Mon Jul 11 19:07:25 2011

At 7 o'clock AM, Day of the Great Gods, 5th of the Month of the Sun
on the Theran calendar Izolne perished, never to return.

Mistake Number 1 - Elf Shifter
Mistake Number 2 - Pseudodragon Form (neat form, but not neat enough for all the edge points I wasted and didn't have for other things)

Disheartening Luck 1 - Silverback Gorilla Form
Disheartening Luck 2 - Owl
Disheartening Luck 3 - Sienna Spot on a Neutral NPC
Disheartening Luck 4 and biggest - Black Rod on a Neutral NPC.

So my choices quickly became what do I waste all of the rest of my edge points on? barrier attunment? Yippy.

Nope..no thanks. I'd rather have fun.

Thanks Morin for the chance and I'm sorry for two duds in a row.

Disheartening Tell Number 1: "that was #### and you know it" (paraphrase)

btw, double spin has always lagged. It's pincer with your legs.

I said "that was kinda bs" and I got in trouble for going ooc..which i thought was funny. Why wouldn't a char think something like that timing wise was bs. Maybe it does lag..but it was a three rounder...not a pincer lag. Anyway...I really don't care.

I yelled at you about this actually. Usually when you see someone start saying stuff like that after a death they're about to have an ooc meltdown and I try and cut those off before they get ugly. You weren't punished and I didn't history it or anything, it was only a warning. Generally when people start swearing, especially after a death, it feels pretty ooc to me. Especially when nice little sphere magic elf starts busting out the "BS!" You can disagree.

It was honestly all I was going to say...I wasn't even mad about it. I just was kinda shocked.

Maybe you should refrain from posting with a current with your "feelings" because I said something was crap. Heh.

To be honest it wasn't that bad. I'd be pissed if I died like that too. (And I have.) To your credit you didn't go nutso about it like some people do.

I mean I can see why silverback blows chunks, but the pseudodragon looked to me like it more useful defensively than my polar bear, and while I don't know #### about air shifters, I gotta say detect invis, hidden, and camo under certain conditions looks pretty damn useful to me.

Also, while I don't think killing neutrals is the epitome of goodie RP, I think gathering your sleeks from killing neutral mobs is absolutely fine, and far from the worst case scenario on a goodie mage. I suppose its possible to write a role where your goodie vows never to kill a neutral unless you have no other recourse, but I'm fairly certain nobody would ever have given you #### about it. I can't count the number of times my goodies have killed tarus or some other neutral at some point or another.

We just had a big discussion about goodies killing neutrals. Personally, I think you need a better excuse than "me want shinies" for killing people who aren't evil if you're in the fortress.

You should treat NPCs like PCs in this respect. If you wouldn't kill a neutral PC, then you shouldn't kill a neutral mob.

Yeah it's been repeated over and over again by the Imms that if goodies couldn't kill neutral mobs they would be at too much of a disadvantage. Rods on neutrals shouldn't have mattered.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Unless you got non-limited/non-sleek sources are for ABS on tap. This is the reason why good aligned characters will never have their sleeks on a good aligned mob. Only neutral and evil.

Bad design does not mean he should kill neutral mobs.
I don't care how you justify it.

My good aligned characters GENERALLY don't kill neutral mobs, without at least a fair amount of IC justification. IE I roleplay a little dealie with the wood elf guard of the midnight dragon. Try and request the key and of course are denied. I talk for a sentence or two about how he is protecting an evil dragon, and if he will not give me the key then I must assume he is against me and blah blah, request a second time which of course won't work, and then finally a "So be it" and kill him for the key. This whole thing takes maybe a grand total of 60 seconds, gives my character full justification for the kill, meets all RP standards for goodie behavior, and lets me get the key and go get some midnight gear.

I think walking up to a neutral mob and going "Hey man, I need that wand a lot more than you do. Gimmie or die!" would however not really taste too good, and I wouldn't really be able to bring myself to do it either. I'm sure if I really worked at it, I could find some RP way to justify it, but it would really just smack of "No gold aura = okay to kill" and really if you are roleplaying a good person, that's generally just not the case. It SHOULDN'T sit well with a good character to kill neutrals wantonly for gear or even wands.

