>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<

Material and focus components specifically say you must have a free hand to use them. Somatic says you can be holding an item but cannot be restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely. Does wielding a 2H weapon, or wielding two 1H weapons, count as being unable to gesture freely?

Go with your GM's preference.

Obligatory non-rules question: Is reading comprehension no longer taught in schools?

Let's not use the "thread rules" to justify snarky questions aimed at other posters, please.

I've seen you get asked this for Golarion a few times, but if you could be transported to a fictional world which isn't Golarion or any other RPG based setting, where would you pick to travel to, and where would you pick to permanently live in?

That'll be a different place if I'm asked on different days, but today's answer is the World of Two Moons (from Elfquest).

If you could snag the legal right to port any one alien race or group from Star Trek into Golarion, who would it be?

Assuming you're a Trekkie... if not, than from any major sci fi universe? Though leaving open that broad probably means you'd try to get the xenomorph on in. :)

I enjoy Star Trek quite a lot, but I don't identify as a Trekkie or a Trekker. But if I could, I'd go with the Gorn. No contest.

If not Star Trek, then the Shrike from the Hyperion Cantos.

Sporkedup wrote:

If you could snag the legal right to port any one alien race or group from Star Trek into Golarion, who would it be?

Assuming you're a Trekkie... if not, than from any major sci fi universe? Though leaving open that broad probably means you'd try to get the xenomorph on in. :)

I enjoy Star Trek quite a lot, but I don't identify as a Trekkie or a Trekker. But if I could, I'd go with the Gorn. No contest.

If not Star Trek, then the Shrike from the Hyperion Cantos.

Oh, good call on the Shrike! Been way too long since I read those books.

I have to ask, though, why the Gorn? Aren't they the awkward lizard-people species that gave Captain Kirk the greatest fight in cinematic history?

I have to ask, though, why the Gorn? Aren't they the awkward lizard-people species that gave Captain Kirk the greatest fight in cinematic history?

Because lizards are one of my favorite animals, and lizard people are cool, and the Gorn was one of the few humanoid aliens on the original Star Trek that actually didn't look human, and because that episode is so glorious, and because they haven't really had much done with them since, so they've remained somewhat mysterious.

And because that episode is one of my favorites across all Star Trek shows/movies ever.

The question is: Does losing your Dex bonus to AC mean you lose your Dex modifier which is factored into the CMD.

And as a side Question: does losing your Dex bonus to AC mean you lose ALL dodge bonuses (not only the one from the Dodge feat which explicitly states that you lose the benefits of that feat if you lose your Dex bonus to AC)

my DM has the opinion blinded creatures do not lose their dex-bonus on cmd, because it is no penalty. is he right? he said: "...If it would apply in this case why are there multiple special rules which explicitly address the case where you lose your Dodge bonus to AC and in addition something applies which should be the normal rule in your interpretation.

For instance flat footed which explicitly mentions Dex bonus to CMD and the Dodge Feet which explicitly mentions that you lose the benefits from the Feat (1 Dodge bonus) when you lose Dex to AC.

Not the way I see it, penalties are clearly described as penalties in all descriptions ( –2 penalty to Armor Class), in addition the removal of a bonus is not a penalty in my opinion, it means a recalculation (without the called bonus)..."

i need help from the writer of the rules :)

And because that episode is one of my favorites across all Star Trek shows/movies ever.

What did you think of the CGI Gorn who showed up in the Enterprise Mirror Universe episodes?

I was reading Lost Omens Legends - which I loved, by the way - and I noticed something. Most of the high-level spell casters in the Lost Omens setting are wizards - every runelord, Tar-Baphon, Nex, Geb, to name just a few.

Why is this? Are wizards more interesting villains than druids or clerics? Is it because the wizard class was so powerful in First Edition, and NPCs were built using PC rules? Both, neither?

The question is: Does losing your Dex bonus to AC mean you lose your Dex modifier which is factored into the CMD.

