Pathfinder? have you tried looking from the monsters' perspective?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

My players very frequently take prisoners* from their fights regardless of race, so there is inevitably some interaction and most motivations for having attacked first boils down to "We've been fighting and losing for so long, we can't wait for the first strike!" The PCs are still low level, so this is fairly common, but as they level up they're going to run into a few creatures that would have the luxury of discretion in when they exercise violence, and they'll likely start having more diverse motivations.

* = Prisoners that the group has on separate occasions decided to torture, execute, release to send warnings/relay messages, give to local authorities for arrest and on one occasion, gratifying a character's sexual appetites.


PF really needs a better system for scoring knockouts instead of dying. I'm thinking of just adopting the 4e 'he who takes them below zero can claim a KO instead of a kill'.

Liberty's Edge

Zhayne wrote:

How long have you been playing, Deadmanwalking? If you were around in the really early parts of the game, especially when Gygax still had an active hand in it, you'd know that was specifically encouraged by the game.

The fantasy racism was so ingrained into Gygax's vision of the game that there was a chart in the 1e AD&D Player's Handbook telling you how the PC races were to interact with one another.

Over 15 years now. Starting with AD&D 2E...though I admittedly skipped most of the 3.0/3.5 era.

So...not quite that far back. :)


This always bothered me as well. I figured a solution in my game world. Orc, goblins, etc. are good, and in their place are what I call 'Children of Rovagug', beings of pure evil without souls that reproduce asexually by budding. The different types have the same stats as the bestiary orcs and goblins(I use either my own or 3PP stats for good orcs). Players can freely kill them with no guilt whatsoever.
I'd really like to run a group through my world, but I'm afraid how they'd react to such differences.


Barong wrote:
This always bothered me as well. I figured a solution in my game world. Orc, goblins, etc. are good, and in their place are what I call 'Children of Rovagug', beings of pure evil without souls that reproduce asexually by budding. The different types have the same stats as the bestiary orcs and goblins(I use either my own or 3PP stats for good orcs). Players can freely kill them with no guilt whatsoever. I'd really like to run a group through my world, but I'm afraid how they'd react to such differences.

Oh neat, you could in fact have them be Rovagug copies of existing races, but twisted in some way through chaos and malice. Do it for more than just the green skins.

Like that idea.


Teatime42 wrote:
Barong wrote:
This always bothered me as well. I figured a solution in my game world. Orc, goblins, etc. are good, and in their place are what I call 'Children of Rovagug', beings of pure evil without souls that reproduce asexually by budding. The different types have the same stats as the bestiary orcs and goblins(I use either my own or 3PP stats for good orcs). Players can freely kill them with no guilt whatsoever. I'd really like to run a group through my world, but I'm afraid how they'd react to such differences.

Oh neat, you could in fact have them be Rovagug copies of existing races, but twisted in some way through chaos and malice. Do it for more than just the green skins.

Like that idea.

Hah, I didn't expect anyone to actually like my idea :)! Thanks!

These 'children' are like minor spawn of Rovagug. In my game world, the orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears(rather modified though) are good and the 'children' take their places as PC fodder. Other monsters, like trolls, giants, mindflayers, I still play the traditional way though.
It's interesting because I heard the drow were created by elves being exposed to Rovagug's energies, and I came up with this idea before I read that!


Quote:

You forgot gnomes and kender in the first sentence.

Not sure why "pale faced" or "ghost faced" or more than likely human. This seems to infer that murderhobo PCs are white and Medium sized - not ethnically diverse or worse, drow or half-orc or fallen-angelic dragonblooded half hound-archon/half tiefling/half manbearpig flailsnails. Or that you can't have a bevy of murderous kobolds, goblins, gnomes, kender or vitriolic vegepygmies. Your post is unbearably heightist. And smacks of some kind of privilege. Perhaps non-murderhobo privilege. I haven't decided yet.

human is the dominant powergamer race often chosen for the extra feat, and most humans, regardless of how dark they are, are usually paler than a goblin or orc and in my own setting, i made drow default to albino due to their subterranian life, and well, no Sane Dungeon Master would allow the massive template mashup. Goblins and Vegepygmies are usually being slaughtered, and i have never seen a table that allows gnomes or kender.

