pres man's page

The eternal candles found as treasure on p. 56 say they are worth 25 gp. How do you make them (what spell, item creation feat, etc)?

Just an aside, candles don't give any bright illumination. I have always ruled that within the wielder's square they give bright illumination and 5' around they give dim illumination. This means that in my games a person with low-light would get 5' of bright illumination with a candle and 10' of dim, thus candles still have value. I just never saw why you couldn't see clearly if you had a candle on a desk that you were working at.

What about starting out? What CR is appropriate for two level 1s?

1 CR 1/2 creature (most humanoids, some animals or vermin)

I've noticed that I can't edit my own posts after "a while", so I'm not sure that editing the first post is possible.

Ah, I see, well never mind then.

The Str of the bugbear should be 17.

Original stats:
Str 13, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10

After racial modifications:
Str 17, Dex 16, Con 17, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 8

After Ability adjustment at 4 HD:
Str 17, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 8

tdewitt274, instead of posting an update in the middle somewhere it would probably be wiser to just edit the first post so that answers could easily be found.

One thing to keep in mind is how CR works with more opponents. If you double the number of foes, the CR increases by 2.

Let's say you have a party of 4 9th level characters, an appropriate challenge might be:
1 CR 9 creature
2 CR 7 creatures
4 CR 5 creatures
8 CR 3 creatures

You could probably be ok with:
3 CR 6 creatures
6 CR 4 creatures
as well though it is less clear if it works that way.

Why do I mention this, well it is easier to scale for irregular sized groups using a choice for more foes than for less. Take the number of foes a party of 4 PCs would fight and multiple it by the scaling factor (true party level / 4).

So for a party of 2 9th level PCs, an appropriate challenge might be:
1 CR 7 creature (2 * 2/4 = 1)
1 or 2 CR 6 creatures (3 * 2/4 = 1.5)
2 CR 5 creatures (4 * 2/4 = 2)
3 CR 4 creatures (6 * 2/4 = 3)
4 CR 3 creatures (8 * 2/4 = 4)

It works the other way as well. A party of 6 9th level PCs would have appropriate encounters of:
1 or 2 CR 9 creatures
2 CR 8 creatures
3 CR 7 creatures
4 or 5 CR 6 creatures
6 CR 5 creatures
9 CR 4 creatures
12 CR 3 creatures

So, with all the hetero married couples, hetero “star-crossed lovers,” creepy nobles (and/or vampires) seducing or abducting young maidens, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, what’s the problem with a handful of characters that are homosexual (and not even in an “in your face” sort of way)?

Hetero? Did they say they were hetero, specifically, or are you merely assuming this from a discussion of their relationship to others, maybe they are bi? Nothing is wrong with homosexual characters, is it necessary to state they are homosexual though? Does that somehow make them a better character, because you know which "side they are playing for"? Does it make the paladin a better paladin to be gay? Does it make the wizard a better wizard to be bi? What does sexuality really matter most of the time? Judge people their deeds not their sexual desires.

By that logic, we can’t prove anything about Jasper and Cyrdak, either. Sure, they have a not-so-secret-secret romance going on, but that could just be a cover for Jasper actually being celibate and sick of all the women that try to get into his pants.

That could be, would you be offended if that turned out to be the case?

The thing is, people take their baggage from the real world into their fantasy. Thus, most people assume heterosexuality is default because the majority of people in the real world are straight, unless there’s something denoting that it’s different in that particular fantasy world.

Wait. What? Most people bring their own baggage? But I thought everyone was saying that you shouldn't bring your own baggage, what is in a game does apply to what is the real world, which is it? Either it is appropriate to bring baggage in or it is not.

So far, you’re among the few that are making a big deal about these characters being homosexual.

So there aren't many people saying, "Hey we are glad there are these characters." Because they are making a big deal as well. Let's see, wow, very first post, making a big deal. Or does it only count as making a big deal when it is not something you agree with?

Interestingly, I'm straight (not in a Larry Craig way, either; in more of a "I just don't find guys at all attractive" way), but I have no problem with the inclusion in Pathfinder. Judging from the majority feeback here, I don't think that puts me in a minority, though.

Nor do I, I have stated it that before in this thread. Though I wouldn't pat myself too much on the back for being in the majority. There is the saying, "That which is popular is not always right, and that which is right is not always popular." Not that I am suggesting in this case it is not "right" merely that majority agreement is not evidence of anything but a majority of the people speaking.

