May 22

Campaigns: A New World – Ep 17: Theological Debate

hellHello, and welcome to the Campaigns, the Actual Play Podcasts from The RPG Academy. I am Michael and this is The Campaigns: A New World: Episode 17: Theological Debate

I feel I need to give a warning for this episode. Until now I don’t think any of mine or my players religious or political opinions have really come up in game, at least not in a way that should offend anyone else. This episode, however, we get a bit on a religious kick. It comes out of the fact that Niko’s Paladin Valious is trying to convince Rob’s Cleric Durand that he is doing evil things, perhaps unwittingly. As this religious discussion comes out we start to spill over to real world religion trying to draw comparisons. It was not our intention or desire to offend anyone who holds any beliefs and what we say here was of course exhaberated a bit for comedic effect. If you are sensitive to religious opinion (for or against) then maybe this episode you should skip. You have been warned!

Now, on to the show.

Hello and welcome to the Campaigns, the Actual Play Podcasts from The RPG Academy. I am michael and this is the Campaigns: A new world: Episode 17: Theological Debate. In our last episode the PC’s, after securing a temporary truce with the slug people decided to go to the upside down forest and gather wood for fire and light. While there they were attacked by Spectral tigers. Just as we left off a large black tentacle came slithering out of the forest depths and was about to attack the 3 dwarven volunteers who had come along with the PC’s. This is where we will pick up this episode as Valius rushes to the aid of his Dwarven brethren, but soon the conflict between Durand and Valius comes to a head.

Thanks for listening. We hope you enjoy.
Comments and Feedback are always welcome.
E-mail us at Podcast@TheRpgAcademy
Follow us on twitter @TheRpgAcademy
Visit our Facebook Page
Join our new Google+ Community page: The Rpg Academy
Become a backer: and get episodes early and other great rewards


Skip to comment form

    • Eric on May 27, 2014 at 10:45 pm
    • Reply

    Hey, one rules dispute on this; you’re doing critical hits (and brutal critical) wrong.

    Critical hits, page 20: you take max damage and add ONE weapon damage die. The example in the PDF even uses a 2d6 weapon:

    “For example, if your attack normally deals 2d6 + 2 piercing damage, you would roll one extra d6 and add it to the damage of a critical hit.”

    Brutal critical: “role ONE additional weapon damage die”

    So instead of a brutal critical doing 12+STR+4d6, it should be 12+STR+2d6.

    1. Eric,
      my biggest surprise, is that’s the only time we’ve gotten called out. 🙂 I’m sure i’ve messed up more than that. I recall being confused about how do Criticals when you have powers/abilities that stack on top. I do, also, do a house-rule version of Criticals where you get max damage plus the roll again (so you at least get max + 1 ) so part is me, the adding an extra damage die, vs the normal damage dice is just a flub.


    • Jonathon on June 18, 2014 at 8:09 pm
    • Reply

    Wow… What a disclaimer… Thank you Michael.

    Love Duran’s +20,000 Armor Class… Huh? LOL

    This podcast seemed to have two issues: religion and no evil/attacking other players at the table.


    The religion talk was preformed actually a bit lighter than I thought it was going to be; but thank you for the disclaimer Michael, just in case. I thought Niko was going to be all wrath of God on Rob and Niko actually did a good job at talking even though he said he did not know that much. I am not a religious person, so I had no sides to take. But between Rob and Niko it did seem to get heated up. Niko has a good reason to attack Rob for being who he was.

    Which brings me to the next subject.

    No evil/attacking other players at the table.

    The home games that I would go to would have the no evil characters and no attacking other players. I think that evil is such a fine line between evil and chaotic neutral. So the players would write down chaotic neutral, but perform evil. With any lawful and/or good aligned character, especially a paladin, they would and should open a can of whoop-ass upon that evil character. But then the DM jumps in right away and stops the second person from pursuing the action.


    Good episode with 33+ minutes of God discussion. So as long as the Bible Thumping does not get too directing, keep on talking.



  1. From how this was talked about with on one of the Table/Dungeon Talks, I thought that there would be more disagreement about it. I think that Niko played it pretty close to the stereotype, and maybe could have gone with, if you raise a zombie, I consider all zombies evil and the person misguided, the Baptist bible holding person would consider the other person fallen, not evil, and immediately kill the zombie, but then spend the time trying to convert, Rob’s character, and that would have played out more interestingly, as it would have been funny in the future to have Rob’s character raise another zombie in the middle of the battle, and to have Niko’s character stop attacking something else and kill that zombie in the middle of the battle maybe giving the zombie a turn to attack if he doesn’t do enough damage, but to just be chasing that around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.