Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Does Paizo have any interest in a "Book of Good" of sorts?


Paizo Products

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Cheliax

KaeYoss wrote:
Jadeite wrote:


I'd prefer the equivalent of the Book of the Damned for nonevil outsiders instead of a generic good guy book. A bit more conflict between them certainly would not hurt. Not Blood War level, but working against each other. They seem a bit to uniform otherwise.

That's because they're good. They mostly work together. They might have some disagreements, but they probably prefer to work against evil before they work against each other.

Plus, there are the angels. They are good. Any good. They span the ethic alignments. There are LG, NG and CG angels, and they work together with other good-aligned outsiders.

Boring.

Also, good outsiders hindering each other would also help to explain why heroes are needed when there are legions of angels out there.
Only agathions are purely good, azata and archons have other agenda as well and are closer to proteans and inevitables.
Most democratic parties have pretty similar goals (goals, that could be considered good) and still use much energy to work against each other.
It could be argued that the agathions and angels work to mitigate those differences in the same way that the daemons work to strengthen them, but the good outsiders need more profile, otherwise having four types of them is rather redundant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Aren't Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Balance "good guy books"? Or do I not understand the question?

Cheliax

Ringtail wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
The Book of Exalted Deeds was horrible.
Lies.

Care to elaborate how ravages were not an incredibly stupid idea? And that's only an example, the book is full of such stuff like the mindrape spell with the good descriptor.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ringtail wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
The Book of Exalted Deeds was horrible.
Lies.

Yeah, I'm sure somewhere in that book they said it was okay to lie to Evil people too.


Jadeite wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
The Book of Exalted Deeds was horrible.
Lies.
Care to elaborate how ravages were not an incredibly stupid idea? And that's only an example, the book is full of such stuff like the mindrape spell with the good descriptor.

I don't think that everything in the book was great, but, like its counterpart (the BoVD) I feel the BoED was far from horrible. Ravages and afflictions were a flavor thing; some groups liked them, some didn't, and some will use them in the same manner my group has, which is to just treat them in all ways as a handful of new poisons and diseases. Many of the feats in the book were pretty nifty around the 3.X era (ranged smite evil, getting a lantern archon as as familiar, and intuitive attack come to mind, among others). With few exceptions I rather enjoyed the vast majority of the spells and prestige classes within it, and the small bestiary at the back along with all of the flavor on the celestial planes and their rulers came in really handy in several campaigns. BoED is one of the 3.X supplements that I still use on a regular basis in my 3.5 games. Of course, just like every other supplemental book, everything should be allowed (or not) on a case by case basis after careful examination.

Cheliax

Well, Book of Vile Darkness was horrible, too, but for different reasons. While BoVD was mostly stupid and immature, BoED was evil (in a 'waterboarding isn't torture' sense). Yes, both had some useful parts like stats for critters, but both failed in being mature books on the subject of good and evil.


Jadeite wrote:
Well, Book of Vile Darkness was horrible, too, but for different reasons. While BoVD was mostly stupid and immature, BoED was evil (in a 'waterboarding isn't torture' sense). Yes, both had some useful parts like stats for critters, but both failed in being mature books on the subject of good and evil.

Morality is subjective; I eschew the alignment system in my 3.5 games- and I was more concerned with the flavor of creatures and the balance mechanical choices offered. The BoED exceeded my expectations of it, and while it is by no means perfect, for the purposes I've used it for, it has performed well. BoVD, far less so (I've mostly just used it as a small, supplemental monster manual, occasionally drawing on a single prestige class, feat, or spell), but again far from horrible.


KaeYoss wrote:


Because the Erinyes are classics. The fallen angel theme is right there in the bible.

The risen devil isn't as classic.

There isn't anything much in the books of the damned about general fallen angels - Erinyes don't count, because they're a type of devil in their own right.

In the book of the damned, Erinyes are almost exclusivly Fallen Angels. While it's possible for them to be risen from Lemures, they mostly come from the host of fallen angels.

And if you really want to argue biblical depictions of angels, then that allows for a whole slew of freaky and cool appearances, not just the "Terrible Beauty" that was made popular during Renaissance painting.

Indeed, ancient depiction of Angels and Angel like beings was eldritch like.

