Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Generic Villain's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 1,888 posts. 13 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,888 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zaister wrote:
Yeah but the color scheme mostly sticks with APs. Although this one looks a lot like Jade Regent.

Not really. I remember the mockups for Kingmaker were purple, Legacy of Fire were orange, and I think Council of Thieves were red.

And yeah, it's literally identical to Jade Regent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:


I don't know...with the deal with Chaosium deal they might hold up statting up the "Paizo originals", other than Xhamen-Dor.

Rhan-Tegoth and Chaugnar Faugn get artwork which suggests they might not get selected?

I can see your point with the Chaosium deal.

But regarding illustrations, consider: Hastur is illustrated for a second time instead of Ghatanothoa. Also, Xhamen-Dor instead of Tsathoggua, when again - we know Xhamen-Dor is going to be statted and receive a second mugshot. Thus, I would say that the gods who receive an illustration in the Elder Mythos article is not a factor in which will be statted up in the next few volumes.

*Also, whoops: I forgot to include Yig in my previous post of possible candidates. I could see him being statted, as the outlier of the Elder Mythos. Which is to say, the only one who could even kind of be considered benevolent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
FallenDabus wrote:

So we are probably looking at

** spoiler omitted **

Well let's see. We know for a fact that Xhamen-Dor will be featured, most likely in the fifth adventure. That leaves us with four of the following:

Parade o' Madness:

Atlach-Nacha
Chaugnar Faugn
Ghatanothoa
Mhar
Mordiggian
Orgesh
Rhan-Tegoth
Tsathoggua

Mhar and Orgesh are both Paizo originals which I'd say that makes it more likely they will be statted up. Then again, Mhar hasn't technically been "born" yet, so perhaps not it. I would rule out Ghatanothoa b/c of its similarity to Cthulhu, and guess only Chaugnar Faugn or Rhan-Tegoth will get a full treatment. Again, because of similarity. So my guess for the next five Great Old Ones:

Chaugnar Faugn, Orgesh, Xhamen-Dor, Mordiggian, and Atlach-Nacha. Shot in the dark there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Generic,

No you'll know him by the self-righteous smug SOB smile he has.

Lowls never smiles. Ever. He is the poster child of resting b@$%h face - not unlike a certain creator of the Cthulhu Mythos himself, in fact. HPL wasn't half as poofy, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adam Daigle wrote:
The illustration of Lowls on page 6 of the adventure is new, but I used his portrait in Rule of Fear as an art reference to make him recognizable.

You will know him by his poofiness. That is a very poofy man.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Am I the only subscriber who occasionally checks their "My Downloads" page, just in case the good people at Customer Service forgot to send my email telling me my stuff has shipped and is now available for download?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

According to that link, "hideous" was his favorite word by a wide margin. Which... yeah, sounds right. "Faint," "nameless," and "antique/arian" are all solid runners-up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Axial wrote:


Bestiary 4 wrote:
Hastur is the most mysterious of the Great Old Ones. In fact, the entity known as Hastur might actually be an Outer God. The physical manifestation of this entity is known as the King in Yellow, and though most consider this creature—a vaguely human-shaped figure draped in a yellow cloak—to be synonymous with Hastur himself, many scholars believe that the King in Yellow is nothing more than an avatar used by the true Hastur to move among the denizens of the physical world. Hastur himself is said to dwell upon a distant world called Carcosa on the shores of the monstrous Lake of Hali, and his power on a planet is strongest when the baleful light of Carcosa's star is visible in that planet's night sky.

Yes, I'm well aware of the hints in Bestiary 4 that the King isn't all there is to Hastur.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Ok, we need some really bad words to be associated with. How about "superfluous"? "taxation"? Or even "proctitis"?

The grossest words in the English language, all in one fun video. Slightly NSFW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marco Massoudi wrote:

So we get Ithaqua in part 1.

Xhamen-Dor in part 5.

Bokrug, Cthulhu & Hastur are in Bestiary 4 (but i expect Hastur to be reprinted in part 6).

That still leaves Atlach-Nacha, Chaugnar Faugn, Ghatanothoa, Mhar*, Mordiggan*, Orgesh*, Rhan-Tegoth*, Tsathoggua & Yig.

* never heard of them outside Pathfinder.

Hastur won't be reprinted in the sixth adventure. Though it's worth noting that the Hastur in Bestiary 4 is actually the King in Yellow, who is but an avatar of Hastur in Chamber's work. I'm not as familiar with the Chambers side of the Mythos, but I believe there are implications that the "true" Hastur is something else entirely. Possibly even that Hastur is a genius loci manifesting in the form of a city.

