First and most immediate problem is I have an npc that I just made following the character sheet and he's going to spar with one of my friends. And later im gonna make a custom boss and I was going to handle it the same way; filling out the character sheet and just having it a higher level
I'll only have a couple moments of pvp, not a game dedicated to it.
First and most immediate problem is I have an npc that I just made following the character sheet and he's going to spar with one of my friends. And later im gonna make a custom boss and I was going to handle it the same way; filling out the character sheet and just having it a higher level
can destroy friendships in ways that landing on your friend's hotel on Boardwalk in Monopoly simply doesn't.
Seeing PO post here reminds me that Paranoia used to be a game that encouraged this type of buggery.
This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.
Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.
Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...
This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.
Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done.
Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.
Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...
Lokarin posted...
Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.
Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...
Because that is completely misusing the word. Euthanasia is a lawful concept.
Lokarin posted...
This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.
Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done.
In my experience, people completely misunderstand what "Chaotic" means on the alignment chart (and, admittedly, that's a terrible name for what the designers were going for). Chaos doesn't mean lolrandom, it means a willingness to ignore law and order in favour of an in-built moral code. A chaotic evil individual isn't necessarily a bloodthirsty raging berzerker with zero ability to think rationally; they're just a "look out for number one" type who is likely willing to do almost anything to further their own aims. The more chaos-focused ones can be anarchists and iconoclasts, while the more evil-focused ones lean more towards sociopathy and amorality.
My (character's) matron Goddess Ereshkigal prefers the peaceful dead, as they make less noise.
In my experience, people completely misunderstand what "Chaotic" means on the alignment chart (and, admittedly, that's a terrible name for what the designers were going for). Chaos doesn't mean lolrandom, it means a willingness to ignore law and order in favour of an in-built moral code.
Because that is completely misusing the word. Euthanasia is a lawful concept.
Lokarin posted...
My (character's) matron Goddess Ereshkigal prefers the peaceful dead, as they make less noise.
I only know that name as the tome wielded by Nergal. I have no idea what kind of domain she would have in a D&D pantheon.
Aaaaaaalmost likealignment is dumb and should be gotten rid of.
It should just be seen as a guideline and nothing more.
Not this absolute thing that when you "go against" it, the DM punishes you for it.
If stupid people using rules poorly was an excuse to get rid of things, the US would have gotten rid of its government decades ago!
I dunno, that worked out last time.
Kungfu Kenobi posted...
I dunno, that worked out last time.
Did it, though? Look where it got us.
A nonlethal fair duel or spar between two PCs can be done, and is fine. I've had plenty of those, they're fun.
That's often not what PvP is. PvP is often not a mutually agreed upon situation, done openly and fairly. It's often someone stealing from another party member. Or murdering him in his sleep. Or betraying the party in the middle of a fight when they're hurt and vulnerable.
At least IME, PvP is often opportunistic, craven, and self-serving. Hence why it's so despised.
You haven't played a lot of RPGs have you?
Your terminology is really confusing.
Lawful is also not a great name for the opposing alignment, and a lawful character doesn't need to follow or respect the laws of a town if it conflicts with their own personal beliefs (classic example: LG or most LN characters would not "respect" local laws allowing slavery and requiring people to inform the guards of any escaped slaves they notice).
It's the "lawful" alignment that's all about having a strict personal code the person adheres to. whether it's due to the law of his home, the law of his god, or just his own inner moral code.
"Chaotic" alignment indicates the absence of such an inner code.
It should just be seen as a guideline and nothing more.
Not this absolute thing that when you "go against" it, the DM punishes you for it.
Yeah, I THINK its meant to be a friendly sparing match. So everyone knows: Im using star wars saga edition and set during the clone wars, in case thats important.
And how the heck do i make a custom boss that isnt a high level PC. If high level pc is bad that is. Googled that too and got nothing.
Oh and the clone could be chaotic neutral but thats another problem
Oh okay. I thought I'd have to make an enemy in the way the book has it
https://imgur.com/WEf8nEE
Although to be honest ive never really analyzed any of the npc stats so for all I know they're just slightly edited PCs for the most part.
So does this mean I can kind of do whatever I want with a later force user boss? Within reason I know. I jotted down notes somewhere that had health and reflex and abilities. So if reflex is high-ish I should lower it? And what about health? I got 4 guys and they range from high 30 to almost 50
The annoying part about alignments is that certain classes require you to have certain alignments and if you act against them, you can lose the benefits of that class.
In my games, we blow a lot of things up. One of my characters was addicted to explosions, though.
I dont know why but I feel lost with nonheroic levels. I need to make 2 force users, cant seem to wrap my brain around doing that
The annoying part about alignments is that certain classes require you to have certain alignments and if you act against them, you can lose the benefits of that class.
Most of the D&D players with whom I have recently played default to Chaotic Neutral in order to not have to think too hard about alignment. Their characters just do what is expedient, though I do have one player who is purposely playing Lawful Good in the same group in order to see whether or not he can stick to it.
In my games, we blow a lot of things up. One of my characters was addicted to explosions, though.
That's not a thing any more. Mainly because of the potential for misuse you're implying.
ParanoidObsessive posted...
That's not a thing any more. Mainly because of the potential for misuse you're implying.
Depends entirely on what system and edition you're talking about.
(Good/Evil was added later, after Paladins became a thing).
ParanoidObsessive posted...
(Good/Evil was added later, after Paladins became a thing).
Which I still find silly. Evil Paladins are definitely a thing and make for great villains.
Which I still find silly. Evil Paladins are definitely a thing.