What I would suggest would be if a goodie finds themselves in this position, they pray or seek out their god or whatever about how they feel they need this wand to defend themselves and to hunt evil, but they don't want to harm someone without the taint of evil. I'm betting if you RPed it well enough, (I'm just guessing this can even be done, not certain really) that someone would change that particular wand to another more RP appropriate source. Again, if this is even possible. I'm just tossing it out there.

You don't think the recent changes to silverback made it viable then?

Owl is a good form.

Pseudo is a good form and make an elf build air shifter have a guaranteed regen form, which is pretty handy.

The rods on neutrals you could have RP'd around it or just used non-sleeks like the majority of people.

I think it was because you got soooo blessed previously with shifter form combos, like tortoise/croc/alligator.

See you on the next one.

sd

nt

No Fortress goodie really has a good RP excuse to kill neutral non-aggro NPCs.

The reason they do so anyway is for balance reasons, in my view.

Yes, it is entirely possible to play a goodie who doesn't touch neutral NPCs at all for equipment or preps. But its significantly more difficult to do this, even for experienced players, and requires A LOT more time investment and a bit more experience to play it out fully than a typical goodie.

I've always thought one of the reasons why paladins were so very strong against evil mobs was because they had very strict RP restrictions and were one of the few classes which were generally not allowed to kill neutrals for gear, in addition to their other restrictions.

Similarly, I remember a few goodie roles played by crazy people who had decided never to kill a single sentient being. They wouldn't kill duergar or fire giants or drow or ANYTHING, even if it was evil. Only skeletons and constructs and maybe demons and suchlike. Its basically the same sort of thing - this restriction made the game significantly more difficult and forced a much larger time investment on behalf of the player. I'm sure it was a very creative role, though.

If you want to play a role like that, I'm ok with it, but you shouldn't force your unnatural difficulty level on others, who just want to have fun.

>If you want to play a role like that, I'm ok with it, but you
>shouldn't force your unnatural difficulty level on others, who
>just want to have fun.

I'll just kill neutral PCs, rank on neutral mobs, wear evil-flagged eq as an applicant, and generally avoid actually RPing my alignment from now on. Because otherwise it's too haaaaard.

While I'm at it I'll rank on seantryn guards as a tribunal while on duty. Also wear magic gear as a village app, rank with paladins as an outlander app.

Making the excuse that it's just too hard to play your alignment correctly is a pathetic copout. There's plenty of gear on good and evil mobs. This is just as stupid as when villagers were allowed to wear magic gear because waaaaah it's too hard not to have restricted access to precious, precious shinies.

There is absolutely no general RP excuse for killing a neutral mob if you wouldn't kill a neutral PC.

If you argue that one should prioritize role over all other things, then the entire game becomes ridiculous.

Neutral svirfneblin and gnomes should be align-changed evil for killing orphans, for one.

Every neutral/evil who wanted to get past the first level of hell would have to add "P.S. I enjoy being ####ed in the ass by a bull" to his role (can you imagine people actually roleplaying that? The Mighty Emperor Of Thera Gets Assraped by Cattle In Front Of His Underlings. Supreme Lich Chancellor of Darkness A Catamite For The Chance Of Nice Shinies)

We'd have everyone full-saccing their enemies, and almost every non-good villager grouping with mages and then leading them to cursed/noexit rooms to kill them.

Long story short, this game would be retarded and boring if everyone acted out their roles as they should be acted out.

I agree with you: there is no general RP excuse for killing a neutral mob, if you wouldn't kill a similar neutral PC. BUT I DON'T GIVE A CRAP - IT'S A GAME. And while I think enforced RP is part of what makes CF fun, I also think too much enforcement would make the game twice as crappy as too little enforcement.

>Neutral svirfneblin and gnomes should be align-changed evil
>for killing orphans, for one.

Yes, they probably should. People seem to role-play the neutral alignment really poorly.

Neutrals are not goodies who occasionally can attack goodies if their cabal enemy archetype allows it.

It seems that point is lost on people.

So to summarize, a neutral can do evil things and still not be evil.

A neutral is not a goodie so goodies can kill them if they have a reason.
caveat to the above being that having a piece of gear that is beneficial to you is a valid reason.
Clarification to the caveat - The same rules for mobs do not apply to PC's, we have double standards in regards to this everywhere in the game, deal with it.
caveat to the clarification - If the mob should not be attacked by goodies then it should be a goodie. If its not a goodie it is ok to attack if you have a reason.

This movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119229/

Good - Minnie Driver - has a strong conscience, driven by morality, likes the neutral person, but doesn't like what he does for a living

Neutral - John Cusack - some conscience, bothered by what he does, but it pays the bills, will kill for the right price, but wants to get out of the business because he's lost the taste for it, ends up being the good guy at the end, but does bad things in between. If the story had continued, would likely have fallen back into killing again.

Evil - Dan Aykroyd - likes the neutral guy, wants to kill the good guy, not above killing or betraying anyone who gets in his way, manipulates people against each other

~

seriously, If you make a char that doesn't use the tell command for RP purposes don't delete because you realize 100 hours in that it would be convenient to use the Tell command.

Not killing neutral pc's for wands is a self inflicted restriction as a goodie so don't complain about the downside of a self imposed penalty.

>No Fortress goodie really has a good RP excuse to kill
>neutral non-aggro NPCs.

This is too broad. Some neutral non-aggro NPCs are non-sentient. Some are magical constructs. Some are neutral but have affiliated themselves with an enterprise that is arguably evil.

>Yes, it is entirely possible to play a goodie who doesn't
>touch neutral NPCs at all for equipment or preps. But its
>significantly more difficult to do this

It's not really that bad. Wands would obviously be a problem if your sleeks were on a non-kosher neutral mob. But for non-zap classes the main bad situations that come to mind are Dern and the wood-elf guard with the dragon key.

I've played a LOT of goodie warriors, and I've been on both sides of the schtick. I've played goodies without touching any neutrals ever and I've played goodies who would regularly kill tarus and the aldevari nobles for quick and easy regear.

And honestly? The really big difference is the time investment. Between spending half an hour getting garnet rings or spiked armor for the really quick regear sets or an hour and a half running through out of the way explore areas to request or kill exotic equivalents, I'd have to say the first one would result in a game where I would spend less time grinding the same old things over and over and more time RPing or PKing or otherwise contributing, whereas the second one would add an unnecessary time investment on an already massively time-consuming game.

Anyways, this is part of the metagame which has always bothered me. Everyone is so very self-centered. Here Valkenar's argument is something like "there's no excuse for killing tarus since I can personally name three better requestable or purchaseable bracers off the top of my head." Okay, so can I, but can your average newbie do that?

Not everyone has the time, the information, or the inclination to play the game like Valkenar does. And stuff like this is especially hard on the newbies, who have a lot to learn already and don't need even more questionable restrictions placed on their funstick.

>Valkenar's argument is something like "there's no excuse for
>killing tarus since I can personally name three better
>requestable or purchaseable bracers off the top of my head."

It's really not very much like that at all. It's more like: pc-npc double standards are retarded. It's not about me personally being able to find better things. In point of fact, my gear knowledge is poor and not killing neutrals screws me up.

It's that as a goodie you need a better excuse than "It helps me" for killing someone. And I don't buy laxman's hand-waving about "well, that's just how it is" If goodies are supposed to be able to kill those mobs, then the mobs should be evil, or obviously doing something evil that would excuse killing them.

I think that having this gear problem is just one of the disadvantages of playing good. If you don't want to deal with that, then don't play a good-aligned character, it's that simple.

>It's that as a goodie you need a better excuse than "It helps
>me" for killing someone. And I don't buy laxman's hand-waving
>about "well, that's just how it is" If goodies are supposed
>to be able to kill those mobs, then the mobs should be evil,
>or obviously doing something evil that would excuse killing
>them.
>
>I think that having this gear problem is just one of the
>disadvantages of playing good. If you don't want to deal with
>that, then don't play a good-aligned character, it's that
>simple.
>

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are stating that goods are restricted from killing neutrals unless the neutrals are "obviously doing something evil that would excuse killing them."

Show me where I'm wrong, but I have not seen IMMs restrict (by in game punishment or on the forums) goods from killing neutrals unless it is something egregious like mass slaughter of sentient neutrals or there are additional circumstances above and beyond simply being good aligned involved (e.g., certain goodie religions or certain racial types).

Which means your restrictions are (1) not required roleplay absent additional factors like religion, (2) not enforced against good aligns absent additional factors like religion, and (3) not taken into consideration for purposes of game balance because they are not required nor enforced.

You can go above and beyond required roleplay standards, but you have to accept it is going to be harder for your character.

This is how I have viewed it and how my Maran (including 3 Captain/Marshals) would have expected people to behave.

