Team mate may ruin the party


Advice

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

DM_Blake wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

But Angel and Ares never ever ever ever do that, because those writers actually wanted their tragic heroes to succeed, and wanted their overarching story to succeed.

The OP has either forgotten that point, or never cared about it in the first place.

Those writers also didn't have three other writers capable of interfering with Angel or Ares.

Nine times out of ten I'd totally agree with you, mind.

No, you're right. There weren't four writers for Angel.

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were at least TWENTY TWO writers, all capable of interfering.

You know why they didn't interfere with each other? They worked together. If one of them had an idea "Hey, I know, let's have this plot twist happen so that Angel goes berserk and kills Cordelia, Allen, Wesley, and anyone else who gets in the way!" another one would speak up and say "Chill, dude, we kill them, we got no show - let's try NOT killing them instead" or even "Wow, great idea, I like the twist, now let's see how we can work with it to make it fun and interesting without killing popular characters or destroying the show in season two."

Sure, okay.

So what would happen if two of them said "Hey, I know, let's have this plot twist happen so that Angel goes berserk and kills Cordelia, Allen, Wesley, and anyone else who gets in the way!", and two speak up and say "Chill, dude, we kill them, we got no show - let's try NOT killing them instead", and then the first two do it anyway?

Because that's the analogy that's actually accurate to the situation.


I think regardless of the alignment if the curse is lifted I'll roll up a new character.

Curse is lifted and the character is evil: "I hate you guys and the only motivation I have for not betraying you when it's convenient to do so is gone. Good luck sleeping."

Curse is lifted and the character is good: "Why in nine hells would you risk that? If a Demon was imprisoned in a prison would you set it free? You are not the heroes I thought you were and I'll be damned if you taint the glory of this kingdom.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Malwing wrote:
The Paladin. It came up when he was trying to convince me to follow Lord. I refused because I'm trying to be a better follower of my love's religion (also I don't like Kord). He argued that I shouldn't do that for love. I revealed my full back story and the characters had a long argument. My character believes that without love in his heart he will be the man he once was. An assassin that killed for the joy of expressing his talent for killing and bandit that killed for the joy of power. The Paladin wants to grant me back my free will.

Heh. Once you're "free" you should pretend to worship Kord, since that's obviously his goal. Then at the end that can be another reveal.

Quadstriker wrote:
Only read the opening post

Keep reading.

LazarX wrote:
Seduce the cleric and make her your ally.

Seduce a cleric of Shelyn.

Yes, I'm sure she will be powerless to resist your charms. After all, what does she know about love?

Solomon is presented as the wisest King of Israel, the wisest man in both Testaments, still revered as a trope of wisdom.

All of that wisdom however did not stop him from yielding to his hubris and finishing his reign as a king so wicked that God curses him to the loss of his kingdom from his line.

You would think that a psychiatrist would know about insanity. Have you never heard of Dr. Harley Quinn, the Joker's psychiatrist, now known as Harlequin in DC Comics?

That's the thing about love.. Even people who know better do stupid things when they get head over heels... things like this are what drive stories.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Me: Hey guys, I brought a grenade. I have something cool in mind for it later but don't touch it. You might kill us all if you set it off too early.

Monk: I dropped a puddle of gasoline, is that okay?

Me: That's okay as long as it doesn't go off.

Cleric: I put it on the box of dynamite, is that okay?

Me: no, but it won't kill us all if it just doesn't go off.

Paladin: I'm going to pull the pin out!

Wizard: Why did you bring a grenade?!?!?!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if DM_Blake is actually reading anything people are posting. It seems like he's just made up his mind that the OP is a terrible, stupid, subhuman person, and will not allow any inconvenient facts about the actual game get in the way of that.

Nah, I read it, but it mostly seemed like the OP justifying the character and his motivations, rather than examining more successful possibilities. I also undervalued the comments about the other characters being so awful to the OP's character because, frankly, if it has been this bad all along, then:

1. My character would not still be traveling with these jerks. Geas or not, good or evil, nobody, NOBODY is stupid enough to live the life of an adventurer with a group of evil d-bags that cannot be trusted. That's just suicide and nobody would do it. My character would have left, and maybe his player with him. Unless these actions were somewhat exaggerated - if the reality were that the misdeeds of my companions were minor enough to tolerate and continue adventuring with those companions, then they would never be justification for hating or killing them.