"Ghost Faced Predator" or "pale faced giant" are the orcish and goblin terms for humans, not because all humans are white, but because the darkest humans aren't as dark as an Orc or Goblin or appear to be a reference to how the human face shines brightly in the moonlight. the pale or ghostness is a reference to the moonlight sheen.

Shadow Lodge

Try be goblin!

Liberty's Edge

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
and i have never seen a table that allows gnomes or kender.

Wait...you've never been in a game that allowed gnomes?!

That's...about as weird as the murderhobo thing I mentioned earlier. I've never seen a game that disallowed them. Not that I see a lot of people playing them...but there've been a few (a Bard and a Sorcerer in games I've run leap to mind).

Is flat out banning one of the core races really as common as all that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Moral ambiguity has its place, yet be careful not to overdo it.

Most of my Pathfinder groups have individuals that do not seek fights simply for the sake of XP, they are concerned with their character's motivations. See a group of random goblins? Avoid them. See a wrecked caravan with goblin tracks? Seek the tracks and appraise the situation. If the goblins are guilty of raiding simply to raid, then stop them. My groups tend to go the extra mile to make sure the people they fight are indeed the guilty party.

Still, too much moral ambiguity can lead concerned groups to face inactivity because they no longer know what the right thing to do is.

Particularly with Pathfinder. Pathfinder is a game that rewards people by gaining XP to gain levels, and has a concrete morality axis that can affect spells and class features.

If you really wish to see things from the monster's point of view, perhaps a game like ones that White Wolf published would be better suited? (Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, etc.)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
and i have never seen a table that allows gnomes or kender.

Wait...you've never been in a game that allowed gnomes?!

That's...about as weird as the murderhobo thing I mentioned earlier. I've never seen a game that disallowed them. Not that I see a lot of people playing them...but there've been a few (a Bard and a Sorcerer in games I've run leap to mind).

Is flat out banning one of the core races really as common as all that?

i never have. gnomes frequently get banned for the same reasons as kender, goblins and halflings. past experiences with immature players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always kinda disliked Gnomes as a rule of thumb, but I don't think I would go so far as to ban them. Different experiences though, to each their own.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


"Ghost Faced Predator" or "pale faced giant" are the orcish and goblin terms for humans, not because all humans are white, but because the darkest humans aren't as dark as an Orc or Goblin or appear to be a reference to how the human face shines brightly in the moonlight. the pale or ghostness is a reference to the moonlight sheen.

Hmmm. You must not know too many black people. Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc. One reason why I'm careful not to use skin lightness or darkness to describe monstrous humanoids - some of the people I grew up with would take offense.

Shadow Lodge

Guang wrote:
Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc.

You do realize that orcs, being imaginary, are as dark as the person describign them desires, right?


Kthulhu wrote:
Guang wrote:
Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc.
You do realize that orcs, being imaginary, are as dark as the person describign them desires, right?

True. But unless they are being described as dark as a black pen's ink, some of the people I was raised with were/are darker. Not all black people are as light as Obama. And if Orcs were being described as that dark, even more would take offense as they would see it as the embodiment of a stereotype.

Why do you think orcs and goblins are often described as greenish? Some of the terms used to describe monsters (and people) by Tolkien are now considered offensive, at least where I was raised.


Guang wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


"Ghost Faced Predator" or "pale faced giant" are the orcish and goblin terms for humans, not because all humans are white, but because the darkest humans aren't as dark as an Orc or Goblin or appear to be a reference to how the human face shines brightly in the moonlight. the pale or ghostness is a reference to the moonlight sheen.

Hmmm. You must not know too many black people. Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc. One reason why I'm careful not to use skin lightness or darkness to describe monstrous humanoids - some of the people I grew up with would take offense.

a lot of the african americans, middle eastern americans, and asian americans i grew up around weren't really that dark and skin lightness is not a good descriptor to use, but you can blame a few old DM's of mine for using the term and teaching me the habit.

but i live in redding and well, in redding, there is not much proper exposure to other cultures, let alone other colors.


