I follow two rules:

1. Let the stupid ones die.
2. Kill the annoying ones.

I dunno. Every group has "The Todd" who will pick the most inopportune moment to play the, "It's what my character would do!' card. People gave egos, too, and a real quick way to bruise that ego is say no in a game of make believe where said player feels like king shit.

But Im getting off track. Im someone who plays evil characters. I prefer it, actually. Im not motivated by being a disturbance, or to be edgy, or to be some kind of, "Gotchya!" I simply prefer the villain's tactics. The end justifies the means. I don't want to have a moral debate over sparing the helpless goblins. If calling the Paladin out on her hypocrisy and zealotry gets me the political support I need to have her company of followers branded as terrorists so I can remove that troublesome church protecting elf squatters stopping my loggers from making use of the forest, so be it.

I'm just curious how other GMs react to that style of play, or if they immediately shoot characters down as disruptive or problematic when they see Chaotic Evil filled in as an alignment. I take it a step farther by wondering how they handle other players balking at it, assuming they've allowed it.

@Hunter: Yes. That. It is even more difficult on rpol.

@Learner: Okay. Great. Now we're cooking with peanut oil. How do you define the stupid or annoying ones? Do you have a conversation before hand about concerns or expectations? How quickly do you pull the trigger?

In reply to Tom_Clancy's_Ghost_Recon (msg # 402):

"This is becoming a problem. Let us hash it out and set expectations."

The best example I have seen of characters of differing alignments (ranging from good, neutral, and evil) working well as a party was a Dragonlance campaign I was in IRL 20ish years ago. It worked because we all played wizards who were member of the Towers of High Sorcery, and thus our adventures were generally sanctioned/ordered by our leadership, and we were expected to work together. It also helped that we were all pretty mature roleplayers who had been friends for years and could separate game from life.

So I would say that the best way it works is if there is an overarching "force" forcing you to work together; that could be the impending apocalypse, a hierarchy (like the Towers of High Sorcery, or perhaps the Hellknights), or even just circumstance (the "you all wake up naked in a prison" trope).

As for how to deal with evil players, my thoughts are that there is a "social contract" that all players and the DM sign (generally metaphorically) when they sign up to play a game. This is why I personally love session 0's because that's where the social contract gets nailed down. As an example, if a player at my table says, "I'm gonna make a cleric of the lawful good sun god and specialize in fighting undead," and I didn't tell him that's a bad idea, then I as the DM I'm signing up to make undead a somewhat significant part of the game. Or, if I say the game is about an elite, secretive special ops team that works directly for the king, the players should know not to make a bright and shiny paladin wearing full plate armor and riding a conspicuously large horse.

Alignment should be a similar discussion. Generally when I run games, I tell my players that their part of the social contract is to make characters that will work together within the context of the game concept we have decided to play; it's not my job to force party cohesion. If an evil character can do so, then I'm fine with it. Generally I believe that Lawful Evil characters fit better with non-evil groups than the other alignments, just given the philosophical ideals. But if 5 players want to play good characters and 1 wants to play a moustache-twisting overtly evil character that will obviously be a problem to the character dynamic; well that player is going to be asked to come up with something else, or he can play solo D&D by himself at home.

I am a huge fan of interparty conflict as long as it is interesting and still allows the story to move forward. My basic measuring stick is if you were watching the game as a TV show, would the interparty conflict be interesting or annoying? Would you the viewer be yelling at the screen, "that guy's an ass, just leave him at the bar and go without him?" If so, then it's probably not working. But if the evil character has something to contribute to the party, and their evil actions don't outweigh those contributions, then it's probably cool.

In reply to Prince of Boredom (msg # 404):

The brings up a topic I'm interested in:

How has everyone fared trying to Session Zero on RPoL?

Submitting a character concept is the universal expectation in an RTJ, and a player's write-up of a concept tells me a hell of a lot more about them than any sales pitch(If you're submitting a fairy or drow PC we're probably not going to get on well.) But once a player has submitted a concept, that is what they expect to have been chosen on and play.

In the past I have tried to make it exceedingly clear that I was not selecting concepts but selecting players and intended to Session Zero to determine characters and group. I asked that players submit several brief concepts to give me an idea of their style. Maybe two submissions had more than one concept. When I made my selections and tried to introduce Session Zero discussion, everyone just went along with character sheets and very little interaction.

I've run into mixed success, mostly because you (as the GM) has to figure out which players might best work within the vision of the story that you're collaborating to create.

