Timault Azal-Darkwarren's page

I've been thinking more Byzantine...

A cosmopolitan city with Slavic "barbarians", gypsies, etc.

Anyone have some ideas as to which world culture would connect to the city of Korvosa? Just looking for flavor and cultural concepts.
Thanks.

I agree, Darkjoy. Third time is a charm. I just posted my third attempt.

On a second read-through of this particular thread it occurred to me that I had only read through the first page, not the rest of the other posts... sorry for that.

As for the paladin remaining Lawful Good - I am completely comfortable with that. To see what a paladin stands for and create or manipulate abilities and skills around those ideals is the best way to go.

I like the idea presented earlier of the various Oaths. It offers the player flexibility much like the rogue's ability to choose particular special abilities.

Compassion = Healing, Truth = Zone of Truth, Justice = Retributive Strike, Hospitality = bonus to Charisma based skills or healing, etc. All of these make sense to me.

I also believe that the mount is a great option but in most campaigns becomes unnecessary because the party spends 85% of their time in cramped dungeons. It should be an option, but perhaps one of several the paladin has at her disposal such as communing with other celestial agents of her deity.

The idea of a squire is a good start but perhaps a free Leadership feat that gives the option of a younger paladin or acolyte to serve with and learn from the paladin.

Paladins being lawful good only is a pretty big sacred cow for me. I realize that it is in many ways irrational, but it turns out I don't always get to consciously decide which parts of the game I find important and which ones I'm flexible on.

And I agree that the blackguard should be the 20-level-class for LE "paladins."

Breaking it down by class means that you can do much more interesting powers that actually play to the alignment and the play style of people who tend to play that alignment. The chaotic neutral "paladin" doesn't need to have some boilerplate "version" of lay on hands, he can do something else more appropriate to his archetype.

I do wonder how spells would work for this, though. 9 different "paladin" spell lists strikes me as:

a) A lot of work.
B) A lot of space in the book for stuff I will never use.
C) Perhaps more trouble than it is worth.

Hmmmm.

I agree with all of your points above, Eric. It does not seem reasonable. I wonder though if the paladin's abilities and spells could be written as "non-denominational"? For example:

Smite Evil/Law/Good/Chaos becomes "smite heretic" and whichever opposite half of the crusader's alignment (Lawful vs. Chaotic or Good vs. Evil) the player chooses is permanent. If they choose the diametrically opposed alignment (Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Evil) they get double smite damage (or at least a bonus) because it would be used less often

Lay on Hands must be either positive or negative energy as the cleric's turning ability is now described. They channel this energy into their weapon and charge it with good, evil, chaotic, or lawful energy as a swift action. This takes away from their total number of daily turning attempts.

I agree that there is not a need for a new core race. It's "core" and should remain such. As for other races...

Here are some ideas that have been brewing or I agree with...

Unseelie fey / goblin hybrid
Deep Ones
"gobling" (halfling goblin hybrid)

the plague aura complicates some situations, such as traveling with a party. Maybe allow the cleric to suppress / resume the aura as a free action or something similar? Otherwise I like it.

I thought of that but I realized that a cleric of disease would have no problem with making other people ill. Since many of the "evil" gods, goddesses and their domains would most likely be used by NPC's this wouldn't be too much of an issue. As for a high level plague lord... well you better give her a wide berth...

So, what does everyone think?

If the dwarf is to take a penalty to dex, give it a bonus to disable device. I don't want to see the dwarven thiefcatcher/trapfinder build using rogue as the base class to be hurt.

But dwarves always have excellent tools which make up for their Dexterity loss. A "thiefcatcher" or "trapfinder" will be able to use their skills and stonecunning to find the traps and their masterfully crafted tools to deal with them.

If you're speaking about a particular prestige class then that can be handled in the prestige class description.

It's good to see that I'm not the only one who felt this way.

Sorry, but I don't care for the "anime" look of the racial line-up. I do LOVE Wayne Reynold's work.

I like how Pathfinder RPG has a few domains that clerics of only one particular god or goddess have access to. In that same vein I thought it would be appropriate for Urgathoa to have her own disease domain. Besides, the war domain does not seem to fit.

Disease Domain

Deities: Urgathoa

Caster
Level Ability

1st Touch of Disease (Su): You have the ability to spoil food or drink with but a touch. This makes water undrinkable and food inedible. You also have the ability to nauseate a target with a melee touch attack. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. Once a subject has been affected by a Touch of Disease it is immune to the effects of another for 1 day.

2nd Inflict Light Wounds (Sp): You can cast [inflict light wounds[/i] 1/day per every two caster levels.