Guang wrote:


True. But unless they are being described as dark as a black pen's ink, some of the people I was raised with were/are darker. Not all black people are as light as Obama. And if Orcs were being described as that dark, even more would take offense as they would see it as the embodiment of a stereotype.

Why do you think orcs and goblins are often described as greenish? Some of the terms used to describe monsters (and people) by Tolkien are now considered offensive, at least where I was raised.

Suddenly Darkfolk feel racist.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Guang wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


"Ghost Faced Predator" or "pale faced giant" are the orcish and goblin terms for humans, not because all humans are white, but because the darkest humans aren't as dark as an Orc or Goblin or appear to be a reference to how the human face shines brightly in the moonlight. the pale or ghostness is a reference to the moonlight sheen.

Hmmm. You must not know too many black people. Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc. One reason why I'm careful not to use skin lightness or darkness to describe monstrous humanoids - some of the people I grew up with would take offense.

a lot of the african americans, middle eastern americans, and asian americans i grew up around weren't really that dark and skin lightness is not a good descriptor to use, but you can blame a few old DM's of mine for using the term and teaching me the habit.

but i live in redding and well, in redding, there is not much proper exposure to other cultures, let alone other colors.

Makes sense. Our fantasies reflect what we are familiar with. Either that or a reaction against what we're familiar with. And just to be clear - I don't blame you or anyone else, and I'm not saying it's racist in your environment. If I tried it in my environment, I'd get the evil eye from some people. I just had a mental image of how oily-skinned some people I know would have to get in order to reflect moonlight. I think the descriptions work fine when most people in an area, in-game and out, are "not really that dark".


Guang wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Guang wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


"Ghost Faced Predator" or "pale faced giant" are the orcish and goblin terms for humans, not because all humans are white, but because the darkest humans aren't as dark as an Orc or Goblin or appear to be a reference to how the human face shines brightly in the moonlight. the pale or ghostness is a reference to the moonlight sheen.

Hmmm. You must not know too many black people. Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc. One reason why I'm careful not to use skin lightness or darkness to describe monstrous humanoids - some of the people I grew up with would take offense.

a lot of the african americans, middle eastern americans, and asian americans i grew up around weren't really that dark and skin lightness is not a good descriptor to use, but you can blame a few old DM's of mine for using the term and teaching me the habit.

but i live in redding and well, in redding, there is not much proper exposure to other cultures, let alone other colors.

Makes sense. Our fantasies reflect what we are familiar with. Either that or a reaction against what we're familiar with. And just to be clear - I don't blame you or anyone else, and I'm not saying it's racist in your environment. If I tried it in my environment, I'd get the evil eye from some people. I just had a mental image of how oily-skinned some people I know would have to get in order to reflect moonlight. I think the descriptions work fine when most people in an area, in-game and out, are "not really that dark".

truesies


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Guang wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:


"Ghost Faced Predator" or "pale faced giant" are the orcish and goblin terms for humans, not because all humans are white, but because the darkest humans aren't as dark as an Orc or Goblin or appear to be a reference to how the human face shines brightly in the moonlight. the pale or ghostness is a reference to the moonlight sheen.

Hmmm. You must not know too many black people. Where I come from, there are many people with skin darker than the darkest orc. One reason why I'm careful not to use skin lightness or darkness to describe monstrous humanoids - some of the people I grew up with would take offense.

a lot of the african americans, middle eastern americans, and asian americans i grew up around weren't really that dark and skin lightness is not a good descriptor to use, but you can blame a few old DM's of mine for using the term and teaching me the habit.

but i live in redding and well, in redding, there is not much proper exposure to other cultures, let alone other colors.

Long-legs, Stump Nose, White-Eyes, Stump-claws could all be different ways for monsters to refer to humanoids and the like. If they're the sort of monsters that eat people, they could alternatively call them tall-beef, tall-pork, tall-sheep. Of course Long-Pork is/was a term used to refer to people with regards to eating them, so changing it slightly to distance things is up to you.