As for paladins, most of us have expectations of behavior based primarily on the Renaissance version.  There's an older version which I think fits better (and I use it myself when I play paladins).   If you're interested, dig out a copy of Chivalry by Leon Gautier.   It's quite....enlightening.

I'm in a game now where I play an evil character while the rest of the party is good/neutral. I sat down with the GM ahead of time for a session 0 to outline what "evil" meant.

In this case he is just very selfish and self interested. If the orphanage is burning down he won't lift a finger to save it unless someone pays him to. If NPCs are difficult he is quick to pull a knife and give the "let's just kill them all" look.

HOWEVER I basically straight up warn the players out of game what is happening so they can help keep me on a leash. I will say "hey, it looks like Tommy the Knife is reaching for his knife..." and they will know to give me a glare and shake their heads.

Even though he is evil he has a soft spot for his friends so while he won't lift a finger for random NPC, if his friend says "hey Tommy, help us out" he will do so.

Evil doesn't mean you have to sacrifice babies to elder gods. It can be just as simple as greed and a bit of wrath thrown in.

I think the other thing that helps is that I give both the party and the GM veto power over his actions. I will always suggest we kill 'em all but Tommy is NOT the kind of guy who puts his foot down, he isn't a "my way or the highway" kind of guy.

He is evil but the party and GM have every ability to talk him into doing good things and then I work my magic to justify it to his alignment after the fact.

I agree.  There's no reason an evil character can't do good things, whether because he actually likes someone or because he is expecting recompense in the future.

Remember the game Knights of the Old Republic?  If you played your character as perfectly evil, you got some extra powers.  However, I would frequently kill some jerk NPC who was annoying me, and it gave me 'good' points for killing an evil NPC.  That always bugged me.  I wasn't doing it to help out the person he was extorting, I was doing it to eliminate competition!  I wanted to extort the weakling!  But I got good points all the same.

KOTOR: Carth is annoying. Canderous Ordo and HK-47 FTW.

Also. Bastilla is annoying.

Where Carth remained annoying and became Kaiden Alenko, Bastilla matured into the awesome Fem Shep!

Anyway...

I see that tge general consensus seems to be evil characters are fine so long as they can be motivated into team players. Groovy.

In reply to Tom_Clancy's_Ghost_Recon (msg # 395):

One of my favourite characters ever was an ex-rebel/guerilla type character with pretty much PTSD and such. An arcanist utilizing some scary and powerful magic - forcing enemy undead to fight for him instead of against him etc. But also a character with a strong devotion to Erastil, to the little community, to [Sandpoint], a fiercely loyal warrior. Now, he was pretty much driven out of the group by the lawful stupid paladin, even though my character wasn't evil.

- I think it's the players' responsibility to make sure their character plays with the group. Regardless of alignment, but it's for sure harder with evil to make it work. That doesn't make it impossible.
- I'm for a quite narrow interpretaton of alignment - lawful represents e.g. their devotion to perfection of body and mind, not a devotion to every law ever; evil might represent selfishness or the search for eternal life through undeath and/or lichdom, the devoted seach of power in the name of Asmodeus, etc. Researching to become a lich doesn't have to mean one cannot help fight important enemies, although certain experiments may not be okay with the group. Evil alignment doesn't restrict one from saving the world. But the above point is the most important.

Glass cannon podcast has an evil character in their adventure path, a (by fans) much beloved but also quite disgusting figure. "I will go after the Storm Tyrant, because I have to. But when all of this is over... I will kill you."

Separate question - access to big markets in APs/campaigns.

The PCs in my group just came up to level 7 in our campaign, they've been in a little village without a market, fighting bad guys. Their hometown/home base has a good but rather small market. They can't even find an item for 4k there, except for a few available ones. Nearby cities have markets with items up to 5-6k, and just a week or so away there are several metropolises with a near unrestricted access to items up to a price which they won't even afford for another several levels.

How/when do you give access to great markets? On the one hand, I really like whenever they travel and spend time doing things. They're free to retrain, craft etc (which they don't) even during the traveling. It advances the story behind the curtains. It lets them spend time together in game. A campaign can end in 2 weeks in game time if you only count the rested nights ;) So it'd be a benefit to me if they traveled for these markets. But then I'd give them access to almost everything they want. Will I regret giving them this market access? I think they'd hardly look at the shops I offer in small towns, and they'd lose some interest in loot (oh, another belt of strength? noone has a slot open for that...).