I'm also drawing on what I -think- happened to Darascus. He had his barrier on <good aligned mob> and he raised a concern about it. This prompted the imms to look into where you wands would be and make some adjustments. In Darascus' case they turned the <good aligned mob> neutral. From that day forward (Captain) Darascus killed said sentient neutral mob for his barrier rod.

At the end of the day it's supposed to be fun. Further handicapping of Team Good is not fun for anyone. Let them take out the occasional neutral for the greater good. No biggy.

>If I'm understanding you correctly, you are stating that goods
>are restricted from killing neutrals unless the neutrals are
>"obviously doing something evil that would excuse killing
>them."

Almost. Being a philosophical enemy generally excuses it too. E.g. battle elves killing gnomish shifters. The point is that if you're good aligned you need a solid reason for killing neutrals, not just personal gain.

>Show me where I'm wrong, but I have not seen IMMs restrict (by
>in game punishment or on the forums) goods from killing
>neutrals

Here's where I might be wrong. I was pretty sure that if I take my uncaballed storm giant warrior and kill every neutral or evil PCs I come across that has some gear I want, that I will be turned neutral. I can't point to any specifics right now, but I thought that there had been punishments of that kind. But maybe I'm wrong. If not, then what's the difference between a neutral and a good character, because I know neutrals have been turned evil for excessive random killing.

Is that what you're saying? That a good-aligned character, with no other motivation, is allowed to kill neutral PCs for gear? That would really be a surprise to me, but I'm open to being flat out told that it's always been that way.

Frankly, if that's what good means then alignments are almost meaningless. The only thing they do is say goods can't kill other goods.

What it amounts to is, in practice, 95%+ (I would say "nearly 100%") of good PCs actually in play will kill neutral mobs sometimes if they feel like they have a reason to.

I either could write the code to assign sleek locations accordingly, or I could make most of the good-align PCs in the game neutral and listen to them bitch at me. In this case I chose the former.

Maybe I'm just getting pragmatic in my old age.

>Here's where I might be wrong. I was pretty sure that if I
>take my uncaballed storm giant warrior and kill every neutral
>or evil PCs I come across that has some gear I want, that I
>will be turned neutral. I can't point to any specifics right
>now, but I thought that there had been punishments of that
>kind.


Well, first, I said "I have not seen IMMs restrict goods from killing neutrals unless it is something egregious like mass slaughter of sentient neutrals or there are additional circumstances above and beyond simply being good aligned." Your storm giant "killing every neutral PC you come across" qualifies as "mass slaughter of sentient neutrals." Your example above of "ranking to hero on neutral mobs" qualifies as "mass slaughter of sentient neutrals." Basically, you're dealing with the most extreme situations, which is where we both agree you're going to run into problems.

And second, I have only seen one instance where a good align was punished for killing neutrals. It was an empowered elven healer that went through Eryn Galen murdering every wood-elf he came across for gold and practice. The elf's empowering God tried to question why the elf was doing this, and the elf dismissed the God without stopping the wholesale slaughter. For punishment, IIRC, the God simply de-empowered the elf rather than turn the elf to neutral. So I think this qualifies under both of my "egregious" scenarios: mass slaughter and additional circumstances - ignoring your empowering God.

If you happen to know of a punishment situation other than that one, I'd be interested in hearing of it.

Also, third, I'm not saying you're "wrong." A lot of people believe good aligns should be roleplayed the way you play yours. What I'm saying is your self-imposed guidelines are not enforced restrictions and not taken into account for purposes of game balance (which is why a sleek would appear on a neutral mob).


>But maybe I'm wrong. If not, then what's the difference
>between a neutral and a good character, because I know
>neutrals have been turned evil for excessive random killing.
>


The difference is that goods may never appropriately kill other goods.

No other alignment has that hardline and very significant restriction. And I think that is a very substantial difference between Goods vs. Evils and Neutrals.


>Is that what you're saying? That a good-aligned character,
>with no other motivation, is allowed to kill neutral PCs for
>gear? That would really be a surprise to me, but I'm open to
>being flat out told that it's always been that way.
>


No, what I'm saying is "I have not seen IMMs restrict goods from killing neutrals unless it is something egregious like mass slaughter of sentient neutrals or there are additional circumstances above and beyond simply being good aligned." If whatever you have in mind as "killing a neutral PC for gear" does not fall into one of those two categories, then yeah, I'd be surprised if alignment restrictions were enforced against you.