And as a side Question: does losing your Dex bonus to AC mean you lose ALL dodge bonuses (not only the one from the Dodge feat which explicitly states that you lose the benefits of that feat if you lose your Dex bonus to AC)

my DM has the opinion blinded creatures do not lose their dex-bonus on cmd, because it is no penalty. is he right? he said: "...If it would apply in this case why are there multiple special rules which explicitly address the case where you lose your Dodge bonus to AC and in addition something applies which should be the normal rule in your interpretation.

For instance flat footed which explicitly mentions Dex bonus to CMD and the Dodge Feet which explicitly mentions that you lose the benefits from the Feat (1 Dodge bonus) when you lose Dex to AC.

Not the way I see it, penalties are clearly described as penalties in all descriptions ( –2 penalty to Armor Class), in addition the removal of a bonus is not a penalty in my opinion, it means a recalculation (without the called bonus)..."

i need help from the writer of the rules :)

I can't help you then, since I didn't write the rules. I only creative directed them.

More to the point, I'm not answering rules questions here right now; they just tend to end up causing more arguments than they solve, and I'm tired of players asking me for "official rulings" to use against their GMs. Even if the GM is doing the rule wrong. Sorry.

James Jacobs wrote:

And because that episode is one of my favorites across all Star Trek shows/movies ever.

What did you think of the CGI Gorn who showed up in the Enterprise Mirror Universe episodes?

I just learned about that earlier today; I quit watching Enterprise after a few episodes convinced me that the show was gonna not be one I enjoyed.

But as for CGI, I think that the fact that the technology for CGI improves so staggeringly quickly every year that it self-obsoletes, and unless it's incredibly well done in an artistic way it takes much less time to look fake and goofy than do practical effects.

That said, I can tell just from the stills that I'm not a fan, since they lost the multifaceted eyes, which was one of the cooler parts of the original gorn.

I was reading Lost Omens Legends - which I loved, by the way - and I noticed something. Most of the high-level spell casters in the Lost Omens setting are wizards - every runelord, Tar-Baphon, Nex, Geb, to name just a few.

Why is this? Are wizards more interesting villains than druids or clerics? Is it because the wizard class was so powerful in First Edition, and NPCs were built using PC rules? Both, neither?

That's something I've been trying to work to have us course correct for years.

The whole point of the Runelords was that I wanted to have a group of evil specialist wizards to address fan requests at the time that "Every Adventure Path bad guy is an evil demigod—why aren't they ever just evil people?" And then at the same time I was creating the Runelords, other folks were creating Tar-Baphon, Nex, Geb, and the rest. And we didn't talk to each other about what we were doing as we probably should have, since we were kinda overwhelmed with wrapping up the magazines and launching a new world at the same time.

It hearkens back, I guess, to the fact that those of us who created Golarion were raised on original D&D, where there weren't a lot of spellcasting classes to choose from, I suppose.

But ever since I've been trying to make sure to get non-wizard high-level characters into the game, to the extent that I've asked all our developers to keep in mind that we've got plenty of wizards, and maybe it's time to give the other spellcasting classes a chance.

(For what it's worth, that's in large part why I went with bard for AP2, cleric for AP3, and "druid"/sorcerer for AP6, with APs 4 and 5 going with martial bad guys.)

A 1e question, on the nightmare that is object hardness and siege warfare/ship combat. I have heard horror stories where GMs doubled the amount of damage siege weapons did to structures/ships and were not able to significantly damage them at all, even w/o hardness. What are your opinions on this matter? Is it really impossible for a pickaxe to damage rock?

Also, I also heard of a story where, according to the official stats for a tank, one tank can shoot another tank 100+ times with the main artillery cannon before either is significantly damaged. In essence, what is the division between AC and hardness? When should one take precedence over the other?

A 1e question, on the nightmare that is object hardness and siege warfare/ship combat. I have heard horror stories where GMs doubled the amount of damage siege weapons did to structures/ships and were not able to significantly damage them at all, even w/o hardness. What are your opinions on this matter? Is it really impossible for a pickaxe to damage rock?

