|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I can't wrap my mind around Gandalf forgetting a spell after he casts it; it just doesn't work for me.
The crucial thing here to remember is that, as of 3rd edition, spells are not memorized. They are prepared.
A fireball spell is more than three seconds of gestures and words. It takes three pages of tightly-written scrawls in a spellbook - writing so precise that common inks are insufficient to scribe it. Preparing spells in the morning isn't studying so you remember the words later - it's doing most of the work of casting the spell. 'Casting' the spell is just saying the last few words to complete it. Trying to cast a spell directly out of a spellbook, without preparation, takes 15 minutes.
So, to use an analogy, casting a spell is like pulling the pin on a grenade and throwing it. You haven't forgotten how afterwards, you're just out of grenades. Preparing spells in the morning is like assembling a bunch of grenades, then carefully inserting the pins so you can use them later, quickly.
(Of note, the Chronicles of Amber handled spellcasting in this way.)
Alric Rahl wrote:
The Paizo staff are the ones saying he's Evil: they kind of get to make that determination. Mel has 'NE' on his character sheet. Alain has 'CN'. I wouldn't want to hang out with either.
Jester David wrote:
Oh no! A free short story! Whatever shall we do!
I didn't think a discussion of Drow senselessly betrayal-murdering each other into extinction could get any darker. But you found a way.
I wonder why the Uncle had to die - unless their rules of succession are really weird, the Uncle would be even lower on the line of succession than Erasmus. I suppose, though, he'd be in the best position to realize his brother was being poisoned and do something about it, though. His son would just be colatteral damage. Maybe a witness.
D'oh. Nevermind. If the Uncle were elder, he'd be the current title holder. The succession would have been:
Uncle (current) -> unnamed son (Erasmus's cousin) -> Erasmus's father -> two sisters and Baylock -> Vinn -> Erasmus
Hrmm. It says Eramsmus had five siblings. Who is missing?
The Forge of Ashes provides a bit of an answer: Forge spurned and scanderigs are both strong contenders.
Efreet and Azers are probably also workable.
Dwarves are from German and Nordic myths. So you get a little bit of the Viking-ness, but mostly it's industry, work ethic, and weird food. (And Oktoberfest.)
No idea where the Scottish bit comes from. Probably the same reason Romans and Russians inexplicably talk like they're British in film.
So, perhaps societies have dual alignments? :)
I don't think Societies have a dual alignment so much as the possibility that a Society as a whole might have a different alignment from its members (and you can't just detect or smite a society anyway).
Zhangar did a pretty good job of explaining how Chaotic creatures can still have a civilized society - Order and Civilization are not synonyms, despite what the Abadarites would tell you.
What you would NOT have is the full natural ecology PLUS the monstrous ecology.
You're right, but the thing is, we DO. In Pathfinder, you often have wilderness encounter tables that include both wolf packs and trolls. It isn't a real ecology - it's a game construct meant to support our real-world assumptions in addition to fantasy elements.
A real ecology can't support wolves and trolls - even if you have the trolls drive off the wolves in the same way wolves drive off coyotes, because a troll would require so much territory that it would be impossible for them to maintain a breeding population. Even without humanoids hunting them rigorously.
Add to that landsharks, purple worms, giant/dire animals, giants, dragons, undead, drakes, and whatever else gets added with every new Bestiary and it doesn't make sense.
Sure, you could work out how a 'real ecology' with those monsters would work, but it wouldn't look like how Golarion is actually portrayed.
Likewise, you could work out exactly what the attrition rate is for drow infighting vs. their birth rate and their losses in wars against the Xulgath and Duergar, but it's more fun to just dangle all the plot hooks and move on.
I can see where that could be a skit from Keeping Up Appearances, where everyone but the cook is trying to get out of eating, but its only slapstick if you treat it that way.
Instead, imagine a shipful of angry pirates. Each one thinks there is something wrong with him because he can't stomach the rum ration. After all, he sees the majority of his comrades getting happily drunk. Those he doesn't see getting drunk are punished severely. The best he can do to avoid punishment (and looking weak in front of his peers) is pretend to be happily drunk too and quietly dispose of the rum ration.
Every single one of them is afraid of being found out (because they think the problem is personal, instead of the 'rum' being toxic.) None of them can actually talk to the others about it (because its at best embarrassing and at worst leads to awful punishment.) All of them have to pretend at a drunken joviality they don't feel (even the ones who really are drunk, because they're only tossing the ration every other day aren't happy because its making them sick and they worry that they won't be able to hide tossing tomorrow's ration.)
If that's not terrifying to you in kind of an existential way, I don't know what to do for you.
Alternatively, the Con damage could be from some toxin you can build up a resistance to (like how tobacco makes most people nauseous when they first start using it.) Newbies get awfully sick and have to break the rules to get by (same as how military boot camps often have schedules that require cheating to keep up), but the established crew members, having survived the 'hazing', have built up a resistance and can treat the toxic rum as normal rum or grog. The adventure text doesn't need to get into that because you aren't expected to be swabbies for long enough to get the resistance.