Game materials consistently include traditional (you would probably say "correct") married couples: one man and one woman.

You are so right, those traditionalist Mormons and Muslims should be offended, where is the polygamy and polyandry, let alone the "conservative" same sex couples. (by conservative I mean only 2 people involved) By the way, I would kindly like you to refrain from trying to speak for me, state what you believe, let me state what I believe. Thank you.

Until now, I can't think of a single example of some other type of couple being presented in a "they're normal townsfolk" way. For that one inclusion to bother you so much, and for it to make you forget all the "normal" couples in gaming history (shoot, even Iggwilv and Graz'zt are hetero)... well, I'd say there's maybe something going on that you might want to be more honest with yourself about.

Prove those people are hetero and not for example bi, or for married couples, not merely married because they are expected to continue the bloodline and make alliances through families and pass on inheritance (you know much like the "vaulted" greek people did). Again, I said it didn't bother me, you can keep saying it does, but you will continue to be wrong. What bothers me is when someone who doesn't know me assumes they can speak for me. Please refrain from doing so. Thank you.

I too am exceedingly happy to see the inclusion of a gay couple in the background of Sandpoint -- not because I think it's controversial and edgy, but because as a gay man myself, it makes me feel more included in the hobby, and less like the outsider much of society makes us out to be. That feeling is something I think many straight people have difficulty understanding, and I heartily applaud those who make the effort.

Well, you are probably very right about most "straight" people not understanding. I for one, don't. The reason I don't is because sexuality is almost never discussed in most game settings. For the most part you really don't know what "preferences" most characters have, nor do most people care. I mean do you really care if the necromancer lich prefered men or women when they were alive? I don't, I just want to destroy them.

Usually the most you get is that so-and-so likes so-and-so or this couple is involved or this couple is married. But we all know that doesn't prove anything. I mean, take Tsuto, he is passionate about Nualia, but does that mean he can't like guys also? There is no clear indication either way. Heck it is possible to have a fantasy world where being bi-sexual is the default, why should we assume if it doesn't say anything about someone, they must hetero? Do they have to talk like Big Gay Al to really be gay?

Frankly, I don't see the "lack" of homosexual characters in games, merely the lack of making a big deal about saying "Hey, he's gay, by the way, incase you cared!" I think racial minorities have a much bigger place to complain. I mean if you describe someone as being pale skinned, blue eyed, and blonde hair, it is hard to say, "Well maybe they are of 'asian' descent." With the increase of Anime, we see more asian type characters, but what about the pacific islanders? Where are they? Latinos? Any character can be gay, heck they could just be lying to themselves and everyone else (it isn't like we haven't see that happen), but for racial minorities either you are clearly or you aren't at all.

Keep up the great work, Paizo! And just make sure the gay iconic is a totally hawt dude ;) We've endured enough scantily clad females to deserve one!

Sure blame the homosexual women out there. :P

Well we've been told that GenCon and other things have delayed the next couple issues of Pathfinder. Could it instead be they are on the slow boat from China?

I need them to be LA 0, so that I can use them as a base race.

Spider Climb as spell (possibly either constant or limited uses per day)
Paralytic poison bite
4 arms (2nd set half strength)
Web as spell (limited uses per day)

I'm afraid these are going to be incompatible, you aren't going to be able to make a balanced LA 0 with those kinds of abilities. I've got to get to work, but I'll try to check back later and give you some ideas after I've thought about it for awhile. My guess is you are going to have to be satisfied with things like EWP(Net) to simulate these things.

James Jacobs wrote:

GreenGrunt wrote:

Just to clarify things.. The only way the PCs can dissipate the runewell's power is if they slit their wrists..oops! cut themselves and create enough sinspawn to drain the well of its wrath points?

Which would mean that they would have to create approximately 4 sinspawn? (well.. each sinspawn costs 6 wrath points- which means that creating 3 spawn brings the well down to 2 wrath points)

Yup.

Wait, that confuses me a little.

Does that mean after Erylium summons the Sinspawn in the encounter, the pool is at 20 points?
I took it to mean the pool was at 20 points, and when she summoned the Sinspawn it would be at 14.

(Small point, but I actually like to know what the writer has in mind.)

