so i finally got around to making a portrait for my character in Exalted
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13239915/Naked%20Wind.png[/img]
huh
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43709440]so i finally got around to making a portrait for my character in Exalted
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13239915/Naked%20Wind.png[/img]
huh[/QUOTE]
Did you draw that or just photoshop it? Because its pretty good either way.
Hey, So I've been running a pathfinder game for a group of people who've never played an rpg before from work and my girlfriend. Its been going great, I don't have a lot of time for prepwork with shit that's going on right now, and we've been doing it once a week.(All the games I've ever run have been bi-monthly or monthly.) I've been using a pre-made campaign, (Reign of Winter by Paizo), it's awesome but I feel like it has too much combat. My current group has been talking with some other people at work who now really want to play, I already have 6 people in my group so I told the new people I'd start a new game for them.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a campaign that is more RP focused?
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;43709674]Did you draw that or just photoshop it? Because its pretty good either way.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could draw like that, even if it's not like a DaVinci peice of work!
Here's the original for reference: [img]http://th09.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2013/312/4/0/hentai_teacher_mikisugi_by_ilmaris-d6tjrn8.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Xane;43709825]Hey, So I've been running a pathfinder game for a group of people who've never played an rpg before from work and my girlfriend. Its been going great, I don't have a lot of time for prepwork with shit that's going on right now, and we've been doing it once a week.(All the games I've ever run have been bi-monthly or monthly.) I've been using a pre-made campaign, (Reign of Winter by Paizo), it's awesome but I feel like it has too much combat. My current group has been talking with some other people at work who now really want to play, I already have 6 people in my group so I told the new people I'd start a new game for them.
Does anyone have a recommendation for a campaign that is more RP focused?[/QUOTE]
Have everyone make a really detailed backstory. More backstory the better in the beginning. As time goes on, players will start to get a feel for their characters regardless, but this way, they'll act it out.
Alignment charts are also worthless. If I were you, I'd throw them out, or just have them be really loose. It sucks when people tell you that you can't do something because it doesnt fit your alignment.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;43710150]Have everyone make a really detailed backstory. More backstory the better in the beginning. As time goes on, players will start to get a feel for their characters regardless, but this way, they'll act it out.
Alignment charts are also worthless. If I were you, I'd throw them out, or just have them be really loose. It sucks when people tell you that you can't do something because it doesnt fit your alignment.[/QUOTE]
Too much backstory can be bad. Hell, even without a backstory, you can roleplay decently. It just gives the GM less to pull from. If you need things to pull from, as the GM, ask the players to write a basic backstory, or at least give names to a few family and friends, and some basic info on the relationship.
Throwing out alignments makes spells like detect alignment, protection from alignment, dispel alignment, and magic circle against alignment useless, as well as breaking classes like Paladin, Inquisitor, Cleric, and Monk. You're not going to have a nice, friendly cleric, who helps little old ladies cross the street, but in actuality worships Zon-Kuthon. That's just retarded.
Play loose with alignments. It's not a restriction on what you can and can't do, in any case but a paladins. It's a motivation. If the Lawful Good Cleric wants to torture someone for the glory of Zon-Kuthon, that's fine. But everyone should react accordingly to the upstanding citizen suddenly doing something outright evil, and his alignment may also shift to Neutral(For something so brazen). If, on the other hand, the Inquisitor of Zon-Kuthon helps an old woman cross the street, he may shift a bit towards Neutral, and it'll seem really off, but otherwise it's not really a big deal.
[QUOTE=Rats808;43712737]Too much backstory can be bad. Hell, even without a backstory, you can roleplay decently. It just gives the GM less to pull from. If you need things to pull from, as the GM, ask the players to write a basic backstory, or at least give names to a few family and friends, and some basic info on the relationship.
Throwing out alignments makes spells like detect alignment, protection from alignment, dispel alignment, and magic circle against alignment useless, as well as breaking classes like Paladin, Inquisitor, Cleric, and Monk. You're not going to have a nice, friendly cleric, who helps little old ladies cross the street, but in actuality worships Zon-Kuthon. That's just retarded.