And I'll fully concede that redeemed devils is of-beat and uncommon, but why should Evil have a sole monopoly on conversion? Redemption is a very common theme for good, so defections to one side or another should be something that both employ.


Valda Argead'Croi wrote:
I like the idea that celestial beings can be just as alien and cold and terrible as fiendish ones. Angels (or archons) of less nice things like blades or natural disasters, would be traditional and interesting. I've heard good things about Sean Reynold's Anger of Angels, but I haven't read it, so I've no idea if it covers this sort of thing.

One of the more interesting takes on that is in the old Gord the Rogue novels (regardless of whether anyone likes or dislikes them, I find this point interesting) ... when a Solar is summoned at one point, it reluctantly aids the summoner against evil, but is displeased because the summoners "stink of evil".

What that makes me think of is a sort of "perspective vision" that outsiders have about alignments. In absolute terms, "Neutral" may be centered between one or another pair.. but to the outsiders themselves, Neutral may seem "closer" to the other side even if it is not.

Likewise, mortals may never quite measure up to the standards of the more militant outsiders.. never being extreme enough to meet the standards of the living embodiment of that quality.


deinol wrote:
Aren't Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Balance "good guy books"? Or do I not understand the question?

Not in the sense that they enable new abilities to smack down evil opponents, or server Celestial entities.

The "Faiths of.." series is about how the religion works for non-Clerics in the campaign world. There are some religion-specific traits, spells, and feats (1-2 per deity on average, based on Faiths of Purity), but not the kind of arsenal that the OP is seeking. The forthcoming "Faiths of Corruption" kind of evens it out, too.. one for Good, one for Evil, and one for the people playing both against each other.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Urath DM wrote:
Likewise, mortals may never quite measure up to the standards of the more militant outsiders.. never being extreme enough to meet the standards of the living embodiment of that quality.

Ever had an OBIED hit your temple before? Nasty experience.

Taldor

Ringtail wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
The Book of Exalted Deeds was horrible.
Lies.

Truth. It was worse then Book of Vile Darkness, which was pretty bad by itself anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Urath DM wrote:
Not in the sense that they enable new abilities to smack down evil opponents, or server Celestial entities.

You mean like the Paladin Oaths or the section on binding outsiders in Ultimate Magic? Or the archetypes and other goodies in the Advanced Player's Guide? Smacking down evil has never been easier.

Certainly I wouldn't mind a Book of the Damned style book describing the greater powers of the celestial planes. I just don't think Pathfinder is lacking that much in super heroic options.


deinol wrote:
Urath DM wrote:
Not in the sense that they enable new abilities to smack down evil opponents, or server Celestial entities.

You mean like the Paladin Oaths or the section on binding outsiders in Ultimate Magic? Or the archetypes and other goodies in the Advanced Player's Guide? Smacking down evil has never been easier.

Certainly I wouldn't mind a Book of the Damned style book describing the greater powers of the celestial planes. I just don't think Pathfinder is lacking that much in super heroic options.

The binding outsiders material applies pretty evenly to all types of outsiders.

I am not saying *I* feel any lack.... though a book or two on the Celestials would be nice, I agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bah. Good and evil, good and evil, good and evil. ENOUGH!

We need the Book of Working Together for Harmonious Victory and the Book of Losing Miserably Because Everybody Just Does Whatever He Wants.

Well, you know, with catchier titles.

Taldor

I HATE it as a GM when players refuse to work together and BS that "That is what my character would do"...RPG is a cooperative venture. Not a solofest of several players...


Jadeite wrote:


Also, good outsiders hindering each other would also help to explain why heroes are needed when there are legions of angels out there.

So if they only hinder each other, why are they even there? They're not doing any good apparently.

Plus, this "there are so many powerful good guys out there, why do you need heroes? We can stop playing this game right now" thing wasn't even good the first time, when it hadn't been made much worse by endless repetition. :P


Jeranimus Rex wrote:


In the book of the damned, Erinyes are almost exclusivly Fallen Angels. While it's possible for them to be risen from Lemures, they mostly come from the host of fallen angels.

Not the point, really. Even though 99% or so were once fallen angels, they're devils now. A very specific and unique type of devil - furies with magic ropes that have a chance to summon 2 bearded devils.