I think the "they would have to create approximately 4" was including the one she made at the beginning, not in addition to.

Dogslicers and horsechoppers are both martial weapons. Therefore, goblin warriors and fighters and rangers get proficiency with them automatically. Since a dogslicer's more or less the same type of weapon as a short sword, any classes that grant proficiency with short swords should also grant proficiency with dogslicers.

I see. I was pretty sure they wouldn't get the horsechopper one for free, but seeing the bard get a dogslicer, I thought it might be a racial thing. Any class that gets shortsword also gets it, ok got it.

Ogres, on the other hand, are giants. As part of the giant type, they're automatically proficient with all simple and martial weapons. Since ogre hooks are martial weapons, yup; they get proficiency with them for free.

That's what I get for not looking up the race stuff. I just assumed that like humanoids, giants got simple plus stat block weapons, I didn't realize that they got martial as well. Ok, never mind then.

Does killing a sinspawn give the runewell another point?

You know.. if it were girl on girl action.. there wouldn't be so much talking about it right now... on second thought.. When will there be some girl on girl action in Pathfinder? :)

See, this is what I don't understand. Why do people NEED the editors and folks to tell them they can have characters act in certain fashions (girl-on-girl if you want)? Heck there are 40 named NPCs without any indication as to their "preferences" to the 20 named NPCs whose "preferences" could be reasonably derived (this includes married individuals, but as we all know being married doesn't really prove anything). If you want the dwarf locksmith to be a bit of a "bear", go for it. If you want a lady to also get to pet the Pixie's Kitten besides just the sheriff, who is stopping you.

There is a lot of wonderful stuff here, alot of it doesn't even need to be "changed" because the details are not defined to begin with, the details only need to be expanded. Unless there is a plot reason, that is probably best.

Do all goblins get proficiency with dogslicers and horsechoppers? (the goblin chanter entry seems to suggest they do with dogslicers)

Do ogres get proficiency with ogre hooks?

If that is the definition, then Disney has been making classic adult themed animated films for years.

Why should that be surprising to you, I know lots of adults that enjoy disney films.

I wonder if this similiar to the fullscreen - widescreen thing with movies. Some folk like the fullscreen because it is larger for most (still) standard screens and don't like the black bars wasting space. Others (like myself) prefer the widescreen because even though I lose some use of the actual screen I gain the ability to see all of the shot. Losing some of the less dramatic material may be acceptable to some in order to have larger print, but for me I'd rather use a magnifier and get that material.

Of course there is also another answer.

How to deal with small text

While we are at it, can we do away with Gnomes and Halflings too? Hairless Ewoks just ruin the feel for me.

Well gnomes are only mostly hairless (the whole beard thing). I do find it funny that someone else thought of them as ewoks. I suggest to some friends that I might include some "ewokish gnomes" and someone said, "You should use halflings." To which I responded that, no a gnome would be the one to try to build a glider or other silly thing "Ok, I'll sit on this catapult and you fire it and I begin flying!"

I think the font size is a good thing. If they had used a font size the same as they had used for the "D" and "D" magazines it would have probably been at least 120 pages long. That would mean either they would have to increase the cost or decrease the material. I definitely like having more material as it makes the cost more acceptable. What I hope they don't do is increase the font in the future but not the page count, because that will mean we will be getting less value for our buck.

If anyone ever actually READ ALL of my posts, they would note that I thought a gay Paladin is fine, after all, this is a fantasy world, if it is lawful in that fantasy world, which it is here, and the man is good, as Jasper most assuredly must be, so he would be LG!

I think you are making a slight mistake here.. I think you mean it is legal, not lawful, something can be lawful and not be legal, just as it can legal but not lawful. What it means to be lawful is:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.

Being a homosexual has nothing to do with any of those by default, either way. Though it is possible that it could in theory. For example homosexual behaviour could be thought of as disregardling traditional relational structure, thus it would not surprising to learn the most "conservative" family (LN) had problems with it. On the other hand it might be very traditional for paladins from a particular faith to be called who are homosexual, in that case it would be consistent with a lawful alignment.

Well hopefully we will see more people of various "life styles" in various roles (good, bad, somewhere in between). It would be disappointing to only see some described in only one fashion or another.