Also, I also heard of a story where, according to the official stats for a tank, one tank can shoot another tank 100+ times with the main artillery cannon before either is significantly damaged. In essence, what is the division between AC and hardness? When should one take precedence over the other?

I'm not really interested in engaging with questions are phrased in antagonistic ways like that. Remember that I'm one of the people who built the game, so making fun of the rules/calling the rules horror stories or nightmares doesn't encourage conversational engagement from me.

The best way to handle things like hatchets not being able to handle chopping trees down or picks not being able to mine stone is to just hand-wave things and assume that outside of combat and you use these tools to gather resources rather than to attack monsters and fight in combat that things work differently.

As for siege type stuff, we never properly got those rules worked out in 1st edition, since Pathfinder focuses not on mass combat but on personal combat. If you run into snags, work with your GM to fix them, or if you prefer to make fun of them that's fine too, just please don't bring that back here to this thread.

In any event, once again, fixes like this are things we looked to address and change with the edition change, so if you're frustrated with too much of 1st edition, turns out we just published a new edition for you to play with.

Do you have any favorite house rules or variant rules from the GMG that you use at your table?

Do you have any favorite house rules or variant rules from the GMG that you use at your table?

Nope. What would be house rules are just the rules for me, I guess. :-P

D3stro 2119 wrote:

A 1e question, on the nightmare that is object hardness and siege warfare/ship combat. I have heard horror stories where GMs doubled the amount of damage siege weapons did to structures/ships and were not able to significantly damage them at all, even w/o hardness. What are your opinions on this matter? Is it really impossible for a pickaxe to damage rock?

Also, I also heard of a story where, according to the official stats for a tank, one tank can shoot another tank 100+ times with the main artillery cannon before either is significantly damaged. In essence, what is the division between AC and hardness? When should one take precedence over the other?

I'm not really interested in engaging with questions are phrased in antagonistic ways like that. Remember that I'm one of the people who built the game, so making fun of the rules/calling the rules horror stories or nightmares doesn't encourage conversational engagement from me.

The best way to handle things like hatchets not being able to handle chopping trees down or picks not being able to mine stone is to just hand-wave things and assume that outside of combat and you use these tools to gather resources rather than to attack monsters and fight in combat that things work differently.

As for siege type stuff, we never properly got those rules worked out in 1st edition, since Pathfinder focuses not on mass combat but on personal combat. If you run into snags, work with your GM to fix them, or if you prefer to make fun of them that's fine too, just please don't bring that back here to this thread.

In any event, once again, fixes like this are things we looked to address and change with the edition change, so if you're frustrated with too much of 1st edition, turns out we just published a new edition for you to play with.

Thanks for the obligatory advertisement. I'll mark all this down as something to look at (both 1e siege/ship combat AND 2e).

In other news, what is the most overpowered homebrew or house rules you have seen a player/GM try to justify? My personal favorites are:

-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun crits on 10-20/x4 and has a 50% chance to instakill anything it crits "because guns can easily cripple people and are very accurate."
-[Exalted] a player claiming an assault rifle allows him to make 30 attacks "because it has 30 bullets on full auto."
-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun should deal constitution damage because "it rips into bone and flesh, causing more than hp damage"
-[PF] a player claiming that a concussion grenade deals force damage because "the sheer force of the blast destabilizes the molecules in the air."

Hi James,

First, let me thank you for continuing to respond to questions asked about 1e even to this day!

My question revolves around ratfolk, swarming, the Scurrying Swarmer feat, and squeezing.

(For easy reference, https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Scurrying%20Swarmer )

How does swarming with allies (or alternatively, with enemies using Underfoot combat or Mouser) interact with the Squeezing rules?

Additional clarification on what "sharing a space" means would be helpful.

In other news, what is the most overpowered homebrew or house rules you have seen a player/GM try to justify? My personal favorites are:

-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun crits on 10-20/x4 and has a 50% chance to instakill anything it crits "because guns can easily cripple people and are very accurate."
-[Exalted] a player claiming an assault rifle allows him to make 30 attacks "because it has 30 bullets on full auto."
-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun should deal constitution damage because "it rips into bone and flesh, causing more than hp damage"
-[PF] a player claiming that a concussion grenade deals force damage because "the sheer force of the blast destabilizes the molecules in the air."

