|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
As Rynjin said, all negative energy heals undead unless specifically called out as not doing so. Negative Energy channeling is specifically called out as not doing so when it is used to HARM. It just fails to affect them. So, you can freely heal your party without worrying about killing your dhampir friend, as long as you don't try to use Cure X Wounds on them. The Umbral Dragon's breath weapon, Enervation, Chill Touch, these spells all give their exceptions in their description. The shadow also is specifically called as doing Strength damage, so it also is an exception.
W E Ray wrote:
Wizards of the Coast themselves did something very similar for their D&D Fight Club blog. Granted, she fell in love with an angel and became a paladin herself, but... close enough to give you some ideas.
I give you Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I don't ban for that reason, but if I did...
That's about 9/10 times every game I run will include those combinations among the players.
Oh, I agree. I didn't mean to imply I didn't think she was being silly (her later insistence that every single one of my 29 City of Heroes characters were big breasted skimpy-dressed women when only 2 actually were was the last straw with her for me), just that I did see her point that Tifa was the only big-breasted woman in the entire FF7 world. I am able to see someone's point and think they are partially right, without agreeing with them completely. That's why I'm able to not completely hate the person I will no longer say the name of just so as not to start a new debate on her.
Okay, so I'm gonna go watch Army Wives... Hopefully in the morning I'll have forgotten about this thread and can leave it for good.
Oh, well I didn't know you were going to go to other games to get your examples, but yeah Squaresoft is pretty awesome... although, I will say that (and it's why I quoted Tifa) a woman I am no longer friends with hated Tifa, mainly cause as tough as she was, she was also in your face DD's compared to every other female character in FF7 being much smaller chested. I mean, I like Tifa don't get me wrong, but I did kinda see her point.
As for Parasite Eve, OMG I love Parasite Eve! I even have the DVD of the movie (yes, the movie, if you haven't seen it you should. It's based more directly on the book (the games are sequels to the book), and it's therefore the story of what happened in Tokyo right before Aya and her sister had their accident and needed organ transplants...)
Yes, we should... but so often we do not. So often even as a man, all I see is "How not to get raped" very rarely do I see "How not to rape". Look at Steubenville, OH or any other college town (Hell for the latest stuff that has me going WHAT THE **** look up Kansas University, which is a mere 30 miles from me). I will be a bit more clear about something I said earlier... if I had not started hanging out with and talking to feminists and become one myself, I would still think that having sex with a girl drunk off her ass was okay. I am not a rapist, I would never even consider raping a woman intentionally... and there is the key for so many... intentional or not, rape is rape. So, we need to educate on exactly what rape is.
As for doing our best to prevent and punish rape, so many times it's more about "What did you do to put yourself in a position to be raped?"
Say you were driving down the street and stopped at a stop sign. Suddenly a man runs up shoots you in the head (through the glass) and steals your car. Luckily you are taken to the hospital. First thing the cops ask you would be.... "What were you doing in that part of town at a stop sign? You really should have run the stop sign in that kind of neighborhood. It's your own fault you were shot in the head and carjacked." Yes, thats absurd, but that kind of "blame the victim" is very much what is done in rape cases more often than not.
And I just realized, this is all getting grossly off topic for the video games forum...
Eeek you triple posted...
As for what you said, that's true. But, there are cases where someone who is not violent or a psychopath might not even think about something as wrong, until they are told.
For example, in my 20's (I didn't ever get the chance) I never even considered that having sex with a drunk girl could be seen as raping her. Now, in my 30's I believe that if she's drunk, then don't have sex with her. Was I a psychopath potential rapist in my 20's? No, I was just misinformed.
As for the last part of your thing, what about when someone slips a girl a roofie, or as in my article I posted, what about when she gets pulled over by a cop? Why are we telling women how to avoid being raped by a cop? We should be making sure cops do not rape!
Two huh? Hmm. I guess I now know which two by what you've said. I can give you some point to Manhunter, although I wouldn't go so far as to say "disgustingly dishonest" because as far as I can tell of the game (I haven't played it) it's a game that encourages players to maim and kill people who only exist to be murdered and tortured... not sure where that makes it any less horrible when you do it to a man except that in her case she's talking about how women are portrayed, unless you are saying there are no female victims in the game?
About as much as I (or anyone who ever played the games she mentions) care about her flawed logic and dishonest claims that gamers are sexist because they play games where they have to save the princess?