Mhar and Orgesh are Pathfinder originals.

Mordiggian is from the author Clark Ashton Smith. Rhan-Tegoth is from the HPL story The Horror in the Museum.

*Ninja'd by JJ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:


EDIT: basically, it's so powerful, it doesn't need to be used more. He used it exactly the right a out of times. And, true to form of the things he describes, it's gotten stuck in our collective minds until it's creates its own drowning chorus until we can't hear anything else. What an excellent word choice. :D

I need a word that everyone just immediately associates with me. Unfortunately it would probably be something that everyone recoils from, like "moist" or "slurp." "Pus" and "mucus" are also big contenders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey James, I have a Mythos question for you. Specifically, can you think of any societies, cultures, civilizations, etc. where the Old Cults are particularly active? Either past or present?

I know the ancient Kellids of Ustalav were probably the biggest offenders. I also know Nyarlathotep was active in both Ancient Osirion and Thassilon, but not to what extent. For some reasons I have a feeling some Mwangi tribes or lost cities may have had their fingers in the Mythos pie; likewise with certain Darklands races. But that's mostly just speculation on my part.

The main reason I'm asking is because I'm thinking of designing a sort of Old Cult museum, and was wondering what cultures/races would be represented most therein.

*Edit: upon reviewing Occult Realms, the cyclopes of Ghol-Gan were also Old Cultists to some extent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That actually surprised me. I read all his stuff and just had the impression he used it way more. Like, that was his word or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A dozen times? Like twenty-five? Over a hundred?

Answer:


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Adam Daigle wrote:
There are two categories of deities in that article. Great Old Ones, which are demigod status—thus have four domains and stat blocks–and Outer Gods, which are full on deities and have five domains and no stat blocks.

Yeah I meant Outer God, not Elder God.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lord Gadigan wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Considering the number of domains they have, can I assume that Nhimbaloth and Abhoth are Elder Gods, not "mere" Great Old Ones?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh wow, a Great Old one is statted in the Bestiary? I wonder if we'll get a GOO in each volume, just as we got a Demon Lord in each volume of Wrath of the Righteous? Please let it be so!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I believe James Jacobs has said that the description of aboleths in the 3rd edition Lords of Madness supplement largely applies to Golarion's aboleths as well (except that the latter have quit the Underdark/Darklands, are atheist, etc.). He was one of the authors after all, and I believe wrote the aboleth chapter.

Anyway, aboleth anatomies are described in detail. Yes they have a skeleton - specifically, a spine, ribs, and massive skull.

It would lose all supernatural, spell-like, and extraordinary abilities, including slime strike. It would technically not have any natural attacks. However, I would just give it two claw attacks and say it's slicing with ribs or something. At the very least, give it a tail bash attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DeciusNero wrote:
Spooky hag and a gibberish mother horde - wonder if that's Pier 19?

Interesting that three sailors are noted to have "melted" on Pier 19, and there are three gibbering mouthers on the cover. In Lovecraft country, melting doesn't guarantee the mercy of death.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey James. Pretty simple question: are all Old Cultists fanatics?

Here's why I ask. In Pathfinder, and indeed in HPL's original writings, it seems like all worshipers of the Great Old Ones are super serious about their faith. I was thinking though, certainly there are some people who just casually worship one of these things. Say, a sorcerer with the aberrant bloodline who is evil and insane, and just happens to jive with Shub-Niggurath's teachings. Comparable to how a more lucid sorcerer or wizard might go with Nethys.

Or a bard - this time crazy but not evil - who dreams of Azatoth's terrible piping and tries to recreate it in the waking world. She's got Azatoth on her character sheet's "deity" line, but isn't going to proselytize, and doesn't do elaborate rituals in the Daemon Sultan's name.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Corathonv2 wrote:

The movie Thing was based off on Campbell's "Who Goes There?"

I think that the credits mention this, but my memory could be off, its been years since I saw either of the 1st 2 versions, and I have never seen the latest one.

You're correct, it's Who Goes There. Also the latest Thing movie, the "prequel," is dreck.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
EltonJ wrote:

the blob?

I would kindly guide you towards the carnivorous blob in Bestiary 2. A pretty solid expy.

On the topic of formless horrors: I would love a Pathfinder version of The Thing from The Thing (or the book, Who Goes There). It's a very tough monster to give stats to because it's powers are basically "whatever the plot needs and/or looks properly freaky on camera."