>Frankly, if that's what good means then alignments are almost
>meaningless. The only thing they do is say goods can't kill
>other goods.


And I think that is a very significant restriction that is only enforced against Good aligns. They - almost without exception - cannot kill approximately 1/3 of the PCs/NPCs in the game. I don't see how that makes alignments almost meaningless. And personally, I think that bright line should be vigorously enforced regardless of cabal dogma.

Where I do see alignment becoming meaningless is where people try to separate Neutral from Evil or Good.

> If whatever you have in mind as "killing a neutral PC for gear" does not fall into one of those two categories, then yeah, I'd be surprised if alignment restrictions were enforced against you.

Disagree on this. I'm almost certain you'd get dinged somehow, either in an imm comment, crappy title, demoted (or not promoted) if you're a Fortress member, empowerment hit from your imm, etc.

Let me make it specific. Fortress warrior. Neutral herald bard, totally non-aggressive, never assists fortress enemies, etc. Bard somehow gets humansunder. Fort guy runs into the Inn and bashes down the neutral herald, takes humansunder.

Now let's suppose he does this maybe once every 2 weeks. In other words, not "mass slaughter".

You don't think that guy's going to take a hit somehow for crappy role-play? I certainly do. (And I think he should.)

>Disagree on this. I'm almost certain you'd get dinged
>somehow, either in an imm comment, crappy title, demoted (or
>not promoted) if you're a Fortress member, empowerment hit
>from your imm, etc.
>
>Let me make it specific. Fortress warrior. Neutral herald
>bard, totally non-aggressive, never assists fortress enemies,
>etc. Bard somehow gets humansunder. Fort guy runs into the
>Inn and bashes down the neutral herald, takes humansunder.
>
>Now let's suppose he does this maybe once every 2 weeks. In
>other words, not "mass slaughter".
>
>You don't think that guy's going to take a hit somehow for
>crappy role-play? I certainly do. (And I think he should.)


Well, considering how even EVIL characters sometimes get an "imm comment" or "crappy title" for killing a totally non-aggressive neutral Herald, I'm sure the storm giant would get at least one of those dings Heralds seem to be CF's version of an endangered species!

The rest is only my personal opinion, and not intended as anything "official." I just don't get to discuss this very much.

First, I think there is a separation between Fortress and Goodie-at-large. So while a Fortress storm giant should suffer some of those reprecussions because they are not "focusing on Fortress's true enemies," I'm not convinced a non-Fortress goodie would suffer those same reprecussions (demoted, not promoted, or empowerment hit). What this means to me is that your example is talking more about "fortress cabal roleplay" as opposed to "good align roleplay." I don't see that as precisely the same thing - because "not focusing on your true enemies" isn't a stick to waive in the face of non-Forties that kill a neutral every once in a while.

Second, isn't the Herald you're describing (non-aggressive, never assists an evil align, etc.) really a good align in neutral clothing? What exactly is separating that hypothetical Herald from a good align? Why aren't we questioning why that Herald shouldn't be turned to good?

Beyond that, context matters. Like I said, I've only seen someone get punished once (and by punished I meant something serious like de-empowerment or turned neutral or losing specs or something truly crippling, not something trivial like a silly title or an imm comment on their PBF). And that guy did something far more egregious than kill a neutral mob every once in a while in the course of killing evils.

Personally, I think it is far worse for a good align to kill another good align PC or NPC. That, IMO, should give rise to an immediate reprecussion of some sort. But somehow you see good align PCs piling up good align NPC guard corpses like cordwood, and NPC good align guards happily assaulting good align PC criminals as though alignment didn't exist. I really think that is where focus on good align RP should go as opposed to the every-once-in-a-while neutral kill.

no reason goods should not pile up goodie guard corpses.

If the guards break goodie roleplay by attacking goodies then it is just an act of self defense.


The reality is that guards that auto-attack should not be goodies (since by default the definition of a goodie is someone who doesn't attack goodies)

>align PC criminals as though alignment didn't exist. I really
>think that is where focus on good align RP should go as
>opposed to the every-once-in-a-while neutral kill.

Except getting your black wand is not a once in a while neutral kill. It's a systematic, very common activity. You are going out of your way to hunt down and kill that neutral every time you use up your black wand (on average), which probably means you're killing that neutral almost as often as everyone else combined. That's assuming that you use your barrier in about 2/3rd of your fights, and use it twice in longer fights.