Gah, I can't stay away from this thread when I see stuff like this...
So, you watched how many of her videos and latched onto that, and nothing she says can be at all even correct? As I've said, and I've even said it to her on Twitter and she retweeted me... I don't agree with everything she says, but she makes some good points, and at least makes me think about ways we can improve the way women are portrayed in video games.
Okay, so Im hoping I can leave this thread now, but not saying for sure anymore... I guess we'll see if I can stay away... I really should, I know since as someone who agrees with even 10% of what Anita says, I'm still the odd male feminist out.
As for the relevance of the article, there is very little spent on telling men how not to rape. It's all about how women can avoid getting raped. So, for example, if a woman is really damn drunk, is it okay to have sex with her? She's drunk off her ass and probably won't remember it in the morning, oh and you did slip her some drugs and she's unconscious now, so she's not saying no, it's not rape? This is actual thoughts of many men, especially on college campuses, and many times they get off (no pun intended) with barely even an slap on the wrist and the girl is told "well, you shouldn't have been drinking and you wouldn't have been raped" That's the relevance.
It's not telling men "Don't have sex with a drunk woman." it's telling women "Don't get drunk, and you won't get raped." when it should be the other way around!
Check Your Hand Stamp and Avoid Police: The Latest Anti-Rape Advice for Women Yes, you read that right... avoid police. Don't speed, cause you might get pulled over and raped a by a cop. That's actual advice given to women by a cop when some women were raped by a cop on a traffic stop.
Here is the quote from the article...
"that women can keep their car doors locked and speak through a cracked window if a trooper approaches them. If the trooper asks a woman to get out of the car, Brown said, she can ask ‘in a polite way’ why he wants her to do that. But the ‘best tip that he can give,’ the anchor said on air of his interview with Brown, ‘is to follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over.’”
That is actual advice from a state trooper for women to avoid being raped by a cop.
And yes, I know the hatred for Anita in the gaming community is strong, guess how much I care.
Didn't say there was, but the person said for any game you mention bad portrayals of women, they can give good ones, which isn't the case for GTAV.
Yeah, which is then a BAD portrayal of her, not a good one. So she still counts, and even if she herself doesn't directly, she still gets treated in a sexist manner by Franklin on many occasions.
As I said, I like the game, but that doesn't change the fact that every woman is either sexualized or treated in a sexist manner. Again, yes it's satire, but the word "satire" isn't a magic eraser.
Okay, then I apologize, but the way you said it isn't always true. There are MANY women who walk into the police station and say "My husband raped me" and they are told to go home, that's not rape.
So, yes anyone that comes in with a claim of assault or rape should be taken seriously, regardless of their gender, in fact that was a big part of Emma Watson's recent speech to the UN. Feminism is a issue for men and women.
Don't say "Men get raped too." say "Stop raping people."
Well, yes GTA5 is all around bad and all around offensive to everyone and yes it's very satirical, but it has strippers (many of which prostitute on the side), a wife who cheats on her husband with the yoga instructor, a daughter that works as webcam girl and calls herself "Tracey Suxx" who later tries to get into porn movies, etc. The point is, even among ALL the bad portrayals of everyone, there isn't a single non-sex based portrayal of women in that game.
And now, it bears saying I have no problem with strippers, prostitutes, porn stars, especially not webcam girls... but when that along with a cheating wife (oh and she's an ex-stripper whose husband bought her implants even before she quit and married him) and an ex-FIB (GTA world's equivalent of FBI) agent who once dated and slept with a thug to get close to his operation and ends up dead is all the game has (and random women on the street that have no name and no story don't count) that's where the challenge comes in.
Also, I know a lot of you don't like her, and I've said I don't always agree with her, but Anita Sarkeesian said "Satirical sexism is still sexism."
Okay, I'll take this challenge, Grand Theft Auto V (Online not included because women portrayal in that is entirely on the player) GO. (Don't get me wrong, I like GTAV, but when it comes to the game's portrayal of women, it's pretty bad when taken as a whole because I can't think of a single woman in that game that isn't a sex object or a victim)
Or maybe because women are actually taken seriously by the authorities when they say they have been raped and/or assaulted by their partner.