I'm fortunate enough that the players I play with don't try to do this sort of thing, lately, but the most overpowered stuff I've seen in the past invariably has to do with psioncs shenanigans.

Hi James,

First, let me thank you for continuing to respond to questions asked about 1e even to this day!

My question revolves around ratfolk, swarming, the Scurrying Swarmer feat, and squeezing.

(For easy reference, https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Scurrying%20Swarmer )

How does swarming with allies (or alternatively, with enemies using Underfoot combat or Mouser) interact with the Squeezing rules?

Additional clarification on what "sharing a space" means would be helpful.

Sharing a space means you're in the same square as another thing. It doesn't interact with squeezing at all, since squeezing happens when you're trying to fit through something smaller than your space.

D3stro 2119 wrote:

In other news, what is the most overpowered homebrew or house rules you have seen a player/GM try to justify? My personal favorites are:

-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun crits on 10-20/x4 and has a 50% chance to instakill anything it crits "because guns can easily cripple people and are very accurate."
-[Exalted] a player claiming an assault rifle allows him to make 30 attacks "because it has 30 bullets on full auto."
-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun should deal constitution damage because "it rips into bone and flesh, causing more than hp damage"
-[PF] a player claiming that a concussion grenade deals force damage because "the sheer force of the blast destabilizes the molecules in the air."

I'm fortunate enough that the players I play with don't try to do this sort of thing, lately, but the most overpowered stuff I've seen in the past invariably has to do with psioncs shenanigans.

As in, 3.5 Psion or the Occult Psychic magic classes?

As in, 3.5 Psion or the Occult Psychic magic classes?

As in D&D's point-based psioncis system.

We never use the term "psionics" in Pathfinder, so I didn't feel the need to specify that in the original post.

In fact the Psychic magic is specifically our take on the theme of "mind magic" in a way that is less overpowered and uses the same rules as for other forms of magic. The point based psionics system has never meshed well with the rest of the game in my opinion.

Echoen wrote:

Hi James,

First, let me thank you for continuing to respond to questions asked about 1e even to this day!

My question revolves around ratfolk, swarming, the Scurrying Swarmer feat, and squeezing.

(For easy reference, https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Scurrying%20Swarmer )

How does swarming with allies (or alternatively, with enemies using Underfoot combat or Mouser) interact with the Squeezing rules?

Additional clarification on what "sharing a space" means would be helpful.

Sharing a space means you're in the same square as another thing. It doesn't interact with squeezing at all, since squeezing happens when you're trying to fit through something smaller than your space.

Thank you for the clarification. I realize there are some other pieces to ask about.

1) May allies move into the scurrying swarmer ratfolk's square, or is the ratfolk the only creature able to move into an ally's square?

2) Because the ally does not have the swarming ability, movement rules state they cannot end their turn in the same square. Must the ally, on their turn, move out of the shared space?

1) May allies move into the scurrying swarmer ratfolk's square, or is the ratfolk the only creature able to move into an ally's square?

2) Because the ally does not have the swarming ability, movement rules state they cannot end their turn in the same square. Must the ally, on their turn, move out of the shared space?

1) Just the ratfolk (or other creatures with that ability).

2) No but they gain no advantages.

Echoen wrote:

1) May allies move into the scurrying swarmer ratfolk's square, or is the ratfolk the only creature able to move into an ally's square?

2) Because the ally does not have the swarming ability, movement rules state they cannot end their turn in the same square. Must the ally, on their turn, move out of the shared space?

1) Just the ratfolk (or other creatures with that ability).

2) No but they gain no advantages.

Thank you very much for the clarification!