Play loose with alignments. It's not a restriction on what you can and can't do, in any case but a paladins. It's a motivation. If the Lawful Good Cleric wants to torture someone for the glory of Zon-Kuthon, that's fine. But everyone should react accordingly to the upstanding citizen suddenly doing something outright evil, and his alignment may also shift to Neutral(For something so brazen). If, on the other hand, the Inquisitor of Zon-Kuthon helps an old woman cross the street, he may shift a bit towards Neutral, and it'll seem really off, but otherwise it's not really a big deal.[/QUOTE]
Rain me in dumbs, but alignment is a stupid way to define a character and the whole concept is very, very far from reality. In reality good and bad are subjective terms and you can barely say who is evil and who is good.
The whole idea of an alignment is what makes characters not alive creatures but some robots with a set of rules. It's good for mechanics like the classes you mentioned, but I can't see any way it can improve roleplay. If you really want to define a character, then just use [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics#The_16_types[/url] . It doesn't measure people as good or bad, it measures them in different aspect such as egoism and altruism, logical thinking and emotional thinking and so on. This is [b]much[/b] less rigid like the set-in-stone system of an alignment and is based on [b]real people[/b]. And unless your characters resemble real people no rp can be talked off.
However alignment is good when your characters are fairytale style people who resemble one characteristic given to them by an author. The evil guy is evil, the good knight is good and ALWAYS good, he even kills people as a good guy. The funny guy is funny and so on. Then a system like alignment is cool, but I can't understand how can anyone play as someone who acts absolutely irrationally (because being always evil or always good IS irrational, this is why we don't have such people in the real world).
The real issue with alignments is that while they don't work with people/grounded characters per se there are creatures/beings that can, as a fact fact, act completely good or completely evil. So, for example there's no way that an Orc baby is chaotic evil, but a demonic beast has to be chaotic evil because it's existence is fueled by evil acts.
You can play around with alignments in some settings, but I find games without them much better purely for the fact that everyone is in the gray area and they don't have to worry about breaking a specific mentality.
[QUOTE=croguy;43712863]The real issue with alignments is that while they don't work with people/grounded characters per se there are creatures/beings that can, for a fact, act out completely good and completely evil. So, for example there's no way that an Orc baby is chaotic evil, but a demonic beast has to be chaotic evil because it's existence is fueled by evil acts.
You can play around with alignments in some settings, but I find games without them much better purely for the fact that everyone is in the gray area and they don't have to worry about breaking a specific mentality.[/QUOTE]
Honestly a demon played some tricks on us in a fantasy campagin and it was fun to find out that the creature we thought to be a "generic evil character" appeared to have deeper interests and plans under the curtain.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43712882]Honestly a demon played some tricks on us in a fantasy campagin and it was fun to find out that the creature we thought to be a "generic evil character" appeared to have deeper interests and plans under the curtain.[/QUOTE]
They have an issue with being oddly portrayed, though. I'd like to see how a truly omnipotent evil being would be handled by the party, since, well, he's [I]truly omnipotent and actually evil for the sake of being evil[/I].
[QUOTE=croguy;43712942]They have an issue with being oddly portrayed, though. I'd like to see how a truly omnipotent evil being would be handled by the party, since, well, he's [I]truly omnipotent and actually evil for the sake of being evil[/I].[/QUOTE]
Usually if something is evil for the sake of being evil the best way to deal with it is to shoot/hit it until it's dead. An omnipotent evil is a deep issue of course...
I like alignments, but apparently I use them differently than everyone else:
Most people seem to have alignment control the players - if they try to do something against alignment, they just can't. In games I GM, if the player tries to do something against their alignment, the player wins - and if it's a repeated thing, or an egregiously bad thing, that cannot be justified somehow (eg. the LG Paladin being completely oblivious), then I have them change their alignment.
I've never had players try to play a restricted-alignment class, so it's never been an issue for them to go from CG to CN, but it still has a big psychological impact, which keeps them in check.
Think of it this way - the rules don't say "wizards can't wear heavy armor", they say "wizards have a 70% spell failure rate in heavy armor". If the player wants to do something that's [i]possible[/i] to do outside the rules system, let them, but make sure it has consequences.
There's also plenty of room within an alignment for variation. LG doesn't mean holier-than-thou immovable-rod-up-the-ass rule-following superman, it means lawful and good. Breaking one law to uphold another, or even breaking the word but following the spirit of a law, definitely doesn't violate LG alignment.
