| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is having a secret identity useful when your party members don't have a secret identity?
I would argue that it is not very useful. Even if the powers at be never learn the Deuce Gwain isn't really Gatman (the shining gun of Justice), they will quickly learn that Gatman does associate with Phil Fighterman, card-carrying adventuring fighter with 3 kids and a wife. Then Duke Evilface kidnaps little Stevie Fighterman and everything as as bad off as if Evilface knew Gatman's real identity. Moreover, perhaps Phil Fighterman is in the employ of a one Deuce Gwain (the party is probably also friends with the secret identity, right?); so now, the right honorable Duke Evilface has every reason in the world to investigate Mr. Gwain's business practices and perhaps look into why exactly Deuce seems to disappear every evening.
Frankly, I feel that the secret identity mechanic is worthless if you think about it from a story-telling standpoint. Hiding your own identity is really only helpful when the vigilante is working alone, but I tend to like playing pathfinder in the context of a party.
In that context, the all vigilante party might work, but I feel like that is tying the players' hands a little bit.
Let us talk solutions:
1. Secret Team Feature: At a certain level (I would say 3 or 5 maybe), the vigilante can form a sort of "society of justice" where party members who adventure with the Vigilante while in disguise obtain their own immunity to srcying so long as they are disguised with the costumed Vigilante near by. Allies could perhaps also benefit from the first effect of Loyal Aid. I think this sort of idea has a lot of precedent in the idea of there being a "Bat Family" [Nightwing, Robin, Oracle, etc] or really any hero that tends to deputize others.
2. Special Feats For Allies: Allies can gain the previous benefit so long as they have a teamwork feat (which the Vigilante himself would get automatically). I think this is unnecessarily punitive given that it would eat up one feat for every player, but it would keep the all vigilante party uniquely useful. I don't feel that needs to be a design goal, however; the second bard is almost always going to be much less useful than the first (unless you are playing with certain archetypes), so it is fair if the same thing is true for the vigilante. Perhaps something like "amateur vigilante" could solve this problem similarly, but that too is punitive.
3. The "Adventurer" Persona The Vigilante actually has a third adventuring identity that still gets the abilities of the vigilante form (save for the vigilante's renown-based intimidate schtick) but is distinct from the social identity and "vigilante" identity. It may be easier to draw the line between adventuring identity and the crime-fighting identity, but at least it has a chance of keeping the party safe from supervillain intrigues.
4. The Power to Cloud Men's Minds: This is a lot like the first suggestion but could happen more so on the battlefield (and is perhaps a little more of a stretch). When a vigilante makes his appearance, perhaps he can automatically make an intimidate check (or some such thing) that scares people so bad that they could not possibly remember the face's of the vigilante's allies. Perhaps you could take out the intimidate check and have this effect apply to any enemy that is defeated by a vigilante and his party, whether that means getting knocked out or having to run away. This later version of the ability makes the class feature more reliable and makes intimidate less of a necessity.
Every vigilante needs a damsel in distress; why not the party fighter?
As amusing and true as that is, the secret identity class feature is supposed to carry some tangible mechanical advantage, right? I think the current "balance" of the class sort of relies on having a secret identity actually being worthwhile and protecting you.
And again: it does protect you, but ceases to the second you are seen with the rest of your party.
In PFS I've somewhat resigned my player to keeping their social persona a secret from the oft changing party members. In situations where I absolutely have to whip out my social side for an encounter, I'll likely "bluff" and say I've recruited a contact to aid us.
Yeah? That sort of situation would kind of bother me. I would want to play this kind of character as sort of the party's face. It is hard to be party face when you can't be seen with the rest of your party.
|
You know, I've actually been giving this very question a lot of thought, though my worry actually comes from the PC side of the table. Allow me to elaborate.
I've got a dedicated group of friends that I've been gaming with for about 5 years now. We've run a number of adventures (Most Paizo, but some homebrews), alternating GMs as we see fit, and I've got a pretty solid understanding of how the players in my group handles other PCs keeping secrets.
The answer being, of course, that there ARE no secrets.
Seriously, my party members will straight-up spy on each other just to make sure that they know everything about the other PCs (I will admit, I did this as well during our Council of Thieves game). So my question becomes this; how can you make a Vigilante work if the rest of your group, or even just one person really, does everything in their power to find out about your secret identity?
Your secret identity doesn't need to wander around with the rest of the party, but may attend many of the same events or frequent many of the same places, and may interact with them sometimes while your vigilante persona is "following up on some leads" somewhere.
If your other party members are investigating your secret identity, then you're using renown, and at higher levels loyal aid, to get people to help you and give them false but convincing info to allay their suspicions.
If one does find out about you, then you two and the GM need to work out how to keep anyone else from finding out. Maybe that person wants to become a vigilante too.
That would be tough with the one alignment step limitation. He could for example, get from NG To N, or from NE to N, but not NG to NE. I guess he could try bluffing that he was good or evil.