They're not "take a good outsider of your choice and add this template" fiends.

The Book of the Damned doesn't really have a section about what happens when an angel succumbs to temptation.

Jeranimus Rex wrote:


And if you really want to argue biblical depictions of angels, then that allows for a whole slew of freaky and cool appearances, not just the "Terrible Beauty" that was made popular during Renaissance painting.

None of the old angels was really going for "ugly", though. "Bizarre", yes, but no Beauty and the Beast in there.

Jeranimus Rex wrote:


And I'll fully concede that redeemed devils is of-beat and uncommon, but why should Evil have a sole monopoly on conversion? Redemption is a very common theme for good, so defections to one side or another should be something that both employ.

As I said: The Books of the Damned don't really contain that much info about fallen celestials. There are the Erinyes, but they're their own type of devil, not merely a template to slap on existing celestials.

There is no classic "redeemed fiend" type of celestial in the game, at least none I know of.

Cheliax

KaeYoss wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Khar-Selim wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Good you say? Ok not as interesting as evil of course. But yeah well I guess I can see it more good thi.... *zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*
Hello, we are the Shades of Grey.
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Apathy. :)

So much more boring than evil or chaos.

I hate these filthy Neutrals, Dark_Mistress. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

This is a rare and momentous event (the second time in four years or so, I think?), but I have to say I ag... uh... agr... er, AGREE with you. There. Did it!

Anyway, Evil is far, far, FAR more interesting than Good or Neutral -- I cannot fathom why someone would want a book for *Good* characters? I'm already sickened by these 'Faiths of X' books, I mean, who in their right mind would play Good clerics or paladins? Antipaladin or cleric of Asmodeus... Hell Yeah! Wimpy clerics of Sarenrae or Iomedae? C'mon! ;P


KaeYoss wrote:

As I said: The Books of the Damned don't really contain that much info about fallen celestials. There are the Erinyes, but they're their own type of devil, not merely a template to slap on existing celestials.

There is no classic "redeemed fiend" type of celestial in the game, at least none I know of.

Alright, I understand now. It's true there isn't a lot of stuff on what happens when a Solar Decides to work for Asmodeus, or if Barbazu every once in a while decide it's better to be in the service of the Dawnflower.

But having a set of guidelines and stuff for that would be cool, in my opinion. Allows for folks who want to sprinkle in certain elements of unexpected variety in their games.

And I guess my choice of words was poor on the whole "ugly" celestials thing. Bizarre appearances would be great, things that don't wholly mimic idealized aspects of the human form, or just look weird.

@Asgetrion: In one of the AP(I think) Fluff sections it's mentioned that Asmodeus is able to have LG paladins in his service, folks who attempt to reform the tennants of his church and focus more on the law aspects of his domains.


Asgetrion wrote:
Antipaladin or cleric of Asmodeus... Hell Yeah!

No antipaladins of Asmodeus. Those guys need to be chaotic evil.

Taldor

KaeYoss wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Antipaladin or cleric of Asmodeus... Hell Yeah!
No antipaladins of Asmodeus. Those guys need to be chaotic evil.

I find that ridiculous...antipaladins are LE in my games and can summon devils not demons...


Hama wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Antipaladin or cleric of Asmodeus... Hell Yeah!
No antipaladins of Asmodeus. Those guys need to be chaotic evil.
I find that ridiculous...antipaladins are LE in my games and can summon devils not demons...

Find it what you will, it's the rules. And those devil guys really need those rules. They'd suffocate if that guilty voice in their head wouldn't tell them to keep breathing in and out.

Cheliax

KaeYoss wrote:
Hama wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Antipaladin or cleric of Asmodeus... Hell Yeah!
No antipaladins of Asmodeus. Those guys need to be chaotic evil.
I find that ridiculous...antipaladins are LE in my games and can summon devils not demons...
Find it what you will, it's the rules. And those devil guys really need those rules. They'd suffocate if that guilty voice in their head wouldn't tell them to keep breathing in and out.