Thin-hides (skin confers no natural armor), soft-pads (feet easily injured, not applicable to halflings), or brood demons (seriously, humans reproduce with ANYTHING in Golarion, though not always by consent) could work too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I run once a Monster party for fun.

The monsters was tired form got their kind killed by the heroes... so they manage to go in party to confront them.

The party was this:
Treant Paladin
Dryad Rogue
Aranea Assassin
Ettin (one head as a barbarian, the other one as a sorcerer)
Ooze Barbarian

t´was fun, the aranea live in the treant branches, and the dryad has that same treant as a tree selected (i can´t remember where do i get that the dryads have to be attached to a tree, so treant is a tree in most ways so...)

Ettin Barbarian/sorcerer (we rol phisical stat first and mentals for each head)

Ooze can now move at higher speeds and when enter in rage, he now show some bubbles from inside itself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I was completely fine with everything until the ooze barbarian.


You do realize that orcs, being imaginary, are as dark as the person describign them desires, right?

Also true of orc alignment, and culture, and alignment and culture of any other completely fictional creature.

Yet whenever anyone brings up the possibility of describing orcs or goblins or drow as being neutral or *gasp* having personalities or cultures beyond 'something you are suppose to kill', there are people whining about it automatically being Twilight.


Bandw2 wrote:

I was completely fine with everything until the ooze barbarian.

Hmm? Got a problem with ooze pc's?


I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

doesn't mean the ooze barbarian can't gain the benefit of rage powers, because the rage powers aren't morale bonuses like the stat bonuses are,


Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

it's more like... oozes are mindless, and barbarians represent natural rage as a fighting style.

I just imagine a REALLY angry moving puddle.

i don't have a "OMG YOU CAN'T PLAY THAT" issue. it was just everything clicked until that, and i was kinda like... wait a second.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.

screw that i want to be a sphere and eat people if i play a ooze. :P


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.

Elementals are not mindless. They are also not immune to mind-affecting abilities. Why would they need to be awakened?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.
Elementals are not mindless. They are also not immune to mind-affecting abilities. Why would they need to be awakened?

i thought this too... i mean fire elementals just love burning things, they're not only that though. they can even taken humanoid form.

elementals just have below average intelligence compared to higher planar beings because they're simpler.


Thats a very nice idea at all!!
Maybe if you create a feat called Multiform or Ooze shift shape.

The Ettin Barbarian/Sorcere also, was a great monster who prevails for many campaigns, he becomes a legend...

TrogGrot
The Untiped human hunter

Trog the barbarian (lvl 5) and Grot the magician (Sor 4) was his name.
While Trog was raging, Grot cast spells (mostly true strike or daze, or grease).

So in a FRA Can charge while casting at all (he fails a lot of concentration checks, because his body moves a lot), and Trog swung a greatsword in one hand...

He brokes a lot of RAW, for good, and after the original party, he becomes a bounty hunter for the monster sake, until he was killed by a Contract target... an NPC who players want dead and ask Trog for the job.

Many of my players ask me for rebuild Grot the magician as a Shaman, and Trog as a Bloodrager but he was killed, there´s only one TrogGrot Npc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

it's more like... oozes are mindless, and barbarians represent natural rage as a fighting style.

I just imagine a REALLY angry moving puddle.

i don't have a "OMG YOU CAN'T PLAY THAT" issue. it was just everything clicked until that, and i was kinda like... wait a second.

I'm all like "When play-doh attacks!"

I mean have you tried to get play-doh out of the carpet?


I guess what I'm saying is, I very much think oozes should have Skald as a special favored class.


When i write a setting there is no such thing as an evil race, aside from maybe creatures that are evil incarnate like demons. Sometimes I allude to the classic tropes by giving a race a position or a cultural quirk that make them come off as evil to the majority of other races. For example in the current setting i'm writing, elves, gnomes and goblins all come from the same place, but while elves and gnomes had an instinctive attunement to nature, they could easily live a tree-hugging livestyle, while goblins were at constant odds with their environment, having to destroy parts of it in order to survive. This gave them a bad reputation with the elves and gnomes and was the source for many conflicts.

