Your favorite thing that people hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Ashiel wrote:
It's not even much effort. Stacking AC is probably the easiest thing to raise.

So, uh, say I got a Draconic Disciple with a ring of protection, an amulet of natural armor, the shield spell, and a mithral breastplate, how else do I raise the AC aside from increasing the bonuses on those items?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It's not even much effort. Stacking AC is probably the easiest thing to raise.

My players have just reached level 13 in our Skull and Shackles game, and most can still only get hit on a 20.

I just don't understand people who say AC is useless, or that it falls behind, at high levels. It just isn't true. If that's happening then your group has a low level of system mastery, or you as the GM aren't giving them enough treasure, or something else is going on.

I'm quite surprised with how many encounters I've been in where the GM refused to award encounter treasure and just went with "whatever's in the statblock is what you get." The vast, vast majority. I'd wager the majority of tables are treasure starved in some way.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It's not even much effort. Stacking AC is probably the easiest thing to raise.
So, uh, say I got a Draconic Disciple with a ring of protection, an amulet of natural armor, the shield spell, and a mithral breastplate, how else do I raise the AC aside from increasing the bonuses on those items?

Mind you fighting defensively and full defense are an at-will +2 and +4, respectively. If something can hit like a tank, just turtle up. That's one way.


Joshua, the gm has every right to change the rules but he MUST make each change clear and open from the beginning.

If you don't want to run Pathfinder then don't. I still use PF as a resource but haven't genuinely run it in years.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It's not even much effort. Stacking AC is probably the easiest thing to raise.
So, uh, say I got a Draconic Disciple with a ring of protection, an amulet of natural armor, the shield spell, and a mithral breastplate, how else do I raise the AC aside from increasing the bonuses on those items?

You are off to an excellent start there. To that I would add a Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone (+1 insight to AC) and a Ring of Force Shield (+2 shield bonus to AC, but saves on actions and spell slots over the Shield spell). A magic belt that boosts Dex also boosts AC. Too bad they nerfed the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier -- it used to be good for a +1 luck bonus to AC. You can also take the Dodge feat (another +1 to AC) if you have nothing better to do with your feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is always something better to do with feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
It's not even much effort. Stacking AC is probably the easiest thing to raise.
So, uh, say I got a Draconic Disciple with a ring of protection, an amulet of natural armor, the shield spell, and a mithral breastplate, how else do I raise the AC aside from increasing the bonuses on those items?

Well using a real shield can get you another +3 AC, and you can get a +1 insight bonus to your AC as well from an ioun stone. That's another +20% evasion right there.

Depending on your class or buff spells available you have even more options. Anything that grants actual natural armor stacks with enhancement bonuses to natural armor (such as the aforementioned amulet). Wearing heavier armor than a breastplate can net another +15% evade all by itself. Your Dexterity applies.

You also get dodge bonuses such as those granted from haste (and haste is a staple buff that becomes very easy to have every fight at higher levels).

Druids are stupid when it comes to AC because of the wild enhancement and the existence of dragonhide gear (allowing them to use wild dragonhide full plate and wild tower shields while in animal form, granting obscene ACs that can keep you evade-capped past 20th level).

Let's look at a wizard.
+5 silken ceremonial robe = +6 armor
+5 mithral buckler = +6 shield
+5 ring of protection = +5 deflection
+5 amulet of natural armor = +5 natural enhancement
+5 Dexterity modifier (assumes you began with a 14 Dex and a +6 item)
+1 ioun stone = +1 insight bonus
Total = AC 37 pre-buffs

We can go higher of course.
Inherent bonuses to Dex adds another +2.5.
Haste provides a +1 dodge bonus.
Modifying your body (such as through polymorph spells) adds natural armor. If we replaced the cheap silk armor with bracers we could net another +2.

If we have any minions (such as blood skeletons) aid another stacks, quickly throwing the RNG out the window.

If you wear armor heavier than a bath towel your AC jumps another 5 to 8 points.

This also is ignoring any shenanigans (such as using magic jar and simulacrum together).

And this is, again, in a bath robe and wearing a tiny buckler. Using better armors or shields push the RNG in your favor even further (going from a ceremonial robe to celestial plate is a +40% evade boost alone).


Right, let's see then...10 base, plus 5 from dexterity, 5 from draconic disciple natural armor, 11 from breastplate, 5 from amulet, 5 from ring, 1 from the stone...

42 AC unbuffed at level 20, 40 if raging. 46/44 if there's a shield spell in effect. Along with a nice +9 to initiative, packing uncanny dodge, and a ton of HP because barbarian with 18 constitution.