Alignment is a wonderful descriptor, and it helps with some of the magic stuff, but it should reflect your roleplay, not constrict it.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;43713135]I like alignments, but apparently I use them differently than everyone else:
Most people seem to have alignment control the players - if they try to do something against alignment, they just can't. In games I GM, if the player tries to do something against their alignment, the player wins - and if it's a repeated thing, or an egregiously bad thing, that cannot be justified somehow (eg. the LG Paladin being completely oblivious), then I have them change their alignment.
I've never had players try to play a restricted-alignment class, so it's never been an issue for them to go from CG to CN, but it still has a big psychological impact, which keeps them in check.
Think of it this way - the rules don't say "wizards can't wear heavy armor", they say "wizards have a 70% spell failure rate in heavy armor". If the player wants to do something that's [i]possible[/i] to do outside the rules system, let them, but make sure it has consequences.
There's also plenty of room within an alignment for variation. LG doesn't mean holier-than-thou immovable-rod-up-the-ass rule-following superman, it means lawful and good. Breaking one law to uphold another, or even breaking the word but following the spirit of a law, definitely doesn't violate LG alignment.
Alignment is a wonderful descriptor, and it helps with some of the magic stuff, but it should reflect your roleplay, not constrict it.[/QUOTE]
Nice position. That's the way it should be handled.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;43713161]Nice position. That's the way it should be handled.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what I was saying, and yet you quoted me and acted like I was advocating alignments being a hard rule. :v:
Like I said, I generally see it as more of a motivation more than anything. LG wants to uphold the law for the sake of the people, NG wants to help people, CG probably thinks the law is too strict and wants to destroy it for the good of the people. LN wants to uphold the law period, TN is just like whatever man, CN dislikes the law period. LE uses the law to their advantage so they can fuck with people, NE is selfish/fucks with people for the sake of fucking with people, CE wants to murder everyone and destroy everything. Beyond that, your actions are your own, I'm not gonna say no if the LG paladin wants to destroy a building full of people; I may warn him that it'll cause him to fall, but after that it's his prerogative.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;43713135]I like alignments, but apparently I use them differently than everyone else:
Most people seem to have alignment control the players - if they try to do something against alignment, they just can't. In games I GM, if the player tries to do something against their alignment, the player wins - and if it's a repeated thing, or an egregiously bad thing, that cannot be justified somehow (eg. the LG Paladin being completely oblivious), then I have them change their alignment.
I've never had players try to play a restricted-alignment class, so it's never been an issue for them to go from CG to CN, but it still has a big psychological impact, which keeps them in check.
Think of it this way - the rules don't say "wizards can't wear heavy armor", they say "wizards have a 70% spell failure rate in heavy armor". If the player wants to do something that's [i]possible[/i] to do outside the rules system, let them, but make sure it has consequences.
There's also plenty of room within an alignment for variation. LG doesn't mean holier-than-thou immovable-rod-up-the-ass rule-following superman, it means lawful and good. Breaking one law to uphold another, or even breaking the word but following the spirit of a law, definitely doesn't violate LG alignment.
Alignment is a wonderful descriptor, and it helps with some of the magic stuff, but it should reflect your roleplay, not constrict it.[/QUOTE]
My DM handles it exactly like that. If anything, the alignment system is a general guideline for how a character may act under normal circumstances. He also takes in to consideration that "Lawful Good" doesn't have to mean "I will obey the laws of the land and dive in front of a horse carriage to save a dying man".
If a good man refuses to commit an evil deed, and the good suffer as a result, is he a good man? etc etc etc.
It comes down to how well we portray our characters. If we roleplay and don't shrug things off, he's fine with almost anything (and their inevitable consequences.)
[QUOTE=gman003-main;43713135]I like alignments, but apparently I use them differently than everyone else:
Most people seem to have alignment control the players - if they try to do something against alignment, they just can't. In games I GM, if the player tries to do something against their alignment, the player wins - and if it's a repeated thing, or an egregiously bad thing, that cannot be justified somehow (eg. the LG Paladin being completely oblivious), then I have them change their alignment.
I've never had players try to play a restricted-alignment class, so it's never been an issue for them to go from CG to CN, but it still has a big psychological impact, which keeps them in check.