Legendary Games did a solid version of it, called the qomok, in their book Mythic Monsters: Aliens. My only problem? It's too spot on and thus hella complicated. The Thing I want to see would be complex, but not so much that it's stat block takes up 2.5 pages.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Copies of the Pathfinder Chronicles are repeatedly referred to as "printed" in Seekers of Secrets. Considering that these are mass-produced chapbooks, that strongly suggests the use of a printing press.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am just so happy the Leng ghoul is named Wilkins. And I don't know why.

(Please let Wilkins the Leng ghoul be a butler with a jaunty hat and cane.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
Hey real quick cause I only skimmed. For all the corruption and stuff, is it like mythic where an adventure needs to be built around it, and thus will probably never happen, or can anyone toss it onto a character via some archetype or feat or whatever?

Not 100% sure what you're asking. You might want to find a thread directly related to Horror Adventures.

That said, corruptions are a self-contained rule system. The rules allow characters to gain benefits as they progress in power, while also gaining disadvantages. Indulge the dark side too much, and the PC turns into an NPC. Time to roll up a new one.

As for "other stuff," you're gonna have to be more specific. A lot of the book includes things like haunts, sanity rules, new diseases, monsters, etc. GM-only. There's lots of stuff "anyone can toss onto a character" like archetypes, spells, feats, and magic items.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saithor wrote:


Okay, maybe evil is not the simplest way to put it. I was thinking more like how deal with great evil beings works, like with Faust. Yes, you get to live forever, but eventually you must face the price for your actions. In the case of Faust, and in the context of his story, he could have been an upstanding man and earned himself a spot of eternal happiness in heaven, but it would have taken a lot of work to be morally good, etc., and he would have suffered the end of his mortal life.

For what it's worth, when I said I found it interesting that so many consider good more difficult/demanding than evil, I meant just that. It's not that I necessarily even disagree. I just think that real-world morality becomes much more... well, interesting, in a hypothetical world where Good can be called upon to smite the crap out of those poor skeletons. Or Evil can take form before you, in flesh-and-blood form as a daemon/demon/devil.

I'm not arguing from any personal moral perspective. If I were it would be a very short argument - namely, that I don't believe in good/evil. I'm just trying to imagine how the world would function when it was literally impossible to deny these forces, because dear sweet lord, that cleric just dropped an unholy hammer on a guy and it hurt just, like, so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saithor wrote:


I get your argument, and while I personally have issues with having Good/Evil being metaphysical forces without the obligatory force of Grey, even if we go by your logic, that both should be applied equally, it still makes no sense that by casting a handful of level 1 spells in a single day, a tyrant of unimaginable evil and cruelty changes alignment to the side of justice, law, and goodness. How does casting a small number of magically minor spells make him from the paragon of sin to paragon of virtue? The issue then is that it makes alignment meaningless in a game that tends to have quite a bit of focus on it.

Yeah, absolutely agree with you there. The "cast a few spells and change your alignment" was clearly an oversight. I mean, there's no sidebar saying "If your character kills three or more innocent sentient creatures in one day, s/he turns evil" so I don't get the spell thing.

I'm just always interested when people think Good is somehow more difficult, demanding, and time-intensive than Evil. As if the "tyrant of unimaginable evil and cruelty" in your example is somehow striving less than his opposite, the "paladin of purest mercy and goodness." Both are champions who daily strive to embody all it means to be Good/Evil.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Saithor wrote:


For good to evil it would have been fine. it's the 'cast protection from Evil five times, and my lord lich, you shall no longer be smiteable by the paladin' that is causing a lot of raised eyebrows.

I still don't understand why that is. I say "still" because I was having the same conversation in another alignment thread (which I usually avoid like the plague... now two in one night, ack.)

Anyway. I get it - I really do. By pretty much every moral viewpoint, being good is meant to be more difficult than being evil. Falling from the lofty heights is meant to be a much easier process than dragging yourself up from the muck. And in the real world, that makes a degree of sense. All very vague, philosophical stuff of course, so no definite answers.

However in Pathfinder there are definite answers. Good and evil are real, tangible forces in the universe, not unlike the four classical elements in our universe. There are entire planes devoted to the alignments, and they are filled with physical incarnations of those alignments.

So if the primordial force known as Good decides "okay Good mortals, use a few too many Evil spells and you're off our team," why would Evil not have the equivalent rule? "Woops, that was your third Good spell today Antipaladin Jim. Get your arse out of my (strictly metaphysical) house."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gotta say Necromancer Paladin, I'm with Athaleon on this one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


What is it about Americans that so many people insist on every complicated question be dumbed down to a simple binary response?