This is flawed greatly. If you don't think gays are ok, put your kids in a religious private school

Discrimination? Children of those parents shouldn't be allowed to mix with other children?

Gay children and children of gay parents have the right to go school without being harassed. And the only way to keep them from getting beaten up constantly is to teach all the kids that there's nothing wrong with it. If they're constantly being told it's wrong and evil without an opposing viewpoint the gay children (and straight children of gay couples) are not going to be able to get their education in the safe environment they deserve.

How about we just teach kids that violence should not be used against anyone else just because you disagree with them? Why is it necessary to force acceptance when you could just force appropriate behaviour?

I have told students that, and I'll continue to. I've said that to students one-on-one, and I've said it in front of entire classrooms, both high school and college. I'll tell you why I do it-

It's okay to be gay.
Period. End of story.
Intolerant and possibly homophobic, though? That's a completely different story.
And just FYI, I'm not queer. I just have the good sense to understand that people are born that way and that there's nothing wrong with it (although even if it was a choice, it would still be a fine decision). I like to think that it's the way God made them. :)

Do you ever play devil's advocate? Or do you only push your own personal views on those that are in your class, unable to fully express dissent due to your power to effect their grades? Frankly the worst kind of teachers are those that use their position to promote what they view is appropriate morality on their students.

As an example, my wife is taking a class at a local community college. The teacher gave them cards with the start of a statement that they were suppose to finish. My wife's card said, "I am against the war because ..." The teacher did not even consider the fact that the person might not be against the war. My wife, who is a moderate like myself, fears pulling out because a huge ethnic cleansing might occur (you may call her stance cowardly for that), had to get creative in responding so as to be true to herself but also so as not to antagonize the instructor.

I am also a teacher, as you claim to be, and I have challenged students on both sides. Dogmatically making one claim merely because it is the "progressive" viewpoint is nor more valid than dogmatically making a claim for the "conservative" viewpoint. Reason and justification must be used, not just blindly following others (even if those others are instuctors that we respect).

I can say this. Things don't turn out so well for the Scarnettis in Pathfinder 4. At least... not so well for their house.

Alright!

I also hope that the Scarnettis family which has already been describe as being against homosexual relationships and prostitution will later come out against Hannah as well, and then have their alignments shifted squarely to LE where such conservative thinking truly belongs. Hopefully then they will either be killed by the paladin or run out of town to die in the wastelands, as is fitting for such close-minded folk.

Hell... I'm almost tempted to make one of our iconics homosexual now!

What! Are suggestion that they are not right now! How dare you oppress us with your heterocentric thinking! :P

The halfling in our group has a war dog would the goblins go after it instead of the players?

I would say they probably would be more likely than a typical foe, but goblins aren't necessarily stupid, if the halfling is attacking them and the dog is not, they would probaby attack the halfling. Now on a surprise attack or something the might attack the dog first.

The scientific definition of life includes 'The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.' Please note the bold conditions are not met by a 'microscopic pile of cells'. Sorry, no room for debate here on a scientific basis.

Please provide evidence that a pile of microscopic cells does not do chemical changes to provide energy (i.e. metabolism), so preborn humans do not have functioning mitochondria?

Please provide evidence that reproduction is not relevant. Considering first that the cells do reproduce, specificly they undergo mitosis reproduction. If instead the issue is one of "sexual reproduction" then that would have to mean that no one is alive until they hit pubity, I would find that a very strange definition for one to hold (though there may be some primitive cultures that do). But some "piles of cells" can produce new individuals, specificly in the case of identical twins.

Please provide evidence that a parasitic organism does not respond to stimuli.

Also I think you are trying to apply all of these parts for something that no underdeveloped member of any species could qualify for (I am guess your problem with the reproduction issue is one), does that mean the only way to qualify as a lifeform is to wait until one can reproduce (puberty in humans), what about those people that are sterile, are they alive? They can't reproduce, right?

think when underling says "a life" he means a human life.

You, Mr. Pres, give the definition of a living thing, then you switch your definition of "life" over to "a life". Nicely mangled pro-life argument.