2. If this really is the kind of group that PVPs, screws each other over, and acts like a bunch of jerks in a schoolyard, then the OP has no problems here. His OP should have gone like this: "Hahahahaha, my evil character has been under a geas to play nice with a bunch of evil d-bags but they're removing that geas, watch me slay them all!"

Neither were the case, so I discounted the posts as fluff justification to prove why the OP's character is justified in being Darth Hitler. If that was wrong, then so be it, the OP has only one problem: how to best get his long-awaited revenge on the evil d-bag companions his geas previously protected.


Malwing, this is why 'The Operative' from Serenity came to mind for your character as I saw him. They are tainting his beautiful kingdom, perhaps a place that he does not see himself worthy of living in. As a Fighter, it's in his own best interest to strike swiftly to excise that taint. If the other characters don't come in spelled up to the gills when they 'drop the hammer', you need to strike right then.

I'd talk it over with the GM, but were I wearing those shoes, the moment the curse/geas is involuntarily lifted, there'd be initiative getting rolled simply because they other characters already started the fight.

IIRC, there's a 4th PC - a Wizard perhaps - that's rather ambivalent about the situation, has your character talked to that character to convey in more depth your character's point of view? (You may have already covered this, if so, my apologies for not having caught it.)

If this is mechanically a geas, the apparently upcoming attempt to drop a break enchantment is doomed to fail without recourse. It's too high of a spell level. There is also the matter of the geas' caster level. For a remove curse to even have a shot at removing it, the remover's caster level has to exceed that of the geas by at least 2 levels *and* your character is entitled to a Will save to negate the remove curse.

Having to make a saving throw against your "buddies'" efforts to "help" is starting a fight.

Whichever course of action you decide upon, have fun! You're clearly willing to roll with how events plan out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

Me: Hey guys, I brought a grenade. I have something cool in mind for it later but don't touch it. You might kill us all if you set it off too early.

Monk: I dropped a puddle of gasoline, is that okay?

Me: That's okay as long as it doesn't go off.

Cleric: I put it on the box of dynamite, is that okay?

Me: no, but it won't kill us all if it just doesn't go off.

Paladin: I'm going to pull the pin out!

Wizard: Why did you bring a grenade?!?!?!

Well, why did you?

Seriously.

There are millions of ways, billions perhaps, to build a character who ISN'T a grenade. Then this would never happen. But you built a grenade. You really have nobody to blame but yourself for that.

As for the rest of the party detonating that grenade, yeah, that's their fault and they get what they deserve. But you still created the grenade and put it in their hands when you didn't have to.

Frankly, if that's what's really going on, why are you playing Pathfinder? Especially why are you doing a campaign? If this is the level of gaming at your whole table then you should be playing Paranoia. I'm not trying to be insulting, don't take it that way. I love Paranoia. It's awesome. But it IS a very different game from a Pathfinder campaign.

The only way a Pathfinder campaign succeeds is when everybody brings a reasonable character to the table (no grenades) and then everybody works together to run this story to completion. It takes time and dedication. But more than that, it takes not having a table full of people who blend gasoline, dynamite, and grenades and then detonate it for no reason, just to see how much carnage they can cause.

That kind of group needs a different kind of game that caters to that play style and then everyone will have a better time.

But, if you are going to play a Pathfinder campaign and you know you have players like you've described here, then why bring them a grenade?


An option: have your PC turn NPC (Villain sub-type) and give control to the DM when the curse is lifted.

I saw this happen with a Paladin that snapped under pressure and went full anti-paladin. Once the character was no longer cooperating with the party and progressing the story, it didn't make sense for the character to continue being a PC, that would detract from the fun of the bigger game. So that character continued his story, as told by the DM, and the player happily made a new character.


On a side note, if I invited you to a barbecue at my house, and you showed up with a grenade, I'd insist that you don't bring it into my house or my yard, and that you don't even put it in your car and park it near my house.

Grenades are dangerous. Don't play with them.

