank Him Louis" Kahrdboordebachs~
your local GUMBO representativeP.S. Banditry is only banditry when you don't get a cut of the loot, otherwise it is like collecting taxes or borrowing property indefinitely-- perfectly legal.
Thank you for your kind request.
We ask that you bring your complaint in person to 1 Under the Mountain Plaza and wait patiently under the murder holes for the receptionists.
|
Lets not go there. Safe to say some of us could, some of us couldn't, and that this is something that we shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.Because, I suppose, you just think you know their world better than they do or something.It's surprising how many very vocal posters on this board think they know the game better than it's designers, and that they could do a better job of designing a game, even tho they have never published anything.
But if we shouldn't be touching stuff with the ten foot pole. Why does the ten foot pole even exist.
But if we shouldn't be touching stuff with the ten foot pole. Why does the ten foot pole even exist.Lets not go there. Safe to say some of us could, some of us couldn't, and that this is something that we shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.Because, I suppose, you just think you know their world better than they do or something.It's surprising how many very vocal posters on this board think they know the game better than it's designers, and that they could do a better job of designing a game, even tho they have never published anything.
Activating switches and buttons without having to climb over/disable traps around/in front of/below them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if we shouldn't be touching stuff with the ten foot pole. Why does the ten foot pole even exist.Lets not go there. Safe to say some of us could, some of us couldn't, and that this is something that we shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.Because, I suppose, you just think you know their world better than they do or something.It's surprising how many very vocal posters on this board think they know the game better than it's designers, and that they could do a better job of designing a game, even tho they have never published anything.
To touch the things you want to touch with a ten foot pole of course! I use it to check for traps and get things from high places.
|
|
I actually agree with Umbriere's premise, I just don't care if other people follow that methodology or not :P I just know that in my games, the whole "this race is evil because they're this race" never happens.And, that's a great homebrew campaign setting. But it's not Golarion.
Have you or Umbriere ever played a wargame? Even one as simple as Risk? You know you're killing millions and millions of people, right? Do you stop and ponder the morality of that, or is a a Game, where the Red pieces are your enemy and you can't win and have fun unless you eliminate them?
Actually, DrDeth, this does occur in Golarion. The exceptions to the alignment rule within Golarion off the top of my head:
The point is, the alignments in the bestiary represent the general leaning of the creature type, but there are exceptions to every rule, usually represented via NPCs of note. But these are the "exceptions to the rule", so perhaps not quite to the extent FlySkyHigh and Umbriere are talking.
|
I actually agree with Umbriere's premise, I just don't care if other people follow that methodology or not :P I just know that in my games, the whole "this race is evil because they're this race" never happens.And, that's a great homebrew campaign setting. But it's not Golarion.
Have you or Umbriere ever played a wargame? Even one as simple as Risk? You know you're killing millions and millions of people, right? Do you stop and ponder the morality of that, or is a a Game, where the Red pieces are your enemy and you can't win and have fun unless you eliminate them?
Actually, DrDeth, this does occur in Golarion. The exceptions to the alignment rule within Golarion off the top of my head:
** spoiler omitted **The point is, the alignments in the bestiary represent the general leaning of the creature type, but there are exceptions to every rule, usually represented via NPCs of note. But these are the "exceptions to the rule", so perhaps not quite to the extent FlySkyHigh and Umbriere are talking.
What I'm trying to figure out is why there's a chaotic aligned devil running around in Golarion. A neutral succubus I could understand, given the right set of circumstances, but a chaotic devil? Wut
|
|
Succubi are demons, not devils.
No one implied that a succubus was a devil rather than a demon.
As for that devil being the exception, yeah.. an exception that doesn't make sense. I guess it's no more odd than the good aligned red dragon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Succubi are demons, not devils.No one implied that a succubus was a devil rather than a demon.
As for that devil being the exception, yeah.. an exception that doesn't make sense. I guess it's no more odd than the good aligned red dragon.
Where are you getting devil, then? No one's mentioned devils except you.
|
|
Where are you getting devil, then? No one's mentioned devils except you.Succubi are demons, not devils.No one implied that a succubus was a devil rather than a demon.
As for that devil being the exception, yeah.. an exception that doesn't make sense. I guess it's no more odd than the good aligned red dragon.
I was merely mentioning the presence of a devil that has a chaotic alignment in Golarion. The conversation veered off somewhat into the subject of strange alignments. Didn't seem like a bad point to make note of that. ... In hindsight, I should have brought up the good aligned quasit instead. That one is even more confusing than the chaotic devil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never heard of either of those. Are they from a particular adventure or are you just presenting the ideas for purposes of argument/discussion?