BAH! Don't even dare to tell me you never bumped into that crowd while you were still living over here? Yeah, yeah, *technically* must be CE, but Asmodeans are not governed by these silly game rules, are we? I break the rules all the time! ;P

Cheliax

Jeranimus Rex wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

As I said: The Books of the Damned don't really contain that much info about fallen celestials. There are the Erinyes, but they're their own type of devil, not merely a template to slap on existing celestials.

There is no classic "redeemed fiend" type of celestial in the game, at least none I know of.

Alright, I understand now. It's true there isn't a lot of stuff on what happens when a Solar Decides to work for Asmodeus, or if Barbazu every once in a while decide it's better to be in the service of the Dawnflower.

But having a set of guidelines and stuff for that would be cool, in my opinion. Allows for folks who want to sprinkle in certain elements of unexpected variety in their games.

And I guess my choice of words was poor on the whole "ugly" celestials thing. Bizarre appearances would be great, things that don't wholly mimic idealized aspects of the human form, or just look weird.

@Asgetrion: In one of the AP(I think) Fluff sections it's mentioned that Asmodeus is able to have LG paladins in his service, folks who attempt to reform the tennants of his church and focus more on the law aspects of his domains.

Paladins? Oh, yeah, those poor guys that KaeYoss and me used to torment daily... we call them "Losers-with-a-Capital-L" here in Cheliax. You don't want to know the name by which they're known within the ranks of the Asmodeans.

And just for the record, they're even *more* boring than your typical LG schmucks. Reforming the principles and tenets of our glorious faith? Reforming my big, hairy dwarven a**! ;P

Taldor

KaeYoss wrote:
Hama wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Antipaladin or cleric of Asmodeus... Hell Yeah!
No antipaladins of Asmodeus. Those guys need to be chaotic evil.
I find that ridiculous...antipaladins are LE in my games and can summon devils not demons...
Find it what you will, it's the rules. And those devil guys really need those rules. They'd suffocate if that guilty voice in their head wouldn't tell them to keep breathing in and out.

Well, thankfully, unless i am playing or running PFS, i can change that...


Asgetrion wrote:


BAH! Don't even dare to tell me you never bumped into that crowd while you were still living over here? Yeah, yeah, *technically* must be CE, but Asmodeans are not governed by these silly game rules, are we? I break the rules all the time! ;P

Bwahahahaha! Those Lamashtans pass themselves off as Asmodeans and you fall for it hook, line and sinker! Their pantacles are painted on. You don't want to know what with. You can guess, though - they're Lamashtans, after all.


I would only appreciate this if they did the same for Law and Chaos, as well as good and evil. I'm tired of the same old 'good vs evil' tropes. Law and Chaos were the FIRST divisions in alignment in roleplaying games, not good and evil; good and evil were subsumed by them because the gods of chaos were wicked and monstrous and the gods of order were kindly. After reading Louise Coopers' lovely Time's Master trilogy, she redefined the entire law vs chaos=good vs evil trope and turned it on its head, making the gods of chaos kinder, more empathetic, and downright cooler to hang with than the gods of order.

And face it, without order and chaos in the mixture, good and evil is so overdone there isn't anything you can do that hasn't been done a trillion times before, not to mention making it the usual morality play that gives all of the ethics trolls hours of fun on hundreds of message-boards and forums. But Law and Chaos are filled with every shade of grey there is just from the start, because you have so many varieties if both. Tainted by the slightest bit of good or evil, either one changes it's objectives, goals, and point of view entirely.

So, only if they do Law and Chaos first. Lets see them take on a real challenge.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

I for one await the "Book of Shrugged Indifference" with bated breath.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I for one await the "Book of Shrugged Indifference" with bated breath.

You're not allowed to do that. You must await it with - wait for it - shrugged indifference. Unless you're doing it "ironically". Then you must get it quickly, before it becomes mainstream. In fact, you must get the "Book of Casual Apathy" and tell people they've probably never heard of it.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I for one await the "Book of Shrugged Indifference" with bated breath.
You're not allowed to do that. You must await it with - wait for it - shrugged indifference. Unless you're doing it "ironically". Then you must get it quickly, before it becomes mainstream. In fact, you must get the "Book of Casual Apathy" and tell people they've probably never heard of it.

