Creative Director
|
Do you see Athachs as predominately solitary creatures with them gathering only rarely or as more social creatures like people, with their survival dynamic built around social groups and needing said social as an integral part of their survival?I see them as social creatures, but not in REALLY large groups.So what like groups of 4 or so?
Also do you see them as hunting together? As it stands they are pretty nasty beasties in their own right and not much on the material plane would be able to stand against them.
Honestly? It would depend on what level adventure I was setting up as to how many of them would be encountered together, whether it be a hunting party or a whole tribe. Since they're higher CR I would indeed skew low, and/or limit them to remoter locations in the world.
|
Creative Director
|
Do you know if this season's Pathfinder Society plotline has any spoilers for Wrath of the Righteous in it?
It does, in that...
Beyond that there should be relatively few if any spoilers between the two, since both campaigns are focusing on different parts of the Worldwound.
|
Creative Director
|
1) Doesn't Korvosa already have a Batman-expy? Blackjack I think he calls himself?
2) EDIT: Also; is there any language in Golarion equivalent to Italian? It might just be from Assassin's Creed 2-thru-Revelations, but I feel like characters from Cheliax should have random bits of Italian peppering their speech.
1) Yes. That's part of the reason I suggested Westcrown instead. (Korvosa's is more like Zorro in any event.)
2) We don't equate Golarion's languages to real-world languages really. The region of the world that's the most thematically close to Italy in flavor is pre-Thrune Cheliax, I guess.
|
Creative Director
|
James, circling back to the Painter question.
There's at least two different kinds of painters out there.
I lived down the street from an industrial painter. These guys are like the ones who do your houses, on roids. They spray paint buildings, clean and touch up rolling stock, do signs, infrastructure, etc. They are full time painters, good at their jobs.However, you ask these guys to paint a portrait, and they'll just laugh at you.
So, I'm pretty sure the 'fine painter' would fall into 'Profession' the same way 'architect' falls into profession. You are making a nice picture, but it isn't for use, per se. The industrial painter is painting stuff that's going to see use, be it a home, workspace, or work tool. The artistic painter? He does stuff hanging on the wall.
So, Craft (Painter) is probably a dex skill dealing with large scale painting, staining and 'production-work' painting.
Profession (painter) is an Int skill based around mastery of color, shadow, accuracy and interpretation. Portrait and landscape painting would fall under this, as might, oh, medical illustrations, and drawn comic books and comic strips (I have a friend who has done both).
Performance (painting) would be a Cha-based skill based almost solely on radical interpretation and pure chutzpah. It could also apply to performance painting, like some street artists do (I've got one of those on my wall), guys with crazy works of art that are somehow still acclaimed (the red stripe on white background? really?), or the 'living painters', such as the monks and specialists who make stories in sand that they do before everyone's eyes, and then wash it away.
What do you think? I'm thinking there's as big a gap between the guys who paint your house and those who do seascapes as there is between a builder and an architect.
==Aelryinth
I think that's overly complicating things. Painters who create art, regardless of the nature of the art, would be creating art objects, and as such they would use Craft checks to create their works.
|
Creative Director
|
Actually, the Craft might be the portrait painter, and profession might be the professional. I'm just used to putting blue collar work into Craft and white collar into Profession. But Artist painters create objects, and professionals cover and recover existing items.
Could be either interpretation I guess.
==Aelryinth
This is absolutely how I would divide it.
Happy Thanksgiving, James!
Obox-ob, Demogorgon, Graz'zt, Malcanthet, and Iggwilv.
James,If WotC offered you (free of charge!) the legal rights to 5 of their D&D characters, which ones would you pick?
I think I love you, and I think that also sadly answers one of my questions. The inclusion of Graz'zt remains homebrew.
---
Instead, I will ask you this- as it isn't something I've managed to find on my own. I own a rather embarrassing library of your books, so if I just missed it somehow I am going to feel my cheeks burn.