James Jacobs wrote:

D3stro 2119 wrote:

In other news, what is the most overpowered homebrew or house rules you have seen a player/GM try to justify? My personal favorites are:

-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun crits on 10-20/x4 and has a 50% chance to instakill anything it crits "because guns can easily cripple people and are very accurate."
-[Exalted] a player claiming an assault rifle allows him to make 30 attacks "because it has 30 bullets on full auto."
-[PF] a player claiming that a modern gun should deal constitution damage because "it rips into bone and flesh, causing more than hp damage"
-[PF] a player claiming that a concussion grenade deals force damage because "the sheer force of the blast destabilizes the molecules in the air."

I'm fortunate enough that the players I play with don't try to do this sort of thing, lately, but the most overpowered stuff I've seen in the past invariably has to do with psioncs shenanigans.

As in, 3.5 Psion or the Occult Psychic magic classes?

To clarify - the Scurrying Swarmer feat says it that it provides no benefit to the ally (non-ratfolk), however, you are saying that the text of feat should be more clear that it does not negatively impact the ally and that the ally may remain occupying the same space at the end of its turn, even though the human ally does not possess the ability to share space - negating the penalties in the squeezing section regarding being squeezed when moving past a creature and the ability to end their turn in the space of another crature?

To clarify - the Scurrying Swarmer feat says it that it provides no benefit to the ally (non-ratfolk), however, you are saying that the text of feat should be more clear that it does not negatively impact the ally and that the ally may remain occupying the same space at the end of its turn, even though the human ally does not possess the ability to share space - negating the penalties in the squeezing section regarding being squeezed when moving past a creature and the ability to end their turn in the space of another crature?

As with all things like this, the best solution is ALWAYS to talk to your GM for clarification. And if you're the GM, try one solution and if that doesn't work out satisfyingly, then you have the power to change the solution to try something else, but you should always allow players to swap out feats instantly and free of charge if you make a ruling that makes that choice no longer attractive to the player.

In any event... let's not do a back and forth about rules theory here. I feel that the Scurrying Swarmer discussion has run its course as far as input I can provide, so if you're looking to workshop the feat more, please start its own thread.

AKA: One of the reasons I resist engaging in rules questions is because they tend to do this; take on lives of their own as the text is constantly over-analayzed.

What, if you can remember, inspired the radical shift in mechanics from Pathfinder to Starfinder to Pathfinder 2?

So, with going to the movies being off the menu, I've lost track.. if you could help a fellow horror fan out... any good new horror flicks on streaming services you care to recommend?

What, if you can remember, inspired the radical shift in mechanics from Pathfinder to Starfinder to Pathfinder 2?

A combination of a desire to improve the rules for clarity and ease of use without sacrificing options, combined with a desire to create the right rules for the setting in question.

So, with going to the movies being off the menu, I've lost track.. if you could help a fellow horror fan out... any good new horror flicks on streaming services you care to recommend?

Some good horror movies I've seen lately (via streaming) are Host, Run, Possessor, The Dark and the Wicked, The Wretched, The Rental, Color out of Space, Archons, Underwater, Sputnik, #Alive, His House, and The Invisible Man. Some of those were out before the pandemic kicked into high gear of course.

Gonna watch The Amulet in a bit here.

As for streaming services, if I could only pick one for horror, that one would be Shudder.

Some good horror movies I've seen lately (via streaming) are Host, Run, Possessor, The Dark and the Wicked, The Wretched, The Rental, Color out of Space, Archons, Underwater, Sputnik, #Alive, His House, and The Invisible Man. Some of those were out before the pandemic kicked into high gear of course.

Lovecraft-inspired movies can be a mixed bag (but even Herbert West: Reanimator can be fun!). In your opinion, is Color out of Space 'one of the good ones?'

James Jacobs wrote:

Some good horror movies I've seen lately (via streaming) are Host, Run, Possessor, The Dark and the Wicked, The Wretched, The Rental, Color out of Space, Archons, Underwater, Sputnik, #Alive, His House, and The Invisible Man. Some of those were out before the pandemic kicked into high gear of course.

Lovecraft-inspired movies can be a mixed bag (but even Herbert West: Reanimator can be fun!). In your opinion, is Color out of Space 'one of the good ones?'

The Richard Stanley "Color out of Space" is the best cinematic Lovecraft adaption.