The analogy applies to creating Pathfinder characters. It's bad if the other players don't want you to bring a grenade, but it's clearly worse if they DO...

(because that means they'll pull the pin, sooner or later).


To all of those who are defending the OP and saying that is the rest of the party that should change, I would submit that whether or not that is true, it is irrelevant.

Those players didn't come here asking for advice, and the OP isn't going to be able to make them do anything, he only has control over what he does.

If he wants to continue to play his character, he has options and choices that will let him do that. If he want's to retire the character that is possible (although the idea of replacing that character with the object of his former affection who now hates the party because they removed the curse is asking for the same problem again) or the OP can choose to destroy the game and likely ruin everyone's fun, and possibly damage real world relationships as well.

The mature thing to do is make a choice that lets the game continue in a fun way, perhaps with a bit of player conflict, but not the 'I kill you all conflict.' Arbitrary tables and excuses of 'that is what my character would do' don't change that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I feel like DM_blake thinks any and all party conflict means your acting like a child or something...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Dave Justus wrote:

To all of those who are defending the OP and saying that is the rest of the party that should change, I would submit that whether or not that is true, it is irrelevant.

Those players didn't come here asking for advice, and the OP isn't going to be able to make them do anything, he only has control over what he does.

If he wants to continue to play his character, he has options and choices that will let him do that. If he want's to retire the character that is possible (although the idea of replacing that character with the object of his former affection who now hates the party because they removed the curse is asking for the same problem again) or the OP can choose to destroy the game and likely ruin everyone's fun, and possibly damage real world relationships as well.

The mature thing to do is make a choice that lets the game continue in a fun way, perhaps with a bit of player conflict, but not the 'I kill you all conflict.' Arbitrary tables and excuses of 'that is what my character would do' don't change that.

exactly, so he should murder the cleric. (NPC him first obviously)


Dave Justus wrote:

To all of those who are defending the OP and saying that is the rest of the party that should change, I would submit that whether or not that is true, it is irrelevant.

Those players didn't come here asking for advice, and the OP isn't going to be able to make them do anything, he only has control over what he does.

If he wants to continue to play his character, he has options and choices that will let him do that. If he want's to retire the character that is possible (although the idea of replacing that character with the object of his former affection who now hates the party because they removed the curse is asking for the same problem again) or the OP can choose to destroy the game and likely ruin everyone's fun, and possibly damage real world relationships as well.

The mature thing to do is make a choice that lets the game continue in a fun way, perhaps with a bit of player conflict, but not the 'I kill you all conflict.' Arbitrary tables and excuses of 'that is what my character would do' don't change that.

Well, Malwing pretty much knows what he's going to do. The advice-giving portion is over. I stand by my advice of "warn them of the results and let Darwinism take its course", but that's me.

At this point I just find the... I don't really want to call it a morality debate, but that might be the best phrase? The debate about carrying around grenades, whatever you want to call it. It's fascinating.


DM_Blake wrote:


There are millions of ways, billions perhaps, to build a character who ISN'T a grenade.

Honestly, he hasn't been a grenade before.

Let me explain. This is my Fourth time playing this character. Back in the day when I tried and didn't like 4th edition so I went back in to give it a real fair shot. I made the character and concept with the help of the rest of the party, got myself a miniature for it and got the cards and some other stuff to force myself to put up the effort. The character itself was because there was a conflict a while ago about Murder-hobo vs Non-murder-hobo. The idea was that I have a character that's a evil or not based on how well the party teaches the character on how to be good. If the party is a bunch of murderhobos then the character's concept of good is that we kill all the monsters because they're ugly and we can just buy goodness. That game fell through after two levels because half the party out of character demanded that the GM kill his GMPC. I stepped away from the argument because I didn't understand it and came back to a decimated game with the GM quitting. Since I had the cards and stuff I tried again and again with Dragonborn Warlord being my default D&D character half the time until I started playing Pathfinder. Now since we're playing a Pathfinder module and using 5th edition rules I became a Dragonborn Fighter with the same concept. The previous three times everyone liked the character and did not pull the pin. This party has the unique factor of the Paladin who knows what the pin does and wants to pull it anyways because thats what his character would do. So I got one person who would get a kick out of my character turning evil, one person who's curious as to whether or not he'll actually succeed and laughing about the situation, and one player who is in character against the idea but doesn't offer an opinion as a player. One player was absent and the GM is willing to let everyone jump off the cliff and die if we want to.


kestral287 wrote:


Well, Malwing pretty much knows what he's going to do. The advice-giving portion is over. I stand by my advice of "warn them of the results and let Darwinism take its course", but that's me.