Actually I have been quite clear about the difference between a lifeform (or a life as I refer to it) and a person (or a human life as you and I assume underling mean, though a sapient life would probably be better for a fantasy game). I do this for a very clear reason, when someone says it is not alive, then are showing just how ignorant they are of the scientific facts. If they say it is not a person, that is an entirely different issue. Being alive just means that they are some organism, in this case a parasite. We destroy other organisms, especially parasites, all the time, we don't feel bad about it because they are not people. So if you want to support abortion from an educated standpoint, you do it from the stance of it not being aborting a person, if you do it from an uneducated stance, you claim that the fetus/embryo is not alive.

For Pete's Sake! It is a fictional world we are talking about where a basic assumption is that a DM can -change- anything they like to suit their particular tastes, and in fact will most likely change at least some elements of an adventure before running it. So, what exactly is the problem? I have to ask myself why even bring it up when a basic element of DnD is that you can -change anything- to suit your gaming table? Furthermore, why bring it up on a public forum, where others can read it,

While I agree with your position in general, one has to then turn it around. If a DM can change anything they like, why should it bother, say someone that is homosexual, if no homosexuals are presented in a game, or worse if they were presented in a less than "ideal" manner (only homosexual was for example evil)? Do you think that wouldn't bother anyone? But why should it? And why should someone be inspired to come on a public forum and talk about how "great" it is to include such characters in the official town description? What does it matter if such were included or not?

Though I am not sure if this is Extraneous discussion. I mean the original post was talking about these issues, that seemed to be a major part of it.

This is disingenuous. You have not explicitly stated that you believe that herbal birth control (the herbalist is NOT performing abortions!) is wrong. That is true. However your argument has taken for granted that the actions/lifestyles in question are "bad".

Actually it is implied and been confirmed on this thread that she does in fact do "herbal" abortions, she also performs midwife functions as well as "birth control" as well, prefering to 1) have children brought to term or 2) not be concieved in the first place. (though depending on how the herbs work, it may stop contraception or it might merely stop implantation, very different from a moral standpoint). My arguments have been made taking from granted that there is different views on these issues. I don't believe that all of those different ones are unreasonable merely because I don't agree with them, and some of them perhaps should be heard.

Actually, you could easily argue that it is not a life and not innocent. Women who performed these services in the past were almost always described as dealing with women as soon as they suspected they were pregnant. THis was something of an ancient 'day after pill'. Defining a microscopic pile of cells as a life is not consistent with legal understanding in the past or today. Only the right to life movement would put it in such terms.

Actually I believe most junior high (heck probably younger in fact) would say you are wrong. The definition of life is not a legal definiton but a scientific one. There are conditions that must apply inorder for something to be a life versus say a rock which is not (at least not without bring in earth elementals ;) ). "Microscopic piles of cells" demonstrate all of those requirements. It is a parasitic organism that has distinct genetic make up from the host (as opposed to say your thumb), that genetic make up is consistent with a sentient species. So, going by the scientific definition there is no question as to if it is a life or not, the question is a legal and moral one, is it a "person". And as you put in, even if it was a person in D&D, would it be considered "innocent" (since good folk are expected to protect innocents this matters for alignment purposes). As for the legal part as tigger1tom pointed out in real world legal systems it is not even consistent.

So even after several Paizo staffers have told you that their audience is adult AND likes grittier and mature material AND that they are not even actively trying to appeal to a more general outside demographic, you refuse to concede your argument about "the harm of this portrayal" to gaming and Paizo's sales. I think its clear that your point has been made, its been heard, and politely rejected.

Actually I did "concede" to the view that paizo staffers didn't care if they upset a few of their customers (both current and potential). From post my third post on page one:

Yet if paizo is not concerned about doing it to potential customers, what do I really care, it doesn't bother me personally.

pres man: the horse is dead. If you continue to beat it, I will have to contact PETA about animal cruelty.

People Eating Tasty Animals? Oh no, not them. I was just trying to tenderize it for them.

I do find it a little odd that Sandpoint has an abortionist and a homosexual, but the continent itself has no humans that look like Asians or Africans. There are three races of Humans that look European, but none that look like the humans of other places. Maybe Paizo has an abortionist and a gay person on the payroll, but not an Asian or African-American?

Actually I think Sheriff Hemlock is suppose to be dark skinned, at least the picture in the Player's Guide looks like it (which would also mean his brother would probably be also).

Lyrie Akenja looks clearly like someone who could be of african descent.

I think Ameiko Kaijitsu looks like she could be of asian descent.

