"Because dragons" is one of those arguments that can be used rightly or wrongly depending on the context.
Silly arguments:
"There's no rule that says dead characters can't act. And in a world with dragons, there's no reason my character shouldn't be able to continue to fight normally after his head was cut off."Reasonable arguments:
"If there's enough of a food chain to support trolls, ogres, and breeding populations of dozens of different types of dragons, shouldn't there also be enough room for T-Rexes in the world?"Matter of taste arguments:
"There are dragons who can fly, therefore gravity is different, therefore it's perfectly reasonable for my hero to fall off a cliff onto pointy rocks and walk away." In a D&D game? Maybe. In Game of Thrones? No.
The funny part of the last one, is even if it is a matter of taste, high level characters may easily be able to soak that damage anyway.
I'd say that any severe break from the norm could be reasonably called ridiculous, regardless of whether it was allowed or not. So when I said ridiculous, I meant it in reference to how far outside the norm and reasonable expectations it was.Looking at that guys sheet though, I think he gets by witb way too much. I wouldn't allow nearly all that. It is just plain ridiculous. Being in a book doesn't equal "automatically included and freely choosable."Of course, being "not to my taste" doesn't make it "just plain ridiculous" either.I figured the inclusion of "I think" made it clear that it was merely my opinion. I think it is ridiculous. I poke around supplements and haven't heard of much of what he has, not even his race.
Then he serms to have whatever items and spells he wants, which I would never allow. A character has opportunities to find gear and spells, whether for loot or purchase. A character does not get to flip through a book picking their heart's desire. Not in my games, anyway. I don't know of anything in book saying that everything in the book can be freely chosen either.
Yeah, you don't have to defend whether you'd allow it or not. Nor whether you'd allow a player to plan what equipment and spells they gain access too.
Personally, I wouldn't use the word ridiculous if I didn't like someone's preferred style. In my experience it leads to one person trying to justify how they like playing and the other trying to condemn it when ridiculousness-or-otherwise is not something to be settled via debate - it's an aesthetic issue, not a matter of objective fact.
Norm being such a non controversial term?
Declaring ones subjective judgements objective facts never helps as far as i can see. You're under no obligation to follow my advice, of course but what's gained by using the term?
It may be difficult to define precise definition of what is norm, but it is easy to get a general idea of norm as everyone's idea of normal will have a large overlap, so the closer you get to normal the more subjective it gets as to whether it is normal, but the further from norm one gets, the easier it is to clearly and reasonably claim something as abnormal. I call things like this semi-subjective. There is enough of a collective idea of something to consider it as good as objective (much like scientists considering theory as fact until it gets proven wrong) in a general sense, and basically, the extremes become clear as the middle becomes fuzzy. In this case, you have normal and abnormal as your extremes. Dead center of normalcy is quite clear, as is something very abnormal. It is between the two that subjectivity has the strongest effect.
Well, I don't have much more to say, I guess. My question remains: what's gained by using the term ridiculous, rather than conceding it's a matter of preference?
As I understand things, Anzyr's build is entirely using material from the CRB, Ultimate Equipment and a subsystem from Ultimate Campaign. I'd have to rate that as "normal" - you think it's ridiculous.
Labelling it such introduces an unnecessary point of debate, imo. I don't see what's gained compared with the much less controversial "not allowed in my game".
You don't explain very well. What is a Thassilion specialist? after getting 6 spells per level you then mention getting additional spells without saying where they come from. Stat bonuses are equal with sorcerer, so they aren't a big deal.Scrolls come at the expense of other things, and just how exactly does a wizard get more spells per day than a sorcerer?
As a base, they get fewer, then they get +1 if they use an arcane bond, and going for best stats, they will have at best a 21 int for only 5 extra spells on top of their base of only 6, for a grand total of 12. And items might add a spell or two. So claiming 16 seems mighty fishy to me.
All I will add to Anzrs post is that wizards get the benefit of AN ENTIRE EXTRA LEVEL of slots on odd levels.