At this point I just find the... I don't really want to call it a morality debate, but that might be the best phrase? The debate about carrying around grenades, whatever you want to call it. It's fascinating.

Yes. As I posted above, after talking to the GM I'm either going to leave the party for being callous enough to risk letting loose a serial killer or hand my character sheet to the GM and roll up a bard that's the priestess he was in love with and try to reform or kill the NPC. Thank you all for your suggestions.

The debate can still persist if you want it to though, it is interesting. I don't want to tell the players what will happen because spoilers but in character I have told them that this is a bad idea because I'll just be evil again and will reiterate that and actively resist having the curse removed.


Malwing, you said you have a couple levels until this comes to a head, right? How much time is likely to pass in-game? What are the chances of your character getting to a better place morally by then? What are the chances that he would choose to leave the group in order to be with the cleric of Shelyn? Just because he abandons the group, that doesn't force him to align against them; hell, is there even a reason for him to care about building a kingdom?

Also- Love the grenade metaphor!


Deadbeat Doom wrote:

Malwing, you said you have a couple levels until this comes to a head, right? How much time is likely to pass in-game? What are the chances of your character getting to a better place morally by then? What are the chances that he would choose to leave the group in order to be with the cleric of Shelyn? Just because he abandons the group, that doesn't force him to align against them; hell, is there even a reason for him to care about building a kingdom?

Also- Love the grenade metaphor!

Two levels. I think we're on book two running on book three so we may get to that level within a year in game so very likely unless something happens that makes the character less inclined to be good. In that case he'll still leave the group and continue as warden of the kingdom. Otherwise he hates them enough to desire to be aligned against them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
Deadbeat Doom wrote:

Malwing, you said you have a couple levels until this comes to a head, right? How much time is likely to pass in-game? What are the chances of your character getting to a better place morally by then? What are the chances that he would choose to leave the group in order to be with the cleric of Shelyn? Just because he abandons the group, that doesn't force him to align against them; hell, is there even a reason for him to care about building a kingdom?

Also- Love the grenade metaphor!

Two levels. I think we're on book two running on book three so we may get to that level within a year in game so very likely unless something happens that makes the character less inclined to be good. In that case he'll still leave the group and continue as warden of the kingdom. Otherwise he hates them enough to desire to be aligned against them.

murder the cleric

bard priestess sounds fun.


All this talk of Evil= Kill them all, but isn't Lawful Evil all about control? If they do lift the curse, why kill them when you can just begin controlling them by controlling everything around them? Putting rakes in the grass for the Paladin and cleric to trip over and then coming to the rescue but with strings attached, find the next adventure but tell the others a slightly different story about what has to be done and why, and let them fall on their own as the GM tracks their alignment shift for them on their own little charts. Attacks on your character are punishable by being visited by thieves in the night, not to kill but to inconvenience so that they are slowly corrupted on your terms and under your control. Let them turn their own characters into your minions or at least puppets to your plans. That's what Lawful Evil says to me.


Check out the rest of the thread, Manwolf. He has real reasons to want to kill these guys. I know, it threw a lot of us, too.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Check out the rest of the thread, Manwolf. He has real reasons to want to kill these guys. I know, it threw a lot of us, too.

Oh I read it all, but to paraphrase "hangin's too good for 'em, burnin's too good for 'em, they ought to be torn into itsy bitsy pieces and buried alive!"

If the OP kills them, he only does it once. If he corrupts them, he takes vengeance each and every day.


Manwolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Check out the rest of the thread, Manwolf. He has real reasons to want to kill these guys. I know, it threw a lot of us, too.

Oh I read it all, but to paraphrase "hangin's too good for 'em, burnin's too good for 'em, they ought to be torn into itsy bitsy pieces and buried alive!"

