I would recommend checking out Asians Represent Podcast, which is currently doing a review on Al Qadim.

Ah, thanks!

I like the general idea of it, but I'd also like to do it in a more culturally sensitive way (which is why I'm putting it here rather than under conversions). Are there any folks out there from the Middle East who might be willing to give advice or work on it with me?

Genie heritages are already a thing

Ifrits, Oreads, Sylphs and Undine as well as Elemental unaligned Sulis

Yes, but I'm making my own and I'd like to create more types such as those descended from the qorrashi and khayal - only I don't know if I can actually use those terms without triggering some kind of copyright or trademark infringement.

I believe geniekin is the general term Pathfinder uses. Are you writing these for professional publication? Because if you aren't and it's just for a home game then you can call them whatever you please.

For right now it's just a home game, but I'd like to get it published later and I'd rather make sure everything is above the board from the start.

Before people ask, I tried looking at TESS but couldn't find even genasi. I'm not sure if I'm searching wrong or what.

This is homebrew in that I'm trying to create genie heritages. However, I'm not sure exactly what terms I can use. I had read genasi was considered a trademark of Wizard of the Coast, so I'd need to come up with a new term. I wasn't sure if the qorrashi and khayal are--I've been looking to no avail, so I'm running under the assumption they are until I know otherwise.

Can anyone here link me to fantasy terms that are exclusively trademarked elsewhere or which are just bad ideas to use (i.e. hobbits)?

I did this last year.

I'm not sure if this will help or not, but here goes:

From my perspective there are always two ways of viewing flying: story-telling and game-mechanics. The two tend not to be compatible.

In the first place, if the level for flight is 10 or more then, by default, any member of the species that actually flies must be level 10 in some class. They cannot naturally fly before that. That means, largely, most of the winged race can't actually fly but can only glide their entire lives. It also means any actual fliers the party encounters must be whatever level flying is gained at.

If this is sounding ludicrous, that's because it largely is. If you want a race that flies, let them fly and then work out the implications that this presents when you create challenges. After all, if a flying race is common enough to be part of an adventuring group then it's common enough that the PCs should be encountering flying enemies pretty much from the start.

Wings are mostly useful in outside situations for scouting or shooting from above. That said, people adapt to flying combat like anything else and there's bound to be anti-flier weapons around. Also if you can see you can be seen, so even there it doesn't necessarily present an advantage.

? Okay, I was confused, googled and still am confused

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" apparently is "which suggests if wishing could make things happen, then even the most destitute people would have everything they wanted"

Like, umm, what? This proverb doesn't make sense in this context because they wanted to have different look for hobgoblins and so they did

They have to have as different a look as possible for their goblins, hobgoblins, and so on because if their designs are too close to those of 3E (or anyone else's) they could get sued for copyright violations.

My wish would be that they could use a design that I, personally, happen to like better (which would be me getting everything I want). That bit of selfishness aside, I can appreciate what they are doing with the limits opposed on them.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

Yeah, I understand. If wishes were horses and all that. You're doing a good job.

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

There is actually a whole sidebar on playing differently abled characters in the core rulebook.

Specifically, "Characters With Disabilities" on page 487.

Yes, but the feats are suggested as 'might'. They are also suggested as a 'good idea' but the GM has final say, and there's nothing in the rules that allow a player to work around this should the GM decide they aren't going to give those feats out for free just because a player wants to play a differently abled character.

So, let's say I wanted to make a blind Fighter or Monk in first edition. All I would need to do is take the Blind Fighting feat. It might not be great but with certain bonuses could work out over time.

In second edition, apparently, this is not possible. Not for a Monk at all and not for a Fighter until they get the 8th level feats. Is there a good reason for this?

Probably they're trying to figure out how, exactly, they want these particular heritages to work out - especially if they decide to make them more elemental-kin than genie-kin (ties to the elements in different ways with additional ancestors such as mephits).

Go to Fighter class section, page 141, and check the sidebar that lists all the proficiencies. It is a list of all your initial proficiencies, including all armor, which starts Trained.

Ah! Thanks! Sorry, I must have misread, then.