Is there, in any of the books a class/archtype/prestige class that fills the role of the quintessential "Dark Knight"? (And no I don't mean Batman, sleepless detective pulled that off fine.)
With the black armored, mounted knights of ruin being so exceptionally common-place and classic figures in literature, movies and games I found it really hard to construct one. Especially with there being a book pertaining to knights, and an entire class devoted to essentially being mounted warriors.
Why are there no evil cavalier orders? (Cockatrice is merely selfish, which can be evil, but...) Where are the Dark Knight archtypes? It seems crazy to me that none have really been included. Hellknights get close, but they do not seem to have any mounted orders or cavalier cross-overs? Anti-Paladins are way too magic oriented to really make a fair case.
The distinction is important to me, since classes without mount attributes often have their mounts slain in the first round of combat, and face incredible penalties for riding armored that make trying to pull that concept off really difficult. And since there is a class sitting right there with all of that built into it, I guess the real question is if I am missing an evil themed Cavalier Order anywhere?
Am I missing something? Sorry for making this so long, and thank you for your time!
Now that the cold is really hitting us, I need to know: Do I want to knit the leg warmers first, or the fingerless gloves (long, above-the-elbow style)?
The upcoming Advanced Class Guide is a very good idea, but some class is just non-sense.
Brawler, swashbuckler and warpriest already exist like archetypes, and bloodrager and skald could just be archetypes for bard.
But why the hell create hunter and slayer?!? They already exist, named as ranger and rogue!
I think I just didn't understand the real intention of the book, can you explain to me why the redesign of these classes that already exist?
I really think you could create something better classes with new concepts than that, like the arcanist is being created.
|
The upcoming Advanced Class Guide is a very good idea, but some class is just non-sense.
Brawler, swashbuckler and warpriest already exist like archetypes, and bloodrager and skald could just be archetypes for bard.
But why the hell create hunter and slayer?!? They already exist, named as ranger and rogue!
I think I just didn't understand the real intention of the book, can you explain to me why the redesign of these classes that already exist?
I really think you could create something better classes with new concepts than that, like the arcanist is being created.
IANJJ, but the reason that's been repeated time and again about these classes is that they can do things a mere archetype or multiclass can't (and for the record, the Savage Skald is already available as a bard archetype). Consider these...archetypes on steroids, if you will.
The Brawler's ability to switch feats on the fly gives it something no other class has ever had. The Swashbuckler's panache gives people who like the Gunslinger's grit mechanic but want to use melee something cool to play with. The Warpriest needs a little work, but eventually may do for divine classes what the magus did for arcane classes. And speaking of magi, the bloodrager wouldn't work as a bard archetype because that's not what it's trying to be. It's a barbaric version of the magus, synthesizing Barbarian and Sorcerer the same way the Magus did for Fighter and Wizard.
And as for the Hunter and Slayer, they have their place too. As it stands, Rangers don't have to have an animal companion, and when they do, there's little in combat they can do with it besides have it attack who they're attacking. The Hunter's a lot more in-depth with the animal companion, able to work with it in tactical ways the ranger never could. And the Slayer occupies a place for people who like the style of the ranger, but are less "nature boy" and more "face-stabbity." While the rogue can do that, the emphasis of the rogue is less on straight-up murder and more about utilizing skills for the benefit of the party. The Slayer is a happy medium that appeals to the Drizzt Do'Urden in us all.
Frankly, you'd be better off asking these questions in the playtest threads, where they've already been addressed many many times, rather than pestering James with them.
And now, after that long-winded diatribe, I have a question for James:
As a horror fan, what do you think about the modern creepypasta trend or similar things like Candle Cove, Slender Man or Smile Dog?
Now that the cold is really hitting us, I need to know: Do I want to knit the leg warmers first, or the fingerless gloves (long, above-the-elbow style)?
Unless you've travelled back in time to the 80:s - the fingerless gloves. Instead of leg warmers, get some knee-high thermo-socks.
