[QUOTE=elowin;46369348]Too bad there's probably 50 people max who are ever going to play it. If even that.[/QUOTE]
There's an active community based around the old versions of D&D still though, as well as multiple webrings - there should be enough to spare since the guy's advertised it across a number of boards that I could see. A sight more than maybe 50 people, regardless, but I might just be optimistic.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;46369977]There's an active community based around the old versions of D&D still though, as well as multiple webrings - there should be enough to spare since the guy's advertised it across a number of boards that I could see. A sight more than maybe 50 people, regardless, but I might just be optimistic.[/QUOTE]
There's probably more than 50 people who still occasionally play AD&D around, sure.
Probably not more than 50 who are playing AD&D and who are going to play this specific module.
Most people don't use modules at all, beyond maybe stealing a map or two from one occasionally.
A module that epicly huge might be big and interesting enough that a group that doesn't normally play 2e might get together to give it a go.
[QUOTE=elowin;46370300]There's probably more than 50 people who still occasionally play AD&D around, sure.
Probably not more than 50 who are playing AD&D and who are going to play this specific module.
Most people don't use modules at all, beyond maybe stealing a map or two from one occasionally.[/QUOTE]
There are absolutely more than 50 people who still play AD&D. The online Pen and Paper RPG community is like, so little of the actual community, I'd say like 10%... maybe. There are tens of thousands of RPG purists who play just AD&D.
So yeah, you're definitely right about the less than 50 people who will play this specific module, hell, I'd say like, 20 people might play it all way through. Tops.
I play AD&D1e. But I'm new and don't know anything else.
The other group my DM plays with as a player however is running a massive module, and they do stuff like that often. The fucking thing is the size of my Anatomy textbook.
Good news: after weeks of trying to get everyone's characters ready for the new Pathfinder campaign, we finally set a solid date to kick it off.
Bad news: It's in January.
Kind of a rant here, but: I've felt that for the people I play with in Pathfinder, both my friends and people I don't know, don't like playing characters who are altruistic or willing to accept quests even if the pay isn't very good. Or they like playing as anti-heroes or the brooding, mysterious lone wolf. Or they play as chaotic eccentrics who gives zero fucks and does things on impulse. Lawful Good can never be played well or it's "difficult", paladins even more so, and the only good interpretation of Lawful Good is "nope you can't attack the cultist's lair because they own the deed to the property, you gotta go through the legal channels to step inside their house first!!/1/!"
I played a paladin today and a few friends of mine dictated to me how paladins [I]must[/I] obey all authority, even if it is a blatantly corrupt, evil or tyrannical government. Dismantling an evil altar to the god of pain and torture, even if said god is a direct rival of your Neutral Good goddess? Chaotic act, you will fall. Use lethal force on the executioner who is bashing in people's skulls on blatantly trumped up charges? Evil act.
I have a feeling that were I playing as [I]any other class[/I] and was of a good alignment this would not have been pointed out to me at all, even if I was a cleric, like the GM believes that paladins should actually act lawful stupid. Sorry but I don't buy it. If a paladin was asked by a Nazi officer if Jews were hiding in his attic, IMO he'd say "no, there is not". He is both defying a government official and is lying; however he is lying to [I]protect the innocent.[/I] A Lawful Neutral person, who these people I know really like to mix up with paladins, uphold the law for the sake of order; a paladin, in my eyes, upholds the law for the sake of protecting the weak and benefiting [I]everyone.[/I]
Ergh, I know alignment discussions always have the potential of spawning heated debate but I just wanted to get this off my chest. After watching both Captain America films for the first time I really do think playing as a LG character, especially a paladin, would be interesting to me these days, especially after, admittedly, I've played a lot of chaotic characters or people who are morally grey or very mercenary in how they accept people's pleas for help. But I swear in my gaming groups around here I feel like I'm the only one who will tell a baron "I will help your barony against the goblin attacks to protect people" while everyone else goes "how much? If it's not enough then I don't give a shit".
That's the problem I feel; lawful stupid isn't really a thing in canon D&D save among the more literal minded and thus fanatical followers/church militants in the lawful sects. Many well known paladins and priests have flouted literal dictates of their creed to protect the spirit of their teachings, and did not fall. There might have been temporal consequences, but almost never spiritual. And even those who foisted said temporal consequences might be shown the error of their ways by their deity at a later point, if not immediately.
Pathfinder is great. You know, if you love playing Dungeons and Accountants. It's better with the Calculator's Wrath and Age of Spreadsheets supplement books though.