Sorry if this has been asked before. I couldn't find it while searching.

For the Fighter, they are stated to be "Expert in all armor and unarmored defense", but Armor Expertise reads:
"You have spent so much time wearing armor that you know how to make the most of its protection. Your proficiency rank for light, medium, and heavy armor, as well as for unarmored defense, increase to expert. You gain the armor specialization effects of medium and heavy armor."

Is it supposed to read that your proficiency increases to Master or are Fighters only supposed to start out as Trained?

As mentioned above, I started with the champion class. "Lay on Hands" isn't in the glossary and index, and it's referred to as a "devotion spell" in the class description, which is another term that's not in the index. I never thought to look up the term "focus spell" in the index.

Looking again now, the term "focus spell" is used in the description. But it's not a section heading, it's not capitalized, it's not italicized or anything else like that, so there's nothing to make it jump out as a rules term.

Like I said, I had to use ctl-f to go search the pdf for "Lay on Hands". If I only had the paper copy of the book, I never would have found it. That's a problem.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you could find something specific like "Lay on Hands" in the glossary and index, only that Focus Spells themselves are listed there. And I agree that it's not really very obvious, which is why I started this to begin with. I was very frustrated at having the reference but not a page number to go with it. This is especially bad since the Bard, Monk, and Wizard all are told where to look but the Champion, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer are not.

Well, there aren't Domains in the mechanical sense largely because they wouldn't be very interesting for adventurers and other PCs.

While the PCs are important, from a world-building standpoint it seems really short-sighted and if you're into studying religions old and new (as I am) completely baffling. Fertility was considered super important - not just sex, but also abundance in terms of animals and plants.

While Nature can take care of Agricultural stuff, the focus is really more on the wild aspects of nature. It also doesn't have animal-related domain spells despite dealing with both plants and animals.

As for why no God has them as areas of concern...several actually do. Pharasma is the Goddess of childbirth as well as death, and Erastil the god of farming as well as hunting, just as two examples.

I didn't say that none had them as areas of concerned. I even mentioned Erastil. I just thought that (as a concept) Agriculture is different enough from Nature to warrant its own Domain. Fertility, similarly, is (in my opinion) a concept different than either love or lust since it tends to focus on more than that.

There's not a conventional fertility Goddess per se in the core 20 (and I think Calistria would be a bad fit for such a role, for the record), but you must bear in mind that the Core 20 deities are not really a pantheon in the sense of real world pantheons, where the Gods were all related and discovered/invented as a group. The Core 20 deities are only related inasmuch as they are the 20 most popular Gods in the Inner Sea region, not any other specific reason.

Personally I think that a Goblin goddess of fertility would have been highly amusing, but I do know what you mean. I look forward to more expanded materials because I like world building a lot. That's why I think details tend to end up bugging me.

Well the Family and Passion domains kind of work depending on the fertility you are looking for and Shelyn is very much a love goddess. Nature fits good enough for agriculture as agriculture is kind of limited.

If you are willing to look at PF1e and port over a few subdomains or deities, then the Growth subdomains fits well with agriculture. And Love subdomain kind of fits with fertility.

(Btw Pharasma is also a birth deity since Pharasma's clerics also work as midwifes).

I honestly can see Agriculture as a subdomain of Nature since it deals with such a specific area. That said, I have real issues seeing Agriculture as limited in a wider view. Without agriculture, there could be no settled areas, no towns or villages or so on. People would likely still be hunting and gathering.

As for Fertility, again it gets important. It's probably less so on a world with healing magic where the death rate of infants is probably fairly low, but there are people who want to have a child or children and who would want to pray to someone for that to happen. Similarly, having fertile animals and crops would be important.

Each individual focus power lists the page number in the powers class feat section. For example the Monk focus power "Ki Blast" states to see page 401 for power details. The page number for each power is listed in the specific class feat entry that grants it.