And with a two-handed weapon and 6th level spellcasting I'm pretty confident I can keep the attention of the enemies. The only issue is that with all the multiclassing going on (this is Barb4/Soc1/DD8/EK7) my reflex save suffers a lot and having the opportunity to grab all the items might not come up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

My sohei/storm druid rocks about a 33-36 at 12th depending on wild shape choice. I should really see about getting him a headband to boost his Wis to AC, but with how inflated our stats are it didn't seem fair.


Okay, just redid the math, my reflex save is actually normal in the end, it's just slow to get there. This does mean that pits and the like are going to be a problem until I have fly on speed dial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Okay, just redid the math, my reflex save is actually normal in the end, it's just slow to get there. This does mean that pits and the like are going to be a problem until I have fly on speed dial.

Heroism is a fairly long term buff that adds a +2 bonus to attacks and saves. It's pretty much a staple from the point you get it until forever. Greater heroism doesn't have the longevity so it's better for 1-upping heroism in a pinch.


I feel like Cat's Grace would be a better buff for the time that I need the boost since heroism is a third level spell for me. The only way I'm getting that used on me when I need the boost is if there's a bard or an alchemist in the party I put the barbarian in.


Oh, here's a thing! Two of my favorite Druid archetypes, the Nature Fang and the Death Druid, both trade away wild shape!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite things that other people hate:

1. Actually citing the rules you are discussing.
2. Psionics
3. The Christmas Tree Effect

That's the big 3 for sure anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Oh, here's a thing! Two of my favorite Druid archetypes, the Nature Fang and the Death Druid, both trade away wild shape!

Don't feel bad. The strongest druid I know how to build has wild shape only as an optional thing. Mostly if you want to do the natural flight thing (spend your time as a bird or something). It's otherwise not really used outside of utility purposes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:

Actually the term is used by rules-lawyers as they argue for the inclusion of something absurd....

As in the following sentence...

"My DM made an arbitrary ruling against me playing a lich."

See also it depends what the definition of is, is.

Here is another thing I like that other people don't: characters not defined by their nature! Liches who run homeless kitchens with no nefarious plot in mind, devil clerics going around healing cripples because they like how people smile afterwards, dwarves who don't hate elves, you name it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Actually the term is used by rules-lawyers as they argue for the inclusion of something absurd....

As in the following sentence...

"My DM made an arbitrary ruling against me playing a lich."

See also it depends what the definition of is, is.

Here is another thing I like that other people don't: characters not defined by their nature! Liches who run homeless kitchens

Red Flag. I'm gonna stop you right there. Don't try to sell me the lich with a heart of gold unless it's a fashion accessory.

Quote:
The neighbors were quoted saying "there was this lich, there was this kitchen, there were destitute people - we thought it was all legit!". A final body-count is proving elusive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BadBird wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

Actually the term is used by rules-lawyers as they argue for the inclusion of something absurd....

As in the following sentence...

"My DM made an arbitrary ruling against me playing a lich."

See also it depends what the definition of is, is.

Here is another thing I like that other people don't: characters not defined by their nature! Liches who run homeless kitchens

Red Flag. I'm gonna stop you right there. Don't try to sell me the lich with a heart of gold unless it's a fashion accessory.

Quote:
The neighbors were quoted saying "there was this lich, there was this kitchen, there were destitute people - we thought it was all legit!". A final body-count is proving elusive.

See? People hate this stuff, despite the fact that liches aren't actually required to do anything evil. Really, it's true. Check out the Lich template. All they have to do is pay a lot of gold and pass a bunch of skill checks.

Liberty's Edge

Klara Meison wrote:
See? People hate this stuff, despite the fact that liches aren't actually required to do anything evil. Really, it's true. Check out the Lich template. All they have to do is pay a lot of gold and pass a bunch of skill checks.

This varies by setting. In Golarion it's pretty explicit that they need to do a bunch of evil stuff as part of the process, for example.


Sissyl wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my opinion, the only reason to invest in leadership is to gain a cohort over whose build you have control. Npcs are a dime a dozen if you pay or roleplay for their aid.
Leadership gets you someone loyal, who will stick with you even if the other guys give them a better offer. Someone who will fight and risk death, even against very poor odds, for you.

Well in my WoTR campaing,i let my herophant player to have hands of inheritor as cohort ... they are doing well. Of course i made alot of changes with the encounters of City of locust.


Ashiel wrote:
Druids are stupid when it comes to AC because of the wild enhancement and the existence of dragonhide gear (allowing them to use wild dragonhide full plate and wild tower shields while in animal form, granting obscene ACs that can keep you evade-capped past 20th level).