[editline]31st October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;46375091]Kind of a rant here, but: I've felt that for the people I play with in Pathfinder, both my friends and people I don't know, don't like playing characters who are altruistic or willing to accept quests even if the pay isn't very good. Or they like playing as anti-heroes or the brooding, mysterious lone wolf. Or they play as chaotic eccentrics who gives zero fucks and does things on impulse. Lawful Good can never be played well or it's "difficult", paladins even more so, and the only good interpretation of Lawful Good is "nope you can't attack the cultist's lair because they own the deed to the property, you gotta go through the legal channels to step inside their house first!!/1/!"
I played a paladin today and a few friends of mine dictated to me how paladins [I]must[/I] obey all authority, even if it is a blatantly corrupt, evil or tyrannical government. Dismantling an evil altar to the god of pain and torture, even if said god is a direct rival of your Neutral Good goddess? Chaotic act, you will fall. Use lethal force on the executioner who is bashing in people's skulls on blatantly trumped up charges? Evil act.
I have a feeling that were I playing as [I]any other class[/I] and was of a good alignment this would not have been pointed out to me at all, even if I was a cleric, like the GM believes that paladins should actually act lawful stupid. Sorry but I don't buy it. If a paladin was asked by a Nazi officer if Jews were hiding in his attic, IMO he'd say "no, there is not". He is both defying a government official and is lying; however he is lying to [I]protect the innocent.[/I] A Lawful Neutral person, who these people I know really like to mix up with paladins, uphold the law for the sake of order; a paladin, in my eyes, upholds the law for the sake of protecting the weak and benefiting [I]everyone.[/I]
Ergh, I know alignment discussions always have the potential of spawning heated debate but I just wanted to get this off my chest. After watching both Captain America films for the first time I really do think playing as a LG character, especially a paladin, would be interesting to me these days, especially after, admittedly, I've played a lot of chaotic characters or people who are morally grey or very mercenary in how they accept people's pleas for help. But I swear in my gaming groups around here I feel like I'm the only one who will tell a baron "I will help your barony against the goblin attacks to protect people" while everyone else goes "how much? If it's not enough then I don't give a shit".[/QUOTE]
This is how I'd explain it to them: there's a reason it's called lawful GOOD and not, lawful to the fucking dot. A lawful neutral player would essentially be "IDGAF AS LONG AS WE FOLLOW DAH RULEZ YO." and as we all know, anything neutral is usually fucking boring. The problem is that people don't apparently know how to play paladins, and to a greater extent, their alignments.
[QUOTE=draugur;46375230]Pathfinder is great. You know, if you love playing Dungeons and Accountants. It's better with the Calculator's Wrath and Age of Spreadsheets supplement books though.[/QUOTE]
As someone who prefers more narrative-style, rules-light games, I can't say I ever felt like I was playing Dungeons and Accountants in large quantities with PF. I guess I just had the fortune of having GMs who didn't sacrifice playability and fun for rigid adherence to the rules.
...Well, that and I have the support of the pfsrd and a [URL="http://www.wolflair.com/index.php?context=hero_lab"]program I spent money on :v[/URL]
That being said, I really admire almost everything that D&D 5th brings to the table, and the only reason why I'm sticking with Pathfinder in terms of my budget is that it has more content. And, y'know, stuff for cybertech/laser rifles/robots. But as soon as D&D 5th comes out with more stuff and is a more established brand...
[QUOTE=draugur;46375230]
This is how I'd explain it to them: there's a reason it's called lawful GOOD and not, lawful to the fucking dot. A lawful neutral player would essentially be "IDGAF AS LONG AS WE FOLLOW DAH RULEZ YO." and as we all know, anything neutral is usually fucking boring. The problem is that people don't apparently know how to play paladins, and to a greater extent, their alignments.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I try to emphasize the good in the LG. In fact the lawful part doesn't necessarily have to refer to the laws of a country either.
The one time I played PF, the GM and two of the other players spent the entire session bickering about literal rule interpretations. It quickly devolved into Lawyers and Accountants when the third player chimed in about how they were doing the math wrong for something or another anyway. I didn't go back after that session and every person I have ever spoken to about PF since told me that was normal with PF players. Sort of a massive turn off. Glad to know it's not always like that.
[QUOTE=draugur;46375291]The one time I played PF, the GM and two of the other players spent the entire session bickering about literal rule interpretations. It quickly devolved into Lawyers and Accountants when the third player chimed in about how they were doing the math wrong for something or another anyway. I didn't go back after that session and every person I have ever spoken to about PF since told me that was normal with PF players. Sort of a massive turn off. Glad to know it's not always like that.[/QUOTE]
I've played PF more than any other system and never had any arguments like that with it at all, I'd say it's the guys you're playing with. I mean, a system doesn't make people argumentative.