Think of it this way - the rules don't say "wizards can't wear heavy armor", they say "wizards have a 70% spell failure rate in heavy armor". If the player wants to do something that's [i]possible[/i] to do outside the rules system, let them, but make sure it has consequences.
There's also plenty of room within an alignment for variation. LG doesn't mean holier-than-thou immovable-rod-up-the-ass rule-following superman, it means lawful and good. Breaking one law to uphold another, or even breaking the word but following the spirit of a law, definitely doesn't violate LG alignment.
Alignment is a wonderful descriptor, and it helps with some of the magic stuff, but it should reflect your roleplay, not constrict it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and moreover, it's fine to have temporary breaks from alignment. The real reason I hate it is because I was playing a Lawful Good monk one time, and I tried to burn down an evil temple, which the other players and GM said I couldn't do because I would no longer be Lawful Good.
If I was continually burning down every Temple, I would agree with them, but in this instance, the good side of me was of greater importance to me than the lawful side of me.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;43713684]Yeah, and moreover, it's fine to have temporary breaks from alignment. The real reason I hate it is because I was playing a Lawful Good monk one time, and I tried to burn down an evil temple, which the other players and GM said I couldn't do because I would no longer be Lawful Good.
If I was continually burning down every Temple, I would agree with them, but in this instance, the good side of me was of greater importance to me than the lawful side of me.[/QUOTE]
If anything you're showing traits of Chaotic good by going out of nowhere and saying you wanna burn down an evil temple. It'd be excusable if your code of ethics involved the purging of evil temples but like you said, it was just in that instance.
basically you are doing alignments wrong and you should learn how mechanics should be used before you try and bash them :o)
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43715451]If anything you're showing traits of Chaotic good by going out of nowhere and saying you wanna burn down an evil temple. It'd be excusable if your code of ethics involved the purging of evil temples but like you said, it was just in that instance.
basically you are doing alignments wrong and you should learn how mechanics should be used before you try and bash them :o)[/QUOTE]
No, I'm burning down an evil temple. That's pretty self evident as a good thing, that my god would want, considering that god literally devoured other gods.
Stop criticizing me all the time dude. It's getting real annoying.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43715451]basically you are doing alignments wrong and you should learn how mechanics should be used before you try and bash them :o)[/QUOTE]
Unless the temple was in a city, and was being protected by a law, and they were themselves law abiding, there's nothing unlawful about destroying it. Destruction is not inherently unlawful. In fact, if the LG character in question follows a faith that decrees them to seek out and destroy evil, it's about as LG as you can get.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;43716668]No, I'm burning down an evil temple. That's pretty self evident as a good thing, that my god would want, considering that god literally devoured other gods.
Stop criticizing me all the time dude. It's getting real annoying.[/QUOTE]
Not many lawful people would burn down a temple, regardless of who it's dedicated to. A paladin does that kind of shit, he will definitely fall. A monk does that kind of shit, he's probably got some kind of reason to want revenge against them. Even then, that's a little chaotic. Considering, y'know, arson is usually against the law.
[QUOTE=Rats808;43716917]Not many lawful people would burn down a temple, regardless of who it's dedicated to. A paladin does that kind of shit, he will definitely fall. A monk does that kind of shit, he's probably got some kind of reason to want revenge against them. Even then, that's a little chaotic. Considering, y'know, arson is usually against the law.[/QUOTE]
I can't say for sure, as I'm not in the game, but-
It's an evil temple dedicated to an evil deity. A Paladin would not fall for destroying it, he would be rewarded for conquest against the dark forces.
A monk could also destroy an evil temple for more earthly reasons, paradoxically.
Alignments are elastic. They stretch and they bend, and many of the alignments overlap with others. This is intentional.
What's much more important is [I]why[/I] he would do that. Purely for revenge would be a no-no. For a carefully considered purpose, for the good of many? Absolutely.
[QUOTE=Rats808;43716917]Not many lawful people would burn down a temple, regardless of who it's dedicated to. A paladin does that kind of shit, he will definitely fall. A monk does that kind of shit, he's probably got some kind of reason to want revenge against them. Even then, that's a little chaotic. Considering, y'know, arson is usually against the law.[/QUOTE]
Murder is against the law too. But Paladins excel at that.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;43717025]Murder is against the law too. But Paladins excel at that.[/QUOTE]
its funny because you, like most other players, dont understand what lawful means.