One of the tricky things about PF is that magic items are built so deeply into the system that not having access to them can have significant impact on the players. Some APs may recognize the lack of markets and adjust accordingly but I don't think limiting access to items will be helpful in the long run. Yeah, they will outgrow the small town shops but that is part of adventuring. You could also adjust what's available.

A small town filled with Elves and Gnomes that study magic? It would make sense that you'd have an easier time finding magic items there for example. Or you could just up the item value caps for each level of settlement. One of the small towns could have an eccentric artisan who crafts fine items that are normally shipped to a metropolis but they are willing to deal with the players directly after a side quest or something.

They would also still need those larger markets to sell some of the more valuable loot they find so there is still impetus to travel. The retraining and crafting can occur without travel. In a long running campaign with friends we've travelled but early in the game we adopted a city as our home, my cleric even married into the aristocracy there. Many of the members craft and train and spend time developing businesses or militias or other relevant stuff that really enriches the characters' connections to the city and to each other.

All that said, if the metropolises are just a week away that's an easy enough hurdle to overcome. The concern about another belt of strength etc could be addressed by varying loot. Some items are probably common, the big 7 for example can probably be found just about anywhere in varying degrees of potency (the village might have a ring of protection +1, the town a ring of protection +2, etc). However, give each of those settlements some other magic items that wouldn't just be the same old, same old.

In reply to Ventrikel (msg # 411):

The gold cost of magic items is one of my pet peeves.  As an example, a +10 weapon costs 2 TONS of gold.    But I digress a bit.

Having the characters do a bit of traveling to dispose and/or trade what they're not using for what they want can provide a bit of variation from the same old, same old.   Especially when word floats around that they're carrying expensive items with them.

Well in my case, the players are very good at what they do (melee fighting) and crappy at everything else, so they don't need rings, necklaces, or even belts to actually stay afloat. At all. I'm enjoying adapting the inventory of the cities and villages they're in to what interests them - provide useful ammunition, weapons, armor, wondrous items etc among things I have no clue if they'd ever want. I'm considering throwing in a sleeping, lesser artifact weapon as a strange, somewhat overpriced object on the market, etc. And they'll have no issue selling anything - they don't need a city buy limit of over 15k before they're about level 13.

But sooner or later they'll be in cities where they have access to *all minor items* or such. I suppose I should just let them take the initiative for that...

Here is the bottom line, if you're going to make them RP out shopping trips, make it worthwhile to do so. If you're just going to throw crap at them until they give up that isn't fun.

In my games I solved this dilemma by ripping off (cough cough) other DMs I like by saying there isn't a magical SHOP but a magical EXCHANGE. You can buy low level potions etc all you want but if you want that +3 Vorpal Flaming Longsword the current owner isn't interested in money, they want either a service (trigger a side quest) or an item of equal power.

This also lets me add "credit to the magical exchange" as a reward powerful patrons can grant them in place of actual gold that lets them get the next tier of weapon or armor.

It also lets me have a much more interactive prescence because I can say "ooohh, sorry that item is out of stock" or "oooh that item is in high demand right now..." and can adjust prices accordingly.

I balance this out by always giving them a bit more than they were going in for, like a goodie bag with a few useful scrolls and potions so even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted it was technically better than buying out of the book.

I also use it to introduce cool weapons and items I homebrew in from other games. One of my favorite purchases of all time was an AD&D book Volo's Guide to all things magical. It's like 200 pages of just "here are cool magical effects" or "here are cool metals and stones to build items out of" that I can use as inspiration.

My take on powerful items is that they're not for sale. And if there is somehow a market that deals in powerful magic items, they're not for sale to outsiders.

That +3 Flaming Vorpal sword the aging warrior has hanging on his mantle above the fireplace? Why is he going to sell it to you? Or even trade it to you? If he was of a mind to sell or trade it, he'd have dine it decades ago and be living in a castle, kike a Duke, and enjoying retirement.

Even obsolete magical items like the +1 Keen Battle Axe...

Well, I borrow from Zaeed.

"Hey don't touch. Once, about twenty years ago I got trapped on a frigate after the boarding plan went to shit and all I had was that axe. Killed twelve pirates that day. Spent the next 6 days floating on a dingy in the middle of the sea with my mates. It has sentimental value. What I wouldn't give to go on one more mission with that shitty old axe."