Okay, you SERIOUSLY need to explain this part, and tell me you are not saying what it seems to me that it's obvious you are saying...
cause i don't want to say what this sounds like you are saying here outside of a spoiler:
that if a man wants sex, his girlfriend/wife has an obligation to spread her legs on command.
Please tell me I am misreading what you meant, that you did not mean what I put in spoiler.
Also, many women are STILL not taken seriously when they are raped by their partner, because of what I put in spoiler. Or when it wasn't a partner, it's many times "well how could she have avoided the situation"?
If you were saying "Men can be raped/assaulted too but aren't taken seriously" then yes, that's true. Rape should be taken seriously no matter who the victim/rapist is, but to say that women are "actually taken seriously when they say they have been raped/assaulted by their partner" um no just as often they are not.
Just look at all the stuff recently with Christy Mack. Everyone is sooo sorry for her MMA superstar ex-boyfriend, oh she's a porn star oh well she shouldn't have been with another man, etc. She was broken up with him, and he came to her house and beat her nearly to death. Yet so much of the media and his fans are seeing HIM as the victim, under this delusion that she was cheating on him, or that if she was that somehow justifies him beating her nearly to death.
I sort of understand where you are coming from, and granted there have only been a few times someone has said it to me, but again, if they said it they have a reason, and at least in my experience, I've seen where they were right.
And oh please don't turn this into a debate on modern feminism and whether it's "tainted" or not. Yes, there are feminists out there that do more harm that good (like the stereotypical "man-hating lesbian" that so many think all feminists are) but please don't paint us all with the same brush.
Oh, I am not ashamed of it, nor do I think I should be, and if any of MY posts in this thread have suggested in any way that one should be ashamed, I apologize that was never my intent. I am however aware of it, and on the rare occasion someone tells ME directly to check my privilege, I don't get defensive toward them, I go "Whoa... let me take a step back and think about this..." and 9/10 times in doing so I am able to see where yep, I need to check my privilege. To me at least, check your privilege means that we have a very very very long road to equality left.
As to those who say "Every man is a potential rapist" or such things, no I absolutely do not agree with that, nor do any of the other feminists I talk to regularly. When we tweet about a man who has hurt a woman, it's about that man, not me, not you, not all men. Which reminds me of the twitter hashtag campaign of #NotAllMen while that's nice, I don't like that hashtag, cause it's to me too defensive. A better slogan from an article I read is #AllMenCan which you can find out about here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/allmencan-yes-all-women-twitter-ac tivism
Simon Legrande wrote:
Actually, there is a very strong possibility I am smarter than you. See, I can say it too. I'd tell you why I feel I can say that, and ask you to do the same, but do we really need to start a d*** (or brain in this case) measuring contest? My point, and the point of the articles is, whether it's what you mean to say or not, when you tell a person who is being discriminated against "I don't see race" what many hear is "You are no different than me, and you are not being oppressed." Whether you mean that or not, that's what is heard much of the time because usually they just got stomped on and your attempt at saying that is to say "Oh, but I'm not like that mean person" in a defensivce manner. Support them, do not get defensive (again, your intent may not be this, it's all about perception.) What others HEAR is just as important if not more important than what you mean. SO no, I wasn't telling you what you think, I was telling you what many other people hear, which is a very important distinction. But look, maybe that's what happened here... What I THINK and what YOU thought I was trying to say were very different.
As for what Morgan Freeman said, and let me say, I cannot comment on what he thinks, only my interpretation of what he said and what I think of it. I fully agree that yes, "Black History Month" should be abolished and incorporated more fully into American (and the rest of the world, because that's one place where I think Freeman is wrong, Black History Month isn't JUST American History, it's WORLD history) history, and that should be the goal but it won't be solved by ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away which is what would end up happening if we just straight up got rid of it.
As for the word privilege, I've been a "broke white person" myself so that article mentioned above is why I have no problem with and understand the concept.
Let me ask you this since you don't see race... Is it okay for me to dress up as a Native American Chief with a full headdress this Halloween? If it helps you decide, I am 1/16th Cherokee because my great-great grandmother was a princess!
Disclaimer about the Princess thing:
Yes, I am fully aware there is no such thing as a Native American Princess, but that is a very common claim by many people, oh I am descended from an indian princess! But the truth is, even if your great-great-great grandfather was a chief (as mine was) that doesn't make his daughter any more important or a "princess" than any other daughter in the tribe.