So, your sorcerer is getting 6/day the wizard is getting 4+2(school + thassilonian specialist) which breaks him even. THEN the wizard gets 1+2 spells of the level above the sorcerer and then gets stat-bonus spells for that level. Oh, then the bonded object spell.
Wizards always will have more spells than a sorcerer. If you are still working under the illusion that a sorcerer gets more spells per day you need to get caught up.
Dude, they come from the spell chart in the wizard entry in the frakkin CRB.
A sorcerer at level 5 gets 1st and 2nd level spells.
A thassilonian specialist wizard gets the same number of 1st and 2nd level spells, AND they get 3 3rd level spells, AND potentially another 3rd level spell with bonded object. AND they get the bonus spell for attributes for 3rd level spells that sorcerers don't get because sorcerers don't have 3rd level spells yet.
Then advance that comparison to 6th level and it changes right back. By the way, sorcerers can have a bonded object if they desire as well.You don't explain very well. What is a Thassilion specialist? after getting 6 spells per level you then mention getting additional spells without saying where they come from. Stat bonuses are equal with sorcerer, so they aren't a big deal.Scrolls come at the expense of other things, and just how exactly does a wizard get more spells per day than a sorcerer?
As a base, they get fewer, then they get +1 if they use an arcane bond, and going for best stats, they will have at best a 21 int for only 5 extra spells on top of their base of only 6, for a grand total of 12. And items might add a spell or two. So claiming 16 seems mighty fishy to me.
All I will add to Anzrs post is that wizards get the benefit of AN ENTIRE EXTRA LEVEL of slots on odd levels.
So, your sorcerer is getting 6/day the wizard is getting 4+2(school + thassilonian specialist) which breaks him even. THEN the wizard gets 1+2 spells of the level above the sorcerer and then gets stat-bonus spells for that level. Oh, then the bonded object spell.
Wizards always will have more spells than a sorcerer. If you are still working under the illusion that a sorcerer gets more spells per day you need to get caught up.
Dude, they come from the spell chart in the wizard entry in the frakkin CRB.
A sorcerer at level 5 gets 1st and 2nd level spells.
A thassilonian specialist wizard gets the same number of 1st and 2nd level spells, AND they get 3 3rd level spells, AND potentially another 3rd level spell with bonded object. AND they get the bonus spell for attributes for 3rd level spells that sorcerers don't get because sorcerers don't have 3rd level spells yet.
I didn't give the 5th level example, Alicorn did. Also, bonded object of the sorcerer is also a spell level down at every odd level.
Well, I don't have much more to say, I guess. My question remains: what's gained by using the term ridiculous, rather than conceding it's a matter of preference?
As I understand things, Anzyr's build is entirely using material from the CRB, Ultimate Equipment and a subsystem from Ultimate Campaign. I'd have to rate that as "normal" - you think it's ridiculous.
Labelling it such introduces an unnecessary point of debate, imo. I don't see what's gained compared with the much less controversial "not allowed in my game".
Matters of opinion and matters of preference are not the same thing. It is in my opinion, ridiculous, which says little about my preference.
Normal isn't just the sources used, but how they are used as well. I'd hardly consider my playstyle normal, but for it is mostly in how I use what is available that is unusual. I have never needed to even remotely come close to minmaxing, not even doing analysis of the sort that obviously went into creating that above linked character. In one game for example, I blinded a charging elephant with major creation, by creating a helmet on it with no eye slots, then created a shackle and chain, timing it just right to connect to the helmet to trip said elephant. Also uses core spells, but certainly not normal. (granted, I sunk homebrew feats to cast it at combat speed.) Another case is my mastrless familiar character, or even better, my awakened tiger (which is pure RAW core rulebook only). These are all abnormal, and the first is possibly ridiculous to cast a ten minute spell as a one round action with a feat, but even the last pure RAW character is not normal despite core rules.
All that was really gained was stating my opinion, which clearly was not understood.