The upcoming Advanced Class Guide is a very good idea, but some class is just non-sense.
Brawler, swashbuckler and warpriest already exist like archetypes, and bloodrager and skald could just be archetypes for bard.
But why the hell create hunter and slayer?!? They already exist, named as ranger and rogue!
I think I just didn't understand the real intention of the book, can you explain to me why the redesign of these classes that already exist?
I really think you could create something better classes with new concepts than that, like the arcanist is being created.
IANJJ, but the reason that's been repeated time and again about these classes is that they can do things a mere archetype or multiclass can't (and for the record, the Savage Skald is already available as a bard archetype). Consider these...archetypes on steroids, if you will.
The Brawler's ability to switch feats on the fly gives it something no other class has ever had. The Swashbuckler's panache gives people who like the Gunslinger's grit mechanic but want to use melee something cool to play with. The Warpriest needs a little work, but eventually may do for divine classes what the magus did for arcane classes. And speaking of magi, the bloodrager wouldn't work as a bard archetype because that's not what it's trying to be. It's a barbaric version of the magus, synthesizing Barbarian and Sorcerer the same way the Magus did for Fighter and Wizard.
And as for the Hunter and Slayer, they have their place too. As it stands, Rangers don't have to have an animal companion, and when they do, there's little in combat they can do with it besides have it attack who they're attacking. The Hunter's a lot more in-depth with the animal companion, able to work with it in tactical ways the ranger never could. And the Slayer occupies a place for people who like the style of the ranger, but are less "nature boy" and more "face-stabbity." While the rogue can do that, the emphasis of the rogue is less on...
As you say, they all still can be archetypes (old or new). And I ask James because in the playtest threads, the discussion is to improve the classes, not question their need or reason for existence. Still want to understand the not clear intention and reasoning of why create new classes when they could be brand-new cool archetypes (except the arcanist, shaman and maybe investigator).
Another Mendev-question or three: Roughly speaking, how large a percentage of the country's population are made up of the Iobarian-descended "Old Mendevians," and how many are newly arrived or descendants of other crusaders?
And among the crusaders, what's the most common nations of origin?
|
Creative Director
|
Obox-ob, Demogorgon, Graz'zt, Malcanthet, and Iggwilv.
James,If WotC offered you (free of charge!) the legal rights to 5 of their D&D characters, which ones would you pick?
I think I love you, and I think that also sadly answers one of my questions. The inclusion of Graz'zt remains homebrew.
---
Instead, I will ask you this- as it isn't something I've managed to find on my own. I own a rather embarrassing library of your books, so if I just missed it somehow I am going to feel my cheeks burn.
Is there, in any of the books a class/archtype/prestige class that fills the role of the quintessential "Dark Knight"? (And no I don't mean Batman, sleepless detective pulled that off fine.)
With the black armored, mounted knights of ruin being so exceptionally common-place and classic figures in literature, movies and games I found it really hard to construct one. Especially with there being a book pertaining to knights, and an entire class devoted to essentially being mounted warriors.
Why are there no evil cavalier orders? (Cockatrice is merely selfish, which can be evil, but...) Where are the Dark Knight archtypes? It seems crazy to me that none have really been included. Hellknights get close, but they do not seem to have any mounted orders or cavalier cross-overs? Anti-Paladins are way too magic oriented to really make a fair case.
The distinction is important to me, since classes without mount attributes often have their mounts slain in the first round of combat, and face incredible penalties for riding armored that make trying to pull that concept off really difficult. And since there is a class sitting right there with all of that built into it, I guess the real question is if I am missing an evil themed Cavalier Order anywhere?
Am I missing something? Sorry for making this so long, and thank you for your time!
I honestly don't really keep track of archetypes. We've introduced a LOT of them, and it's certainly possible we've done a "dark knight." The one I would say works best right off the top of my head is, of course, the antipaladin.
|
Creative Director
|
The upcoming Advanced Class Guide is a very good idea, but some class is just non-sense.