In closing, take a look at the new movie Exodus by Ridley Scott. You have a mostly white cast and the statues are being redone to look like the white cast. So, in this ideal world where we don't see race (and that was Ridley Scott's answer to accusations of racist casting, he isn't racist, he doesn't look at race in casting his movies)... well, that's all just fine (and that's also how it's always been done in past movies, Charleton Heston, Elizabeth Taylor, etc) Because we don't see race, it doesn't matter that the Ancient Egyptians had darker skin, we don't see race so it doesn't matter what they look like in our movies and that the statues in the movie look nothing like their real counterparts ever did? To take that to a more extreme but IMO better illustrating modern day example, if we were making a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr... and a lighter skinned ('white') man auditioned and just nailed the audition... should he get it? Because we aren't looking at race, remember.
I pretty much allow all Paizo material (sans the ACG, I don't own it yet, and... still up in the air about whether I even want to), then 3rd party stuff is on a case-by-case basis. Actual classes, probably won't allow them (although I do like the Time Thief and Time Warden!), and races even less likely. However, archetypes I'm very likely to allow. Best example is the Cabalist. I frickin' love the Cabalist.
LOL yeah I returned to this thread and was like "next" and saw a blank page 3... like whaaaat? Went back to page 2... okay... page 3.. WHaaat? Page 4.. okay.. Page 3? WHaaaaaaat? Thought my internet was acting up and not loading page 3! :D
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
Aaah, okay thanks :D
Simon Legrande wrote:
Then you didn't understand the articles, or you refuse to. It's great that you don't see race, I myself used to be among that crowd until friends showed me that kind of thinking only works in a perfect, non-racist world. As for being lumped in with other racists, I have a Mexican friend who is very very critical about white people (especially men). She knows full well that I am white (and male). But, every time she says something critical about white (men), guess what I do? I agree with her because I see it too, and I know she's not talking about me, she's talking about those that actually are a problem. It's as simple as that. I recognize my privilege, and I recognize that this particular case she's being very unfairly treated simply because she's not a white (man). When anyone, especially a white person, says "I don't see race." then you pretty much are dismissing and refusing to acknowledge that racism exists at all. It's the same for gender. I see men and women as equal, but women are not equal, not yet. They should be, but they are not.
SO, you say "some of us are already there?" Well, then please come back from there and stand with us, and help the rest of the world join us there.
More like we've come far enough that many think women are equal under the law, when in fact they are not. There are still many professions where a woman gets paid less than a man, despite being fully capable of doing the same job. No, I don't think a woman who can't lift a 500 pound girder should get the same pay as a man who can. BUT if that woman can lift the 500 pound girder? Yes, she should. Same with corporate jobs. If the woman has equal or better grades than the man, she should get paid equal or better, but many times still, she won't.
Then, look at all the attacks on male presidents... we insult their intelligence, religion, etc... but never is there any reference to their gender or even appearance. Then look at female candidates... it's all about how women are hysterical and shouldn't be president and this and that, woman woman woman, and oh look at her what is up with her appearance??
Of course. As a gamer I might be super-critical of Anita Sarkeesian and hate her, BUT I'm also a feminist. But, being a feminist doesn't mean I have to agree with everything Anita says, and I don't. But, as I said in my last post, I do find she makes some very compelling and valid points.
But, were I not firmly in both sides of the equation as I am, who knows if I would be like "gamers are misogynistic pigs" or "feminists are all man-hating lesbians"? I can't really say because I am a feminist gamer.
I follow Anita Sarkeesian on Twitter and watch her "Video Game Tropes vs. Women" series. Do I agree with her completely? Nope. Do I see some of what she is saying? Yes. More importantly, does it make me think about what we all can do to make video games BETTER for men and women? Yes. One good point she makes is about Mass Effect. Sure, you could play a female Shepard, but who was on the box? Who was in all the promotional material? The male only. It wasn't until Mass Effect 3 that Bioware finally acknowledged that maybe the female Shepard deserved some attention. Then, she makes a point about "FemShep" being the name in her video about "Ms. Male Characters" which while I don't fully agree with in Mass Effect's case, I do still see her points as valid things to think about.