Major Creation at combat speed allowing you to make any Combat manuever and based off of the above make it with either high bonuses or just automatic.....true you might not be min-maxing but the word ridiculous might seem a-bit appropriate.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that taking up permanent residence in the body of a demon qualifies as a bit abnormal. It would also make virtually any sort of social interaction all but impossible. Then again, from what he has said about Arkalion, he doesn't really go in for social interaction anyway. More of a murderous psychopath type personality.
Depends he might be okay in a few fringe societys (can someone get the pugwumpies to stop worshiping me.)
Major Creation at combat speed allowing you to make any Combat manuever and based off of the above make it with either high bonuses or just automatic.....true you might not be min-maxing but the word ridiculous might seem a-bit appropriate.
Now you're getting the idea.
I'd say that taking up permanent residence in the body of a demon qualifies as a bit abnormal. It would also make virtually any sort of social interaction all but impossible. Then again, from what he has said about Arkalion, he doesn't really go in for social interaction anyway. More of a murderous psychopath type personality.
That's what Shapechange is for (magic it really can solve problems). And he's not a murderous psychopath, though his diplomacy is of the "sandwich or loaded gun" variety. And let's be honest, if Nethys gets to be Neutral, I think Arkalion's Neutral alignment is safe.
Major Creation at combat speed allowing you to make any Combat manuever and based off of the above make it with either high bonuses or just automatic.....true you might not be min-maxing but the word ridiculous might seem a-bit appropriate.
Note, I wasn't always thinking in terms of combat maneuvers (I never before realized that the trip was essentially a combat maneuver. Pretty sure the blindness isn't though.). I made attacks and defenses, supports to get around traps, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say that taking up permanent residence in the body of a demon qualifies as a bit abnormal. It would also make virtually any sort of social interaction all but impossible. Then again, from what he has said about Arkalion, he doesn't really go in for social interaction anyway. More of a murderous psychopath type personality.That's what Shapechange is for (magic it really can solve problems). And he's not a murderous psychopath, though his diplomacy is of the "sandwich or loaded gun" variety. And let's be honest, if Nethys gets to be Neutral, I think Arkalion's Neutral alignment is safe.
According to your own description of his behavior, he shows up on a world, declares himself to be it's ruler, and murders anyone who objects.
If you don't think that's a murderous psychopath, then it's possible that YOUR sanity is in question.
And to be honest, everything you've said about that character just screams "My GM has no balls".
Assuming that my original hypothesis that you are your own GM is incorrect.
Blindness would be dirty trick.
I'd say that taking up permanent residence in the body of a demon qualifies as a bit abnormal. It would also make virtually any sort of social interaction all but impossible. Then again, from what he has said about Arkalion, he doesn't really go in for social interaction anyway. More of a murderous psychopath type personality.That's what Shapechange is for (magic it really can solve problems). And he's not a murderous psychopath, though his diplomacy is of the "sandwich or loaded gun" variety. And let's be honest, if Nethys gets to be Neutral, I think Arkalion's Neutral alignment is safe.According to your own description of his behavior, he shows up on a world, declares himself to be it's ruler, and murders anyone who objects.
If you don't think that's a murderous psychopath, then it's possible that YOUR sanity is in question.
And to be honest, everything you've said about that character just screams "My GM has no balls".
Assuming that my original hypothesis that you are your own GM is incorrect.
He declares they have to become part of his Grand Cycle ie. when they die they must be reincarnated. So you can either have your sandwich (be reincarnated when you die) or you can opt for the loaded gun (he crushes your resistance and has a Shinigami Simulacrum use Soul Bind on you). But again, he doesn't just show up and start murdering people, that would be what a psychopath does. He shows up, waits for people to choose to oppose him and then defends himself against those people. That's just self defense really. And again, compare to Nethys who is Neutral.