I have that. I've heard it's good, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.


gbonehead wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I for one await the "Book of Shrugged Indifference" with bated breath.
You're not allowed to do that. You must await it with - wait for it - shrugged indifference. Unless you're doing it "ironically". Then you must get it quickly, before it becomes mainstream. In fact, you must get the "Book of Casual Apathy" and tell people they've probably never heard of it.
I have that. I've heard it's good, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

Dispassionate Watchers of Chronepsis were doing it before it became popular.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
I guess they might have a little bit about risen evil outsiders, but not much.

Technically, Ragathiel fits the bill if PathfinderWiki is accurate. Kobold Quarterly's Adriel, Angel of Hope has a number of shining examples of this concept in her employ as well.

There's even an explicit mention of risen fiends in a sidebar in Classic Horrors noting the difference between fiends and intelligent undead as opposed to unintelligent undead.

KaeYoss wrote:
Jeranimus Rex wrote:


And more ugly looking Good Outsiders would be great too.

Nah, it wouldn't. Why would they be ugly? While it isn't true that ugly = evil and pretty = good, pretty usually helps.

Different strokes, but I'd love to see more examples of ugly good creatures, or dark and good creatures, or frightening and good creatures, or bizarre and alien good creatures. Being pretty shouldn't be a requirement for good, and beauty is subjective anyway.

Valda Argead'Croi wrote:

[tangent] The character in the profile was 'saved' by a 'clockwork angel' that replaced her damaged heart with one made of metal, that gave her a unique perspective on things (causing her to lose the ability to love, for instance). [/tangent]

Kind of reminds me of those awesome Chaotic Good hive-mind creatures from Lords of Madness, who would approach people and offer to do potentially horrifying body modifications on them if they were cool with it. They're just trying ot help! :)

deinol wrote:

You mean like the Paladin Oaths or the section on binding outsiders in Ultimate Magic? Or the archetypes and other goodies in the Advanced Player's Guide? Smacking down evil has never been easier.

That helps the classes that already have those options, but not fighters, monks, etc. And there's still stuff like not having any good-aligned ki-powers for Qinggong Monks even though there are evil ones, for some reason.

Still, very hopeful for that celestial totem barbarian.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

That is, something that offers heavily good-flavored options for all classes, rather than just the divine classes.

Stuff like good-aligned Qinggong ki powers*, heavily good flavored martial arts feats*, holy barbarian archetypes, celestial-bonded summoners, and so forth.

Basically a book that supports Super-Good characters of all classes.

*I know I keep asking about these, but it really would be nice to have those as official options considering there are currently none while there are evil options already in the game.

Personally I don't think we need more than an errata of those things like the crow strike which shouldn't be aligned at all. Last thing I want is a reprise of that infamous WOTC 2-set. Quite frankly we can use a rest after Ultimate Combat. Good and Evil should be more in the actions themselves than the tools.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


Personally I don't think we need more than an errata of those things like the crow strike which shouldn't be aligned at all. Last thing I want is a reprise of that infamous WOTC 2-set. Quite frankly we can use a rest after Ultimate Combat. Good and Evil should be more in the actions themselves than the tools.

Such a book doesn't have to be a reprise of that set. And a characters goodness should be dependant on their actions, this is also a game where (LG only) paladins and most casters have numerous mechanically supported options that stress good/celestial flavor, while others, mostly martial characters, have none. It would be nice to have options for those classes for characters that are meant to be as much of a shining example of good as (well played) paladin.

Though I agree that BCS never should have been aligned at all as it's written.

Osirion

I'm increasingly of the mind that we don't necessarily need more good vs. evil stuff, but could benefit from exploring the law vs. chaos angle. Replacing the 'Blood War' with a monumental eternal conflict between creatures of chaos attempting to destabilize reality back to its primal malleable state, and creatures of law attempting to expand the boundaries of static reality, and 'push back' or 'tame' the Maelstrom could be pretty epic. Axis becomes like (parts of) Holland, built on dry land seized from the relentless primal chaos of the ocean, and always at risk of being reclaimed by her fury.

Faiths of Purity, Balance and Corruption could as easily have been Faiths of Order, Balance and Freedom, covering the lawful, ethically neutral and chaotic gods, but it seems the default position is to focus on the good vs. evil perspective, over the law vs. chaos one.