Shadowrun 4e is the best for rules arguments and unclear maths though.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;46375091]Kind of a rant here, but: I've felt that for the people I play with in Pathfinder, both my friends and people I don't know, don't like playing characters who are altruistic or willing to accept quests even if the pay isn't very good. Or they like playing as anti-heroes or the brooding, mysterious lone wolf. Or they play as chaotic eccentrics who gives zero fucks and does things on impulse. Lawful Good can never be played well or it's "difficult", paladins even more so, and the only good interpretation of Lawful Good is "nope you can't attack the cultist's lair because they own the deed to the property, you gotta go through the legal channels to step inside their house first!!/1/!"
I played a paladin today and a few friends of mine dictated to me how paladins [I]must[/I] obey all authority, even if it is a blatantly corrupt, evil or tyrannical government. Dismantling an evil altar to the god of pain and torture, even if said god is a direct rival of your Neutral Good goddess? Chaotic act, you will fall. Use lethal force on the executioner who is bashing in people's skulls on blatantly trumped up charges? Evil act.
I have a feeling that were I playing as [I]any other class[/I] and was of a good alignment this would not have been pointed out to me at all, even if I was a cleric, like the GM believes that paladins should actually act lawful stupid. Sorry but I don't buy it. If a paladin was asked by a Nazi officer if Jews were hiding in his attic, IMO he'd say "no, there is not". He is both defying a government official and is lying; however he is lying to [I]protect the innocent.[/I] A Lawful Neutral person, who these people I know really like to mix up with paladins, uphold the law for the sake of order; a paladin, in my eyes, upholds the law for the sake of protecting the weak and benefiting [I]everyone.[/I]
Ergh, I know alignment discussions always have the potential of spawning heated debate but I just wanted to get this off my chest. After watching both Captain America films for the first time I really do think playing as a LG character, especially a paladin, would be interesting to me these days, especially after, admittedly, I've played a lot of chaotic characters or people who are morally grey or very mercenary in how they accept people's pleas for help. But I swear in my gaming groups around here I feel like I'm the only one who will tell a baron "I will help your barony against the goblin attacks to protect people" while everyone else goes "how much? If it's not enough then I don't give a shit".[/QUOTE]
You're playing with FOOOOOOOLS.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;46375091]Kind of a rant here, but: I've felt that for the people I play with in Pathfinder, both my friends and people I don't know, don't like playing characters who are altruistic or willing to accept quests even if the pay isn't very good. Or they like playing as anti-heroes or the brooding, mysterious lone wolf. Or they play as chaotic eccentrics who gives zero fucks and does things on impulse. Lawful Good can never be played well or it's "difficult", paladins even more so, and the only good interpretation of Lawful Good is "nope you can't attack the cultist's lair because they own the deed to the property, you gotta go through the legal channels to step inside their house first!!/1/!"
I played a paladin today and a few friends of mine dictated to me how paladins [I]must[/I] obey all authority, even if it is a blatantly corrupt, evil or tyrannical government. Dismantling an evil altar to the god of pain and torture, even if said god is a direct rival of your Neutral Good goddess? Chaotic act, you will fall. Use lethal force on the executioner who is bashing in people's skulls on blatantly trumped up charges? Evil act.
I have a feeling that were I playing as [I]any other class[/I] and was of a good alignment this would not have been pointed out to me at all, even if I was a cleric, like the GM believes that paladins should actually act lawful stupid. Sorry but I don't buy it. If a paladin was asked by a Nazi officer if Jews were hiding in his attic, IMO he'd say "no, there is not". He is both defying a government official and is lying; however he is lying to [I]protect the innocent.[/I] A Lawful Neutral person, who these people I know really like to mix up with paladins, uphold the law for the sake of order; a paladin, in my eyes, upholds the law for the sake of protecting the weak and benefiting [I]everyone.[/I]
Ergh, I know alignment discussions always have the potential of spawning heated debate but I just wanted to get this off my chest. After watching both Captain America films for the first time I really do think playing as a LG character, especially a paladin, would be interesting to me these days, especially after, admittedly, I've played a lot of chaotic characters or people who are morally grey or very mercenary in how they accept people's pleas for help. But I swear in my gaming groups around here I feel like I'm the only one who will tell a baron "I will help your barony against the goblin attacks to protect people" while everyone else goes "how much? If it's not enough then I don't give a shit".[/QUOTE]
The Lawful Good paladin is beheld more to their own deity's law than the rule of wherever they just happen to be in. It's an act of good and goodwill that you're obeying the laws of wherever you are, but should those laws go against that alignment or law of your god you have the duty as a paladin to break them, depending on the severity of course.