He declares they have to become part of his Grand Cycle ie. when they die they must be reincarnated. So you can either have your sandwich (be reincarnated when you die) or you can opt for the loaded gun (he crushes your resistance and has a Shinigami Simulacrum use Soul Bind on you). But again, he doesn't just show up and start murdering people, that would be what a psychopath does. He shows up, waits for people to choose to oppose him and then defends himself against those people. That's just self defense really. And again, compare to Nethys who is Neutral.I'd say that taking up permanent residence in the body of a demon qualifies as a bit abnormal. It would also make virtually any sort of social interaction all but impossible. Then again, from what he has said about Arkalion, he doesn't really go in for social interaction anyway. More of a murderous psychopath type personality.That's what Shapechange is for (magic it really can solve problems). And he's not a murderous psychopath, though his diplomacy is of the "sandwich or loaded gun" variety. And let's be honest, if Nethys gets to be Neutral, I think Arkalion's Neutral alignment is safe.According to your own description of his behavior, he shows up on a world, declares himself to be it's ruler, and murders anyone who objects.
If you don't think that's a murderous psychopath, then it's possible that YOUR sanity is in question.
And to be honest, everything you've said about that character just screams "My GM has no balls".
Assuming that my original hypothesis that you are your own GM is incorrect.
You don't really believe that's self defense, do you? I mean, really?
Choose to do things his way,give up their beliefs, and then if they say no you have your choice invalidated. An interesting way to describe self defense.
Choose to do things his way,give up their beliefs, and then if they say no you have your choice invalidated. An interesting way to describe self defense.
I know it's considered poor form on the Internet, but...
Following Anzyr's logic, you know who else was just engaging in self defense?
You don't really believe that's self defense, do you? I mean, really?He declares they have to become part of his Grand Cycle ie. when they die they must be reincarnated. So you can either have your sandwich (be reincarnated when you die) or you can opt for the loaded gun (he crushes your resistance and has a Shinigami Simulacrum use Soul Bind on you). But again, he doesn't just show up and start murdering people, that would be what a psychopath does. He shows up, waits for people to choose to oppose him and then defends himself against those people. That's just self defense really. And again, compare to Nethys who is Neutral.I'd say that taking up permanent residence in the body of a demon qualifies as a bit abnormal. It would also make virtually any sort of social interaction all but impossible. Then again, from what he has said about Arkalion, he doesn't really go in for social interaction anyway. More of a murderous psychopath type personality.That's what Shapechange is for (magic it really can solve problems). And he's not a murderous psychopath, though his diplomacy is of the "sandwich or loaded gun" variety. And let's be honest, if Nethys gets to be Neutral, I think Arkalion's Neutral alignment is safe.According to your own description of his behavior, he shows up on a world, declares himself to be it's ruler, and murders anyone who objects.
If you don't think that's a murderous psychopath, then it's possible that YOUR sanity is in question.
And to be honest, everything you've said about that character just screams "My GM has no balls".
Assuming that my original hypothesis that you are your own GM is incorrect.
He's not the one being violent here. In fact, he's trying to reincarnate someone, or failing that prevent their soul from falling into dangerous hands via Soul Bind. Of course he's not just going to let you attack him because you don't like that. He's totally defending himself. Defending yourself is a neutral action. Even if you are vile warlord you are allowed to defend yourself even lethally, without it being an evil action (note that doesn't make any of your other actions or yourself any *less* evil). To argue otherwise would be to treat everyone in every combat ever as Evil.
Does Arkalion's arcane symbol resemble this?
It's a stylized tomoe set inside a stylized ouroborous actually.
It's a stylized tomoe set inside a stylized ouroborous actually.
Ouroboros? So it's like a cat lady and a gummy bear?
OK, I got it:Sweet!
Sorry, I couldn't resist a chance to bring gummy bears into the thread.
He's not the one being violent here. In fact, he's trying to reincarnate someone, or failing that prevent their soul from falling into dangerous hands via Soul Bind. Of course he's not just going to let you attack him because you...