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

It is still doable. My level 12 core pfs druid sits at around AC36 most of the time while wild shaped into a large earth elemental. I havent bothered with tower shield proficiency but heavy armour was worth the investment.

Currently he is looking at:

10 +10armour +3shield +1dex +2deflection from the ring +1insight ioun stone +6natural base from wild shape +5 barkskin -1 size

Haste up's it by 1 but there isnt that much beyond it barring say a shield of faith from the cleric. It provides a lot of defence but it is still far from only being hit on a natural 20 at this level.

Of course being immune to crit's, sneak attack and bleed also helps.


To be fair I don't desire "can only be hit on a 20" defenses. I desire "the big enemy misses me on a 7 with a full BAB attack" defenses for a frontliner.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.
Andreww wrote:

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

Things I love that people hate.

Real FAQs.
Real Errata.

Because the wild enhancement doesn't work that way. The FAQ is wrong. The enhancement only says you retain the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus while wild shaped.

It's not even an interpretation thing. The FAQ is just strait up lying. That's par for the course with the FAQ though.


HyperMissingno wrote:
To be fair I don't desire "can only be hit on a 20" defenses. I desire "the big enemy misses me on a 7 with a full BAB attack" defenses for a frontliner.

If that's the case, the only resource you really need to calibrate your characters is the average stats by CR table in the Bestiaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to roll Bluff to pretend to be right. Then end up being right.


Ashiel wrote:
Andreww wrote:

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

Things I love that people hate.

Real FAQs.
Real Errata.

Because the wild enhancement doesn't work that way. The FAQ is wrong. The enhancement only says you retain the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus while wild shaped.

It's not even an interpretation thing. The FAQ is just strait up lying. That's par for the course with the FAQ though.

Having just read the entries on Wild Shape, Beast Shape I, and the Polymorph school, I'd pose this question - where does it say that while your gear is melded with you, you no longer take any penalties from it?

If anything, the bit of the FAQ that appears to be wrong would be the bit that says you don't take penalties while not gaining bonuses.

And I'm fairly sure that given they write the game, Paizo FAQs are real FAQs, even if you don't like them.


Klara Meison wrote:
See? People hate this stuff, despite the fact that liches aren't actually required to do anything evil. Really, it's true. Check out the Lich template. All they have to do is pay a lot of gold and pass a bunch of skill checks.

Now tomb kings and heroes of might and magic V necropolis are like my favorite undead groups ever, so don't think I'm against non-evil undead, but you missed something.

Lich template wrote:
Alignment: Any evil.

You don't need to be evil to become a lich, but becoming one makes you evil. Which in past editions was explained by virtue of the phylactery creation process required consuming the life force of sapient creatures.

Hence why there were special rules for the non-evil liches in Forgotten Realms and Planescape. They had much harder methods of achieving immortality and generally had some sort of behavioral code.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
See? People hate this stuff, despite the fact that liches aren't actually required to do anything evil. Really, it's true. Check out the Lich template. All they have to do is pay a lot of gold and pass a bunch of skill checks.

Now tomb kings and heroes of might and magic V necropolis are like my favorite undead groups ever, so don't think I'm against non-evil undead, but you missed something.

Lich template wrote:
Alignment: Any evil.

You don't need to be evil to become a lich, but becoming one makes you evil. Which in past editions was explained by virtue of the phylactery creation process required consuming the life force of sapient creatures.

Hence why there were special rules for the non-evil liches in Forgotten Realms and Planescape. They had much harder methods of achieving immortality and generally had some sort of behavioral code.

Ah, but pay attention to my wording. I didn't say "liches aren't evil". I said "liches aren't actually required to do anything evil". Allignment doesn't force you to take any actions, thus liches, despite being evil, don't have to do evil stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then there's the fact a lich who casts protection from evil frequently enough with few enough evil acts becomes neutral and then good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then there's the fact a lich who casts protection from evil frequently enough with few enough evil acts becomes neutral and then good.

And let's stop discussing this topic right here, before it...devolves.


I believe archliches are the ones running homeless shelters.


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
I believe archliches are the ones running homeless shelters.

It's Vampires, who have a strong reason to gather them up for convenient feeding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Then there's the fact a lich who casts protection from evil frequently enough with few enough evil acts becomes neutral and then good.
And let's stop discussing this topic right here, before it...devolves.

You know, I am starting to like that text more and more. It is so gloriously stupid that it kills alignment discussion on the spot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

4+int skills as a baseline.


HyperMissingno wrote:
To be fair I don't desire "can only be hit on a 20" defenses. I desire "the big enemy misses me on a 7 with a full BAB attack" defenses for a frontliner.

