Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Villains. Not major ones, but antagonists within the character's backstory that would provide characters with a reason to go after them (old rivalries, they hurt someone they cared about, etc) and would be willing to work for a powerful villain.
Would a rival Kobold clan work as minor villains?
Sure. It'd be up to you to figure out a reason why you'd want to stay on after, though.
I don't follow?
After you deal with the Kobold clan, I don't know how I would get you to stay in-character, so it would be up to you to figure out how- or not, if you want to do something different, at that.
Oh, I was assuming it'd be a thing where we're on some unrelated adventure and then it turns out that the Kobold clan is involved somehow.
Orrrr, Rede could take the job because she doesn't want the Rival Clan ruining anyone else's lives/whatever.
This merits thought.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
I am saying that after you have dealt with the Kobold Clan, I don't know what motivation you would have to continue with the adventure, considering the danger and all.
I'm not sure Rede would need a motivation beyond "ADVENTURE!". She likes collecting magical stuff and zapping things. She's not really a terribly complex character with deep motivations. She likes adventuring because it is fun, because it lets her use her magic, and because she gets to flirt with people.
The Kobold Clan would be a different matter entirely from that because she has reason to hate this specific clan. Rede is noted as having palled around with Kobolds in her youth, so it makes sense that that rivalry would persist, especially if the Clan we'd be fighting is an evil clan (like the Tunnelworms from DDO).
That's good enough, right? :x
Well, I don't know.
Your 'adventures' will be a mix between building up an ally's political platform and support among the masses, trying to ascertain what's going on with the world (why the City is constantly expanding, why the Jungles outside are growing thicker and thicker with every passing year, etc), and dealing with a group who wishes to crush your ally. This group includes some pretty nasty people, including an Antipaladin, and it gets very dangerous and probably very scary.
Someone looking to have fun might get scared off very easily.
Agh.
Well, you certainly seem to have this all planned out already.
I'm not really sure what you want from me, then.
I don't exactly have a lot planned out. Just a vague outline (You go and do X for Y reason) and some villains from my Paladin's backstory.
I'm just sayin', it's up to you to determine what your character does and why she does it.
Well, I kind of just told you why she does it.
The whole "because I can" philosophy is what the "Chaotic" part of Chaotic Good is, IMO.
It could also be freedom fighting or something, but I feel that's entirely too serious for Rede as a character.
I'm just not sure what you mean when you say you think she'd be scared off.
Well, here is what an Antipaladin is.
Just try imagining your character fighting against a character like that for some time, imagine the things she would likely see done, and if she would still consider it worth it then, or if she might abandon it in favour of something else.
Hmm. I . . . sort of have an idea of his backstory, and I just got a basic idea of his appearance by screwing around with Soulcalibur V's characer creator (probably the only cool thing about the game, sadly). Should I email Django's backstory to you, Nova, or post it out here?
Post it out here or PM it to me. Emailing is annoying.
I have no idea why I said email. :V
I'll PM it, then, so as not to clog this thread up.
I know what an Antipaladin is, Nova.
My character's motives at the beginning of the adventure do not have to remain static, do they? I do plan to, you know, develop my character in response to the campaign.
They do not have to remain static, no.
They generally do develop along a line, though. Characters in it for the lulz generally get horrified when they see terrible things. Selfish characters tend to want to get out of it if they can if there's too much risk of themselves dying. Etc, etc, etc.
They're not hard-and-fast rules, but that's the direction Chaotic Neutral-ish characters tend to head in, unless they're the sort of 'Do whatever for lulz and see what happens' type characters.
Rede's alignment has been Chaotic Good for a few days now.
I'm also really not sure why we're being made to stick to axes like that?
I think it's entirely possible for someone to start out doing something for selfish or frivolous reasons and then end up doing them for more serious ones, do you disagree?
I believe, when you asked, that it was Chaotic Neutral, and only slipped over to Chaotic Good because of her care for her friends.
Because D&D does have to stick to axes like that. It's one of the core features of the Paladin class, for example; and Barbarians have to remain chaotic.
Law and Chaos, and Good and Evil, are very real metaphysical concepts in D&D. They are not abstract concepts- they exist, and can be seen and sensed.
For Paladins and Clerics, and in a more general (and logical) sense, Monks and Barbarians.
The issue is significantly less important for any other class, and how tangible the alignments are on the whole is entirely a matter of DM discretion and which particular setting the campaign takes place in.
I'm really not sure what you want from me here.
