Oh that. Yeah, total brain fart there.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat
- Thread starter Elex
- Start date
I see you are still using your potions all wrong.
There is only one correct way to use your potions: you need to respectfully look at them while you stock up your inventory with all those colorful baubles.
Heh! To be fair, I did practice runs all of last night and today. I didn't sleep at all. This was the most micro intensive run, yet. So many monks died for that one perfect run....
That's how the humankind will survive COVID-19.
I went back to grab my companions. So I can raze the fort to the ground, and while resting. Dwarf man said this:
I fucking love this game, HOLY SHIT!
I fucking love this game, HOLY SHIT!
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2015
- Messages
- 5,954
Wait, we can have a camp conversation on overworld camping now? I don't need to walk to a zone to get that?
Nah. You still need to rest in a zone to trigger companion dialogue. It won't work in the overworld. I remember trying to figure out why Val's romance wasn't triggering. Until I randomly rested in a zone and it worked.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
You get the canned dialogue (there must be thousands of them) overworld, but to interact takes being in a zone.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
I take it they're not compatible?
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2015
- Messages
- 5,954
They are kinda. You basically need to use option to disable EA features that conflicted with CotW. Even then you get some duplicate spells.
Today the only thing EA has going for it is better Magus Arcana. The rest of the stuff is better implemented in CotW (e.g. some example that should affect all actors in AoE only affect enemies in EA but affects all in CotW).
CotW has all the classes planned for WoR.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
With Wrath alpha coming up, time to fire up the mods.
Dissappointed that CotW Arcanist doesn't have Counterspell and the Greater Exploits which require it. Hope Owlcat doesn't make that mistake.
It does have this though:
And Ekun can get it for a one-level splash without hurting Okbo. Much needed.
Fire Tristian fits very well with Hinterlander since it lets you use WIS to hit for Bows and gets Imbue Arrow for his Fire Spells. Cleric (fast) Spell Progression continues in Hinterlander like Eldritch Knight.
Oracle is a weird-ass class. Still trying to figure that one out.
Dissappointed that CotW Arcanist doesn't have Counterspell and the Greater Exploits which require it. Hope Owlcat doesn't make that mistake.
It does have this though:
And Ekun can get it for a one-level splash without hurting Okbo. Much needed.
Fire Tristian fits very well with Hinterlander since it lets you use WIS to hit for Bows and gets Imbue Arrow for his Fire Spells. Cleric (fast) Spell Progression continues in Hinterlander like Eldritch Knight.
Oracle is a weird-ass class. Still trying to figure that one out.
Okay, I'm starting to appreciate the whole Improved Cleaving Finish concept:
And I'm playing with a mere longspear.
I think my next thread will be titled "I have Power Attack always on and I never missed a single hit since level 9: has science gone too far?".
I think my next thread will be titled "I have Power Attack always on and I never missed a single hit since level 9: has science gone too far?".
Why is this a chaotic good option? In what world will a monk abandon allies? Unless the monk in question is evil, still how is that chaotic? I want to see the face of a DM lawyer this one up.
Yosharian
Arcane
Depends on the context of the situation. It could be a lawful, neutral or chaotic action depending on many factors. Same with good or neutral. Same applies to the first response, too.
In Owlcat's defense, alignment is hard to do in CRPGs, but they really did do their best to put some utterly wrongheaded alignment shifts into the game.
Here's how I define alignment:
I'd need to see what was said to the NPCs prior to the scene in order to figure out exactly what alignment shifts those choices should result in.
In Owlcat's defense, alignment is hard to do in CRPGs, but they really did do their best to put some utterly wrongheaded alignment shifts into the game.
Here's how I define alignment:
I'd need to see what was said to the NPCs prior to the scene in order to figure out exactly what alignment shifts those choices should result in.
>I'd need to see what was said to the NPCs prior to the scene in order to figure out exactly what alignment shifts those choices should result in.
Too late. I am no longer there. But to sum it up:
>gargoyle is guarding treasure
>tiefling wants treasure for quest
>tell tiefling that we can use water elementals that we rescued from earlier
>tiefling proposes that we let the water elementals fight the gargoyle alone
>so they can weaken it
>making it easier for us to kill the gargoyle
>my monk then makes the "chaotic good" option of saying we won't let the water elementals fight alone
Too late. I am no longer there. But to sum it up:
>gargoyle is guarding treasure
>tiefling wants treasure for quest
>tell tiefling that we can use water elementals that we rescued from earlier
>tiefling proposes that we let the water elementals fight the gargoyle alone
>so they can weaken it
>making it easier for us to kill the gargoyle
>my monk then makes the "chaotic good" option of saying we won't let the water elementals fight alone
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 1,256
This is essentialy a Kalikke vs Kanerah dilemma. And, not coincidentally, those are their alignments.Why is this a chaotic good option? In what world will a monk abandon allies? Unless the monk in question is evil, still how is that chaotic? I want to see the face of a DM lawyer this one up.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
Codex has a bad case of allergic to Good.