The question is, is your being helpful who you really are our are you only doing it to allay suspicions that you're not really good, only neutral? Say something happens and someone became suspicious of the identity and starts to question the motivations i.e. sense motive. If you're really being helpful, doing good deeds, your ID's alignment is going to eventually creep to good, then you have a problem with the mechanics of only one step in alignment between personae. If you're only doing good things as a cover and someone is suspicious, then you bluff.
I've played a ninja character before that wasn't allowed to let other people know he was a ninja due to clan restrictions.
It was fun, added to the RP, and made the reveal all the better later.
Secondary mechanics weren't necessary.
So do you think his evil mastermind plans will ever conflict with what the group is doing? The group will never come into conflict with or be trying to take down his evil organization?
I'm not being combative, just interested in how it will play out. It would be interesting to hear how your play test goes.
I have been in parties with one evil character and mostly good characters, and eventually the evil one slipped and was found out and was either never trusted again, which would cause a character change, or a Paladin would find out and then either the Paladin or the evil character would have to go. Last time it happened caused a PvP situation and the Paladin killed the assassin. That player ended up leaving the group, but he knew the rest of the party was good because half of them worked for the LG church, so in the end the fish out of water story didn't have the Hollywood ending.
I don't get how Evil = instant exile unless there's a Paladin in the group. Evil people are just willing to go to great extremes for what they want. They're not required to backstab you, or even likely to try when you're an equally leveled badass on good terms with them who shares their goal.
@DominusMegadeus
Agreed, it was only "him or me" if there was a Paladin, but we have a couple of guys that like to run Paladins. It was usually the others discovered the evil character's actions, like stealing from the party, going back and robbing/killing the wealthy merchant whose daughter we saved, stuff like that.
@Trekkie90909
This sounds like it's getting good. Can't wait to hear if they're able to investigate their way thru the dual identity or not.
Some of Pathfinder has made the shift from a more classic fantasy to a more urban fantasy tint. Not an absolute shift, but more "providing the option." I see the vigilante as part of that.
With classes like the alchemist, gunslinger, and vigilante, you could recreate some of your classic urban fantasy stories--though the setting would be more towards the fantasy end of things, ofc.
Something like the vigilante may exist to let Pathfinder have a broader reach.
Some of Pathfinder has made the shift from a more classic fantasy to a more urban fantasy tint. Not an absolute shift, but more "providing the option." I see the vigilante as part of that.
With classes like the alchemist, gunslinger, and vigilante, you could recreate some of your classic urban fantasy stories--though the setting would be more towards the fantasy end of things, ofc.
Something like the vigilante may exist to let Pathfinder have a broader reach.
I think that is entirely true. Did you mean to post in another thread, though? Do you think urban settings somehow obviates the party secret identity problem?
If so, I really want to know what you mean.
The secret team idea is super duper cool and I love it.
The secret team idea is super duper cool and I love it.
Thanks. Really, I sort of hope/suspect that will get some kind of functionality via the existence of "amateur vigilante" feats. I just hope that kind of thing won't be necessary for a vigilante to be useful in a party.
No one has really said anything to make me feel better about the Fighterman family scenario I laid out to begin with.
I actually mostly GM. I like to run smart villains. Right now, secret identities only help if my villains are dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Ok first off as evidenced by many superhero comics people who associate with the secret identity of the hero usually are the ones targeted by the villains. You may just think oh they keep getting caught in the cross fire, but in the writers mind, even if he doesnt write it that way, its the villain knows who the secret identity associates with and knows that the secret identity knows the hero thus by proxy, capture the associated people and you draw out the hero.
As I said writers may not write Evilface's thoughts "Hmm i know that Fighterman is in the employ of Duece and Deuce seems to know Gatman to some extent so maybe if I attack Fighterman and his family then it will draw out Gatman. as Deuce will probably ask Gatman to rescue them". But its there. it saves the writer from having to come up with random names for non important to the story characters just to be captured to progress the story or create cool action scenes.
Then isn't having a secret identity mechanically worthless in an extended game? If so, the class needs more mechanical power elsewhere.
Second your villain doesnt have to be dumb to play in a campaign with secret identities, you can have a smart villain start to put pieces together and begin blackmailing, publicly addressing the hero, at which point the hero should step up and either stop the villain himself or get his party members to do it so as not to associate with it, thus reducing the chance of him being exposed.
I cant remember but Im pretty sure there was a batman series where Joker almost figured out that Bruce Wayne was Batman.
I only meant that he has to be dumb if he is not going to figure out that the party is associated with the vigilante (so the mechanic is useful).
Thirdly its not meant to be a mechanic as I believe your thinking of it. its meant to be a story element that makes it more complex and interesting. Even the PCs might get suspicious and the Vigilante may open up to them about who he really is. Its a roleplaying part that is supposed to be add an element of mystery to a campaign.
If its really a bother then set it up as you play the Social identity as a GM but your player passes you notes on what he wants to do or you pull him aside and ask him what his social identity would do.
I honestly feel that the Secret...
I think I agree with you. It is currently only a story-telling device if you think about it.
Then isn't having a secret identity mechanically worthless in an extended game? If so, the class needs more mechanical power elsewhere.
Edit: Oh man! There is a new version of the social identity. I am excited and maybe none of my points matter too much.