I usually aim for "Needs an 11 to hit me with their highest attack bonus" but otherwise agreed.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
To be fair I don't desire "can only be hit on a 20" defenses. I desire "the big enemy misses me on a 7 with a full BAB attack" defenses for a frontliner.
I usually aim for "Needs an 11 to hit me with their highest attack bonus" but otherwise agreed.

I just used 7 as a random number because my party regularly runs into enemy's that hit the tank when they roll a 2 because they don't upgrade their armor enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
4+int skills as a baseline.

Arnt most folks in favor of this?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I certainly am!

Silver Crusade

Planpanther wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
4+int skills as a baseline.
Arnt most folks in favor of this?

More skill goodies for everyone!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
4+int skills as a baseline.

People hate this? I love that the PoW:E archetypes of Fighter and Paladin both make that their baselines (and specifically calls out that they stack with other archetypes that alter skills)


Planpanther wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
4+int skills as a baseline.
Arnt most folks in favor of this?

Take a look in the "giving dumb fighters a bone" thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Andreww wrote:

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

Things I love that people hate.

Real FAQs.
Real Errata.

Because the wild enhancement doesn't work that way. The FAQ is wrong. The enhancement only says you retain the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus while wild shaped.

It's not even an interpretation thing. The FAQ is just strait up lying. That's par for the course with the FAQ though.

Having just read the entries on Wild Shape, Beast Shape I, and the Polymorph school, I'd pose this question - where does it say that while your gear is melded with you, you no longer take any penalties from it?

If anything, the bit of the FAQ that appears to be wrong would be the bit that says you don't take penalties while not gaining bonuses.

And I'm fairly sure that given they write the game, Paizo FAQs are real FAQs, even if you don't like them.

The problem is that if something doesn't say it happens, it doesn't. Humans can't fly because it doesn't say we can. You don't get the armor bonuses. It says so. Unless you have the Wild enchantment. Then you do.

The FAQ adds a bunch of unstated rules to a book that does not contain them. That's why it lies. The book does not say what the FAQ says it does. It's an Errata that isn't actually written into the books.

Often when these FAQratta are made they make things worse to boot.

And these "FAQ" aren't even solid, they change back and forth. Remember the spell-likes allow qualification for spellcasting? It went away after too.

FAQ are supposed to be clarifications of rule text that are unclear. It isn't supposed to conjure up new rules out of the ether.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icehawk wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Andreww wrote:

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

Things I love that people hate.

Real FAQs.
Real Errata.

Because the wild enhancement doesn't work that way. The FAQ is wrong. The enhancement only says you retain the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus while wild shaped.

It's not even an interpretation thing. The FAQ is just strait up lying. That's par for the course with the FAQ though.

Having just read the entries on Wild Shape, Beast Shape I, and the Polymorph school, I'd pose this question - where does it say that while your gear is melded with you, you no longer take any penalties from it?

If anything, the bit of the FAQ that appears to be wrong would be the bit that says you don't take penalties while not gaining bonuses.

And I'm fairly sure that given they write the game, Paizo FAQs are real FAQs, even if you don't like them.

The problem is that if something doesn't say it happens, it doesn't. Humans can't fly because it doesn't say we can. You don't get the armor bonuses. It says so. Unless you have the Wild enchantment. Then you do.

The FAQ adds a bunch of unstated rules to a book that does not contain them. That's why it lies. The book does not say what the FAQ says it does. It's an Errata that isn't actually written into the books.

Often when these FAQratta are made they make things worse to boot.

And these "FAQ" aren't even solid, they change back and forth. Remember the spell-likes allow qualification for spellcasting? It went away after too.

FAQ are supposed to be clarifications of rule text that are unclear. It isn't supposed to conjure up new rules out of the ether.

I agree they are using the FAQ more as erratas... However the FAQ is on the main Paizo site and published by the creators... So it's not official... arguing it's not is madness. That being said unless you are playing society who cares! My games ignore official rules all the time.

(though I'm not sure why you would want to make it easier for an already powerful class to become nigh invulnerable to AC attacks without any drawback other than some gold)

Also on topic: I love psionic's I wish all casters used the Power Point system instead of the Vancian system


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Flamephoenix182 wrote:
Icehawk wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Andreww wrote:

Provided you arew willing to take the feats for them as even when wild shaped you are taking the penalties.

Relevant FAQ

Things I love that people hate.

Real FAQs.
Real Errata.

Because the wild enhancement doesn't work that way. The FAQ is wrong. The enhancement only says you retain the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus while wild shaped.

It's not even an interpretation thing. The FAQ is just strait up lying. That's par for the course with the FAQ though.