I like the system with a base value under which the PCs can find any item with 75% probability, plus a specific market. They need a lot of levels before they need much more access than that anyway, like at level 13 they can spend a lot more money probably. One year into this campaign the players have hit level 7, so a restricted system has worked well for a long time and they might right now afford their first 8k-item. During the course of the campaign, the players will visit at least two important cities, so having access to specific markets in those places will help a bit with the flavor etc. But bottom line I really like pathfinders system. Shows a lot about what kind of a town you're in, too. There's one pathfinder AP where a huge city shuts down to various degrees due to tyranny and catastrophes, which affects the market a lot - and bringing the city back to glory opens up the market explosively. Suddenly you can buy anything at below 16k rather than having access to three specific items costing more than 4k.

I've opened up a thread in the Wanted - GM section but figured I would ask here if anyone is interested in playing in a solo game either as a player or as a DM. Or both!

I had to shut some games down recently and then some games I was playing in stopped freeing up a bit of time again. I don't have time to run a full game but a one-on-one session should be do-able. If anyone is interested either way shoot me a PM.

In reply to praguepride (msg # 418):

I can relate.

And while I'm always looking for a game for my frost fairy; I'm not as creative in terms of coming up with stuff as I used to be.  About the only thing I feel up to doing that isn't an AP would end up involving some sort of dungeon crawl; and those aren't really solo player friendly.

Oh, I'd consider running an AP; but I pretty much shut myself down here, with a few exceptions.  Perhaps someone would like to start up a game for exchanges?

In PF1, I'm trying to find the rules for a strength check.  I've only found this https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equip...cs-break-burst-items which gives the DC for breaking things, but the question is what to roll against it.  Is it really just a d20 + your strength bonus?  That seems stupid to me.  That would mean that the difference between a fighter with STR 18 vs a sorcerer with STR 8 is only 5 points of difference against the luck of a d20?!? Sure, the fighter can lift 300 pounds compared to the sorcerer's 80, but he is only 25% more likely to break this stick than the sorcerer is.

Except if the DC is 20 or more, the 8 Str Sorcerer has zero chance to break it while the Str 18 Fighter could possibly Take 20 and heave the door open.

Depending on the timing and circumstances Taking a '10' or '20' might be allowable.

And yeah, it is possible that a mighty barbarian fails to muscle open a door while the scrawny wizard gets lucky.

It does remind me of a great scene from one of my favorite D&D movies:

The elf with 6 STR lifts the gate where the Barbarian with 18 fails. As the barbarian nurses his pulled back the elf just goes "Lift with your legs, Rogar, not your back!"


https://youtu.be/oSynJyq2RRo?t=1838

PF1 rules questions.

A player in my game has a companion of Apollo Dog: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/besti...es/dog/breeds/apollo

For Offense, it says: "Melee Bite +3 (1d6+3 plus trip)"

I have some questions.

1.  Does this mean that it gets to take the melee attack AND perform a trip maneuver in the same standard action?  This seems a little overpowered to me, but it does seem to imply that.

2.  It talks about the dog having a bonus to Trip attacks, but it doesn't specifically say that the dog has the Improved Trip feat.  Does the dog's Trip attempt provoke an AoO?  In the rules for Trip, it says "If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."  Does the dog's bonus qualify as "a similar ability"?

3.  Does the dog get attacks of opportunity or is that only PCs?  (This is very likely to come up when the opponent tries to stand up again after being tripped.)

Bonus question:  What were they thinking in give all canines an inherent trip ability?  It makes sense if the opponent is fleeing, that the dog just comes behind it and takes the legs out, but that's more of a bull rush than a trip (though the result is more of a trip).  But if you're just standing toe-to-toe fighting, I don't see a canine having any special ability to trip anyone.  Frankly, it makes more sense for a large cat than a large dog, because cats swipe with their paws, whereas a dog can only bite.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:32, Sun 08 Jan 2023.

1. Yes, if the attack hits it gets a free trip attempt. (The pfsrd is usually good at linking to the ability, but seems to have failed on that particular entry.)
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/besti...er-rules#TOC-Trip-Ex-

2. The Trip ability, linked above, nullifies the AoO. A normal trip attempt would still provoke.

3. Yes, it has a natural weapon and threatens the nearest squares.

Bonus: Not all canines have it, but it is a common ability among them. It is pretty strong at low levels. A strong dog latching onto your ankle and pulling will probably trip you up. You clearly haven't gotten in to enough fights with dogs. XD

Extra: Note that AoOs happen BEFORE the action which triggers them. So the dog gets an AoO against an enemy standing up from prone, but tripping an already prone enemy is moot.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:49, Sun 08 Jan 2023.

Have you guys considered doing online society games, so we can take characters back and forth between RL and online play?