Quote:

AKA: One of the reasons I resist engaging in rules questions is because they tend to do this; take on lives of their own as the text is constantly over-analayzed.

Already was:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs438vs?Ratfolk-Swarming-Allies-Squeezing#1

Which even further makes me not interested in continuing the agony on this thread. In any event, please keep posts to this thread to questions for me; thanks.

Favorite villainous Godzilla series kaiju? (For the sake of argument, let's discount antagonistic version of Godzilla himself)

Favorite villainous Godzilla series kaiju? (For the sake of argument, let's discount antagonistic version of Godzilla himself)

Hard to choose one, but it'd PROBABLY be Gigan, Ghidorah, or Biolante.

Gigan - what if Godzilla mated with a Hook Horror.

Question:
Have you seen this forum/thread? Toho Kingdom - Giant Monsters in Animated Film & Television

My fav was the Godzilla vs D&D Tiamat concept on page 2. Alas, the image is only fanfic.

Related question:
Would you watch a film prefaced on Godzilla vs D&D Tiamat?

Gigan - what if Godzilla mated with a Hook Horror.

Question:
Have you seen this forum/thread? Toho Kingdom - Giant Monsters in Animated Film & Television

My fav was the Godzilla vs D&D Tiamat concept on page 2. Alas, the image is only fanfic.

Related question:
Would you watch a film prefaced on Godzilla vs D&D Tiamat?

I hadn't seen that thread.

I've watched (or tried to watch) all Godzilla movies. A Godzilla vs. Tiamat movie would have to work hard to be the worst one (that'd be the awful US version from the late 90s), but would also have to work awful hard to justify itself when Ghidorah is already a superior multi-headed dragon foe for Godzilla to fight.

And that said, I've never been a fan of movies that try to mash together two different characters from different storylines, be it Freddy vs. Jason, Abbot and Costello Meet the Wolfman, Aliens Vs. Predator, or Godzilla vs. King Kong. I'm hopeful that next year's new Godzilla Vs. Kong movie bucks that trend, though.

Any favorite SPC?

Any favorite SPC?

Nope.

Question that came up today during a session and I was a bit lost myself at how to explain it.

Not in mechanics, but in-universe, how does an oracle work? They are always divine casters, so in some way, their magic works more closely to a cleric than any other caster. They are described as circumventing the traditional means, gleaning secrets from the beyond, which results in a curse.

Is this a CONSCIOUS choice on the part of the oracle, or is it more of a gift/curse? Could it be either? If a cleric of Iomedae went out and said 'I want to know the connections inherent in Iomedae, Asmodeus, and Abadar'ss sense of law and order, the bindings that link their LAW aspect' would that sort of seeking unknowable truths be what causes the curse to befall them? Or could it be perhaps Gyronna hexing someone who made her mad, which somehow inherently gives them magic power along with the curse?

I'm really interested in oracles and their lore, so this kind of question is really interesting to me.

Question that came up today during a session and I was a bit lost myself at how to explain it.

Not in mechanics, but in-universe, how does an oracle work? They are always divine casters, so in some way, their magic works more closely to a cleric than any other caster. They are described as circumventing the traditional means, gleaning secrets from the beyond, which results in a curse.

Is this a CONSCIOUS choice on the part of the oracle, or is it more of a gift/curse? Could it be either? If a cleric of Iomedae went out and said 'I want to know the connections inherent in Iomedae, Asmodeus, and Abadar'ss sense of law and order, the bindings that link their LAW aspect' would that sort of seeking unknowable truths be what causes the curse to befall them? Or could it be perhaps Gyronna hexing someone who made her mad, which somehow inherently gives them magic power along with the curse?

I'm really interested in oracles and their lore, so this kind of question is really interesting to me.

The exact way an oracle work is centered on her mystery. As such, explaing exactly how it works undermines the core idea of the class, which is supposed to be mysterious. There's no one way for all of them. Every one can and should be different in how they gain their divine spells, and that leaves a lot of room open for the designer of an oracle, be it a PC or a GM, to have fun with it.