Yes, but that doesn't seem to be the case for all the classes. Bard mentions it under Lingering Composition to go to page 387 as well as other composition feats. While the rules for Devotion Spells are mentioned to be on page 300, I can't find any of the actual mentions (like Lay on Hands) to reference page 387, which is where it's located. The Domain Initiate and Advanced Domain feats reference the table on 441 but not the actual spells from 389 - 399. Nor does the table tell you that the spells are located on pages 389-399. The Druidic Orders mention heal animal and goodberry but not what they do or what pages they are on. Sorcerer Bloodline Spells do not mention to look at pages 402-406. Wizards, however, are told to look on page 407 for their school spells.

So of the seven classes that have Focus Spells, three mention where to find them. If you happened to start on one of the other four, you'd be left wondering where they are (yes, if you turned to 632 in the glossary and index you'd find them, but I don't think you should have to do that if it can be simply referenced in the relevant text).

Just flip to the back of the spells section and they are ordered alphabetically by class.

Except focus spells. They are mentioned on page 300 but don't appear again in full detail until page 386. They are not part of the regular spell listing, which starts on page 307 with the lists by tradition or 616 for full details.

They can be found in the various class features and feats, dependent of the ability and class.

Draconic sorcerers receive Dragon Claws as a focus power when they choose their bloodline, for example, but the feat Advanced Bloodline 6th level feat grants you the Dragon Breath focus power.

Yes, but what I mean is that while they are referenced there's no "see page 386 for details" or similar. I mean, I eventually found them when going through the spell section but I couldn't find them easily.

In real mythologies it's hard to find ones where no agricultural deity exists sans those cultures that were hunter-gatherers. Erastil certainly has farming connections, but no actual Agricultural domain exists. Similarly, you can't throw a stick at a given pantheon without hitting some fertility deity and certainly Calistria could fit such a role.

Other domains might also be possible, but those two always stand out to me because they're so ubiquitous.

I'm sure I'm missing it in reading, but while the focus spells for different classes starts on 386, I don't happen to see any references to these pages within the respective classes (Bard, Champion, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Sorcerer and Wizard). Could someone help point out where this is mentioned?

What would their spell lists be?

Animist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theurgical

I know, there's only so much room in a core rule book before things get really much too big. I ask mostly because I was reading the thread on why Goblins were included. It's a valid and interesting take, but the inclusion of half-Orc heritages makes the exclusion of Orcs (and their heritages) only more noticeable.

As for Hobgoblins, I think that's more my sympathy. I really hate when a setting makes a single species the go-to baddies. I like there being more options for sentient beings than hero fodder.

I know that these could be added in some upcoming supplement like the Advanced Player's Guide, but such a tome would not be allowed in certain types of RP - only rules as written in the basic books.

Plus, if it's a matter of separating from WotC, having Orc and Hobgoblin PCs would certainly qualify as being further away from them.

Stemming back to a topic I started here.

Animist
Drawing upon both the seen and unseen, the animist can (at first) seem very similar to a Primal caster like
a Druid but where Druids draw upon natural plants and animals, the animist draws upon the spirits or the
esoteric including, sometimes, the undead. Shamans are the most iconic animist spellcasters, communing
with the spirits of nature and bonding with a spirit animal. Animist sorcerers call upon the blood of elemental or undead ancestors for similar powers.

Theurgical
A reasoned mind paired with a powerful faith, the theurgical caster uses logic to categorize magic and
faith to bolster it. Inquisitors are the most iconic theurgical casters, believing truly in their faith while
simultaneously using logic to find enemies of it. Witches not only work to understand and develop spells, their patron connection allows them to cure-or curse- those around them. Mediums go to the extreme by actually calling upon spirits to
inhabit their own bodies and use their minds to control them. Theurgical sorcerers have exotic ancestry in
their blood that allows them to call upon these energies.

Thoughts?

I think the thing is that there is room for 2 more lists, since vital/mental and material/spiritual are sort opposite essences, it's going to take a specific flavor for "how to present this list" as it combines things that Avistan's leading magical scholars believe is impossible to combine.

It would be a good avenue to explore for Vudrani magic, which is supposedly pretty advanced, but different from how others do it. A psychic tradition for vital+mental being "mind over body over mind over body..." would work. I'm not sure what spirit+matter would be like, perhaps tied to some sort of animist tradition in entreating with the fundamental essence of all things.

