What classes, feats, spells etc are banned in your campaign?

[TriOmegaZero]

Azothath wrote:

I advocate using PFS (PF1 Org Play) documentation as a campaign baseline as everything has been reviewed and the work done. Then add back in(some stuff(rules, classes, feats, spells, items, etc) were banned for ease of play or due to campaign format, then a few for PR issues) or ban more stuff.

It is well known that underpowered & inefficient stuff was not banned in PF1 Org Play. The vast majority of the items/spells are fixable.
The pregens(iconic) PCs are there and they can be helpful for a simple build example or NPCs.

This method lets you focus on the more important topics in the game and gives the players a big online database of reviewed resources.

I agree, it's an excellent baseline to modify to your tastes.

[Melkiador]

Azothath wrote:

I advocate using PFS (PF1 Org Play) documentation as a campaign baseline as everything has been reviewed and the work done.

Many of those things are banned for different kinds of reasons though.

Does it require you to be evil? Bannned because you can’t be evil.

Does it require downtime or mess the economy? Banned or modified because you have indeterminate time between sessions.

Is it overly vague? Banned because it will vary too much from table to table.

As for things that got banned for being too strong? I think only master summoner and monster tactician have qualified. A few other things got restricted for being a non-choice, but that was sporadic.

[Azothath]

Melkiador wrote:

Azothath wrote:

I advocate using PFS (PF1 Org Play) documentation as a campaign baseline as everything has been reviewed and the work done. Then add back in (...) or ban more stuff.

Many of those things are banned for different kinds of reasons though.

...

I added back IN what you are responding to, the "(...)".

Evil was on target to an extent but the rest is supposition. I'd prefer not to discuss it here as it's off topic and just draws pointless controversy.

what do you ban or recommend?

[Melkiador]

Funny enough, I use a similar guide but I don’t exactly ban anything first party. Anything PFS compatible is automatically allowed. Anything else first party has to be discussed on a case by case basis, but most of it is allowed too. I’d even allow master summoner, if I didn’t think the player was trying to cheese it too hard, but I would want to talk about the dangers of it with them first.

Third party abilities may be allowed but I don’t like tacking whole new systems into the game like spheres of power.

[Azothath]

Melkiador wrote:

Funny enough, I use a similar guide but I don’t exactly ban anything first party. Anything PFS compatible is automatically allowed. Anything else first party has to be discussed on a case by case basis, but most of it is allowed too. I’d even allow master summoner, if I didn’t think the player was trying to cheese it too hard, but I would want to talk about the dangers of it with them first.

Third party abilities may be allowed but I don’t like tacking whole new systems into the game like spheres of power.

That's sensible. A Home GM has a lot more control and that longer term social contract makes things more open to compromise and cooperation.

[Tim Emrick]

Most of my gaming is PFS these days, so it's been a while since I had to decide what to disallow in a campaign. Most of my home games have excluded the following:

• Evil PCs (I prefer more "heroic" games)
  
• Hybrid and occult classes (I'm still learning how most of them work)
  
• Guns and gunslingers (mixing that into medieval fantasy has always been very hit or miss for me)
  
• Asian-flavored classes (samurai, ninja, certain archetypes; few of my campaigns have included the appropriate cultures, though I have allowed monks on a limited basis, since they're core)

If I ever run another Freeport campaign, I'd relax many of those limits--early guns and Asian-inspired nations are canon in the setting, and the most recent city book incorporated a sprinkling of NPCs with hybrid classes. I'd likely still exclude openly evil PCs; there's enough nastiness in Freeport without the PCs embracing it. My last group were pirates who were mostly "CN, vaguely sauntering downward," and that was about as far as we really wanted to go.

[Melkiador]

I’ve had more bad than good experiences with evil PCs. Too many just play evil as being a jerk. When really, jerks can be either good or evil.

[Mightypion]

Evil games can be quite fun, but they need a group and a bit of experience.
My go to guides for making an evil character:

--Who is your favorite Villain, that is not completely superhuman (f.e. Thanos)?
--How you would transfer him to Pathfinder?
--What makes that villain compelling or interesting to you?

And then like, build on this.
I strongly recommend that you evil character does have like, not exactly redeeming features, but things he does not do. Not going after children, not engaging in sexual violence or being extremely faithfull to contracts he made are popular ones.

My experience with evil games is that player character are actually more polite to each other then in a normal game.

[TxSam88]

Mightypion wrote:

My experience with evil games is that player character are actually more polite to each other then in a normal game.

in my experience with evil campaigns is that they always collapse on them selves. Evil party members almost always turn on each other at some point.

[TriOmegaZero]

I find evil characters either do all their evil in the background (making them functionally neutral) or do random acts of evil that don't serve any purpose than "look at me, breaking game norms!".

I'll allow them with players I trust, but I don't find it to be worth the effort.

[SheepishEidolon]

As GMs, we trust ourselves to play all alignments in a proper way, even as we spend only little time on fleshing out some of our characters. So IMO we should trust players to be able to properly play a single evil character. At least some of them.