It's not about following local or regional laws, its about following a personal code. Lawful Evil doesn't mean you operate within the laws of the town, it means you have a system you stick too and you dont willfully diverge from it unless completely necessary. Look at devils, they're dealmakers through and through. They don't destroy shit for fun, it's all about personal gain within the realm of 'well if you look at it this way at least im not killing for funsies'
Alignment is bad
who has any neat games coming up?
Exalted should be fun. Wolf is going to fly away on his magical motor cycle and be replaced by a new character, and the group is going to arrive in Sijan.
Also pathfinder on friday will be fun because session #2 and at least 1 new party member. Woo.
Speaking of alignments, what's the best way to describe them? So far I've got these, taking a murder situation (bear in mind, this is someone who doesn't play D&D but has an interest):
LG will find the killer because he feels it would be unjust to leave it (since LG does what is right and justice).
NG will find the killer because he feels it's the right thing to do, not because it's dictated by someone else (since NG acts out what he feels and thinks).
CG will find the killer and presumably give him a good smacking in order to get him to confess (the ends justify the ultimately righteous means).
LN will find the killer because punishing the killer is what the law dictates (LN sticks to traditions, honor and established laws).
Neutral, I have no idea, somebody will have to help me out.
CN goes after the killer but only because he could be a danger to him (individualist mindset but can join forces for a common goal).
I'm a little lost on the evils, with the possible exception of CE who would blackmail the killer but turn him in anyway.
Neutral would do what he feels to be the right thing inside himself, be it leaving the mystery up in the air as not to cause harm to himself or going after the killer because the character may not be content with the idea that the killer's still out their. TN really just does whatever the player feels like (without falling into the realm of 'i kill this old man in cold blood' or extremes like that).
Lawful Evil would hunt down the killer if he could find a way to further himself through it. He may also get a sense of contentment from catching the killer because while the character may be evil, he does have a sense of a code of honor, and even most Lawful Evil characters wont stoop to the levels of the murder of an innocent IF it didn't benefit him directly.
True Evil would fall into the similar boat as true neutral, either he can leave or he doesn't. Odds are if a TE character catches up to the killer though he'll either do something fairly fucked up to him, or he'll do some weird evil diplomacy shit and try to convince the killer to accept his true inner evil or some shit (tbh any characters that are TE or CE are normally really bad anyhow so there aren't too many good examples).
CE sounds about right though.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;43717325]
Lawful Evil would hunt down the killer if he could find a way to further himself through it. He may also get a sense of contentment from catching the killer because while the character may be evil, he does have a sense of a code of honor, and even most Lawful Evil characters wont stoop to the levels of the murder of an innocent IF it didn't benefit him directly. [/QUOTE]
What sort of situations would drive a Lawful Evil character to kill an innocent, such as in this one?
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;43717228]I'm a little lost on the evils, with the possible exception of CE who would blackmail the killer but turn him in anyway.[/QUOTE]
That actually sounds more like something a LE character would do. CE might go rob and murder the killer because nobody will care if he offs a murderer.
CG also probably wouldn't torture the guy to make him confess, he would just punish the killer himself.
True Neutral might do nothing, because death is just part of the balance, but could also go after the killer using any of the justifications used by other alignments.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;43717382]What sort of situations would drive a Lawful Evil character to kill an innocent, such as in this one?[/QUOTE]
say the innocent was in possession of some artifact of like hellfire or some shit
a lawful evil character may try to bargain for it, but if that didn't work that character would not shy away from using some manner of force to get what he needs.
[editline]29th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=gman003-main;43717386]
True Neutral might do nothing, because death is just part of the balance, but could also go after the killer using any of the justifications used by other alignments.[/QUOTE]
Thing about TN is that the whole balance idea may not be shared between 2 TN characters. I may roll some TN Zen Monk who believes that for every action, there is another to balance it. A man dies, a child is born. But I may also roll someone who is just an average guy in beliefs. Perhaps he doesn't know what to think? If he knows someone was murdered, maybe he'll chase the murderer down to feel good about himself or bring about some minor justice, but just as equally he may think "I don't know, i mean it doesn't really effect me"
I like TN because it really lets you play as a person lost in the world.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