Opposites could also be said to attract, so it could be interesting for Vudrani magic as advanced concepts that work almost like Yin/Yang. Mind and Body can affect one another in interesting ways, and certainly animist traditions of everything having some kind of Spirit, even inanimate objects, would work.

The vital/mind nexus sounds very flavorfully like it would fit with witches, who are known both for being able to heal and being as big brained as they come.

*nods* I could easily see the Shaman taking the spirit/material path and dealing with a number of elementals as a result.

One of our behind-the-scenes goals with codifying four traditions of magic was to fight the way spellcaster lists grew more and more complex in 1st edition, so that whenever we listed a new spell near the end we had to make sure it fit well with an increasingly large number of different types of spellcasters, many of whom had identical spells showing up at different levels. Look at how in Planar Adventures, for example, we needed four pages of content to cover the spell lists for only eight pages of spells; had we a more streamlined and simpler system of categorizing spell lists, we could have easily had only ONE page of spell lists and 3 additional pages for new spells in that section!

So, while we certainly could add more magic traditions, I don't think that's part of the plan. We'll see where things go, of course, but we've done a LOT of behind-the-scenes thinking and work on making sure these four traditions will work for ALL of the potential new classes and stuff we want to do going forward with 2nd edition.

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond! I really appreciate the time and dedication that went into the making of the new edition! I was mostly curious because the dual combos created each of the initial four traditions (which are all very nice) but it left two more possibilities that weren't included and I wasn't sure why. I really look forward to what's coming up next!

It would seem that with the way magic is set up now, even if there technically is room for more essence combinations, so much of the rules in the CRB are set up in a way that would make new traditions an absolute PAIN to add. I feel like if Paizo did intend for other traditions to exist, they would futureproof the rules to allow for that, but the fact that they didn't (and I vaguely recall them talking about how they don't intend on doing more traditions) likely to me indicates that, for better or for worse, the four we have are the four we will have for the foreseeable future.

Okay, thanks! I'm still plodding through everything and getting all the new stuff in my head.

Looking through things, I noticed that the Four Essences create the four traditions by combos of twos: Arcane is Matter and Mind, Occult is Mind and Spirit, Divine is Spirit and Life, and Primal is Life and Matter. This is all well and good, but that leaves two other possibilities: Matter and Spirit and Life and Mind.

Obviously I could homebrew two additional traditions for these, but I was wondering if anyone knew or could explain why these combos aren't included as two additional traditions or if they are included where I missed them.

This also does not include singles or three [Matter, Mind, Spirit; Matter, Mind, Life; Mind, Spirit, Life; Spirit, Life, Matter] or all four in one. Of course, these last ones are likely not included due to balance issues.

There's no technical reason that I can think of that Wizards, at least, shouldn't have access to healing magic simply via the Positive Energy Plane (just as Necromancers can access the Negative Energy Plane and all Wizards can generally uses every other Inner Plane). Similarly with Sorcerers - and possibly even more so if some are descended from angels or other Celestial Outsiders.

Like Themetricsystem, though, I wonder why you want to remove them as well as what you're planning to do with other Divine Magic classes as Grailknight mentioned.

Also - just because there are no real deities doesn't mean there's not going to still be priests of some kind. On our own world there's no proof of divine beings running around, but that's never stopped folks from believing in them.

The High Medieval Period (1000-1250)

1) Christianity is monotheistic but Catholic Christianity has a number of saints who can be prayed to for intervention, so clerical domains ought to still work but would center around saints not deities. You could even put them around various angels and have it still work (this would be akin to the Valar and Maiar of Tolkien).

-That said, if saints can exist as powers so too can non-Christian deities and this is going to cause issues for druids. Do you want your players getting involved in struggles between religions? Do you want there to be issues between those following the Old Ways and the New? Do druids not have powers?

-This is when the split between the Eastern and Western Churches occurred (the Prodestant Reformation wouldn't happen for another three hundred years). Will your players become involved in this somehow?

-Judaism and Islam both exist and Jews are generally badly treated and thought of. The Crusades also happen during this time. You're going to need to figure out how clerics of other religions work (if they don't work you're, by default, saying Christianity is the only real religion).