Cucks are bad, not Good.
As depicted in this game, the heart of Goodness is Mercy. This is Right (Ortho-) Teaching (-Doxy), so not surprising (though still commendable, given nearly a century of Leninism, the antithesis of Mercy) coming from those raised in a culture forged by 1,300 or so years of Orthodox Spiritual Discipline.
Letting the little buggers fend for themselves is Merciless. There is no established Law however for how one deals with random little Elementals, so one goes by feel and intuition in such cases (Chaotic).
Cucks are bad, not Good.
As depicted in this game, the heart of Goodness is Mercy. This is Right (Ortho-) Teaching (-Doxy), so not surprising (though still commendable, given nearly a century of Leninism, the antithesis of Mercy) coming from those raised in a culture forged by 1,300 or so years of Orthodox Spiritual Discipline.
Letting the little buggers fend for themselves is Merciless. There is no established Law however for how one deals with random little Elementals, so one goes by feel and intuition in such cases (Chaotic).
>There is no established Law however for how one deals with random little Elementals, so one goes by feel and intuition in such cases (Chaotic).
I like that explanation better.
I like that explanation better.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
As for LE, the Law at work here is the Law of the Jungle, a favorite of LE, as well as the Law of Bros before Schmoes (Concentric Loyalty).
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2015
- Messages
- 5,954
Honestly I think the Chaotic part is just about rushing into thing headfirst without a second thought. It is less of Chaotic because I am not abiding the law but "impulsive" kind of Chaotic.
Yosharian
Arcane
Letting the elementals fight alone is a neutral act (acting principally for one's own benefit), unless you promised to help them, or suggested fighting the gargoyles together, then it's an evil act (cruelty, acting specifically to harm others). The text "let them work for their freedom" suggests Lawful. So LE seems like the right choice, though it could just as easily be LN, TN or NE, depending on other factors.
As for the fighting alongside the elementals, clearly that's a good act because your character says "we won't abandon them!" that's acting for the good of the elementals. One could argue that fighting alongside them would increase the changes of victory (neutral act) but the dialogue doesn't suggest that so whatever.
The problem here is that refusing to abandon one's comrades is quite clearly a lawful act, because it's sticking to one's moral code, or perhaps the law of the land - one doesn't abandon one's allies in battle. Owlcat seem to be going for a 'logic = lawful, impulsive = chaotic' thing here, as InD_ImaginE says, but alignment isn't always that simple in my opinion - sometimes that fits, but it feels awkward here. Standing up for what's right, even if you are passionate about it, that's not necessarily chaotic.
A more obvious chaotic action would be agreeing to Kanerah's plan and then changing your mind when you saw them fighting, or vice versa.
I think these alignment shifts would be a lot easier if Owlcat focused on one axis at a time instead of trying to do both. This scenario is clearly primarily about good vs evil, introducing chaos/law into it just makes it a whole other can of worms.
As for the fighting alongside the elementals, clearly that's a good act because your character says "we won't abandon them!" that's acting for the good of the elementals. One could argue that fighting alongside them would increase the changes of victory (neutral act) but the dialogue doesn't suggest that so whatever.
The problem here is that refusing to abandon one's comrades is quite clearly a lawful act, because it's sticking to one's moral code, or perhaps the law of the land - one doesn't abandon one's allies in battle. Owlcat seem to be going for a 'logic = lawful, impulsive = chaotic' thing here, as InD_ImaginE says, but alignment isn't always that simple in my opinion - sometimes that fits, but it feels awkward here. Standing up for what's right, even if you are passionate about it, that's not necessarily chaotic.
A more obvious chaotic action would be agreeing to Kanerah's plan and then changing your mind when you saw them fighting, or vice versa.
I think these alignment shifts would be a lot easier if Owlcat focused on one axis at a time instead of trying to do both. This scenario is clearly primarily about good vs evil, introducing chaos/law into it just makes it a whole other can of worms.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
This is an example of how games are our literature.
Providing a spur and framework for hashing this shit out is what literature is for.
Providing a spur and framework for hashing this shit out is what literature is for.