EDIT: Actually now that I think of it though, I am surprised that there aren't atheists (I mean when you have "gods" dying, is it really that unreasonable?) or peace activitist (let's make friends with the goblins) specificly described. ;)

Pres, you are letting the fact that you are a "right to life" advocate color your opinion of the herbalist.

Please do me the favor of not trying to assume that you have any idea about my real life moral beliefs, ok. I am discussing a viewpoint, it is, you know, possible to do so without actually holding that viewpoint. Well maybe you don't know.

The herbalist is good. She isn't neutral, because she does in fact go out of her way to protect the innocent and help others. She just has a different opinion about who needs protecting, because she's a "woman's right to choose" advocate. If you cast detect alignment on her, she would detect as good, no question, because that's what the stat block says. Like James Jacobs said, you can't directly translate D&D alignments to real world morality. You may disagree with the choice thing, but since the stat block says NG, in almost every situation, the herbalist will make the "good" choice.

So basically you are saying, she is good because her stat block says so. We can't base anything off of real world morality also? Ok, so what does it mean to be "good" then? Are players suppose to say, "My character does good stuff, I have no idea what good stuff is, but since my character is good, the stuff they do is good."?

If the someone killed her, I think it's a loss for the town, because she's an asset. I think it's unfair to lump her in with the "enemies who need to die" because of that one thing.

Did I just come into an entire new discussion? Who has suggestion she should be killed or that she should be lumped in the "enemies who need to die" group? Where did that come from? Or are only the good people the ones that shouldn't be killed? Is neutral really just "evil lite"? (I will admit that a few of the descriptions do sound a little like that)

I'm amazed that you were reading the information so closely that you even noticed that the herbalist's alignment and background were in conflict (when viewed through your own moral compass, which you have a right to).

I said the alignment was problematic, as it indicated something about the morality of her actions (i.e. she is good, she does these things, thus these things are consistent with being good). I fail to see why I shouldn't have looked at her alignment? Why was it put in there if it was not meant to be considered?

I think it's weird that you feel that this one relatively small issue gives the entire adventure some kind of "moral taint". I don't think that Paizo was making some sort of huge morality statement when they created a "wise woman" character who can help out "a girl in trouble" in a pinch.

As I have said repeatedly, I don't think there was any intentional effort to do so. But it has been stated that it was known that it would ruffle a few feathers by the designers, and they choose to do it saying it was worth it to them. I think it would be better to include them but assign them as neutral, but whatever, what do I care, I don't any of my characters will be getting knocked up (me and my wife are not exibitionists and I doubt she'd be ok with me role-playing encounters with the other women, as for the guys, well let's say I was never "called to be a paladin").

txwad: Well I believe someone said that the town of Sandpoint is based on a real world city. My guess is that in said real world city there is a planned parenthood or other women's clinic, and the people involved with the developement of the product don't see anything wrong with abortion (being all "unprejudiced"), ergo NG abortion provider.

...in fact encourages her patrons to carry to term and that other solutions are used when there's no other option-...

Such a description in fact is more in line with neutral though.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Violence is perfectly fine, but anything to do with sex and reproductive rights is not?

Is the violence demonstrated by individuals that the reader is suppose to feel friendly towards, or is it done by individuals that the reader is suppose to feel ok with being killed (or at least defeated)? A certain level of violence is usually ok if the most heinous acts are done by evil doers and those same evil doers get their's in the end.

Now these other characters that we are talking about are they suppose to be defeated or at least opposed (evil alignments) or looked up to (good alignments)? Heck we haven't even mentioned yet the Pixie's Kitten, with its owner another good character involved with what people in the real world would be questionable actions. As I said, for myself personally, I wasn't so much disappointed with the inclusion of these characters but with their descriptions.

I think it wisest to leave real world morality out of the game altogether.

I agree, now if we can come up with a way to leave ALL real world morality out of the game, I'd certainly like to see it.

I disagree with Pres Man about the Paladin, from a Christian point of view, homosexuality may be a sin, but it is not AGAINST the law, therefore it is lawful, and if the man is good, he is lawful good by alignment. Because you disagree with him does not make you good or him evil. As far as the herbalist goes, I won't go there.

Ah, what? I don't think I have specifically talked about the paladin, I think you might be confusing me with someone else.