2) Assume you're running an E6 setting or adapt it for this. Lower expectations for monsters and such because really powerful ones will end things pretty quickly. You're also going to need to decide how magic items work.

3) Why aren't long-lived races dominant? Which race was in charge of the Roman Empire? Where are halflings and gnomes? Are non-human races treated as subhuman and subject to slavery? How are wizards treated? Magic was generally seen as devil-dealing even if it didn't involve it. Sorcerers would have some issues because of their heritages. Witches would be shunned or outcast. If you alter any attitudes towards arcane magic, it's really going to change things around.

4) I don't think you're going to be able to just insert-race-here and keep things subtle for changes unless the races are just humans in funny costumes. There are a whole host of different things that are interconnected. You're also going to have to consider how even relatively minor spells are going to affect things. Even if access is limited to, say, 3rd level spells that includes Cure Disease - meaning you'll need to decide what level certain diseases (like bubonic plague) are. 1237–1242 was the Mongol invasion - do you want them to be Humans, Elves, Orcs, something else?

I always figured my familiar turned into the improved familiar, you know like a butterfly or chest burster.

to the OP: nothing is stated in the rules how the transition occurs so it's up to the DM. But whatever the method is your old one goes away and your new one shows up. It could be something as simple as the old one being dismissed and the new one showing up.

Personally I'd prefer if they allowed some Evolution Points like the Summoner has and allow Improve Familiar that transforms the base familiar as if it were an eidolons (or upgrades a weapon somehow). This also applies to animal companions. I've always found it a bit upsetting to have to dismiss a loyal companion just because it can no longer keep up.

That's excellent! Thank you for remembering to put in nets. That one slipped right past me. And thank you for putting in the effort to put this together!

I'm glad to help! I've often wondered - if the Sleestak are devolved Altrusians could the Pakuni be devolved Humans?

I'm going to throw my players into a Land of the Lost side campaign. I've got a lot of the adventure worked out in my head, just need to write down the notes. I figure the Sleestak might have a +1 Natural AC Bonus, +2 STR, -2 DEX, -2 INT. Strong, slow, and degenerate descendants of a superior race called the Altrusians. Light Crossbows, Dark Vision 120', -4 to fighting in sunlight or spells that duplicate such, and fear of fire.

They worship the telepathic intellects of their ancient ancestors in the Library of Skulls. They have limited telepathy, able to communicate only with other Sleestak and only within 60'. Can anyone think of anything else?

I think you covered everything. I always figured I'd just use Lizardfolk for Sleestak. I had forgotten about their psychic abilities and light sensitivities. I'll place it in a different format. Let me know if you like it:

I'm also not quite getting what you're trying to achieve. I mean I assume you mean them to find her love unless they already did with the skeleton.

I lack the insight into your world, obviously, but none of the things you mention make a great deal of sense overall unless you're trying to hint at transformations. Even then, that really doesn't help your players on the quest to find the guy.

I'm presuming the first guy is going to turn into a cat, the second into a dog or wolf, and the third into a boar or horse. Has her true love been turned into the White Hart? If he has there needs to be more clues to this end.

Also, how will they find their way back? Can they undo the changes that happen to them and her love? What does the Wild Hunt mean for their world?

I included two different possible Knowledge Skills below since criminology and forensics are different things, and it sounds like the skill you need is more forensics-related:

Elysium, Nirvana (especially), or Purgatory seem most likely for animals. The Fey World may also be a possibility.

On the nightmare things; exactly!

I meant to say before that, especially if you're unfamiliar, you should look at the Lorwyn Shadowmoor block of Magic: The Gathering for inspiration.

First block was a tribal world of bright colors and everything is all great, then the world shifts into a nightmarish heck every once in a while and elementals thrash everything.

The artwork and themes in it could really do a number for your imagination here. Cards like Nyxathid are exactly what you mentioned about forces of nature rampaging chaoticly through the untamed world your PCs are dropped into.

Okay, thanks a lot!

Anyone else have some suggestions?

So all creatures you would encounter are also small?