Having just read the entries on Wild Shape, Beast Shape I, and the Polymorph school, I'd pose this question - where does it say that while your gear is melded with you, you no longer take any penalties from it?

If anything, the bit of the FAQ that appears to be wrong would be the bit that says you don't take penalties while not gaining bonuses.

And I'm fairly sure that given they write the game, Paizo FAQs are real FAQs, even if you don't like them.

The problem is that if something doesn't say it happens, it doesn't. Humans can't fly because it doesn't say we can. You don't get the armor bonuses. It says so. Unless you have the Wild enchantment. Then you do.

The FAQ adds a bunch of unstated rules to a book that does not contain them. That's why it lies. The book does not say what the FAQ says it does. It's an Errata that isn't actually written into the books.

Often when these FAQratta are made they make things worse to boot.

And these "FAQ" aren't even solid, they change back and forth. Remember the spell-likes allow qualification for spellcasting? It went away after too.

FAQ are supposed to be clarifications of rule text that are unclear. It isn't supposed to conjure up new rules out of the ether.

I agree they are using the FAQ more as erratas... However the FAQ is on the main Paizo site and published by the creators... So it's not official... arguing it's not is madness. That...

I prefer psionics myself as well, though Vancian has its place too.

As for the druid's strength, the ac stacking is a little absurd, but this doesn't solve that problem if that's their goal. It just makes it annoying for druids who take the less optimal pure caster route. It punishes a playstyle that's already kinda hampering itself. Battledruids who can fall back on casting have no trouble with these issues.

Incidentally the counter to druid ac stack is nuke spam and touch attacks. They can't deal with touch based assaults very well so spellcasters and summons and undead tend to have an advantage, as well as the usual spam em with alignment nukes.

As for it being official, oh it's "official" in the sense of the source. It's not "official" in the sense that it's the final word. Hell they often go against their own errata's later on, like with the previously mentioned spell-like errata.

It's a lack of consistency combined with often a lack of foresight. And if they want erratas, they have a place for them. People ask questions cus they want it clarified. They don't want rules completely rewritten suddenly. But that's often what they do get. And that's why a lot of us ignore it if we have the option. Least til it's written into the books themselves and make a lot of people sad.

Also the druid thing makes no sense anyways. If the armors not on you anymore, why does it restrict my movement? If it's all part of my body, why does it still weigh me down?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh for an actually on topic post. I love non-evil undead.

Someone's whose determination keeps them on this world past death is a fairly common literary trope but for some reason it's almost completely absent from Pathfinder. For some reason I can play batman in a high fantasy game but Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter is apparently a bridge too far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:

Oh for an actually on topic post. I love non-evil undead.

Someone's whose determination keeps them on this world past death is a fairly common literary trope but for some reason it's almost completely absent from Pathfinder. For some reason I can play batman in a high fantasy game but Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter is apparently a bridge too far.

I believe there are nonevil undead, but they're all sentient and they need really, really, REALLY strong willpower to resist falling to evil. Also ghosts are a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
I believe there are nonevil undead

Dragon's Demand has a pretty cool one, actually...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The equipment chapter specifies wearing armor. If it melds into your form, you're not wearing it. Wild allows you retain your armor/shield bonus and/or enhancement bonus of melded armor. It does not, however, say that you retain the penalties (which require wearing the armor), so you do not.

As Icehawk pointed out, the FAQ is far from infallible. They have actually reversed FAQ answers, and perhaps more awkwardly have contradicted themselves in their own FAQ from one question to another (such as saying you cannot do a thing because "no they are not spells" and then saying you can do another thing "because these are spells").

Because of the FAQ's shady nature, and outright lying in several areas, and self contradicting history, it's no wonder that some of us balk at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
I believe there are nonevil undead, but they're all sentient and they need really, really, REALLY strong willpower to resist falling to evil. Also ghosts are a thing.

That still feeds into the problem. Why is being undead an inherently morally corrupting? The search for immortality and the process of becoming undead are easily things I could see being morally corrupting, but just existing seems backwards as a corruptive force. Like I could even see a lich or some graveknight doing the whole retired dictator thing where they try to pretend they aren't evil anymore because they've mellowed out since the whole consuming people's souls to make their phylactery days.

Like saying "becoming x kind of undead requires y evil action which stains your soul forever" works perfectly fine by me. Specifically the AD&D explanation for how liches are made, but when the method of creation is morally neutral or even selfless I don't see how that would corrupt anyone. Take mummies created by volunteers who are forgoing an afterlife they objectively knows exist to guard their king's tomb. That's noble and selfless. There isn't any reason their alignment shouldn't read "any lawful".

251 to 300 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your favorite thing that people hate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.