4th Contagion (Sp): You can cast contagion 1/day

8th Tolerance (Su): If ever affected by a disease you show all outwards signs and symptoms but suffer no ill effects, thus making you functionally immune to all diseases.

12th Highly Virulent (Su): Demon fever, devil chills, and mummy rot are now available to you when you cast contagion.

16th Aura of Plague (Su): Your body is riddled with disease and all those within 30 feet must make a Fortitude save DC 15 + half your caster level or become sickened. This effect lasts until they leave the aura and for 3 rounds afterwards.

20th Power World Kill (Sp): The diseases and foul magic that course through your body have become so powerful that you can unleash them against one opponent. You can cast power word kill 1/day.

Change the racial traits to:
+2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, -2 Dexterity: dwarves are tough and wise, but their stubby fingers, short legs, and stout frames make them less dexterous and agile.

Gruff: Dwarves receive a -2 modifier to any Diplomacy checks because they can be a bit stubborn when trying to negotiate.

Here's my logic:

The SRD states: "Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting."

I always felt that dwarves have a very strong force of personality, have an ability to lead, etc. Sure they might be hard to deal with but this shouldn't mean that dwarven clerics, sorcerers, and paladins are at a loss for their Charisma. Have them be poor negotiators, not necessarily less charismatic. A negative Diplomacy modifier makes sense.

It also makes more sense to give them a negative modifier to Dexterity. They have stubby fingers and they are not as agile. This is why dwarves typically rely on sturdy (and usually restrictive) plate mail instead of light chain.

I agree that Dwarves should move more slowly. They already get a bonus to their Con score which allows them to march for longer periods of time.

Well, with healing being more readily available and domains offering spells and abilities for both (two domain spells instead of choosing one) there is no need for all those spells.

Greylan's Gentle Grapple

This item completely takes away from the fear of falling, being split up, spending the night in a dungeon, etc.

While I can see the appeal from a player's perspective I can see DM's hating it. Besides, if a villain has it she can always escape prison, a grapple, a hard fight, etc.

Timault Azal-Darkwarren wrote:

After seeing the winners and reading some of the comments here's how I would edit it:

Mask of the Sea-Reavers, Eagle revised

** spoiler omitted **

That would be a shame. I thought the gift-giving mechanic lifted the original to a real contender.

Thanks, Starglim. I like the potlatch idea as well. Perhaps I should have saved it for my country description or presented it as a DM's secret.

On further reflection and reading my submission I realize that its presented as if every warrior has one of these. This kind of takes the "wondrous" out of wondrous item. I should have explained that the elite warriors and chiefs carry these.

Anyone else?

Mask of the Sea-Reavers, Eagle

These wooden masks are carved and stylized in the shape of particular totem animals. They are brightly colored and usually adorned with feathers, teeth, or claws of the appropriate animal.

The native half-elves who make these masks practice “potlatch” or formal gift-giving. If a mask is given freely as a gift to someone outside the family, tribe, or group (DM's discretion) the native gods smile upon the giver. He receives an inherent bonus of +1 to his charisma score. This bonus is available only once and is lost if the group ever buys or steals a similar mask.

Note: explorers and survivors have reported eagle, raven, and bear masks. Rumors speak of more exotic masks.

Eagle
The native half-elven tribal warriors use these masks during their coastal raids. Slipping silently through the fog in their canoes, warriors wearing an eagle mask are granted the ability to see in fog, mist, smoke and similar effects (magical or otherwise) as if the effect were not present. Therefore any targets of the wearer are not granted concealment by these effects.

Moderate conjuration; CL 10; Craft Wondrous Item, obscuring mist, eagle’s splendor; Price: 40,000 gp; Weight 1lb.

It has two powers: the exhaustion thing and the insight bonus, and then it has this great role-play opportunity. I figured you could skip it if you were a munchkin, or you could spend time on it if it appealed.

But I do appreciate your input. I thought I had something going with this, but I am not unique in that. I hope Paizo gives it to someone cool, like a janni adventurer or something.

I was also counting the protection from nightmare and similar effects as well as the insight into traps, etc. as two more powers.

Don't get me wrong, it's got some good flavor but it just seemed a bit busy - in light of the comments regarding the winning items.

I submitted something else (see above) so don't think it was duplicated due to my comments.

Prescience Pillow

I had a similar idea - a pillow that helped one recover from exhaustion quickly. But this version seems too busy. There are three to four powers in this item. Perhaps a lesser and greater variety would have kept it to one or two powers.

After seeing the winners and reading some of the comments here's how I would edit it:

Mask of the Sea-Reavers, Eagle revised

I believe I have already figured out what I did wrong...