Yosharian
Arcane
Now that I think about it, if I was to write dialogue for that scene, it would be something like this:
Lawful Good: "A true warrior doesn't abandon his comrades in battle. Absolutely not." (innocents are strictly worth saving)
Neutral Good: "It's not a bad idea, but I'd feel bad if they died for no reason. I'm going to fight with them. You can stay here and watch if you want." (balanced viewpoint but overall concerned for others)
Chaotic Good: "You know what? No. Those elementals proved their worth. I'm not going to let them die!" (decides who they save based whimsical things like "I like those guys", but overall is concerned for others)
Lawful Neutral: "Let's see how they perform in battle. If they look like they need help, we'll step in." (somewhat concerned, but mostly a dispassionate strategic thinker)
True Neutral: "Not a bad idea. I wonder what kind of strategy they'll employ? Could be interesting." (interested in the bigger picture, abstract ideas)
Chaotic Neutral: "And have them steal all the glory? Bugger that. I'm going in." (personal glory is more important than other considerations)
Lawful Evil: "Precisely. If they are capable enough, they'll be victorious. If not, they weren't worth having as allies in the first place." (cruel to be kind)
Neutral Evil: "Right. Whoever survives, we'll finish them off and have our pick of the loot." (opportunistic cruelty)
Chaotic Evil: "Glorious! Let me get a front row seat so I can see them suffer. Hah!" (cruelty for its own sake)
Of course there are a hundred ways to write alignment shifts into dialogue, these are just some examples
Lawful Good: "A true warrior doesn't abandon his comrades in battle. Absolutely not." (innocents are strictly worth saving)
Neutral Good: "It's not a bad idea, but I'd feel bad if they died for no reason. I'm going to fight with them. You can stay here and watch if you want." (balanced viewpoint but overall concerned for others)
Chaotic Good: "You know what? No. Those elementals proved their worth. I'm not going to let them die!" (decides who they save based whimsical things like "I like those guys", but overall is concerned for others)
Lawful Neutral: "Let's see how they perform in battle. If they look like they need help, we'll step in." (somewhat concerned, but mostly a dispassionate strategic thinker)
True Neutral: "Not a bad idea. I wonder what kind of strategy they'll employ? Could be interesting." (interested in the bigger picture, abstract ideas)
Chaotic Neutral: "And have them steal all the glory? Bugger that. I'm going in." (personal glory is more important than other considerations)
Lawful Evil: "Precisely. If they are capable enough, they'll be victorious. If not, they weren't worth having as allies in the first place." (cruel to be kind)
Neutral Evil: "Right. Whoever survives, we'll finish them off and have our pick of the loot." (opportunistic cruelty)
Chaotic Evil: "Glorious! Let me get a front row seat so I can see them suffer. Hah!" (cruelty for its own sake)
Of course there are a hundred ways to write alignment shifts into dialogue, these are just some examples
Last edited:
Yosharian
Arcane
Actually maybe upon reflection, passion is a good indicator of chaos. I just don't like the dialogue "we won't abandon them in battle" that sounds too much like adherence to a moral code.
Like you could definitely see a Paladin saying "We won't abandon our comrades in battle! We'll fight together!" That is in no way a non-Paladin statement.
But if a Paladin said "You know what? No. Those elementals proved their worth. I'm not going to let them die!" you'd think to yourself: wait, so if they hadn't proved their worth you'd let them die? That's not very Paladin-like...
A Chaotic Good person would probably still save some weaklings, but they'd grumble about it, and chastise them afterwards for being weak, probably say something like "Get your acts together you bloody fools, I can't go saving everyone all the time!" whereas a Paladin would probably bite his tongue and maybe suggest tactfully that they try to train themselves up or something... Or maybe even accept it as the way things are.
whatever, I've put way too much thought into this
Like you could definitely see a Paladin saying "We won't abandon our comrades in battle! We'll fight together!" That is in no way a non-Paladin statement.
But if a Paladin said "You know what? No. Those elementals proved their worth. I'm not going to let them die!" you'd think to yourself: wait, so if they hadn't proved their worth you'd let them die? That's not very Paladin-like...
A Chaotic Good person would probably still save some weaklings, but they'd grumble about it, and chastise them afterwards for being weak, probably say something like "Get your acts together you bloody fools, I can't go saving everyone all the time!" whereas a Paladin would probably bite his tongue and maybe suggest tactfully that they try to train themselves up or something... Or maybe even accept it as the way things are.
whatever, I've put way too much thought into this
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2019
- Messages
- 14,841
Chaotic alignment in practice ends up being a patchwork of different moral codes intuitively applied.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.