Zylph's post that you quoted was mentioning actual published NPCs from various adventures, and in that context your response seems like it's hinting at either the mistaken assumption that the succubus mentioned was a devil (which we've since proven is not what you meant) or that you're referencing some event or character I'm not familiar with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would I say that all pathfinder players are murderhobos? Definitely not.
Would I say *most* pathfinder players are murderhobos? No.
Would I say *more than half* of pathfinder players are murderhobos? I hope not.
Evil as objective or subjective aside, I sure *prefer* a campaign where we get a chance to talk to things and *prefer* having opportunities to sort things out without battle every time. Even against evil opponents like demons and devils. Attacks without conversations should only happen against low intelligence creatures.... Honeybadgers and stuff.
I also *prefer* campaigns where if you run across a bear cave you can choose to let the bear family live... Even if the bear attacks you. Beat it down to 0 with non lethal and then give it a chance to run off. If the bear has cubs in the cave giving it reasonable motivation not to back down, then beat it down to 0 non lethal then stabilize it and leave it to its fate if it won't back down. I'm a big fan of the 'non lethal damage mechanic' and think its underutilized. The murderhobo question is really to me, how often would your party push that issue. Once you know the bear is just defending its family is your game's style the kind where you have the option to let it live or is it always oh look. Living things with teeth. Must find out if they bleed. Must check to see if they have rich stuff trapped inside their aorta. Evil npc? Kill on sight. Smug npc? Kill on sight. Long winded npc? Kill on sight. Boring npc and party has nothing better to do and no witnesses? Lawful good npc with loot someone in your party has been looking for for a long time? What's your alignment? Who cares! Kill on sight!
Those kinds of players definitely exist. Are they a majority? I have no idea. I doubt it. I hope not.
My above post is pretty much a perfect example of my personal view and the grayness of the term murderhobo. Do I think a bearcave with bearcubs is something I as a good character would kill? No. Are there people in my party who play good characters and paladins who wouldn't heistate to puree that bearcave cubs and all even if the bear didnt attack and wasn't 'harrassing the villagers' and didnt have any loot? Yes and I *prefer* campaigns where they don't.
Its not a badwrong way to play I suppose. I just *prefer* the alternative.
I wouldnt accuse the whole of pathfinder gamers to be murderhobos. There are a lot of them out there for sure. But thats not saying much. Of course there are. Gaming, like life, takes all kinds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You say be-devil, and I say be-demon, you say be-lawful, and I say be-chaotic. Be-devil, be-demon, be-lawful, be-chaotic, let's call the whole thing off!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TheBeard I would really like to know where the good aligned red dragon showed up. That could be tons of fun for twisting around my players brains. If it's part of something already published, I'll tweak it as needed to fit the campaign; if it's not, then it's creation time. :)
One of the first epic campaigns I ran in my campaign world was called "Dragon Wars" and it was a period when the metallic and chromatic dragons were engaged in all-out war against one another.
There were a couple of red dragons that used to polymorph into gold dragons and go on rampages to get the humanoids to declare war on the metallic dragons. The PC party had to locate and neutralize the red dragons doing that.
Good times.
|
|
One of the first epic campaigns I ran in my campaign world was called "Dragon Wars" and it was a period when the metallic and chromatic dragons were engaged in all-out war against one another.
There were a couple of red dragons that used to polymorph into gold dragons and go on rampages to get the humanoids to declare war on the metallic dragons. The PC party had to locate and neutralize the red dragons doing that.
Good times.
I played in something very similar to that around fifteen years ago, give or take. Had a pretty good time with it. The GM had us all roll up characters utilizing a variant of the half-dragon template. Party objective was to try and form some kind of connection between the metallic dragons (at that time, many still saw humanoids as nothing more than food in that world) and the dominant humanoid races (dwarf, elf, human, etc.). To do this, this group joined them in the war against the chromatic dragons. At first it was less so participating in the war and more so hey, we just helped you without you needing to do anything. Once trust was earned, they were officially conscripted by the various varieties corresponding to what their own draconic blood came from.
Good times indeed.
To the ones curious about the alignment debacle: I believe the red was something a GM introduced just to confuse the party; it worked. The good quasit, on the other hand, has a very brief appearance in some material. I heard about it from a friend of mine that frequently runs games from various printed materials. I'm not sure what it appears in, but I want to have a character learned in the lower planes meet it for the sheer, utter confusion it would cause that individual. That conflicts so strongly with the very nature of quasits that I believe I would ask the GM if they would allow my character to take con and/or INT damage from a what the eff induced aneurysm, and the subsequent nosebleed of legendary proportions.