Well, goblins are not exactly renowned for their fighting prowess, not for owning stuff like mithril shirts or magical blades... why is this one different? I failed to discern the reason in the text. Also, why has he come to the realization that all he's been doing in his life (and all he has known as a gobbo) is wrong?
Again, use a spelling checker, so others may read your posts easier... Go to Comment
Yup, Amber it is - had just to read on. Quite difficult to GM, though.
This post is difficult to rate, because it cannot be rated without rating the forum topic. On its own, it is not so special, but combined with the background, it acquires a wholly new dimension. Go to Comment
Well, it could be due to a neurological imbalance (say, increased secretion of a neurotransmitter, altered function of ion channels - increased excitability - or a different pattern of interaction between neurons.
Their brains may be constantly searching for new stimuli, thus their drive to discover new and even more new stuff increases, but their ability to concentrate changes in the process. Alos, the ridiculous ways may come from the desire to be different, or an inherent inability to adapt to the ways of others (so, they might be slightly autistic, or solipsist - the only ways that are real and thus relevant are HIS).
The strange (and not so serious) names may be a defense mechanism - they are meant to make the enemies underestimate the gnome, or laugh and humiliate instead of harming him. Go to Comment
When i read it, I first thought that due to some external danger, the people hid in the church, the bell being both a beacon to those seeking refuge and a shield against the danger.
One I do not understan - why the vandalism? Go to Comment
Though you could have altered it a bit - so, it is just a character you played. You could have described his personality into greater depth, and his interactions with the group as well.
It's pretty much alright. 3/5 Go to Comment
Does something HAVE to be sending the plague? And by the way, by killing the one who sent it you will rarely cure the plague - disease tends to get out of hand you know...
So, the only way you could stop the plague by killing something would be if the damage was caused directly by some minions of it, diminutive/stealthy ones. Or, the enemy is draining away the life force of those affected by some tiny parasite he sent out, and if there is no head honcho bad guy, the leeching stops...
So far, 2/5 Go to Comment
One of the funniest (and furriest!) characters around. I guess heroes with flaws are the most credible, and amiable characters to have around (and if they suck at poker - even better!)
5/5 Go to Comment
Waz. this is MEANT to show the PCs that just cuz it's a spider, you shouldn't be hacking away at it...
A goal that should be pursued is to make creatures like orcs, goblins, and yes, even big friggin spiders more than lists of stats to slaughter.
And yes, girls DO play 'this' game... have seen some play (and enjoy it) myself. And cut back on the vulgarity, will you? Thanks! Go to Comment
Well - if they blow it up, they won't get experience, as a itty bitty spider is worth none... that one's easy.
By the way, how many people did the adventurers kill? Do they admit THAT? Openly? And still, someone trusts them. And no, not all of those will have been evil - say, soldiers of a neighboring country... while they threaten them, they are not evil, just fighting for what they see as right. Will the players admit killing orcs? Yes, they will. But orcs are people too. Okay, warriors that oppose you MAY be killed freely. But did the players kill even one orc kid or unarmed female? If so, then they are no better than the spider. The spider killed for food. Are all PCs vegetarians? Hardly so.
My focus was to show that the shape does not matter - a human/elf/halfling might have more reasons to cheat the PCs than a spider.
and yes, Zucrous, if the players blow up a plot just to spite me, okay, I will move on, and they will have missed a plot. Now, if the only thing that suffered was the spider, the repercussions will be non-existent.
But at other times, action, or even inactivity, will bring consequences to them. And they HAVE to deal with those.
Is a damsel in distress not an old cheezy plot? SO, they ignore her to spite me. Okay. Now, she dies. Fine, a dead chick, they say. Then, they come across the knight who happens to be her father, and, while he was too far away to help himself, he saw that they could have and did not. They've gained one enemy. See?
Say the damsel was meant to be a virgin sacrifice. So if they didn't save her, they have to deal with whatever she was sacrificed to, say a demon intent on ripping their buttocks open.
My players are educated so far, that they will talk - even to their enemies. Makes for a richer roleplay. Go to Comment
Well - nobody is getting steamed here (at least not me) - I am just explaining my humble opinion...
Also, being 'evil' (what an ambiguous term!) does not mean you maim or kill for fun... that is being sadistic. You can be selfish and greedy, but still eschew harming someone physically. Alignment is a straitjacket. Yes, orcs may be brutal, and aggressive, but that is what they see as a 'good' way of life - be strong, grab what you can (e.g. deserve) and defend yourself and your kids (and kids to be) from all enemies (mostly by ripping off vital parts). But they flare up on a palladin's 'radar' the same as a demon intent on destruction of all mankind. Weird.
Currently, I DM for a group of less-than-perfect characters - a dark elf sorcerer, a living vampire, a fallen palladin and a partially demonic noble. But I don't pigeon-hole them into being evil. They're real people, and don't see themselves as evil - the sorcerer may be actually nice when it does not cost him anything...he will aid other group members because in turn, they aid him, but if the situation becomes critical, he will not risk his life for others. Is he evil? No, he just considers himself more valuable than others... The vampire - yes, he drinks blood. He tries not to kill when he does so. He tries to obey the law when it is not imperative to ignore it. Because he is paranoid, he often does alienate people. And yes, he wants to see his enemies dead and does not forgive. Ever. Is he evil? No. He's just himself in a hostile world. Even though anyone may consider him a monster. The palladin had his reasons to fall - unreasonable love it might have been, and his failure caused the deaths of many of his family members... he knows what he has done wrong, and sworn revenge upon those who led him into that ituation. He's not kind. He will honor his word to the letter, not more, not less. He will kill without hesitation if it seems right at the moment. To some, he might appear as a villain. Yet he's but a man who was wronged by life, imprisoned for a dozen years, and with a score to settle.
And the semi-demonic noble? Truly a horrid creature if unmasked, yet caring for the subjects, and loved ones, most of all siblings and and father, trying to uphold the honor of her house. Okay, now it seems quite incompatible with these 'ideals' that she killed repeatedly to feed the child she had with a true demon. Is it so? A truly evil deed, but she's nothing worse than a tigress slaying to feed her young - if her loved child needs the flesh of sentients, wouldn't it be cruel to deny it food? Especially when she chooses enemies of the state, bandits and the cruel as prey? This is actully noble! But most knights would vomit seeing her or her daughter feeding.
Now, would you support a knight? A less-than-perfect knight? A knight who was tricked into failing his ideals? One who was tricked and caused great grief in the process?
Would you rather support a vampire noble treating his subjects well, or a human noble who lets the peasants starve? A spider-monster who protects a village or the church of a god who claims to be good, but does not give a damn about that hamlet?
Would you aid a lady whose only failing is a beast she cannot always contain, or one who does lesser evil, but on purpose?