You are making the assumption an unborn child is an "innocent person" in need of protection,

Exactly. What is the definition of a person? Certainly you can't argue it is not a life, but is it a person and does that mean they have certain "rights" (right to life for example)? And what does it mean to be "innocent"? For example, the main baddie had a miscarriage and the child was describe as misshapened and even a fiend. Now wouldn't it be interesting if this miscarriage was actually arranged? Would it be ok for a paladin to detect evil on a pregnant woman, learn that a fiend is growing in her, and have another good person arrange for certain herbs and things to be consumed by her?

This seems to imply that you think abortion should be Neutral. Fine, I can see that. It's not Good, it's not Evil.

Sort of, actually I am not making any claim as to how I personally feel about it, I am merely suggesting a way to define it in the alignments of the game to make it "palatable" to all involved. That way people don't feel like they are forced to set their own moral views aside. It is a small difference. I think it is wisest to define it in game as neutral (as well as other equally divisive topics).

But why can't soemone who performs this Neutral act have a Good alignment?

Are NPCs with Good alignments not allowed to perform Neutral acts?

Not at all. Good characters can certainly perform neutral acts (what is going to the bathroom?). I would agree that a good character could have an abortion and still be good. A good character certainly could do an abortion and be good. But at what point does it become often enough to be a problem? Is it a simple matter of mathematics, they did x neutral acts and x+1 good acts so therefore they are good? Of is the type of action and its effect also a weighting factor.

But my main issue was with the idea of being presented, that the one known for this practice in town was good. Thus there seems to be an implication that this is something that good people, in general, should have no problem with. Now I don't think that is necessarily what paizo is doing, but what would a person who just happened to look over this material think? What is the image being presented here? What are people who have strong moral convictions against abortions (except in some rare situations) being suggested about their beliefs (beliefs that do not need to be religious in nature)? Making the women's clinic worker good puts all of those in play, because we assume being good MEANS something. If they were neutral, most of those things wouldn't be an issue.

1- Abortion clinic. Wrong way to view this. There is a LONG traditional of using herbal extracts to terminate pregnancies in Europe, middle east, and asia. These practices were done by women for women for several thousand years and in many cultures helped lead to the classification of a single woman who made a living as a midwife and herbalist as a "witch" who needed burning.

Putting the herbalist in is actually more in line with a fantasy setting than the modern day.

Since they were burned, wouldn't that indicate that in those settings they were in fact thought of as "bad"? Seems making them aligned good would be more in line with modern viewpoint then some "fantasy" viewpoint (by fantasy I mean heavily influenced by a historical culture it resembles).

3- alignment. OK, this is IMO the silliest. Folks regardless of how you personally feel about a social issue, does it make someone EVIL or GOOD by where they choose to stand on it? Sexual orientation and moral alignment (good - evil) cannot possibly be correlated in any reasonable person's mind. You may think the lifestyle is evil, but certainly the person is not. That determination would have to be made off of their actions and motivations. Would you really argue that an herbalist and midwife who has dedicated her life to helping others should not have a good alignment because she provides herbal options to terminate a pregnancy? By her profession and description she seems to be a caring person who puts others before herself and helps where she can. Sounds good to me.

Well let's see. Good beings protect the innocent. The Women's Clinic worker agrees to kill unborn children (can't get much more innocent then that), therefore she is ... good? If she directed the women to someone with lower morals or she only aided in terminating pregnancies when the mother's life was in danger, a much stronger position for good would be present.

Again, I personally don't care if she is good or not. But it is silly to assume that there wouldn't be people out there that could have legitimate moral problems with someone like her being classified that way. And implying that people who do have problems with it are immature or prejudiced:

Pathfinder, and to a greater extent, all of GameMastery, takes the view that our readers are older than 13 years old and unprejudiced.

Can be offensive to some.

By the way it is impossible to be unprejudiced, there may be certain things individuals might not hold predudices about, but to be unprejudiced about anything is unrealistic.

Some thoughts.

Living Constructs when damaged between below 0 but more than -10 become inert. How long they can stay in that state I don't think is made clear, so perhaps eons might not be all that unreasonable especially if they were protected from the elements.

My suggestion is to go mystery over detail. A warforge was found in the wreckage of some ancient building (perhaps by a Pathfinder member). Despite obviously being damage it was still intact and so the person thought it might be valuable. There may be other ones found as well if the particular warforge is not meant to be unique (Data? :) ).