No, I was thinking everything else is regular sized. Though I wouldn't be opposed to a world where the critters are dire sized.

You may go with 2 and some big mystery. How did we get here? Why does everyone have amnesia around time X? Maybe the cause is a trickster god (CN) who has built this sandbox to inflict random events on, watching darwinism take effect as a result of his whims.

This opens up a host of weird encounters. I was going with something the pure-chaos route in a campaign ago. Many monsters being forms of fleshy blobs like Gibbering Mouthers, transforming alien-like beings (I made something like a Tzeentch Horror be a foot soldier), people going insane. To then "inflict insanity" (which fits with the trickster theme) I would have entire encounters be fake and then roll back their HP, damage, etc; as the illusion faded away upon their success/demise.

That's certainly one possibility. Elohim could easily be responsible. Some other deity could do it to see "what if".

________________

You should note that Evil is just as far away as chaotic. The destruction from Chaos comes from it's ruining of Order rather than Evil's intent to destroy happening to ruin Order. They are equidistant from Good or Lawful and should be treated as such.

This is in part to say, maybe your world (as with the above) is a place where Law/Order is trying to make stable civilization in a world that doesn't yet make sense while outside forces and random individuals are basically Ayn Rand.

While there are differences between them, I don't want sentient races boiled down to 'good guys' vs 'bad guys'. If there is going to be anything that can be attacked without moral issues, it's going to be something that is going to be more of a force of nature. For instance, literal nightmares that are trying to invade. They wouldn't be alive and can't be reasoned with.

So I've been playing around with the idea of making a campaign setting involving only Small-sized races. I'm hoping folks here will be willing to help me out.
*
*
*
*
Ground Rules:

1) Only Small races. I'd rather avoid Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine, but I am willing to listen to a good reason for one.

2) No Evil races. Honestly I am thoroughly sick of the 'enemy race' thing and will have no truck with justified genocide. There can be evil people in a given society but races as a whole will either be Neutral or Good.

World Setting
Another problem is figuring out what I want for a background. Here are the ones I'm thinking of:

1) Natural: The world has always been this way. The races are all native to the setting.
2) Gated: Some or all of the races have been gated to the world either by unknown forces or through some known (but no longer useful) magic.
--to go with this is the thought that all of the races suddenly appear one day in the recent past and all off them are still trying to figure out what happened.
3) Altered: Once there were Medium races, but they are now extinct. Their ruins remain.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

These don't need to be mutually exclusive. Some could be natives that remember 'the times before' when 'big people' were still around while others could have been brought in or found their own way in.

How 'flat' is 'flat'? What I mean is, is it flat in the sense of the Discworld or is it flat with 'warp' edges? In the latter case it would be harder to prove its flatness since, effectively, the edges meet one another more or less like they would on a round world.

The biggest issue would be shadows since on a flat world shadows would all be of equal length regardless of how far apart they are. Though, if it's like the Disc then light would be slower than sound so could allow for different time zones and such.

I'm not sure what thread this should properly be in.

I seem to remember a D&D dragon that had baleful polymorph as a breath weapon, but I can't remember what it was called. Does anyone know?

They don't feel so good. *laughs and runs*

Indagare wrote:

But in Pathfinder there is a real deity of the sun/moon and (presumably) only one.

Why would one presume this?

Admittedly there are settings with multiple moons, but settings with multiple suns are pretty uncommon. I mean, in a setting with a hundred suns could have a hundred deities of the sun with no issues.

That said, if there's only one sun I'm not sure how to work out more than one deity for said sun.

Well, everyone cannot be right about who created or moves the sun. Somebody made the sun, that somebody is presumably an individual and unless they bend to the will of whomever prays to them, it does seem ridiculous.

It does lead one to believe that someone is an imposter, somebody's stories are flat out wrong, or there are multiple deities working together to operate one stupid star, and they have different religions for each one.

One religion prays to the chic who created the sun, others pray to the dude that moves it? What are the chances of that being how this is supposed to work?

But good luck finding credibility or congruency with any religion... even in fantasy land.

Well, that's why I created this thread. I'd like to at least try to work something out that will make sense.