Similarly dark elves, who came around much later, live in an environment where everything is scarce except for dead people, so they build their economy around necromancy and have a heavily regulated system on how to create unded and how to use them. This of course doesn't jive so well with their cousins.

But no race or culture in my setting is actually evil.


Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.
Elementals are not mindless. They are also not immune to mind-affecting abilities. Why would they need to be awakened?

i thought this too... i mean fire elementals just love burning things, they're not only that though. they can even taken humanoid form.

elementals just have below average intelligence compared to higher planar beings because they're simpler.

elementals would need to be awakened if you intended to play them as a PC, because that 4 intelligence means they are barely above an animal companion, and i want to see playable elemental skill monkeys and spellcasters.


The last few months of D&D 3.5 time had an interesting take on the Devils' point of view. In the Fiendish Codex Volume II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells, Devils were originally Angels that had been given divine assignment to punish mortals who were incorrigibly summoning in Demons that kept trashing the world. Since the punishments weren't achieving the desired results, these Angels were instructed to punish the mortals harder, but the gruesomeness of the punishment was too unpleasant for the deities of the Upper Planes to be willing to keep out in the open, so the deities of the Upper Planes kept telling the future Devils to take it somewhere else, eventually leading to the Devils moving (under the leadership of Asmodeus) to what they made into the Nine Hells, while they were also being transformed to more diabolical forms and eventually their current Devil forms by the cruelties they had to practice, and operating under contract with the deities of the Upper Planes to punish the souls of sinners. In other words, they didn't fall because they disobeyed their divine orders -- they fell because THEY WERE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO (according to their orders). The Devils' backstory ends up with the note "Regardless of whether or not any of the above actually happened, it is absolutely true".

Now, this doesn't seem to fit with the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (although it could if enough really early history is hidden), but it is a really creative take on the Devils' origin story and point of view. As far as I know, it was the LAST good printed thing out of WotC before 4th Edition hosed everything (and most of the late 3.5 stuff seemed pretty bad too).

Abraham spalding wrote:
Yes.

Ah, yes, the "Monster" orphanages and sanctuaries thread. This has been active on and off for over 3 years -- guess it's time for another burst of activity over there.


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.
Elementals are not mindless. They are also not immune to mind-affecting abilities. Why would they need to be awakened?

i thought this too... i mean fire elementals just love burning things, they're not only that though. they can even taken humanoid form.

elementals just have below average intelligence compared to higher planar beings because they're simpler.

elementals would need to be awakened if you intended to play them as a PC, because that 4 intelligence means they are barely above an animal companion, and i want to see playable elemental skill monkeys and spellcasters.

You need an intelligence of 3 to learn a class, but I get your point. In your other post I thought it was a general rule, not something you had to help the players.


As for the skin color of Orcs talked about earlier, I stick with Greenskins, though that may have more to do with my own experiences with Warhammer Fantasy RP. I will admit, I generally avoid explicitness for skin color much, if only because of issues like this.

However, as I said before, I avoir "mindless hordes" that can be killed indiscriminately. You will never find a village/tribal group near an enemy territory; I havent done any true wilderness campaigns yet so killing villages hasnt become an issue yet.

I generally organize enemies in armies; the recent monster codex gave me some great ideas for combined goblin/hobgoblin armies/bugbear armies.

As for outsiders (including elementals) I'm gonna stick with the whole "they are their alignement" thing. If anybody manages to make a Succubus "good" in my game, they would automatically transform into an azata (or angel) of equivalent CR. That aint Golarion cannon, but it's how I do it.

Liberty's Edge

williamoak wrote:

As for the skin color of Orcs talked about earlier, I stick with Greenskins, though that may have more to do with my own experiences with Warhammer Fantasy RP. I will admit, I generally avoid explicitness for skin color much, if only because of issues like this.