I was trying to foreshadow a possible culture/country with my item to get a "leg up" for the second round. This caused me to make two mistakes. The first was to add a second power to my item which was a bit exotic and therefore distracting. I under-priced the item because I was too focused on the primary power, not the secondary. The second mistake was to put too much flavor text. This made my item all the more complicated when I should have just stuck with simple.

Here is my original submission:

Mask of the Sea-Reavers, Eagle

I concur.

Thank you for the opportunity and for the time, energy, and effort.

No. You'll know if you didn't make the cut when the list of people advancing to the next round doesn't include you.

That's what I figured. But for some reason this particular thread had me thinking that people had already started receiving notices.

Thanks for the answers, Mark and Vic.

Hope I'm not overstepping my bounds here... but are auto-rejection notices going out?

Andrew Turner wrote:

My only caveat: I will not be happy if they recycle 3/3.5e art...

They wont...4th edition looks really different.

Beholders seem to have fleshy mustaches like acatfish...and Trolls are muscular and stocky like ogres..No longer are they thin with warty hides and corded muscles.

Even the Chomatic and Metallic dragons looks cosmetically different...Which I think is a huge mistake.

Of course the art has to be different, it has to offer them the opportunity to create brand new lines of mini's that you MUST buy to play the game.

Guys,

We're working on submission guidelines for both Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules. I'm also seriously considering an annual book of short adventure (say, 30 or so) designed exclusively by folks who have not been assigned a Pathfinder adventure or GameMastery Module.

Our company has benefited greatly from the infusion of new talent the magazines generated, and we have no intention of "closing the door" to the next generation of game designers.

--Erik

Erik, this is a huge relief. I would like to continue contact with Paizo and continue offering ideas, manuscripts and the such. Thanks.

Hmmmm... perhaps you didn't notice the date (April first) but thanks for the congratulations.

Alright, I wanted to take advantage of the funny prank text and it is ten-fold funnier now that it's all smurfed up.

There must have been a meeting this afternoon because I just got an e-mail from the Paizo crew that my manuscript is good enough for publication next year and that they green-lighted my query for a Forgotten Realms campaign arc! Woo hoo, me!

4/1/2007

There's been no meeting. The reason we haven't posted here is simply a combination of:

1: nothing new to report

2: Dungeon being on a deadline

Deadline smeadline...

I hope they do so I can complain about the slow production of Greyhawk conversion notes.

ZING! Nice one, HH.

Hey, don't forget to post them up in the Critique my Query thread. It's probably the best way of getting more feedback.

Just remember that the Paizo staff would rather we only post rejected queries on the "Critique my Thread." If your query is still in the works you must be patient.

CONFESSIONS OF A GATEKEEPER #17:

"Sometimes, when nobody's around, I mark all the queries in the inbox as 'read,' and then hit 'undo,' just so that - for one shining second - I can feel what it's like to be all caught up on submissions...

-The Gatekeeper

LOL. I've actually done that before.

Also, Erik has officially announced that I've usurped Jeremy's "Young" honorific, as I turned 23 last week. He's now just Jeremy, and I'm Young James Sutter... but "the Render" will do just fine. :)

Happy belated birthday.

All quiet on the query front?

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I don't think I ever posted any comment regarding your personal religious convictions, Jade. My comments about atheism were not meant towards any individual. If they offended or got your hackles up I apologize.

Instead they were meant to clarify the term "atheism." I think that term is misused. Usually "agnostic" is more appropriate for most people. IIRC you claimed to be an atheist and now you seem to be connecting your belief to "pantheism." This is still a form of believing in a divine power. To find God in the beauty, complexity, and laws of nature and the universe is NOT atheism. It may not be Jesus Christ, the bearded old guy you mentioned previously, or any other image any other human attaches to the divine. But it's not atheism.

One should have a personal relationship with the divine. One should not parrot what another person says. But as one should not automatically agree with everything other people say one should not automatically disagree with everything other people say.

This happens in academia, politics, and religion and it pisses me off to no end. But we want open-mindedness and in this particular debate the religious are often called close-minded. By close-minded non-theists who are unwilling to listen. I'm glad that on this particular forum people are at least reading.

I'm in no way qualified to talk about the universe before the big bang, so I can't rule out the possibility of a demiurge.

Well, Stephen Hawkins believes in God. As did Eintsein. In fact a lot of our greatest minds come to believe in God from their study of the macro or the micro of our universe.