Brawler, swashbuckler and warpriest already exist like archetypes, and bloodrager and skald could just be archetypes for bard.
But why the hell create hunter and slayer?!? They already exist, named as ranger and rogue!
I think I just didn't understand the real intention of the book, can you explain to me why the redesign of these classes that already exist?
I really think you could create something better classes with new concepts than that, like the arcanist is being created.
Using "why the hell" in a question raises flags, first off. Please try not to ask your questions in an antagonistic way. It just makes it look like you're looking for an internet argument and not honestly asking questions.
Obviously we think that all of the classes in the book deserve their own full base classes.
I don't see a difference between the following:
1) You can create a swashbuckler using an archetype or a base class.
2) You can create a "fire mage" using a sorcerer or a wizard.
The POINT of this book is to grant more options, and that includes more options to build some types of characters.
|
Creative Director
|
As a horror fan, what do you think about the modern creepypasta trend or similar things like Candle Cove, Slender Man or Smile Dog?
Posting IANJ walls of text and then appending a question for me at the end is kinda frustrating, since when I hit reply, the site truncates the wall of text, which forces me to go back to your original question and copy/paste it into the quote manually, which when I'm trying to answer a bunch of questions kinda breaks the flow of my question answering flow.
And that's on top of the fact that I'd rather keep this thread to questions and answers, not discussions.
Now. Finally getting to your question...
I think that as with all horror, creepypasta has a huge range of quality, with some of it being quite excellent but most of it being dreck. Overall, I love the fact that it exists.
|
Creative Director
|
As you say, they all still can be archetypes (old or new). And I ask James because in the playtest threads, the discussion is to improve the classes, not question their need or reason for existence. Still want to understand the not clear intention and reasoning of why create new classes when they could be brand-new cool archetypes (except the arcanist, shaman and maybe investigator).
Well... I'm not the right one to ask, frankly, since I'm not all that involved in the playtest.
But I'll try to dip a little deeper...
Taking the swashbuckler as an example... it's archetype is INCREDIBLY weak and kinda pointless. One of its big "draws" is that it lets a rogue gain a weapon proficiency in a martial weapon, but most swashbucklers are going to want to use the rapier which is a weapon rogues can already use, so that ability is kinda wasted on most rogues (and worse, replaces one that they might want).
Furthermore, a swashbuckler rogue means that you don't have a full BAB, which a swashbuckler kinda needs.
And making a swashbuckler fighter is a bit nonsensical, since that fighting style (one weapon and nothing/buckler in the off hand) is the weakest option for fighters. And the fact that the higher level you get, the more you're "wasting" class features if you don't wear heavy armor starts to suck.
So, the swashbuckler as a base class DOES fit an underserved niche—the role of the lightly armored, graceful, one-weapon combatant who uses Charisma as a battle resource.
Whether or not you agree with our choices... we made those choices after a LOT of discusion and thought, and came to the conclusion that each of them services a niche that an archetype alone simply can't. I'll leave it to Jason to "defend" the other choices (not that I feel they need defending) since beyond the swashbuckler (which I've been trying to get us to do a base class for ever since Advanced Player's Guide was being concepted above 5 years ago), I don't really have a LOT of insight or knowledge about the book yet.
|
Creative Director
|
Another Mendev-question or three: Roughly speaking, how large a percentage of the country's population are made up of the Iobarian-descended "Old Mendevians," and how many are newly arrived or descendants of other crusaders?
And among the crusaders, what's the most common nations of origin?
Part one: Not something I've ever considered. Off the top of my head, I'd guess the split is about 60/40 between old and new.
Part two: Taldor.
Hi JJ.
What do you think is meant by the Undetectable property of a Legendary Item? "utterly undetectable"
Undetectable: This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method.
Seems pretty all encompassing.
Is it possible for a Lawful character to be psychotic? Insanity seems more of a chaos thing.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi JJ.