A paladin is not bound to the call of an evil law, but he will not break his own ideals/laws just to spite said evil law.
I would like to give a shoutout to my local game store (wandering Havoc Games of Marysville, WA) because of the awesome encounters i constantly have there, and that they are doing a 24 hour game of dungeons and dragons for charity.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;46370524]There are absolutely more than 50 people who still play AD&D. The online Pen and Paper RPG community is like, so little of the actual community, I'd say like 10%... maybe. There are tens of thousands of RPG purists who play just AD&D.
So yeah, you're definitely right about the less than 50 people who will play this specific module, hell, I'd say like, 20 people might play it all way through. Tops.[/QUOTE]
yeah no it's a lot more than 10% who play games online
unless you're talking about people who exclusively play online in which case idfk
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;46375483]The Lawful Good paladin is beheld more to their own deity's law than the rule of wherever they just happen to be in. It's an act of good and goodwill that you're obeying the laws of wherever you are, but should those laws go against that alignment or law of your god you have the duty as a paladin to break them, depending on the severity of course.
A paladin is not bound to the call of an evil law, but he will not break his own ideals/laws just to spite said evil law.[/QUOTE]
I've always interpreted lawful as a set of rules, handed down from a higher authority (usually divine), that the payer needs to follow. For example, a lawful evil character is one who might systematically assassinate those who defy her god's wishes because she MUST according to "x" rule. Lawful means decisions are carefully considered against the rules of the higher authority.
You know what bothers me. The fact that everyone I've played D&D/PF with always plays Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. And is only in it for the money. That is a very boring way to play D&D.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;46375091]Kind of a rant here, but: I've felt that for the people I play with in Pathfinder, both my friends and people I don't know, don't like playing characters who are altruistic or willing to accept quests even if the pay isn't very good. Or they like playing as anti-heroes or the brooding, mysterious lone wolf. Or they play as chaotic eccentrics who gives zero fucks and does things on impulse. Lawful Good can never be played well or it's "difficult", paladins even more so, and the only good interpretation of Lawful Good is "nope you can't attack the cultist's lair because they own the deed to the property, you gotta go through the legal channels to step inside their house first!!/1/!"
I played a paladin today and a few friends of mine dictated to me how paladins [I]must[/I] obey all authority, even if it is a blatantly corrupt, evil or tyrannical government. Dismantling an evil altar to the god of pain and torture, even if said god is a direct rival of your Neutral Good goddess? Chaotic act, you will fall. Use lethal force on the executioner who is bashing in people's skulls on blatantly trumped up charges? Evil act.
I have a feeling that were I playing as [I]any other class[/I] and was of a good alignment this would not have been pointed out to me at all, even if I was a cleric, like the GM believes that paladins should actually act lawful stupid. Sorry but I don't buy it. If a paladin was asked by a Nazi officer if Jews were hiding in his attic, IMO he'd say "no, there is not". He is both defying a government official and is lying; however he is lying to [I]protect the innocent.[/I] A Lawful Neutral person, who these people I know really like to mix up with paladins, uphold the law for the sake of order; a paladin, in my eyes, upholds the law for the sake of protecting the weak and benefiting [I]everyone.[/I]
Ergh, I know alignment discussions always have the potential of spawning heated debate but I just wanted to get this off my chest. After watching both Captain America films for the first time I really do think playing as a LG character, especially a paladin, would be interesting to me these days, especially after, admittedly, I've played a lot of chaotic characters or people who are morally grey or very mercenary in how they accept people's pleas for help. But I swear in my gaming groups around here I feel like I'm the only one who will tell a baron "I will help your barony against the goblin attacks to protect people" while everyone else goes "how much? If it's not enough then I don't give a shit".[/QUOTE]
Almost everyone in my group is this way to a degree. Nobody seems to like playing anything outside of "____ Neutral" or "Chaotic _____" and I honestly don't know if it's because it's in their comfort zone or if it's because they can't be arsed to roleplay anything else.
I have a player who, while being an excellent player, is frankly not that great of a roleplayer. He tends to never play anything outside of "selfish dick" and straight up refuses to play Lawful Good because he doesn't like the "restrictions" or something to that effect.
Gnomes are nice in PF, your main motivation is generally searching for knowledge about things, usually something related to an obsession of the character's.