[AceofMoxen]

Mightypion wrote:

Evil games can be quite fun, but they need a group and a bit of experience.

My go to guides for making an evil character:

--Who is your favorite Villain, that is not completely superhuman (f.e. Thanos)?
--How you would transfer him to Pathfinder?
--What makes that villain compelling or interesting to you?

My top three favorite villains are Magneto, Grand Admiral Thrawn, and Dr. Doom. The only one that might work in a party is Magneto, and it's only because he's not actually evil. Thrawn and Doom both expect to be in command. Doom will absolutely kill any party member who tries to give him an order. Thrawn is not a backstabber, but again, the reason he would work better is that he's close to LN. Villains don't work in teams often, and especially not without a clear leader.

EDIT: For an interesting fourth villain, I like Nero from Star Trek [2009]. He would have a different problem in a party. Central to his character is that he makes awful choices. He chooses revenge over saving his people. Nothing will distract him from his target. He wouldn't last long in a party game.

[Mightypion]

My evil characters tend to be Flashmans, Evil Ciaphas Cains, Mr. Wade from Trisolaris series.

Magneto as a evil character works pretty well. Kineticist (Earth) and then flavor things around. He is also a pretty reasonable teamplayer in most of his incarnations.

I dont think I ever gave orders to party members (wouldnt like to be ordered myself), and I have been in 5ish evil campaigns, several ongoing. Its "Good Sir/Lady/Codename would you kindly murder/bind that guy please? I shall apply my people Skills to the Paladin in the meantime. SMACK. Yes mr. Paladin left half, my vicious Orc Butchering axe is indeed named "People Skills" No Mr. Paladin right half, regrettfully I did not come up with this excellent name myself, it was my demon ex girlfriend. Rest in pieces and have a wonderfull day in Elysium."

@Sheepish Eidolon wise words spoken!

[Phoebus Alexandros]

Sorry Mightypion, but that doesn’t work.

Elysium is the plane of benevolent chaos. ;)

[Mysterious Stranger]

I don’t allow evil players in the game I run because I do not enjoy that type of game. I have tried games where the players are evil have found them distasteful and for the most part boring. I realize that some people enjoy them, but some people actually enjoy watching golf on TV. When I run an evil NPC as a GM, I want to see him fail. They are designed as opponents for the Hero’s to overcome, not as something that should win.

In all honesty I find most players that prefer to run evil character to be people I don’t really want to associate with. Those that want to occasionally run an evil character are usually bad, but those whose preferred alignment is evil usually have personality traits I find objectionable. There are exceptions to this but from my own experiences I would rather avoid these types of people.

I think that the idea that if you do a single evil act your character instantly becomes evil is one thing that contributes to the desire to play an evil character. Many gamers seem to think that alignment is completely black and white, and a single evil act will cause you to shift to evil. No one is 100% good or evil. It is s spectrum where some people have more of either good or evil in them. Many of the “evil” characters people are saying are playable are probably some form of neutral rather than straight out evil.

[Azothath]

everyone has their personal and cultural views on morality and 'what's evil' and how to embody that in play. You have to exaggerate it a bit for a RPG and in a play/drama. It's different with novels due to high word count so there's room to be more complex and in depth.
I do like the sentiment from The Magicians, 'We are complex being and can both love and hate the same person at the same time!'

[Mightypion]

Phoebus Alexandros wrote:

Sorry Mightypion, but that doesn’t work.

Elysium is the plane of benevolent chaos. ;)

It does work, the Paladins, a holy warrior of his faiths, last moments on Golarion were spent listening his slayer mess up his religious tenets!

Or at least thats what my average evil character (high bluff, tpyically no Kn. Religion) will say.

[Neriathale]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

In all honesty I find most players that prefer to run evil character to be people I don’t really want to associate with. Those that want to occasionally run an evil character are usually bad, but those whose preferred alignment is evil usually have personality traits I find objectionable. There are exceptions to this but from my own experiences I would rather avoid these types of people.

Seconded. I used to play in a big LRP campaign that allowed evil characters, and whilst I'm sure the guy who played a paedophile orc was actually a nice person in reality, the character put me off the player for good.

[Temperans]

You see in my case I don't ban evil characters outright because not all evil characters are outright horrible. There are quite a few types of evil characters who are more subtle and not really disruptive.

Having said that, I won't tolerate anyone that takes things too far. This is a game and its meant to be fun, don't be a creep and ruin the mood for everyone else.

[Xelaaredn]

Mightypion wrote:

Orc Butchering axe

I really wish people would stop sticking Orc on the name of that weapon. Had a player try and act like his Half-orc Bloodrager was proficient with the thing and kept calling it that, even though it is very clearly just called a Butchering Axe.

Yes, it was made by the orcs of Belkzen. No, it is not used by every fricking orc in the Hold. Racial weapon proficiency does not apply.

That said, in line with the thread: I haven't really outright banned anything (leadership has been teetering on that edge). But a fair few of my players are still miffed that racial/deity specific spells are actually being kept as racial/deity specific. And, obviously, you can't just take campaign traits willy-nilly.