Some silly gnome decided to try to do some repair work somewhere along the line (repair light damage) and the warforge awakens. At the time of the collapse it had just come online moments before, so it actually has no memories of the previous civilization.

Alternatively, you could take a more sci-fantasy approach and make it something like a cyborg (robocop?). But the transition is so dramatic that the entire memories of the previous individual are destroyed (or perhaps merely surpressed).

I don't think you have to play in Eborron to use warforges (or shifters or whatever). They are included in the MMIII, players and DMs should feel free to use them if they have access to that text. The flavor around their creation may be have to be adjusted a bit (see above for examples), but the actual design can be introduced without problem.

I applaud Paizo for not doing the Texas side-step around mature themes.

Pathfinder is a book, albeit, maybe not a 'traditional' book. I see it as a form of writing and therefore a form of art. To me, good art is something that makes you think. You may not like what you think. Each of us must decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Growth comes from challenging previously held beliefs. Sometimes those beliefs stand up to the scrutiny. Sometimes they do not. The point is, the 'status-quo' must be challenged. I see art as a perfect champion for this cause.

So good on Paizo for raising some eyebrows and not trying to be the consummate politician by trying to tell everyone what they want to hear without telling anyone anything.

There you go. See how it appears as if some sort of "enlightened agenda" is being suggested, even though I am sure that wasn't the intention, that is how it can come across.

Let me put in that I have also enjoyed the setting. I don't want anyone to think my criticism on this one point is anything about the rest. My concern is that some readers might feel alienated by the position on those topics. Yet if paizo is not concerned about doing it to potential customers, what do I really care, it doesn't bother me personally.

Going by that yardstick, anyone in the world is assuredly neutral.

Right, obvious some common sense would be needed. Societies that are not likely to play the game would probably be ignored for what would be considered contoversial.

Homosexual couple? Highly controversial in the US (but not in Europe).

Well that I believe depends on what part of Europe you are talking about. The areas that are strongly Catholic (though admittedly Europeans are getting less and less religious in general) would probably still view it as controversial.

No matter what you do, you are sure to offend someone somewhere. So why limit yourself by it?

And why intentionally push people's buttons? If you can do the same ideas in a more "neutral" (pun intended) way without stepping on anyone's RL moral "toes", why not. In fact that is often the best choice for a business, avoid alienating potential customers.

I for one consider alignments to be rather broad and inclusive. Your intent matters as much as your actions, and everything is subject to a huge summation mark at the end of the day. So you may even perform evil acts on a regular basis, but as long as you do them for the right reasons, and "compensate", you can still come out as good on the overall balance.

I agree to an extent, it probably matters what we mean by "regular basis". I mean if a guy ran around putting baby goblins on pikes as often as he possibly could, I think we'd have a hardtime justifying them as Good. In that case, they would probably fall into the Neutral range, by showing good and evil aspects.

But as I said, I myself don't really care that much about it one way or another, it just seems to me to be an unnecessary classification. Hannah Velerin could have easily been called Neutral without any other change to the character. As you say, each alignment is broad and so there could be room for a neutral person with good leanings in the alignment Neutral.

I was actually a little disappointed with the inclusion of those "contraversial" characters. Or rather not so much with their inclusion but with their designated alignments.

Some players may have RL moral issues with some of those characters. By defining the characters as Good, there is an implication as to how moral those choices are.

My main concerns are that 1)it does feel kind of pushy on the whole morality of those activities (sort of forced P.C.ness) and 2)it provides more ammunition for those groups that like to use this hobby as a whipping dog. (as an example)"See now they are saying that having abortions is Good. First it was worshipping the devil and now this."

I'm a little tired so I am not sure if I am making sense here. I am not discussing my personal feelings, I couldn't care less myself. I just worry about there being negative feed back from parents and other groups that feel there is a bit of strong-arming going on with the acceptance of views that some may think in RL are "progressive".

Personally I think they would have been better off going with pres_man's rule for RL morality and game alignments.

"If a topic is contraversial in RL then its designation of alignment in game is neutral."

Thus things like abortion and the death penalty in my games are classified as neutral. That way people that feel they are wrong can point and say, "See they are not good" and those that feel they are fine can point and say "see they are not evil", and everyone is ... well maybe not "happy" but at least not overly offended.