If the OP kills them, he only does it once. If he corrupts them, he takes vengeance each and every day.

Does he want revenge, or does he just want to be rid of the ***holes?

If it is the second, then corruption is a terrible idea. If anything, they will be even worse.


I'm pretty sure he already sees these guys as pretty damn corrupt. :P


If those were my choices, kill the party because they're a**holes, or hope I can last long enough to become "good" and hope they suddenly stop being said orifices, I would choose plan C and find a better group.

Edit: After killing them all in very nasty ways, of course. No sense letting all that pent up energy go to waste :-P


Quote:
This party has the unique factor of the Paladin who knows what the pin does and wants to pull it anyways because thats what his character would do

-__-

I think at this point a good question would be to ask if other players are more interested in moving the campaign forward or delving more into internal party, uh, dynamics.
If it's the latter, let things follow their course. If the former, work a solution with everyone.

I rather like your character concept, it's a shame it went downhill that way. I'd be curious to know if it's due to variation of expectations between players when starting the campaign.


I dunno, threaten to kill yourself if they try and lift the curse? Ok, this probably won't work since you can just roll a new character, but surely your friendly rogue recognizes what he was like previously and what he'll become if he is released, so wouldn't he inform his companions of this? On another note, isn't he still his usual evil self? All the curse did was make him fall in love with the priestess, right?


I didn't really read the thread before by the way. Love the grenade metaphor being tossed around though.


Continuing with the grenade analogy, some players like to bring a grenade to the group, and then constantly taunt the other players with pulling the pin. I don't get that impression from Malwing - he created an interesting character concept, and is actively discouraging the other PCs from pulling the pin.

Some seem to be suggesting that Malwing should simply sacrifice his character concept if the other players pull the pin, which to me is essentially saying that the character concept is not important.

Malwing is willing to retire his character rather than cause party in-fighting if the other players pull the pin. Seems like a responsible way to handle it.

With this particular group, I would probably avoid creating any further grenade characters. That being said, I would welcome a character with such complexity (and a player with the corresponding responsibility) at my table any day.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For me if the other players are going to dabble into my character background, something as a DM that I strongly discourage for players to do to each other at my table, then I'd have fun dabbling in their's. I'd make an Inquisitor of Kord as my next character, encourage the Paladin/ Cleric to not be so cowardly. An example is I'd criticized the Paladin for not insisting he challenge the lizard king reminding him that he is the Holy Warrior of a diety with the Dogma "The strong and fit should lead the weaker. Bravery is the greatest quality in any ruler. Scorn cowardice." Evenutally the Paladin will try to solo something too tough and either die or prove to be a coward.


I'm inclined to agree with DM Blake. I get the impression that the OP is being disingenuous in his framing of the situation. I get the strong impression that he is, and has been intent on inter-party conflict/PvP, and won't let the actual reality of the in-game situation, or our input, to actually dissuade it.


Cith wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with DM Blake. I get the impression that the OP is being disingenuous in his framing of the situation. I get the strong impression that he is, and has been intent on inter-party conflict/PvP, and won't let the actual reality of the in-game situation, or our input, to actually dissuade it.

Despite the fact that he's intentionally avoiding the possibility of that by retiring the character, you must be right.


kestral287 wrote:
Cith wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with DM Blake. I get the impression that the OP is being disingenuous in his framing of the situation. I get the strong impression that he is, and has been intent on inter-party conflict/PvP, and won't let the actual reality of the in-game situation, or our input, to actually dissuade it.
Despite the fact that he's intentionally avoiding the possibility of that by retiring the character, you must be right.

There is the issue that I won't change my character's feelings towards the party or emotional reaction when pulled from enchantment due it being disingenuous to my meticulous records of whats going on with him internally, which may cause confusion. My original questions were 'What do I do when the curse is lifted?' and 'How do I prevent it?'. The first question was asked because I already knew it was a bad idea, not because I'm confused about my character's motivations. I got an answer to that in this thread and talking to the GM, which was "Give it to the GM unless he's somehow changed between now and when the curse is removed." plus some some good stuff on what the GM should have him do and what my new character would be. I haven't gotten any real advice on the how to prevent it since currently my character doesn't want this but as a Fighter its hard to defend oneself from being disenchanted.