DA ORCZ PAINT SKIN RED, MOVE FASTER! PURPLE IF WANT NOT BE SEEN.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

An elemental would have an intelligence modifier of -6 as a PC. Which, given his other powers, isn't going to be much of an imposition. Playable, but likely overpowered.

==Aelryinth


Bandw2 wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Westphalian_Musketeer wrote:
I think his issue is likely insofar as Rage is a morale bonus, and oozes are mindless, and so RAW could not gain a bonus from raging.

But still he got bubbles!!

and moves 10ft faster!!

And that party do not want to play rules and system at all, that party mean to be fun (and rules dont´ make any sense of humor with a party like that)

not only would i allow the ooze to fully benefit from rage if it had an intelligence score via being an awakened ooze, just like i allow awakened elementals. i would even allow the ooze to take a humanoid form so it can use gear intended for humanoids. monster girl quest style.
screw that i want to be a sphere and eat people if i play a ooze. :P

Funny, I imagined it as something like Ivan Ooze.


Aelryinth wrote:

An elemental would have an intelligence modifier of -6 as a PC. Which, given his other powers, isn't going to be much of an imposition. Playable, but likely overpowered.

True Elementals (at least Fire Elemental -- didn't check the other types) start at Intelligence 4 (for Small) -- this is an IntMod of -3, not -6.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

An elemental would have an intelligence modifier of -6 as a PC. Which, given his other powers, isn't going to be much of an imposition. Playable, but likely overpowered.

True Elementals (at least Fire Elemental -- didn't check the other types) start at Intelligence 4 (for Small) -- this is an IntMod of -3, not -6.

Ability scores start at 10, using the purchase method. A true elemental would have a racial modifier to Intelligence of -6, which would result in a 4. This is what Aelryinth is referring to.


^Okay, that makes sense. Would need a supplement to the Race Points system of the Advanced Race Guide to cover this, but that system is horribly broken anyway (and not necessarily to the PCs advantage, either).


When I GM, I mostly ignore alignment requirements based on race/species. For that matter, I ignore alignment in general - I just want my players to stick to the general personality of the character that they have established.

I don't think in terms of "monsters." Everything is just a member of a particular species, and there are always exceptions to certain behavioral tendencies within a species. Some species tend to be more destructive than others, but that's true in the real world, as well (where humans are at the apex of mindless destructiveness). I generally look to the individual and species-based motivations when determining how NPCs behave.

Any player in my campaigns can play a character of any species, as long as we can find a way to keep them from exceeding the general power level of the group as a whole. Some species are so powerful from birth that they won't work as a PC in most campaigns, but I have no problem letting everyone play a more powerful species and just upping the general power level of the campaign if they want.

No character will ever get more experience for killing something in one of my games than (s)he would get from sparing it's life. Nobody has to take every combat situation to the ultimate end in order to gain experience.


We are all in the Monster Manual somewhere, are we not?

Well, except you creepy humans, you don't even HAVE an entry in the Monster Manual anymore!

So, I just house-ruled humans out of the game, and made gnomes the default race.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never been fond of the Always Chaotic Evil trope, at least when it comes to humanoids. (Outsiders and most abberations, I don't have an issue with.) Fortunately, our DM doesn't have adventures where we just storm some random cave or orc camp 'just because.'

Sure, we've fought a lot of orcs in our games, but currently, that's because it's the tail end of a massive war where the orcish hordes invaded, and so we're cleaning up the remains who haven't given up fighting yet. For the most part, while orcs are brutish and believe that might makes right, they're not Evil for the sake of Evil, and we're almost never put into a situation where we're attacking them indiscriminately.

Once we did have a situation where we stumbled on an orcish village, populated by women and children since all the men were out fighting. This alone wouldn't have been a problem, we would have simply lived and let live, but we couldn't leave them to tell about our own army's progress through the hordelands. This led to some good roleplaying on what to do, with the only options being casting as many Modify Memory spells as we could and exterminating the rest, or letting my Lawful Evil cleric cast Miracle to get the orcs on our side (For the small price of having them serve his god. Had to make it worth his while, after all...)

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder? have you tried looking from the monsters' perspective? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.