What do you think is meant by the Undetectable property of a Legendary Item? "utterly undetectable"
Undetectable: This grants its bonded user the ability to become utterly undetectable while invisible. While invisible and in physical contact with this item, the bonded creature can't be detected or scryed by any method.Seems pretty all encompassing.
Does, doesn't it?
I suspect the intent is to block magical detection via things like detect evil, locate creature, scrying, and the like. It's NOT intended to make the character immune to being noticed by perception checks.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to count.
For one thing, psychosis automatically turns your character chaotic evil.
What I meant was, could a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil person reach a point where they could be considered "completely and totally nuts" while still remaining Lawful?
|
Creative Director
|
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to count.
For one thing, psychosis automatically turns your character chaotic evil.
What I meant was, could a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil person reach a point where they could be considered "completely and totally nuts" while still remaining Lawful?
Then that would suggest that, no, you can't be psychotic and be anything other than Chaotic Evil, yeah?
Taking your clarification to the initial question, though... depending on the type of insanity, yes, you can remain lawful. I suspect the types of insanity you're talking about would not work well with lawful alignments though.
Now that the cold is really hitting us, I need to know: Do I want to knit the leg warmers first, or the fingerless gloves (long, above-the-elbow style)?Gloves.
Thanks! Gloves it is. After I finish the hat.
@Kajehase - Leg warmers are more convenient, actually; the socks don't come in a great selection of sizes, and anyway, I'm allergic to polyester. Besides, wearing something you've made yourself feels really cool.
I was doing a little research on the punic war and noticed the one of the regions fought over in northern Spain was called 'Andorra'. Is this the basis of the name Andoran?
Why are 80% of Recruitment threads for Kingmaker? I'm getting a little tired seeing that name over and over and over and over and over... [repeat ad nauseam] ...over again.
I'd like to play some Runelords, but that doesn't seem to be a thing that's happening.
First a question, what's love got to do with it?
Now to answer a question that I'm likely a SME on.
Then that would suggest that, no, you can't be psychotic and be anything other than Chaotic Evil, yeah?Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to count.
For one thing, psychosis automatically turns your character chaotic evil.
What I meant was, could a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil person reach a point where they could be considered "completely and totally nuts" while still remaining Lawful?
To draw an example from a different RPG series, The Elder Scrolls, in Shivering Isles (the Oblivion expansion) you come up against Jyggalag, the Prince of Order. He's so obsessed with Order that he wants everything to be structured, regimented, predictable, "perfect" and the like, to the point where one could argue that he has a kind of insanity himself, an OCD taken to (literally) godlike degrees. He is, after all, an expression of order, like "law/logic given form" to describe it that way.
Would that kind of a "psychosis" function as a Lawful Neutral character under Pathfinder terms? It's obsession with Law to such a "pure" extent that it goes well past the line of reasonability.
As a mental health provider, I'm going to say that what you are talking about is a "personality disorder", specifically Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (not to be confused with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder). Psychosis which often includes Hallucinations and Delusions as well as a host of symptoms such as Aphasia and Catatonia is very "random" in nature but that doesn't mean that the person who is suffering from such a thing has to be "chaotic". Essentially, someone who is say "paranoid schizophrenic" could be very lawful in their delusional thoughts regarding how they will go about protecting themselves from their "enemies".
I think the issue is that people often confuse "Lawful" with doing the right thing all the time. That isn't true, I've often had player's play characters I've considered "Lawful" who followed their own set of "rules" much like a Tyrant or Megalomaniac. Of course now it would appear I've gone and started an Alignment debate here so let's not go there.
Good is doing the right thing all the time. However, Lawful means that you have rules that you stick to, whether personal or imposed by superiors. I know that much.
I just wasn't sure if lawful characters could be insane and still be lawful. Zon-Kuthon still doesn't make sense to me, but okay.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to count.
For one thing, psychosis automatically turns your character chaotic evil.