I'm not intent on PvP, but I'm not afraid of conflict, if that makes sense. Or more accurately character conflict over player conflict. Often people see that as one in the same but its not. For example; If any of this happens, either way I plan to lose my character. Its interesting because it's conflict but I'm not going to be butthurt over rolling a new one and I certainly won't make attack rolls against the party. I'm not kidding when I said that I was sore about someone doing it to me so I don't really want to go that far. My character and another character argued for hours about it, the character's players did not. To be fair I've ignored chunks of DM Blake's posts because I didn't want to touch the argument of how far one should go to make a frictionless character again. I've seen broodly jerk PCs dismantle a party plenty of times but I've also seen plenty of campaigns die before they begin because the GM wouldn't let anyone build characters that even had a chance of looking at the other funny. These aren't extremes we have to go to one or the other. The second time I played this character I accidentally killed a Goblin while interrogating it and marked trees to signal our way which upset the party druid. Then when the party started killing the goblin women along with the goblin warriors I nearly killed off the character to give the goblin women cover from the arrows. The party was sliding into murderhobo territory but the Druid thought it was noble and the character apologized about the trees and were tag-team combatants for the rest of the campaign. We had conflict, and not PvP and no butthurt and it made resolving differences meaningful and gave us room to do interesting things. The campaign before that we could barely choose our own deity race or even motivation in case the characters might fight which imploded the game into a boring mess and killed it within two sessions. This led to an in person argument that I never want to have again about the subject.


Have you considered a ring of counterspells?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-counterspells

It's only 4,000 and you can put break enchantment in it, or any spell you fear they might use? Also, break enchantment is a minute cast. Unless they're planning on tying you down, they start casting and you book it. If it's remove curse that they're planning on using, put remove curse in your ring of counter spells.

If you're fearing they might tie you down and forcibly break it, you might also consider boots of escape or unfettered shirt so they can't actually lock you down first.

Also I think it was covered, but if you're under a geas or something like it, Break Enchantment won't work. A remove curse has to come from a caster level 2 higher. Limited Wish/Wish become your only real concern at that point.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their responses. Everybody is a first-time poster at one point, and accusations of sock puppetry don't help foster the kind of community we want on our boards. Please keep the Community Guidelines in mind, thanks!


Lilith, we all know this absurd "Liz Courts" identity is just one of your many fronts. Enough with the lies! Just who do you think you're fooling?!


If they decide to pull the pin (Flip the switch, pull the trigger, take your pick) then I'd just invite them to deal with the consequences themselves. Frankly they're likely going to , and your character will become an npc who may or may not become a recurring villain. When this happens, you should (And by extension your rerolled character) back out and let them deal with it, laughing your head off when this guy comes back to haunt them. In the short term it'll piss them off, but in any future campaigns they sure as hell won't screw with any future volatile characters you come up with.


Dukeh555 wrote:
If they decide to pull the pin (Flip the switch, pull the trigger, take your pick) then I'd just invite them to deal with the consequences themselves. Frankly they're likely going to , and your character will become an npc who may or may not become a recurring villain. When this happens, you should (And by extension your rerolled character) back out and let them deal with it, laughing your head off when this guy comes back to haunt them. In the short term it'll piss them off, but in any future campaigns they sure as hell won't screw with any future volatile characters you come up with.

Not really. Not the first time a player has turned into a villain NPC. We were playing Curse of the Crimson Throne and I had asked the GM what alignment we should lean towards. He says any, and I asked if I could be evil because I'd never been evil before. In the end the entire party was evil and the player of the NG Druid rolled a new character because the group was too evil for his character so we eventually had to fight that character at the end of the campaign. We wound up murdering some of the protagonists and I think the only reason why we killed the villain was because she wanted to do what we wanted to do only leave us out of it. We had a Paladin in the group but that was over when we raised an army of nazi-wererats. I also lost a character due to plot in that campaign. at book 5 I left the party for immortality to avoid marrying Asmodeus' daughter. That was a crazy campaign.

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Team mate may ruin the party All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.