Actually not quite that, but similar theological flummery. Basically, I'm struggling with a problem we don't usually have to deal with on Earth: how many deities of the sun or moon can there be?

Here deities aren't real (if they are evidence is lacking), but in Pathfinder they certainly are real and have real (even testable) effects. So on Earth you can have a thousand deities of the sun being male or female or whatever and there's no conflict of reality since it's just made up. Similarly with the moon. But in Pathfinder there is a real deity of the sun/moon and (presumably) only one.

This means the Gnolls can't believe there's a Gnoll sun goddess and Humans believe there's a Human sun god and both be right (unless the deity is changing gender and species which, while possible, seems like a lot of work). It's also equally possible something powerful enough is pretending to be said deity, but that also seems like something the real deity would want stopped pretty quickly.

So is there a good way to accommodate multiple views of a singular deity outside trickery or should everyone worship the same deity of sun/moon?

Note: I'm specifically referring to deities of the sun and moon because there tends to be only one of each, so there's not a lot of ways multiple deities could claim it. I have no trouble with multiple deities of war or weather since they could be fairly local.

A little blurb about how GMs need to warn/advise players about anathema/falling behavior and discuss it, to see why the player's doing it, would go much further than several pages on gradual fall rules.

Imagine something like this at the end of the Anathema rule: "If a PC undertakes actions that would violate their Anathema, the GM must pause play to discuss this with that player and request an explanation for why the PC is doing that. It may be they have a legitimate reason that is consistent with their faith; if so, no 'fall' occurs. If they don't, the GM should explain what the issue is and give the player a chance to retract that action. Excessive incidents requiring the GM to pause the game in this way are grounds for, at GM discretion, waiver of Anathema protections and the PC may fall without further consultation."

PFS Organized Play could set their own standards for what 'excessive' is.

I agree with most of this, but I'd argue there are two varieties of 'excessive incidents' - the first being a player that seems to constantly want to violate their codes (forgetting happens, as do unfortunate situations, but a player should have a fairly good idea of acceptable behaviors).

The second is that the GM asks constantly even when the player is acting in good faith or clearly not trying to violate their codes - in other words, the GM is constantly looking for a reason to strip the player's character of powers and could use the 'excessive incidents' waiver as a way to do it.

It's not about the people I play with. It's about people asking no rules or limitations of any sorts over their actions.

It's very simple: unlike a paladin a cleric is someone who is always granted power by a deity. This superior being gives fantastic abilities to its most devout followers in exchange of their faith and devotion. If such followers act against the requirements of their deity in a sustained or particularly blatant way the deity notices. Depending on the nature and gravity of the offense it can warn its sinning follower, punish him or even strip him of his powers. This is nothing new and the GM has the power to implement such "punishments" if he sees fit. This doesn't mean the GM should do so lightheartedly or arbitrarily, of course but a player should not expect to play a cleric and be allowed to act against his deity's tenements with no retribution incoming.

As was mentioned, Clerics could get powers from faith in a particular philosophy. Even Paladins are considered especially blessed by the deities or are particularly notable adherents to a philosophy. The issues, which many have noted, are that there isn't a warning mechanism (the GM must remind the player that an action may be a violation) and there is no 'degrees' to falling - that is, either all the powers are there or they are all gone. There's no slow weakening or removal of minor powers for minor violations or similar.

If there's going to be anathema the rules should state that a GM must provide a warning to Clerics and Paladins when the player is about to have their character perform an act the GM thinks would qualify for a fall. This would allow the player to at least know the consequences and reconsider rather than having it happen afterwards ("Oh, you didn't remember that was a violation? Too bad. You're still stripped of all your abilities.")

Asking for codes of conducts to be removed "because unscrupolous GMs may use these rules to stip away a cleric's powers" is not even an argument. A bad GM already has the power to do that, code of conduct or not.

A GM cannot normally strip Wizards, Fighters, Rogues or similar of their abilities outside some in-game event (ability drain, for instance) and certainly not because of a feature mentioned in their classes that can be too broadly interpreted.