Yeah - but the holy text says the world was created in six days, which flatly contradicts our scientific understanding. If you are prepared to disbelieve large chunks of the Bible, then I can see your point. But then, why bother believing any of it? This is what I don't understand about the supposed compatibility of science and religion - at what point do you stop believing the Bible and start believing science?

Although Moff touched upon some of this let's clear this up...

Fundamentalists who believe the Bible literally may have problems regarding many scientific principals.

As a Roman Catholic I do not read the Bible literally. There is a difference between literal or historical truth and spiritual truth.

I find it necessary to explain myself and since a few people are summarizing the creation story in the book of Genesis I'll use that.

Genesis was written after generations of semetic peoples (in this case the Israelites or Hebrews) shared an oral tradition of their understanding of the creation of the world. This was also created in relation to the Babylonian creation myth (which by the way has many similarities) since the Hebrews were exiled and lived among them. But where the Babylonian creation myth has order and chaos and good and evil in a battle for supremacy and pretty much in balance the Hebrew creation myth always has law and good (God) constantly winning and having supremacy. First there was amorphous chaos and darkness, pretty scary stuff because it is mysterious and unknown. Then God creates light and makes order out of chaos. While this happens is constantly repeated the phrase: "and it was good." The major theme in this creation myth is the idea that God makes order out of chaos and is always striving for good.

The seven days is actually a "3+3+1" pattern to help remember what was created when in the oral tradition.

1st Day: Light.....................................4th day: stars in the sky (thus a "concentration" of the light)
2nd Day: Air and water seperated.....5th day: air and water populated by birds and fish
3rd Day: Land......................................6th day: land populated by animals and man
7th Day: seeing everything as good, God rests, thus sanctifying creation

Many people choose to ignore the history surrounding the writing of a text. Instead of looking for the literal historical accuracy one instead should look for a spiritual or moral truth when reading scripture.

As I understand it, the same word for "Hell" can also mean "under the ground", "under the earth", "down", or even "cave".

Actually, the Hebrew concept for the realm of the dead was called "She'ol." This is a grand cavern under the earth that all dead people go to. It was not considered punishment as is the Christian concept of hell - it just was.

You're right about there being misinterpretations of language. Many versions of the Bible have been misquoted and mistranslated from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. For example the King James Bible was changed to support royalty and thus more "proper." EDIT - It should be noted that many denominations have changed the translation to better fit their politics or power structure. There are current movements to go back to the earliest documents to make sense of it all.

There is a lot of Revelations that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

From the Catholic scholar perspective the Book of Apocolypse (Greek word for "revelation" or "revealed knowledge") is actually a work of inspired political satire. John of Patmos was incarcerated for being Christian (As were many Christians of his time). And because it was illegal to be Christian the images that he shares are highly metaphorical, a code. For example: "Jesus with a sword for a tongue" is his way of showing the Word of God is a powerful tool or weapon. Or "the six-headed beast" is actually the empire of Rome because there were six Roman emperors that had persecuted Christians by the time John wrote his book. Reading the Book of Revelation through this lens we begin to see a message of hope for the persecuted Christians of his time: "Sure, we're arrested, tortured, and thrown to the lions, but what awaits our persecutors is far worse and our future is going to be great!" In fact, some say that the events of Revelation have indeed come to pass already because the empire of Rome became Christian (thus falling to the Word of God) and was a grand kingdom of peace and prosperity (until those in power became just as misguided and began persecuting non-Christians, then the eventual fall of Rome, etc.).

Hope this helps.

Jade and Sean,
I am not saying that you cannot have feelings of something bigger than yourself or that you cannot seek for these things. But atheism by definition means that one believes that any divine power or god cannot exist. If one seeks for god then there is from one perspective hope or from the other doubt -- both at least are open to the possibility of a god and therefore are not atheism. I was not trying to condemn or judge, just clarify what you (and other posters) meant by the term "atheism" for my own sake.

Grimcleaver,
I can only say that as a Roman Catholic I have never felt opposition between those things that you mention. As I posted earlier science and religion do not contradict each other. In fact many scientific discoveries came about by humanity's attempt to make sense of God's world around them. Good theology, regardless of denomination, and good science, regardless of concentration, should always be seeking understanding.

I'm curious, how could an atheist, who by definition does not believe in God seek a God they do not believe exists? If one is seeking it would seem more along the lines of agnosticism. Or has the seeking stopped?

And just because we can measure what happens in the brain when someone smells an apple pie and that we understand what is going on biochemically when one sees an apple does not mean that the apple pie does not exist nor that the smell is invalid. Mmmmm... apple pie.

Timault Azal-Darkwarren wrote:

A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.

Why shouldn't personal experience be exposed to the litmus test of public scrutiny?