Well, no. Good and Evil have a real power outside of that (That's why you can find listings that have things like DR10/Good; most attacks have 10 damage reduced from them, except for Good attacks, which deal full damage.) The same goes for alignments; someone who is Chaotic Good is Chaotic Good. It's perfectly possible to move alignments- that's how a Paladin falls- but the alignment influences your behaviour as much as your behaviour influences the alignment.
I don't really want anything for you, I was just telling you that I don't know how to provide you with reasons in-character to stay with the adventure.
The warning was intended as a general one, too- not just to you. I do believe most of the other people here have more experience with roleplaying in D&D, though.
That's not what I mean.
How objective alignment is varies by setting. I believe a specific example that's often brought up is whether or not a Cleric can remain a Cleric to a good deity if he's doing evil while believing he's doing good.
The Church of the Silver Flame is all about this. There are some good people in the Church and some bad people, from an outsider's point of view, but most of them at least think they're doing good.
Erm, no offense. I may be new to D&D but I am not new to roleplaying in general, I am perfectly capable of providing motivations for my own characters.
Yes, but I'm not really sure what you're actually getting at. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but I just don't understand what the point of all of this talk about alignments is.
If you're trying to imply that my character's too light for the campaign, it would've really helped if you'd let us know the campaign was going to be dark beforehand.
Hmm. Unrelated to this alignment debate: I think I'll hold off on statting out/deciding an archetype for Django until I know what Noimporta and Clockverse are making. If Lazuli were to end up being the only caster, for instance, I would probably not be a Kensai, but if Clockverse made something like that, or Noim, I would try for Kensai, even though we might already have an abundance of meleers by that point.
You may not be new to roleplaying in general, but roleplaying in D&D is kind of different, due to the real concepts of Good and Evil.
Fuck, it's kind of annoying to explain.
One of the first-level abilities on Paladins is Detect Evil. This basically gives them a permanent ability to be able to tell if a person is Evil or not.
This influences the way someone plays a Paladin, because they pretty much always have an 'Evil sensor'. There's a bunch of ways someone can roleplay that, but it means that Good and Evil have very direct effects on the way one plays a Paladin.
The same goes for Barbarians. They have to be Chaotic. This generally influences roleplaying by showing that a Barbarian gets their powers from disregarding laws and rules, including those of society.
This, in turn, means that the alignments influence the other classes, albeit in ways that don't directly influence game mechanics. Chaotic players disregard rules and laws. Good players try to help people, etc.
That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that you made your character a Chaotic Good-ish person with a heavily selfish slant.
That is fine in a roleplay. It just means that I, personally, cannot help to provide you with a reason for continuing with the adventure.
A good example of what I am talking about would be Hayley Starshine, from Order of the Stick. She is a selfish person, and her motivation for going along with the adventuring party (at first) was to get lots of treasure. That motivation would not have carried her right through the campaign- she would have found enough money to free her father, eventually, or just broken him out of prison- but she found another, in-character reason to continue on the adventure, in Elan. A selfish reason- she doesn't want him to die- but a reason nonetheless.
Her Chaotic alignment influences many of the decisions she makes along the road, however. From freeing Tarquin's slaves, to organizing a rebellion, her decisions have been consistently Chaotic, and have only followed the rules and laws where Roy has made her or they have benefited her (the latter being her Neutral, selfish part of her motivation).
That is an example of the alignments influencing it.
Fuck it, I'ma not even go into Belkar, despite how great an example he is.
Of course, All Nines provides me with another way to provide motivation, in asking for more than one antagonist (dammit All Nines).
Okay can you please calm down before we carry this conversation on any further? Because I am getting a serious impression that you are very annoyed and I'd rather you not be.
I will certainly say though that nothing about my character is set in stone until I turn in the final draft of my character sheet. So I'd really rather you not sweat details like motivation right now, you don't have to help me provide emotions for my character, I can do that on my own unless you're deciding to be incredibly strict about adhering to alignment.
Also I've never read Order of the Stick.
I am not very annoyed, I am just swapping between three sites while writing it, and dealing with this very same discussion on two of them.
Only the person on the other site knows D&D a bit better, so I'm just trying to type these posts out as fast as possible to explain so that I can continue on my other discussions too.
Well that's a bizarre turn of events.
I only said that because you kept doing the "Fuck, [words]" which I do when I'm annoyed so I apologize for projecting, there.
Should I focus on mounted combat or not?
Probably not; much of the game is taking place in a city.