Hey guys. I have a player that's wanting to play the Gnoll race, which I'm not concerned about rp or flavor wise,but some of the players are concerned about it mechanically, thinking it's too strong. The reason I'm asking the other players about it is I originally told them that they had to go with core classes. The gnoll is a new player to the group, and I figured if all the others were okay with it, I'd allow him to play gnoll.

What are your guys' opinions on this and arguments for or against gnoll.

If you mean 'core races' then no - you cannot allow the Gnoll because you already told the other players it was core races only. If you mean 'core classes' then there's not going to be much of an issue except what's mentioned above. You could even homebrew a variety of Gnolls that would fit into your setting. Gnolls are only 6 RP which is less than a Half-Orc (8).

If you set it up so that there is no other option? Sure, it's a Gotcha. That wasn't what I described. I described a scene where the flow of battle had gone such that the Paladin's weapon had been sundered (a not wholly untypical tactic in many printed modules/APs), the other allies had been downed and, at that moment, the closest available weapon was envenomed.

The Paladin has lots of options. Unarmed combat (with Smite Evil). Take the actions to go to another downed ally who is further away to get a different weapon. Or to pick up the envenomed weapons *knowing* the consequences.

I think it all boils down to this: no one is comfortable with the idea of a GM being able to control whether or not ones character can actually do what their class is supposed to be able to do.

This isn't like a situation where a Fighter or other martial loses a weapon - such can always find another and can still fight in other ways while weaponless. This would be more equivalent to a Fighter not only losing their weapon but also literally being unable to fight thereafter. Feats? Gone. Class Abilities? Gone. Anything that literally made you a Fighter? Gone.

It wouldn't matter that the rules were made to add flavor not to punish the players - the fact is the GM can make such a ruling because it is in the rules.

So tell me if you heard this one before: a Paladin trips on a rock and when he gets up the GM tells the player the Paladin no longer has use of any class powers at all. When the player asks why the GM replies "Your Paladin fell".

As has been said, without even knowing almost anything about Anathemas, folks are making a lot of assumptions - the main one being that the GM will use it as a way to ruthlessly control players who dare to be Clerics just the same as with Paladins.

If one is against said classes then simply eliminate them. It's cruel to let players choose them then go out of ones way to utterly depower them for facetious reasons.

Even if there's something in the books specifically prohibiting this sort of behavior on the part of the GM there are still going to be some folks who will do anything to mess with their Players even though this is supposed to be a fairly cooperative story-telling game.

Additionally, I'd love to see the Moon have its own domain rather than being a subdomain. I would also like to see Sleep and Dream being subdomains of either Darkness or Night (in fact, I could see Night as a main domain with Darkness, Dream, Sleep, and Stars being subdomains).

What would an Agriculture domain even look like? It seems like all the domain spells would be relevant to farming, not adventuring.

Not saying it is a bad idea, I am just curious what sorts of abilities you think would befit it.

Well, from a world-building perspective there really ought to be variants of classes that would focus more on their communities or non-adventuring areas. But here's what I'd go with for an adventurer using the old system:

Calming Touch (Sp): You can touch a creature as a standard action to heal it of 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point per cleric level. This touch also removes the fatigued, shaken, and sickened conditions (but has no effect on more severe conditions). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Domestication (Su): Once a day at 8th level, you can cause one animal to become tame and friendly towards you and neutral towards your allies. The animal thereafter acts as if it were an animal companion. At the end of the day the animal will stop acting like an animal companion, but will remain either neutral or friendly towards you and your allies if it was treated well. You may only have one animal so domesticated at a time, but can renew the effect on the same animal multiple times.

1st—bless, 2nd—calm emotions, 3rd—plant growth, 4th—dominate animal, 5th—spell resistance, 6th—heroes’ feast, 7th—refuge, 8th—control plants, 9th—heal (mass).

It might work as a Community subdomain, but I'm not sure how to fit it in.

I was wondering how the Domains will be this time around. I'm really hoping you will include something for Agriculture - a huge number of real life deities dealt with this. I know there's been Plant and Animal but it generally seems those are more for wild animals and plants rather than domesticated ones.

Will Clerics still have weapon and armor proficiency or will that vary by deity? How will they and Druids be different?