Of course it should. Many times these revelations are meant to be shared. But in the skeptical atmosphere found in contemporary society these people are labeled as the aforementioned kooks.

Also, many people will not go through the necessary steps available to them to have a similar experience. They close themselves off to a religious experience because they think it foolish or illogical. Human error is as much a part of religion as it is a part of science.

If you ever have the opportunity to make an Ignatian 30 day retreat I suggest you do because it can bring about a powerful experience. If the 30 days is hard to break away check out a similar and easier meditation: Examen.

A religious experience is very personal but not necessarily any less valid. I understand that when it comes to science we use public scrutiny as a litmus test. But science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. The scientific method is a way of finding out more about our universe. Religion is a way to understand the meaning behind the universe.

Just because we have found that certain groupings of protons and electrons form particular elements and behave in a particular fashion and organized them in a nice chart doesn't mean that God cannot or does not exist.

Just because species evolve through natural selection and seemingly random mutations either survive or die off does not mean that a divine being cannot or does not exist.

A healthy skepticism is a good thing -- especially for those who believe.

Could you please give an example of a "fact?" The only things I can think of that are 100% unavoidably true in all imaginable situations are logical (a priori) truths like "B=B", "a car is a car" or "no married man is a bachelor." Everything else requires trusting the evidence of your senses. I guess you could call that faith, but that would be a very skeptical way to view knowledge, and incidentally makes religious faith even less justified as there is not even any sense-evidence for it.

Facts are typically agreed upon understandings and explanations of experiences. Evolution, natural selection, these explanations fit our observations of what is presented to us and so many of us agree upon their validity. Much like how many people of the Middle Ages believed the world was flat because based on what they observed it was a fact that the world didn't "bend." We may be right, we may be wrong.... but we need to be comfortable with the idea that we may be wrong. Only then can we be more comfortable with our belief (this is true for religious belief as well).

And there are millions of pieces of sense-evidence for religious faith. Many theists claim to have a religious experience during prayer, meditation, and worship. There are quite a few "miraculous" healings on record. For me to close myself off to how we understand the universe through science is just as foolhardy for me to close myself off to how we understand the universe through spirituality and religion.

It's just there.

"At the time of Shakespeare and Marlowe, there were scores of playwrights trying to make a living in London. Name one."

Normally I use that question to illustrate why the past often seems better than the present, but it also illustrate natural selection in the realm of literature.

If you look at history, you see the process of natural selection at work in all elements of culture from pop music to language to religion. (Why does Jehovah look a lot like Jupiter? For much the same reason a viceroy butterfly looks like a monarch butterfly.)

Study game theory; you'll quickly see that simple rules can lead to complex permutation, many unexpected. Hell, look at games. 3.5 and Storyteller are not compatible, but they both show clear indication of descent from Gygax's original D&D, itself evolved from wargames. (How is a grid like an appendix?)

Natural selection is going on around us all the time, in culture, in science, in the way we work (If an editor isn't nature, red in tooth an claw, I don't what is. ;-)).

I don't have faith in evolution, I have unavoidable evidence.

If you speak of something being intrinsic and by your own description so prolific in nature would it not have to have some sort of cause? "It's just there" seems a bit weak on the whole causality of the universe. (Sorry, just read the Summa Theologica.)

And I hate to play devil's advocate here but what you claim is "unavoidable evidence" another can see as coincidence. From my perspective you (myself, and many others) indeed believe in evolution and other scientific theories and postulates. We have an experience (in this case of witnessing "evidence") and some attribute it to a higher being, others as just dumb cosmic luck, etc.

You believe in and have faith in the theory of evolution. You must have faith in it because it is not fact.

What makes it intrinsic?

Hopefully our faith is constantly seeking understanding. As humans we strive to understand and according to Karl Rahner to ask a question is one of the most basic of human actions. But I find it alien for me when atheists ignore/avoid the basic question of meaning.

What does it all mean? The universe? My life? Our humanity? etc., etc., etc.?

...must...not...loose....to...logue.....

"Loose?" What kind of writing is that, Pett?

I'd love 2-part or 3-part story arcs that are low level (1-3). Something from the Forgotten Realms would be golden. =)

I'm waiting to hear on a query that is a low to mid level 3 part story arc that takes place in the Vilhon Reach.

So I heard that there was this meeting where all of our queries were so magnificant they opted for a second magazine called Delve. This of course filled out the DnD trifecta of official magazines and kept with the alliteration.

Is this about right, Paizo staff?

I apologize if my attempt to brighten these boards with a little light humor got anyone riled up. Who am I but a simple writer in upstate NY awaiting a snowstorm...