I've turned the plot in the game I'm in at the moment from trying to stop golems harassing a city to finding out how golems work, and if a intelligent flesh golem is alive, dead, or undead.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;46375483]The Lawful Good paladin is beheld more to their own deity's law than the rule of wherever they just happen to be in. It's an act of good and goodwill that you're obeying the laws of wherever you are, but should those laws go against that alignment or law of your god you have the duty as a paladin to break them, depending on the severity of course.
A paladin is not bound to the call of an evil law, but he will not break his own ideals/laws just to spite said evil law.[/QUOTE]
The way I think of each alignment is by comparison to a well-known character.
Lawful Good is Superman. If it would feel in-character for Superman, it's probably Lawful Good. He follows his own code, absolutely, and follows the spirit of the law, and unless it violates either of the previous, follows the law to the letter. He helps people in need without asking for payment, because he's focused on the greater good.
Contrast with Lawful Neutral, Judge Dredd. Follow the rules, down to the letter. If they're breaking the law, they're an enemy. If they're not breaking the law, you don't care. No charity, no mercy, just "STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM". That ten-foot-pole-up-the-ass rule-following seems to be what most people think lawful good is.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;46376501]The way I think of each alignment is by comparison to a well-known character.
Lawful Good is Superman. If it would feel in-character for Superman, it's probably Lawful Good. He follows his own code, absolutely, and follows the spirit of the law, and unless it violates either of the previous, follows the law to the letter. He helps people in need without asking for payment, because he's focused on the greater good.
Contrast with Lawful Neutral, Judge Dredd. Follow the rules, down to the letter. If they're breaking the law, they're an enemy. If they're not breaking the law, you don't care. No charity, no mercy, just "STOP RIGHT THERE, CRIMINAL SCUM". That ten-foot-pole-up-the-ass rule-following seems to be what most people think lawful good is.[/QUOTE]
Superman probably isn't the best choice for lawful good after the fighting game came out :v:
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;46376207]You know what bothers me. The fact that everyone I've played D&D/PF with always plays Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. And is only in it for the money. That is a very boring way to play D&D.[/QUOTE]
My characters are often neutral, but generally that doesn't mean that they're only out for gold or anything.
Neutral just means you're a regular guy, not particularly good, not particularly evil. Being insanely selfish and refusing to help anyone except for money is arguably rather evil, not neutral.
Being in it purely for yourself/the money is actually like the very definition of Neutral Evil.
[QUOTE=Crimor;46376646]Superman probably isn't the best choice for lawful good after the fighting game came out :v:[/QUOTE]
Injustice Superman isn't really an accurate representation of the "standard" superman.
It's an alternate universe thing. Comics do that a lot for some reason. There's alternate universes where batman is an evil dipshit too.
Isn't the first time Superman had an alternate universe evil dipshit version either.
[QUOTE=Crimor;46376646]Superman probably isn't the best choice for lawful good after the fighting game came out :v:[/QUOTE]
Injustice can go fuck itself, give me the Big Blue Boyscout anyday. Keep your shit "interesting" Superman.
Don't mean to direct that at you, just the game.
Would Red Son supes be lawful evil then? Are comics convoluted enough that we can make an alignment chart entirely out of Supermans?
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;46377925]Would Red Son supes be lawful evil then? Are comics convoluted enough that we can make an alignment chart entirely out of Supermans?[/QUOTE]
I once saw an alignment chart made entirely of Batman. Not variations, just Batman in each one. IMO he doesn't really fit into anywhere well, he's just blurred over the entire spectrum.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;46377955]I once saw an alignment chart made entirely of Batman. Not variations, just Batman in each one. IMO he doesn't really fit into anywhere well, he's just blurred over the entire spectrum.[/QUOTE]
A lot of writers fuck around with Batman, but in general Batman is usually like, Lawful Good. Just because he isn't employed by the police doesn't mean he isn't lawful.
Some writers do terrible batmans tho.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;46378054]A lot of writers fuck around with Batman, but in general Batman is usually like, Lawful Good. Just because he isn't employed by the police doesn't mean he isn't lawful.
Some writers do terrible batmans tho.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I can't really agree with that. I'd say Neutral Good.
I mean, after all, his entire thing is that he doesn't believe the law works in the case of Arkham City.
The nature of the criminals there need someone outside of the law to effectively apprehend. That kind of makes him seem non-lawful to me.
But on the other hand, he clearly has a code of conduct, even if it's rather limited. Basically just, don't kill people, try to save anyone you can, even if you don't believe they deserve life.
Also don't use guns because.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