The Godclaw, on Golarion, is a cool example of such a division, with evil, good and neutral gods of Law working together on a project.

On the other hand, an organization of chaotic gods seems a little less intuitive, despite the already-extent friendship (and sometimes more?) between Cayden Cailean, Desna and Calistria. Rovagug certainly isn't a 'joiner,' but it could be fascinating what sort of threat to freedom and individuality could put Lamashtu and Desna on the same team, however temporarily...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Well, Ultimate Combat came out and from what those who have it already are saying it only has good/holy options for the Rogue.

So...still would very much love to see a book like this.


Ringtail wrote:
Jadeite wrote:
Well, Book of Vile Darkness was horrible, too, but for different reasons. While BoVD was mostly stupid and immature, BoED was evil (in a 'waterboarding isn't torture' sense). Yes, both had some useful parts like stats for critters, but both failed in being mature books on the subject of good and evil.
Morality is subjective; I eschew the alignment system in my 3.5 games- and I was more concerned with the flavor of creatures and the balance mechanical choices offered. The BoED exceeded my expectations of it, and while it is by no means perfect, for the purposes I've used it for, it has performed well. BoVD, far less so (I've mostly just used it as a small, supplemental monster manual, occasionally drawing on a single prestige class, feat, or spell), but again far from horrible.

Balanced mechanical choices? This is the same book that brought us stuff like the Ur-Priest, which grants 9th level clerical spellcasting over 10 class levels, among other things.

I can't help but wonder what you consider a horrible book, if the Bo*Ds don't qualify. I mean, I can't think of a single book in all of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder that trumps either of them in terms of raw suck; and that includes the Complete Warrior which was full of more good options for spellcasters and NPCs than warriors.

Shadow Lodge

Ultimate Lawful Stupid ?


Ashiel wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Morality is subjective; I eschew the alignment system in my 3.5 games- and I was more concerned with the flavor of creatures and the balance mechanical choices offered. The BoED exceeded my expectations of it, and while it is by no means perfect, for the purposes I've used it for, it has performed well. BoVD, far less so (I've mostly just used it as a small, supplemental monster manual, occasionally drawing on a single prestige class, feat, or spell), but again far from horrible.

Balanced mechanical choices? This is the same book that brought us stuff like the Ur-Priest, which grants 9th level clerical spellcasting over 10 class levels, among other things.

I can't help but wonder what you consider a horrible book, if the Bo*Ds don't qualify. I mean, I can't think of a single book in all of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder that trumps either of them in terms of raw suck; and that includes the Complete Warrior which was full of more good options for spellcasters and NPCs than warriors.

Ur-Priest was from Complete Divine. And Complete Psionic was the worst book put out by WotC; some of the abilities were easily abuseable, and others were literally unusable.

Cheliax

James Jacobs wrote:

No one at Paizo, as far as I know, "keeps shooting down" good guy books. In fact, I think that a book about holy crusaders or paladins or Empyreal Lords or something like that would be pretty cool.

Thing is that we've generally got a year's worth of books planned out at any one time, so once we hear folks start asking for a type of book, it's often more than a year before we can really react to such requests. Or longer, in the case of books that have fewer products each year.

Empyreal Lords, pretty please. Seriously.

And given a certain "evil AP" recent success, having more goody-goody stuff to throw at the PCs as opponents (for once!) would be an added bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, enjoyed BoED. I always find it interesting to get a deeper analysis of game elements and their fleshed out description of good and exalted made me very happy. I read that section several times in fact. My enjoyment of the book wasn't limited to fluffy stuff though, I was thoroughly impressed by the multitude of options for good characters. Sure they weren't all balanced, but no 3.5 book ever is (lest it risk being boring). The good aligned poisons and diseases were a stretch, but I am not torn up about it.


Yeah, I like BoED too. I found the classes and the added creatures very interesting(I'm still waiting for a PF equivalent to the Ursinal). I don't know why, but radiating holy power from every pore in your body just sounds cool to me. I'd like to hear more about the Empyreal Lords too.


Mikaze wrote:
Jeranimus Rex wrote:

Well, as an aside: Hadoken always had the evil discriptor, comes from the same power the Akuma taps into that turns him into a demon by allowing it to consume him.