Well ya see miss, we're just a bunch of know-nothing country bumpkins. Would ya show us miserable idjits mercy by telling us all the ways you is so much smarter than us? We'd be mighty obliged, I tell ya! Please use small words and short sentences though, 'cause none of us can read good or know those big fancy words that Europeans use.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:


There is another AP between Strange Aeons and The Ruins of Azlant, but it will give us a break between two "Horror themed" APs, so...

I think you misunderstand; Caen said that ciretose called an Azlant AP five years ago. In that thread, I was hoping for (and I'll now say predicting! [Even though that's a lie!]) an aboleth AP last Thursday. To be fair, aboleth doesn't necessarily mean Azlant, but it's a moot point now.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:


The Starspawn is statted up in WotW bestiary section though.

Yes, but he certainly "doesn't feature heavily in [Carrion Crown]." There are plenty of illustrations in a volume that are only just tangentially related the the Adventure Path itself. And with two Great Old Ones already heavily involved in Strange Aeons, trying to jam Cthulhu in there would be a bit much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MythicFox wrote:
Axial wrote:
So if Cthulhu doesn't feature heavily in Strange Aeons, where is that art piece actually from?
That's probably the art piece that kicks off the chapter on the Elder Mythos deities.

Or perhaps the Continuing the Campaign article in the last adventure. Not sure if they'd have art ready to go for that yet...

Oh, and Cthulhu was shown invading Riddleport in the opening of Wake of the Watcher. Neither he nor his spawn appear in the adventure - not even in name.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


I would say that every situation needs to be judged on it's own merits instead of seeking simple catchall answers which evade the need for critical thinking.

I never said there was a simple catchall answer, and at no point have I tried to avoid critical thinking. My point was, that if evil and good are opposite ends of the pole, then anything that utilizes both most therefore fall along the middle somewhere, in muddy gray territory.

Because remember, in the Pathfinder universe, good and evil aren't just ambiguous concepts. They are metaphysical forces, every bit as potent and real as the air the PCs breathe and the earth they walk on. You can gain "profane" bonuses to your AC, suffer "holy" damage. Good and evil are things to clad yourself in, wield, bolster your friends and crush your enemies with.

For that reason alone, I don't think our real-world justifications apply as much as they otherwise would. Good and evil are polar opposites ever in contention, like positive and negative energy. If you borrow a little from both sides, that doesn't mean you immediately slide to one end - the evil "pole" - arbitrarily. Good is an equal and opposite force, after all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just leaving this here. Not gloating or anything. Perish the thought. (So bloody thrilled aboleths are finally getting their do).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:


IRL "evil" and "good" are typically understood to relate to the intentional capacity of a morally capable agent.

Evil is the subtraction of some good or the over-application of some good. Good is hard because it can go wrong "both ways", whereas evil is parasitic so it's easier to follow that path.

It's interesting you mentioned subtraction. I was thinking of it in terms of numbers. Specifically, that evil is a negative number, and good a positive one. In that case, mixing a positive/good factor (which in this case is either the source of power or the uses it is put to) with a negative/evil factor always results in a negative.

Obviously this doesn't work entirely because negative * negative = positive, but other than that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Here's the thing. You like many others are making the assumptions that Good and Evil are nothing but equivalent mirrors of each other.

Except that they aren't. Good requires that you take an effort, that you don't choose the easy way out of taking shortcuts, or doing nothing at all, standing on the sidelines. Good frequently requires you to act against naturally selfish urges.

All Evil needs to succeed in it's goals is that those that would oppose it... do nothing.

And there we do disagree (which is fine, because this is entirely philosophical by this point). Specifically, that good requires effort and evil doesn't. I would argue that being evil requires every bit as much the time, energy, and willpower.

It's fairly simple to be a "generally good" person. You hold doors for old people, volunteer occasionally, are a loyal friend, etc. It's also easy to be a "generally bad" person. You treat the cashier like crap, laugh when someone falls down, spew hate online.

Where things become difficult, is becoming serious about either good or evil. That takes time, commitment, effort. Sure, the kind sitting in his castle while his people starve can be seen as evil; as you say, he would be "doing nothing." But is that really "nothing?" There must be a serious measure of callousness and cruelty to allow such suffering to occur when it is well within your ability to make things better. He is actively choosing to ignore any sense of conscience, and willingly sleeps each night after a feast, knowing that children are withering away a mile or two from his bed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, I think everyone can agree that using good power for good purposes is good, and using evil power for evil purposes is evil. So maybe anything else is just... neutral?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To people who say "evil for the right reasons" is still evil, a question: would someone who is "good but for the wrong reasons" still be good? For example, a selfish, greedy cleric who heals the common people, but only because he needs them strong and healthy to serve the church.