If you, Anzyr, actually believe this then I'll echo Kthulhu's sentiment in regards to your sanity. This is pretty much a textbook example of lawful evil behavior. This is the kind of person that is the BBEG in a campaign.
But whatever. Clearly you enjoy playing this and your GM lets you get away with it. I'll just be happy that you don't have the power to inflict your neutrality on the real world.
The action he's taking (reincarnation someone) is not lawful evil (soul bind isn't either). So he's not evil there. If someone attacks him because they disagree with his methods and he defends himself, that is also neutral. The only way that Arkalion could be lawful evil is if most of his actions were. Not even one of his actions is in this case. "My" Neutrality as you call it Simon Legrande is already the truth in our of world. A company that is profiting off people in another country (neutral) is allowed to defend itself if someone who disagrees with it's labor practices attempts to injure them. Surely you don't think Nike would be Evil for having guards that would retaliate (possibly lethally) against people who wanted to harm their facilities?
Except you are retaliating against people that you've shown up on their world, told them they have exactly two choices and no more, and then if they have the audacity to not like those choices you cry self defense if they respond. You are violating their choices for your own grand scheme. It's textbook super villain.
Yes, but neither of the actions Arkalion takes is Evil. They may not like Arkalion taking those actions, but that does not make Arkalion Evil. I think you are making the classic mistake of treating "Not Good" as Evil. Arkalion is quite literally "Not Good". But that does not make him "Evil". This is also getting a bit off topic.
On the contrary, Ark is the instigator, the people are his victims. They have the right to resist Ark's imposition, and while it would be morally better to try diplomacy first, if that diplomacy fails, then them taking extreme measures is perfectly valid self defense on the people's part.
If Ark only imposed this on one country, then it would be evil for those outside Ark's imposition to act against him, unless they got significant requests for aid from the oppressed people, however, it always morally right for oppressed people to fight against oppression by whatever means are required to end the oppression. Morally, they should use escalation of force, but it is still people defending their livliehoods, their way of life, their happiness.
Ark is evil for taking those things away, regardless of how nonviolent his methods.
Yes, but neither of the actions Arkalion takes is Evil. They may not like Arkalion taking those actions, but that does not make Arkalion Evil. I think you are making the classic mistake of treating "Not Good" as Evil. Arkalion is quite literally "Not Good". But that does not make him "Evil". This is also getting a bit off topic.Way off topic. But what is he actually doing? Is he casting some giant meta spell that forces everyone on the world to be reincarnated on death? Is he everywhere on the planet at once casting individual reincarnates on anyone who dies? Probably tens of thousands every day.
Do these reincarnates, however he's doing them, bypass the standard requirement that the soul be willing to reincarnate?
He floods the world with Simulacrums that use Reincarnate (usually duplicated via Wish). If a subject does not accept the reincarnation, then a Shinigami Simulacrum is called in to use Soul Bind.
Indeed, while the actions a person takes can be neutral by themselves, the intent and motivation behind those actions is what makes those actions good or evil.
His goal is to save people from the rather horrifying afterlife and in doing so deprive the gods of new mortal souls. So his motivations themselves are fairly neutral, maybe even leaning towards good.
Need to make notes on this.....would make for a good villain for a Bleach game.
He floods the world with Simulacrums that use Reincarnate (usually duplicated via Wish). If a subject does not accept the reincarnation, then a Shinigami Simulacrum is called in to use Soul Bind.Yes, but neither of the actions Arkalion takes is Evil. They may not like Arkalion taking those actions, but that does not make Arkalion Evil. I think you are making the classic mistake of treating "Not Good" as Evil. Arkalion is quite literally "Not Good". But that does not make him "Evil". This is also getting a bit off topic.Way off topic. But what is he actually doing? Is he casting some giant meta spell that forces everyone on the world to be reincarnated on death? Is he everywhere on the planet at once casting individual reincarnates on anyone who dies? Probably tens of thousands every day.