The thing about Ryu and Goken (That's his teacher right?) Is that this use this evil power either for personal perfection, (Ryu) or in his ever-lasting struggle against Akuma (Goken).

At least that what I remember last time I checked Street Fighter Lore, lord knows that isn't supper consistent.

I'm really using "hadoken" as a catch all term for what it seems almost everyone does in those games(and others!). :)

IIRC, it's generally just defined as a ranged blast of chi/ki across the board, and the Akuma/Evil Ryu stuff was mostly related to them being addicted to fightin' all the time. There's still everyone else that has the same general form of attack, from Chun-li to Terry Bogard to Liu Kang to Megaman(?!).

(Gouken was the teacher, who finally appeared for the first time in SF4 after apparently being in a coma since before the first game. Gouki was the original Japanese name for Akuma. It gets confusing...but yeah, SF was never big on making sense anyway. ;) )

the dark hadou is evil. Not the regular one.


Distant Scholar wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
Morality is subjective; I eschew the alignment system in my 3.5 games- and I was more concerned with the flavor of creatures and the balance mechanical choices offered. The BoED exceeded my expectations of it, and while it is by no means perfect, for the purposes I've used it for, it has performed well. BoVD, far less so (I've mostly just used it as a small, supplemental monster manual, occasionally drawing on a single prestige class, feat, or spell), but again far from horrible.

Balanced mechanical choices? This is the same book that brought us stuff like the Ur-Priest, which grants 9th level clerical spellcasting over 10 class levels, among other things.

I can't help but wonder what you consider a horrible book, if the Bo*Ds don't qualify. I mean, I can't think of a single book in all of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder that trumps either of them in terms of raw suck; and that includes the Complete Warrior which was full of more good options for spellcasters and NPCs than warriors.

Ur-Priest was from Complete Divine. And Complete Psionic was the worst book put out by WotC; some of the abilities were easily abuseable, and others were literally unusable.

Actually it (Ur-Priest) is from the Book of Vile Darkness. Feel free to check it out yourself, page 72. Book of Vile Darkness was one of the last 3.0 books published after the Hasbro merger and predates 3.5. Likewise, the Shugenja, also found in Complete Divine, is from the 3.0 Oriental Adventures Guide, as is the Taint rules which show up again in Heroes of Horror. EDIT: Incidentally, the 3.0 Samurai, while fairly mundane in appearance (effectively being a fighter with a better will save, slightly fewer bonus feats, and self-enhancing weapons) was better than the 3.5 Samurai in the Complete Warrior (simply because Complete Warrior samurai is a notorious failure, while at least the OA Samurai was a fighter with a decent will save).

However, as an avid fan of 3.5 psionics, I must say...touche. I had forgotten about Complete Psionics like a repressed memory. How about we meet in the middle and call it a draw? The fluff and guides in Bo*Ds are the worst WotC ever put out and is an insult to the humanity itself, and the complete psionic has the worst mechanical material and is an insult to fans of psionics? σ_σ


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ATron9000 wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Jeranimus Rex wrote:

Well, as an aside: Hadoken always had the evil discriptor, comes from the same power the Akuma taps into that turns him into a demon by allowing it to consume him.

The thing about Ryu and Goken (That's his teacher right?) Is that this use this evil power either for personal perfection, (Ryu) or in his ever-lasting struggle against Akuma (Goken).

At least that what I remember last time I checked Street Fighter Lore, lord knows that isn't supper consistent.

I'm really using "hadoken" as a catch all term for what it seems almost everyone does in those games(and others!). :)

IIRC, it's generally just defined as a ranged blast of chi/ki across the board, and the Akuma/Evil Ryu stuff was mostly related to them being addicted to fightin' all the time. There's still everyone else that has the same general form of attack, from Chun-li to Terry Bogard to Liu Kang to Megaman(?!).

(Gouken was the teacher, who finally appeared for the first time in SF4 after apparently being in a coma since before the first game. Gouki was the original Japanese name for Akuma. It gets confusing...but yeah, SF was never big on making sense anyway. ;) )

the dark hadou is evil. Not the regular one.