Back-deducing identities from XP gain is a little Red Mage for me. NPCs might not even use XP anyway.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
For something to be a real choice, it has to be able to have results. I can't simply choose to fly, but restrictions are cumulative. There is a reason children get bored with baby-proof activities, even if they aren't handcuffed.
3.God does not cause Child suffering or Disease. mortals do in the case of child abuse or by nature which was separated from god by sin which was caused by mortals.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows those things are happening and could stop them, but does not. Abusive human beings could be stopped. 'Natural' disease could be cured or thwarted. Famines could be prevented.
Once again, we're back at Epicurus.
Just as you have:
Evil is the price of free will, but it means any omnipotent being is not omnibenevolent - because it means Stabby McGee's freedom to stab you is more important than you not being stabbed.
All of these logical impossibilities go away when you drop the 'omni's. If a deity is merely very powerful, then there are things they cannot do. If they are merely benevolent (instead of omnibenevolent), then they can be Utilitarian instead of saving everyone. If they have no plan, free will can be allowed to roam.
And since we're talking about Pathfinder, there isn't an issue here: It's a polytheistic system where the Gods are very powerful, but are not 'omni' anything. That doesn't mean they aren't Gods - none of the historical polytheistic systems claimed omnipotence or omnibelevolence, but no one would claim Thor and Zeus are not Gods.
xavier c wrote:
Are you saying he should eliminate free will for the sake of goodness? Or he should have created a would where creatures could not defied him?
He's saying that a omnipotent being who does not stop evil or suffering cannot be described as omni-benevolent. It's logically inconsistent.
We have three postulates:
You get to pick two, and we know the third one is true via empirical evidence. (I'm using Sarenrae here instead of Yahweh/Jehova/Allah because arguing real-world religion and theology is outside the scope of this thread.)
Fortunately, in Golarion we know that Sarenrae is not omnipotent, merely extremely potent. Therefore is it possible that she is in fact benevolent (Neutral Good, after all).
For any real-world applications of this paradox, please consult your priest/rabbi/minister/therapist/invisible sky wizard/a thread in the Off-Topic forum.
"Omnipotent" and "impossible" would seem to be mutually-exclusive concepts as much as 'immovable object' and 'irresistible force'. They are opposite absolutes. One negates the existence of the other.
Granted, it is easier to redefine 'irresistable force' than to spell out 'force that cannot be resisted except by the immovable object*' every time, but frankly, that's like saying "2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2**". It's true but meaningless, and devalues to meaning of the actual symbols being discussed.
Or 'object that cannot be moved except by the irresistable force'
Or sufficiently small values of 5.
What defines what is 'intrinsically impossible'? If it is merely that 'Even an omnipotent being cannot make true the same as false', that's different than 'Even an omnipotent being cannot violate Conservation of Mass'.
But all of this is besides the point for this thread - Pathfinder's Gods are not omnipotent, and the setting does not claim they are. On the sliding scale of 'Impotent to omnipotent' they're a lot closer to one end than the other, but they aren't omnipotent.
Omnipotent is not all-knowing. It's all-powerful.
Omnipotence implies omniscience, because 'know' is a verb. (However, it does not guarantee omniscience, as just being able to do something doesn't mean you bother.)
Omniscience does not imply omnipotence: it's easy to imagine knowing something and being unable to act on it.
Could be that there's always some people who miss the point.
Could be the that the hallmarks for a police state (like the heavily armed 'police' insisting on a 'full security scan' out on the street) are less incongruous than they used to be.
Could be that since the US has been fighting it's 'War on Terrorism' that people have been forgetting that 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' and forgetting that riots and revolutions can actually be pretty effective.
It's a game, not an economic simulator. A 'realistic' economic engine would be one or more of
1) Still inaccurate
Basically, any new rule should do something to make the game more fun. Now, depending on how much the existing rules bother you, an economic system might make the game more fun to you, by removing an un-fun element (continually losing your suspension of disbelief). But I think in most cases, shining a brighter light on the economics will make the situation worse, not better.
Or, to use a poor analogy, replacing a cardboard cutout of a house with a block of scaffolding in the shape of a house won't make it convincingly a house - it's just a lot more work to set up.
The base OGL specifically prohibits referring to another company's trademarks. This was intended to enable licensing agreements hinging on the use of trademarks - such as the d20 logo and the Pathfinder-Compatible logo. But I can see how it might complicate one third party expanding upon another's material.
The Andrea Doria wrote:
The people saying that becoming a golem seems unpleasant: You're probably right.
But there are reasons to do it anyway.
Maybe the alternative is dying (but you're not quite evil/skilled enough to become a lich.)
Maybe your normal body has crippled or missing limbs.
Maybe you're experimenting on others.
Maybe you've gone mad and are trying to get rid of the frailties of flesh.
Chris A Jackson wrote:
Bards do specialize in those types of spells, but they don't get familiars. I can see why that's an important aspect of Vreva (and her story). Also, bards don't get to throw fireballs at the climax.