For example of high sexism accusations, should no more games like Lollipop Chainsaw be made? One could call it highly sexist because she's a skimpy cheerleader, but come on it's got RAINBOWS instead of blood when you enter "Sparkle Mode" as "Mickey" by Toni Basil plays while the first boss attacks you with highly vulgar (and highly sexist) insults that create real words on the screen that actually damage you... the game is so over the top on everything, can you really say it's not everything it's meant to be, one complete hilarious joke from James Gunn, the same man responsible for the Troma films (and Guardians of the Galaxy)?
I half joke that I am an equal opportunity sexist in Star Wars Old Republic because they have in that game skimpy outfits for women, as you would expect Star Wars to have but also, thanks to the mad photoshopping skills of a gamer on the forms (pretty sure from his work and things he's said, he's gay) Bioware took notice and works with him (don't know the details of his deal with them, if any, but he's always very happy to post the latest actual screenshots of his photoshopping turned real from the test server), and I have many of my male characters wear his skimpy stuff too.
Here is an example... This is my Jedi Guardian Serdneyjo and his Padawan Kira wearing the same exact "Relaxed Vestments" set (except the pants, she's wearing a female restricted bikini bottom and he's wearing a 'loincloth' that was introduced a few months ago, then she's got a different belt which I have since this screenshot was taken decided it looks bad on her, and now in game her belt matches his).
This is truly the direction I think gaming needs to go, 'equal opportunity sexist' joke aside.
Okay, so I am confused about... all of the PDFs I have say "Super Genius Games" did you recently change your name and are just not updating the older PDFs, or what? Like for example, I just bought the Magus book which is listed as being by Rogue Genius, but the actual PDF says Super Genius. The reason I am posting this here, is this seems to be a newer book as the cover art on this page says "RG" on it, not the light bulb that the Magus book has?
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Even if it's out of print, unless it's being distributed via legal channels, it's still not legal.
For example, a group I was with years ago that shared PDF scans of West End's Star Wars d6 game once directly asked West End if it was okay, and paraphrased, their answer was that while it didn't bother them since they were out of print, they must say that no it's not okay, because it very much does bother LucasFilm and Wizards of the Coast who now hold the license (and then to expand that to today, I'm sure Wizards of the Coast would say a similar thing, they might not care specifically if you pirated their Star Wars books being that they are all out of print, BUT they still have to say no, as now Fantasy Flight Games holds the new license)
In the end, unless it's become public domain, being out of print does not make sharing a book outside of approved channels okay.
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
Cool, thanks! Addding it to my wish list now then :D
Devil's Advocate (I've not read the ACG) but you want to see a total editor was on vacation so we just published it novel, check out the First Edition of Laurell K. Hamilton's Incubus Dreams. It was re-edited for the paperback version, but the hardcover copy was nigh unreadable except for those people (like me) who are able to naturally correct mistakes in their head without consciously noticing them (it's why I could never be an editor! I don't even notice the mistakes, because my mind automatically corrects them). It wasn't until after I read the book and read about all the issues, then went back specifically looking for them that I saw just how horrendously bad the book's editing was.
Jack Assery wrote:
About one page per class, making up 1-2 archetypes and some option for others (rage powers only for barbarian, with only one good power with a level 6 and rp prerequisite). There is a couple options people think are good, like the mutagen fighter or exploit wizard, but it was mostly ineffectual.
So then the majority of the book is still the new classes? :( Sounds like I might just have to get the archetypes off of d20pfsrd or Nethys then... which is sad, I want to support Paizo when I can, but I just can't justify buying an entire book that I am going to more than likely completely ignore 90% of it.
OKay, so then I have a question for those of you that have the book. As for the "new classes" I have no interest whatsoever. I think we have enough classes already, what I want is more archetypes to work with and customize the classes we already have.
That said, I do see a lot of talk about archetypes in this thread, so how much of the book is the new classes and how much would still be viable if I were to completely ignore the new classes?
I am particularly interested in what I saw about the "Eldritch Scion" and wonder how it compares to the "Cabalist" from Super Genius Games?
Uncle Taco wrote:
Hmmm, I would say yes because of the abilities that modify arcane pool also modify eldritch pool part, but, that's just my opinion of how I'd rule in my own games.
So, I was thinking about this lately (as in just now), but why has Dungeons and Dragons always said that "vermin" are a - intelligence?