Isn't the "dark hadou" actually what it's called when you give in to your dark aspect, as Gouki does, which corrupts the hadou? I'm a long time street fighter fan myself, but I've been out of the loop a bit on a lot of the Ryu/Akuma struggles. I just remember loving the heck out of Dark Ryu in Street Fighter Alpha. <3

In a similar vein, Mace Windu in Star Wars practices lightsaber form VII, Vaapad, which is a dangerous style because it literally requires you to give in to the dark side without being corrupted by it. In essence, you enjoy the fight, while maintaining your control over it through self discipline. It's a very, very powerful lightsaber form, and very aggressive. Essentially it is like taking all the rage and guiding it with a discipline peaceful mind.

Unfortunately, I know at least one of Mace's apprentices couldn't handle it and cracked, going dark-sided because of it. Seems to me like both things are kind of similar, and are metaphors for our own spirits.


Yea. My point was that a hadoken is not evil.

Andoran

My mental response:

Mikaze wrote:

That is, something that offers heavily good-flavored options for all classes, rather than just the divine classes.

Stuff like good-aligned Qinggong ki powers*, heavily good flavored martial arts feats*...

Mhmm... I guess those could be fun....

Mikaze wrote:
holy barbarian archetypes

HOLY CRAP DO WANT, DO WANT


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Austin Morgan wrote:

My mental response:

Mikaze wrote:

That is, something that offers heavily good-flavored options for all classes, rather than just the divine classes.

Stuff like good-aligned Qinggong ki powers*, heavily good flavored martial arts feats*...

Mhmm... I guess those could be fun....

Mikaze wrote:
holy barbarian archetypes
HOLY CRAP DO WANT, DO WANT

I love Mikaze's posts, and I appreciate this idea, but I have to say that I'd rather see more roleplaying aids that don't involve gratuitous amount of hypocrisy, or mechanics for mechanics sake. I'd love to see stuff describing ways to play good barbarians, and perhaps books that provide more options for aligned characters in general.

For example, a barbarian rage power that allows them to tap into Chaotic, Good, Evil, or Lawful powers would be cool. Why not include options for all, and address more than one aspect? (Yes I did say Law, since you could model a barbarian variant similar to the Mace Windu and Vaapad example above, which combines rage and discipline).

You could make a nice little sourcebook. Maybe 128 pages, with 32 pages for choas, good, evil, and law, respectively.

The only problem I see is that this idea terrifies the hell out of me as a gamer. As a designer, it seems like a fun project. As a gamer, yeah, terrified. The last two alignment books we got in D&D are things I'd prefer to hide under a bed, in a sewer, undead a collapsed ruin, covered in 15 ft. of concrete, under a jungle, where people don't go because the mosquitoes carry plague or something. The problem with alignment books is they are always corrupted by the individual writer's own personal preferences, and it seems most people aren't able to put themselves in the shoes of others.

And, if we do get shinies for good or evil, then there's always someone else who is going to just take those shinies. I mean, they released a lot of stuff in the Book of Vile Darkness, and then mirrored most of it in the Book of Exalted Deeds, having said "Oh, this, this, this, and that is evil", and then going "That, this, this, and this is are just like those things but for good guys".

Which is why, honestly, if it were up to me (which it isn't, perhaps fortunately for Mikaze) I'd rather see less stuff that is strictly for good/evil/law/chaos, and rather see more material that everyone can use for good/evil/law/chaos. It's like a sword. It's not the sword that's good or evil, but the person behind it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

Well, I'd definitely want to see the moral dissonance of BoVD and BoED avoided like the plague. Unfortunately some of that seems to have snuck into the Oath Against _____ options in Ultimate Magic. :(

But right now I'd take anything that helped holy barbarians, holy monks, and so forth out. Right now it just feels like the evil-themed options outnumber the good(of which there are none to my knowledge) for those two classes in particular.

That and hopefully a book focusing on good could help Team Good break out of some of the stereotypes hoisted upon them, so we could get some ugly/alien/scary-looking celestials, a bit more focus on empathy, compassion, and redemption rather than just Knight Templar-ish "detect evil smite evil" behavior, and showing all the myriad forms and flavors good can come in across the law-chaos spectrum.

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Does Paizo have any interest in a "Book of Good" of sorts? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.