What I meant was, could a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil person reach a point where they could be considered "completely and totally nuts" while still remaining Lawful?
Then that would suggest that, no, you can't be psychotic and be anything other than Chaotic Evil, yeah?
Taking your clarification to the initial question, though... depending on the type of insanity, yes, you can remain lawful. I suspect the types of insanity you're talking about would not work well with lawful alignments though.
Well, from a purely realistic view point, I would say that hell yes you can be crazy while still being lawful. Just look at history.
I don't know about in game, though. That kind of derangement may be difficult to quantify with the mechanics of a game like this(and an alignment system)...
IQuarent, not an answer to your question, but I wanted to point out that there is still a country named Andorra. It's a wee one in the Pyrenees Mountains between France and Spain. I know nothing about the Punic Wars, but I am sure the name is no coincidence.
|
|
As a horror fan, what do you think about the modern creepypasta trend or similar things like Candle Cove, Slender Man or Smile Dog?Posting IANJ walls of text and then appending a question for me at the end is kinda frustrating, since when I hit reply, the site truncates the wall of text, which forces me to go back to your original question and copy/paste it into the quote manually, which when I'm trying to answer a bunch of questions kinda breaks the flow of my question answering flow.
And that's on top of the fact that I'd rather keep this thread to questions and answers, not discussions.
I apologize for this. I will avoid doing so in the future. Thanks for setting me straight.
Now. Finally getting to your question...
I think that as with all horror, creepypasta has a huge range of quality, with some of it being quite excellent but most of it being dreck. Overall, I love the fact that it exists.
Cool.
Are there any Lawful Insane characters on Golarion, other than Zon-Kuthon and Kazavon?
Come to think of it, what exactly makes them Lawful, as opposed to Neutral or Chaotic Evil?
Why Bokrug?
I'm not attacking you or anyone for including him along with Cthulhu and Hastur, but I am curious as to why he was chosen and not an avatar of Nyarlahotep or something more "alien". Since he just looks like a giant threatening monster, he seems really out of place with the other two.
I dunno, somehow "The Water Lizard" just doesn't have a terrifying ring to it.
This is absolutely how I would divide it.Actually, the Craft might be the portrait painter, and profession might be the professional. I'm just used to putting blue collar work into Craft and white collar into Profession. But Artist painters create objects, and professionals cover and recover existing items.
Could be either interpretation I guess.
==Aelryinth
I always made the distinction between Craft (painting) and Profession (artist) to be: Craft is the skill you use to create a particular work. Profession is how well you are at getting clients/patrons, managing you studio and/or apprentices, buying paint & materials, and (most importantly) selling your work. My example is: Vincent Van Gogh Had a very high Craft (painting) skill and a low Profession (artist) skill. Andy Warhol had an OK Craft (painting) skill and a very high Profession (artist) skill.
Am I in the right ballpark there?
Haladir, (hope I'm not bugging JJ)
From my perspective, not really. You're basically talking Charisma scores and self-promotion (diplomacy and bluff checks). van Gogh had a huge Int mod and no Cha to speak of, and didn't invest much in ranks. Warhol was a famous schmoozer.
The house painter is a professional painter, so profession (painter). He just does it as a living. Paint the wall, paint the cart, schlock the cabinets, etc. He's more like a scribe using a big brush.
The Artist is a Craft (painter) who makes specific works of art, just like a jeweler does with gems. Landscapes, portraits, illustrations, etc. His analogues are sculptors, woodcarvers, jewelers, and so forth. It' sounds funny to call them a Craftsman, but that's what they are doing...making specific items, although its art instead of tools or finished products.
Should there be a charisma factor in the price? Yeah. There used to be a feat in 3.5 that made your items 'artistic' and upped the sale price for them, but I don't remember what it was. Maybe JJ knows some rules for being 'avant-garde' in your crafting.