Do these reincarnates, however he's doing them, bypass the standard requirement that the soul be willing to reincarnate?So millions of Simulacrums to be sure of being anywhere that anyone is dying (but of course taking no actions to save them) within a minute or two of them dying, using Wishes left and right and binding the souls of anyone whose soul doesn't accept reincarnation.
And murdering anyone who tries to stop you. Even from doing to them or their friends. Even though there's no risk to you personally, just to one of the simulacrums.
Yeah, you're a BBEG.
Nah he's helping those poor souls. And he's preventing people from interfering. That is neutral leaning good intentions, with neutral actions. Why would defending his simulacrums make him Evil? Keep in mind that in many places you do not have a right to die. That's like saying that if a Doctor attempts to resuscitate a patient that wants to die, you should be allowed to attack them or the hospital equipment. You are not. Also, that would probably make *you* the Evil one.
Need to make notes on this.....would make for a goodvillainhero for a Bleach game.
Fixed that. Seriously the Soul Society has it coming for... like literally thousands of reasons if not more.
Considering my typical group is all soul society its villain. But remember Ichigo was the villain as far as they were concerned in the Invasion Arc. So its subjective.
This is like many other alignment threads, where someone tries to defend playing their Chaotic Neutral character the way they do. You may certainly believe that you are being Neutral with leanings towards good. It doesn't seem that there is much support for that. If you and your GM are happy with this campaign, that's all that really matters I suppose. All of this is on the level of using a push spell to knock Thor off a wall and take his hammer to me.
There is support. Like the real life example above. And the fact that none of the spells involved are evil. And the fact that Nethys gets to count as Neutral.
Unless of course you think there's an argument where doctors that resuscitate patients that want to die are Evil. I personally don't. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Don't forget the Fallacy fallacy which is that calling something a fallacy automatically nullifies the very valid points behind it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This hasn't much to do with doctors and patients. They aren't usually showing up with a gun and demanding that they be allowed to work on said patient.
Whether you believe your character is evil or not is somewhere around the 9th thing wrong with all of this. The fact that you believe that any of this borders on good is troubling, however.
I believe is very firmly neutral, with a very slight to lean to good since his goal is ultimately to save souls from a horrific. But again, to translate this to our world. A patient want to die, but is prevented when a doctor bursts in and begins to treat them. And will defend himself if someone tries to prevent him from doing this. Do you really think that the Doctor is Evil? Because if so I find that very troubling.
You can do all sorts of evil things with spells that don't count as evil.There is support. Like the real life example above. And the fact that none of the spells involved are evil. And the fact that Nethys gets to count as Neutral.
Unless of course you think there's an argument where doctors that resuscitate patients that want to die are Evil. I personally don't. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
He's using the spells to save people from a horrific afterlife. That seems to be fairly good, neutral at worst. And yes, you can be fairly cruel with spells without actually taking an alignment hit, see using Dominate Person/Monster to get a person to attack their allies.
We're sufficiently off topic though that if you wish to discuss this further please make another thread.
It's a character for a build contest that happens to have a reasonably detailed backstory and is fully capable of performing the abilities the backstory requires via RAW. Of course as this is a level 20 character we are taking about therefore "I start traveling to alternate worlds to create an endless cycle of reincarnation." is the kind of thing my group would go "Ya, sounds like a level 20 goal." to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, this again. Yeah, definitely evil. Especially with him explicitly murdering and imprisoning the soul of anyone who disagrees with his goal (and anyone who would actually like to go to the normal afterlife).
We assume he's your GMPC because you're the only person who would actually claim his goal is good, and thus give him a pass =P
Edit: To be more explicit, it's not the act of offering free reincarnates to as many people as possible that's evil.
It's the act of imprisoning their souls when they say "no, I'd rather go on to my normal afterlife, whatever it may be" that's soundly and utterly evil.
Second edit: If a patient has actually signed a Do Not Resuscitate Order/Advanced Medical Directive and a doctor outright ignores it just because he can, that doctor's both a horrible person and in deep s&#!.
Spin off thread at On the nature of Evil.