It's not like getting your wand is just something that you randomly do every few dozen play hours. It's a habitual process of killing for your own benefit.

its not against the rules if there is no consequence (other then hearing people who don't grasp that reality complain about restrictions they are imposing on themselves of their own free will)


If you don't want to do it... Then don't do it.

File this away under other odd quirks of CF such as paladins worshipping evil gods but being good themselves. The fact that any race can't be any class. The fact that when you get evil you suddenly forget how to swing a sword or cast a magic that you have been doing your whole life. The fact that outlanders hunt paladins. The fact that story wise villagers hate magic but their powers are actually from magic (yeah read the stories). The fact you can walk around with 500 pounds of gear and put a raft into a girdle pouch. The fact that writhing in agony doesn't affect your ability to perform skills. We say that goodies should never attack other goodies but make agro goodie mobs that do in fact attack other goodies (thank you for finally removing whitecloak).


Malakhi made the point already but this is what the argument boils down to. Goodies should not kill people who aren't evil. Some neutrals aren't all that evil. The real question shouldn't be as a goodie should I question killing this neutral. The real question should be, is that guy really a neutral or should he be a goodie too.

Reminds me of how Rhone argued it was ok to kill neutrals as a Maran.

Disagreed with him and I disagree with you.

Don't you not play anymore, or some####? Go away, troll.

Dwarves do all sorts of RP for the justification of killing Dern. I think Ludan would be more of an issue though, since he is non aggro fighting evils. Same with some other dwarves that are neutral. Kinship doesn't always work after all.

The wood elf guard, well, they are iffy. They have a goodie or two in the cells, and you can argue the wood elves are controlled by the dragons or something. But, goodies going after the midnight is also kind of a why are they bothering thing. Easier coin sources exist, and by the time you can kill it, it is pretty easy to get better regear stuff that is not tainted with evil.

There are lots of neutral NPCs goodies kill, and usually there are justifications you can make (not that everyone will go through the RP motions, especially if they are alone) but when it comes to PCs I think most goodies do enforce the let neutrals be side if cabals don't dictate otherwise.

I've seen the hardcore "I never touch anything but evils" goodies, but they tend to be acolytes. Most others kill the occassional neutral, and generally it is accepted and alright. Though I do think generally there are not too many neutral mobs carrying goodie only gear. Though there are neutrals who will have goodies assist them.

There are very few eqipment paradoxes (neutral mob wielding something a neutral can not) that come to mind actually. I can think of a dwarf wielding a two handed hammer and a hammer in his offhand, and if you disarm him he'll rewield and no longer be dual wielding, but that's about it. I can't say I know of a neutral wielding anything goodie only. If they hold it in inventory, have a thief steal it.

Yes sleeks are their own category because to create the sleek they have to kill the thing, but there are non-sleeks and you can kiill other mages and use theirs. I admit, the sleek lottery can be harsh though

Are you a dude rl? That hast peck was creepy.

Yes I am a guy irl. Once in awhiel I bust out the girl rp just to be stupid. Anyway...I liked your char a lot.

It really sucks that 2/3 of the people I helped with skeletons, delete within 20 hours or so. Come up with one a stick with it. I went from averagin 120hours a char, to 160 with wikataw and 180 with vankhu and 280 with Jallastan.

Quote "I secretly wish you would get raped or something. I feel like I lose IQ points everytime I look at it." Gaplemo

Man, two in a row!? I must suck as a Captain. I liked you, yet again. Sorry bout that you didnt like the forms, I thought they would be interesting at least. As for the Sleek spots, I've had a few of Fort mages that have had sleeks on Neutral Mobs. Been conflicted about it, but in the end I just don't care to buck the system that much.

Liked both of 'em so far, hope you can find something that sticks.

GLWYN

my or anyone elses time on a character I don't like.

I'm really sad to see this! You seemed like a cool character and I enjoyed our few times ranking together. It was the first time I've seen pseudodragon before. I bet ranking elf shifter is tough.

Good luck with your next!

It has like one extra skill than the crag soarer, but worse regeneration. And neurotoxin isn't even that savvy. The paralyzing effect lasts maybe one round of combat against PCs.

Definitely not worth all the edge points when compared to a crag soarer.

Maybe if the pseudodragon had an extra dex or two higher than the crag soarer, it wouldn't feel like such a terrible choice in the long run.