==Aelryinth
Hey JJ, have you seen this infograph on lake monsters of the US?
|
Creative Director
|
Then that would suggest that, no, you can't be psychotic and be anything other than Chaotic Evil, yeah?Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to count.
For one thing, psychosis automatically turns your character chaotic evil.
What I meant was, could a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil person reach a point where they could be considered "completely and totally nuts" while still remaining Lawful?
To draw an example from a different RPG series, The Elder Scrolls, in Shivering Isles (the Oblivion expansion) you come up against Jyggalag, the Prince of Order. He's so obsessed with Order that he wants everything to be structured, regimented, predictable, "perfect" and the like, to the point where one could argue that he has a kind of insanity himself, an OCD taken to (literally) godlike degrees. He is, after all, an expression of order, like "law/logic given form" to describe it that way.
Would that kind of a "psychosis" function as a Lawful Neutral character under Pathfinder terms? It's obsession with Law to such a "pure" extent that it goes well past the line of reasonability.
Again... in Pathfinder (as in real life), the word "psychosis" means something specific. The obsession you describe is not psychosis.
|
Creative Director
|
Is there ever a time except in rare cases where a petitioner or outsider will remember their mortal life if they came from a mortal soul?
For good aligned petitioners are they allowed to travel to other good planes?
I ask because many real world religious concept throughout history have people being reunited with friends and loved ones in the afterlife, but for some fantasy RPG settings, like Golarion, this doesn't seem to be the case. Does this mean if a person is a slightly different alignment from friends and loved ones they will never see them again once they are dead? Even for the ones with the same alignment since most of them lose their moral memories does that mean they can pass right by somebody that was their parent/spouse/child/close friend and never even get a chance to know whom they are or is there some mechanism in Golarion's setting that will allow them to meet and recognize each other despite that?
Rare cases only. Subject to the storyteller's whim, essentially. The "Meeting up with loved ones in the afterlife" works if you meet them in the Boneyard, but if you go after them after they're judged, you'll have your work cut out for you if you want to find out what petitioner they became and then try to get them to remember their past life. It's not impossible, but it's not a story we've told yet.
|
Creative Director
|
I was doing a little research on the punic war and noticed the one of the regions fought over in northern Spain was called 'Andorra'. Is this the basis of the name Andoran?
As far as I know, nope. Coincidence. Erik was the one who named Andoran, I believe, though, so he'd know for sure.
|
Creative Director
|
Why are 80% of Recruitment threads for Kingmaker? I'm getting a little tired seeing that name over and over and over and over and over... [repeat ad nauseam] ...over again.
I'd like to play some Runelords, but that doesn't seem to be a thing that's happening.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with "recruitment threads." Play-by-post games? In any event, Kingmaker's pretty popular.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any Lawful Insane characters on Golarion, other than Zon-Kuthon and Kazavon?
Come to think of it, what exactly makes them Lawful, as opposed to Neutral or Chaotic Evil?
Absolutely. There's as many as there needs to be.
What makes them lawful is their behavior.
Over-analysis of alignments only leads to insanity too, by the way.
|
Creative Director
|
Why Bokrug?
I'm not attacking you or anyone for including him along with Cthulhu and Hastur, but I am curious as to why he was chosen and not an avatar of Nyarlahotep or something more "alien". Since he just looks like a giant threatening monster, he seems really out of place with the other two.
I dunno, somehow "The Water Lizard" just doesn't have a terrifying ring to it.
1) Because I've always liked Bokrug.
2) Because Nyarlathotep is an outer god, and the inclusion of "avatars" is a different concept we're not ready to address, and he isn't a Great Old One anyway so he'd make no sense to be in that position.
3) Bokrug is, like Cthulhu and Hastur, in the public domain. We have 3 other Great Old Ones we made up for Golarion, but I'd rather detail them in a Golarion book rather than a world-neutral book.
4) Because he's different than giant Cthulhu or alien Hastur. The three we included do a great job at showing the width and breadth of the Great Old One "category."