For example, let me tell you about my character!

Very little of that would have been possible if we had said in print exactly how all oracle mysteries work. Further, if we DID spell that process out explicitly, we wouldn't have been able to call their cornerstone power "mysteries." We would have had to find a different name, and that would have likely resulted in an entirely different type of class.

Every oracle is different. Every oracle SHOULD be different. Once they all start working exactly the same, flavor-wise, the mystery goes away and they lose a significant part of their charm.

Can a bugbear be redeemed and turned from evil? It seems like bugbears have terrorizing and killing deeply ingrained in their existence. How difficult of a task is it to befriend a bugbear and convince it to stop hunting the local intelligent creatures and live as part of a community?

Can a bugbear be redeemed and turned from evil? It seems like bugbears have terrorizing and killing deeply ingrained in their existence. How difficult of a task is it to befriend a bugbear and convince it to stop hunting the local intelligent creatures and live as part of a community?

Anything can be redeemed and turn from evil (and vice-versa, anything can become good, or neutral, or lawful, or chaotic).

For creatures who are fundamental incarnations of one of these philosophies, such as demons for chaos and evil, or archons for lawful and good, or psychopomps for neutral, alignment variances are MUCH rarer and typically need significant story beats to explain them. Same goes for most undead being non-evil (with exceptions for ghosts and certain undead like revenants or void zombies, who aren't normally evil to begin with).

For pretty much anything else, provided it's not mindless (you need a mind to be anything other than neutral), the alignment we list in a Bestiary is the "typical" alignment, not the "required" one. A bugbear can be any alignment, in the same way a human can, but most of those you meet as monsters will be neutral evil. So, yes, a bugbear can be redeemed and turned from evil. But also, a bugbear can be any alignment as needed by that character's story from the start; they aren't born neutral evil.

Of course, once a monster's alignment shifts from its norm, as presented in the Bestiary, it stops being a normal monster of its kind and some/most/all of the flavor text associated with it won't apply any more.

Hi James, I have several questions regarding giants in Golarion and The Great Beyond:

How did the Giant pantheon come to be? I understand that all giants come from the Stone, Hill, and Taiga giants (at least on Golarion, are there even giants on other planets or planes of existance?), who descended from the Gigas, which themselves descended from the titans. What I am slightly confused about is in regards to how the giant pantheon fits into this chain, and also how do the Cyclops fit in? And also, are Papinijuwari more Cyclopian or Giant? As in - where they a part of the ancient Cyclopian empires, and if so, what was their place in the hierarchy?

Hi James, I have several questions regarding giants in Golarion and The Great Beyond:

How did the Giant pantheon come to be? I understand that all giants come from the Stone, Hill, and Taiga giants (at least on Golarion, are there even giants on other planets or planes of existance?), who descended from the Gigas, which themselves descended from the titans. What I am slightly confused about is in regards to how the giant pantheon fits into this chain, and also how do the Cyclops fit in? And also, are Papinijuwari more Cyclopian or Giant? As in - where they a part of the ancient Cyclopian empires, and if so, what was their place in the hierarchy?

The giant pantheon came to be sort of as a slapdash almost accidental collection of deities created by different writers for different products over the first few years of Pathfinder, even before it existed as a separate rules set, and as such it's never been properly "curated" as a whole really, as far as I know, until Planar Adventures—which is the first time the whole pantheon has ever really been brought together holistically in one place with room to talk about where they live and where they're from, rather than just who their clerics are and what their clerics' rules are. And even then, we didn't have much space to go into greater details about the pantheon itself.

So the confusion is there because it's never really been something we've put a lot of work and time toward developing. It might be something we look at exploring at some point in the future, but at this point it's a case of the GM needing to fill in the gaps themselves, alas.

Who decides what books goes onto the Archives of Nethys website?

Who decides what books goes onto the Archives of Nethys website?

In theory all the rules that are open content could be up there, but I suspect who decides is the folks who have to actually do the work getting the content live on the site. Not sure. I'm not involved in the process.

Who is involved in that process?