Or perhaps to take it to another level: a LG cleric of Iomedae who heals commoners, but only if they join a militant wing of the church as soldiers. To me, such a character, though ostensibly "good," is acting neutral at best, and quite possibly evil.

This is a very nebulous, complicated, personal question. But let's say for the moment that:

-A person using evil power for a greater good is still evil.
-A person using good power for selfish and dangerous reasons is actually evil.

If these can be simultaneously true, how is that possible? Is it that evil is inherently superior to good? Why is it not:

-Person with evil power working towards good = good.
-Person with good power working towards bad = good.

Or at least:

-Person with evil power working towards good = good.
-Person with good power working towards bad = evil.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gotta say, feeling pretty smug about starting so early at 8. I mean except for those people who started even earlier, obviously - I'm ignoring them.

(Joking of course because it doesn't matter when you started, as long as you did. I guess, hehe).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

To further complicate things, the aforementioned sidebar mentions the following:

"Contact spells do not replace or supplant planar ally or planar binding, so each contact spell targets an eldritch creature that is not an outsider."

Yet it can be used to contact a denizen of Leng and a hound of Tindalos, both most definitely outsiders. It's like the sidebar and spell were written by different authors, and neither were quite in sync.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

8 years old; Earthdawn.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

How is the contact entity spell supposed to work? If I just read the spell itself, it's fine, but upon looking over the "Contact Spells" sidebar on pg. 111, things become less clear.

From the sidebar (and not the spell itself):

"Usually found in the form of scrolls or spell trigger items, an individual contact entity spell comes predetermined to work with a single kind of entity"

"Though the class lists for these spells includes spontaneous casters, this is primarily to let them use the spell if found on a scroll, not to have unfettered access to contact entity as a spell known"

Okay, so say a PC wizard found a scroll of contact entity I that contacts deep ones, then proceeds to copy it into his spellbook. Is the intent that this spell will, once cast, only function on deep ones? If so, the spell dialogue itself really should have spelled that out. A line such as:

"Each contact spell is attuned to only one kind of creature, and each is a unique spell. For example, a contact entity I spell that functions on deep ones would be called contact entity I (deep ones). A contact entity I (ratlings) is an entirely different spell and must be prepared or learned separately."

I know this is based on a Call of Cthulhu spell, but even the CoC version is spelled out more clearly than this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What I want most is an aboleth AP.

What I want second-most is anything but a Galt AP.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Maneuvermoose wrote:


So, what are the gingerbread witch and tatterdemalion witch like? What do they do?

I don't think tatterdemalion has been as detailed in this thread, but I've heard they sew their opponent's eyes and mouth shut. More body horror ftw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Maneuvermoose wrote:


So, what are the gingerbread witch and tatterdemalion witch like? What do they do?

To grandmother's house we go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Maneuvermoose wrote:


Oh no! You cut in BETWEEN two of my posts, thereby ruining the dashed-line visual effect I was trying to create. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I dunno, it kind of works with Boob Brained's nutso avatar. Absurdist humor and all that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Well I'd certainly enjoy the opportunity to showcase very nasty spellcasting effects, Villain.

Oh I'm all about the body horror. Looking forward to the assorted rules this book will have for twisting, warping, and removing chunks of anatomy. Mr. fleshwarped eyes-on-antennae bro is doing it for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
So if I used Death Clutch, Decapitate and Explode Head, people will like it? ;)

Toss in seething eyebane, gutwrench, flensing, and avasculate from various 3rd-edition sources, and you can burst your opponent's eyes, yank out his guts, peel him like an onion, and choke him with his own flailing veins. And he'd still potentially be alive.

This can be a very dark game...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gark the Goblin wrote:


Also Prometheus is a kickass film :0

Don't want to derail too much, but this is a blog post about movies. Still, will spoiler b/c of slight off-topicness.

Slight off-topicness:
My problem with Prometheus is, it didn't make sense. My bigger problem is that all the gaping plot holes
didn't exist in the original script. They were added when Damon Lindelof joined the crew. He convinced Ridley Scott that Prometheus didn't need to be a straight Alien prequel, and screw continuity. You might recognize Lindelof as the guy who wrote Lost. Yeah.

I actually liked Prometheus in spite of that. Just a shame it could have been so much better.

*EDIT: It looks like that linked article lost all its pictures etc.? Don't know why, but it was much better before. Maybe copyright stuff?

1 to 50 of 1,888 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.