Charles Darwin, 1871 wrote:
It is certain that there may be extraordinary activity with an extremely small absolute mass of nervous matter; thus the wonderfully diversified instincts, mental powers, and affections of ants are notorious, yet their cerebral ganglia are not so large as the quarter of a small pin’s head. Under this point of view, the brain of an ant is one of the most marvellous atoms of matter in the world, perhaps more so than the brain of man.
Is it their size? A blue whale's brain is larger than ours, but they aren't more intelligent.
This article explains how an insect brain works, explains when their behavior is instinctual and when it's actually learned, and why it's very hard to quantify intelligence.
So, is it just Gygax and Arneson didn't know any insect biology, decided that insects are so undeniably stupid that they don't even rate a 0 intelligence and are in fact no more intelligent than a reanimated corpse?
Right, it's calico because the calico genes are only carried on the X chromosome, so the cat must have TWO X genes with the calico trait to be a calico... something that a male cannot normally have. However, the male calico are XXY, known as Klinefelter's Syndrome. It can affect all species, even humans. I said this earlier in the thread, but am repeating it since you said the "rare XX male" which is mispeaking yourself, since an XX is female.
Well, right if they told the WHOLE story and not just straight from the book as published, that would be a good movie that would give the truth behind the D&D scare of the 80's, but if it was just straight from the book as written, then it would just be pure oh look D&D is evil, it nearly killed this boy!
I decided to create a feat based somewhat upon the Kitsune's Fox Shape feat... This way, while I know I CAN just GM fiat her the ability, as I said, I prefer to keep it somewhat fair, plus this way there's no reason a player couldn't play such a concept too.
Prerequisite: Cha 13, catfolk, Catfolk Exemplar
Benefit: You can take the form of a cat whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s
Eh, not so much... that book wasn't hilarious like Dark Dungeons is, and in fact it was that book that really set off the whole D&D is evil craze in a lot of ways. There was a LOT more to the story, but it was left out in order to protect Egbert's privacy (which is noble, don't get me wrong) but... that left D&D as the scapegoat for all that happened... and it lit the fire under the religious right.
It's kind of the same reason the D&D community hates Mazes & Monsters. Because, plain and simple, the kid in Mazes & Monsters is mentally ill. If it wasn't D&D fueling his illness, it would be something else. But, the movie (and the book it was based on) doesn't tell you that. They just tell you how evil D&D is and how it's the root of all the problems when it's not, it's just the chosen "outlet" for already existing mental issues. (And I'm not judging anyone here, I have my share of mental issues in my family and myself)
So, unless they worked with William Dear to put the WHOLE story, even the stuff he left out of the book in the movie, then that movie very much would do more harm than good, because as I said that's the book that lit the fire.
Okay, I have a specific for you...
Changelings descended from a green hag may take "Object of Desire" which gives them a +1 Caster Level to Charm Person and Charm Monster. SO, does that count too? So, a level 8 witch can take (with the retraining rules you can take feats that you qualify for NOW but did not at the original level, says so in the FAQ last I checked) Improved Familiar and get a level 9 required familiar?
Hmm i'd say if the character is a dwarf then Torag would be good, but Torag is really about protecting the dwarven people (or your people, for the humans that follow him)... whereas Iomedae's paladin code is alllll about killin bad stuff.
Faiths of Purity pg. 26, Iomedae Paladin Code wrote:
While an inquisitor wouldn't be beholden to the Paladin's code, it's still a good idea of what Iomedae expects of her paladins, an inquisitor should at least try to live up to that when he can.
Owen KC Stephens wrote:
Yeah, that's one of my favorite things about buying PDFs from Paizo. But, it's good to see clarification for those that might not know how awesome Paizo is yet in regards to PDFs.
On a note about the actual product, how does this compare and contrast to the ninja (where by the way I am here asking this after I saw an ad on d20pfsrd's ninja page) in general terms?
Yeah, I agree with Iomedae, in fact if you know someone who has Faiths & Philosophies, it has a really cool in-world Iomedae propaganda spread that's a spot on parody of how certain religions can be so anti-everyone else, but it I think would give you some good insight into being a witch hunter of Iomedae :D
Ah, yeah that sounds like it might work... kind of a Catfolk version of the Kitsune's feat (which I have already houseruled to grant you "wild shape" to allow the taking of Natural Spell, just cause the way i see Kitsune in Japanese legend they are consummate sorcerers, so making them unable to cast spells just doesn't make sense to me.)