Converse02's page

Would if have been okay if it called for killing children instead? I'm hearing people say that all the killing that Pathfinder incentivizes is an okay evil, but incentivizing Child abuse is too far.

Genuine question.

What I found just skimming the book for a few minutes.

Zelishkar: Burning a living creature of at least the size of a cat or infant atop a pyre. Gain a +4 ...

Stygidvod: Smear yourself in and drink the blood of a much younger victim.

Entry right before Folca is Ealdeez: Meticulously plot the brutal murder of an enemy.
I can think of numerous times in real history in which child prince/princess murdered in a meticulous plot so someone else could seize the throne.

While they do not specifically say "child," the way written would clearly allows it to gain the bonus. Even if it did say only adults, this would rise the question of when does one transitions from a child to an adult. 12? 16? 18? 21?

I am seriously wondering why everyone is focusing on Folca when other entries appear so much worse. It's also why I against editing Folca out, because it bring to much focus to this character.

Those who are saying "child abuse is the line" have to admit that if we wanted to reprint a book without any child abuse, we would have to specifically say what that age is and that the reprint Book of the Damned would be filled with a lot of blank pages, more than just Folca.

I got my copy, so my two cents:
Sorry, I honestly cannot understand what the fuss is about. I read the passage on Folca; I was not corrupted nor is it promoting child abuse. The entry right before Folca (I think) is about carefully plotting murder. I saw entries for drug use. Blasphemy, rape, torture, etc. If the title was not a give away, the book is obviously about all types of horrors experienced in real life and fiction.

Look, I understand it's upsetting. I live with a conservative Muslim who prays 5x times a day and LITERALLY believes in Satan, angels, demons, heaven, and hell. I do not want him seeing a book of mine with Satan on the cover, and can imagine him complaining about it.

However, I think it is bad idea to remove it from further copies as this brings far more attention to the issue than it deserves. With more than 25 rule books in the line, my guess is most people who are buying this book are completist/collectors, not people with a burning desire to bring more depravity into their games. Just like D&D has books/reprints known for being with or without hobbits; or with or without Chulthu mythos, you are going to have collector's list saying the Book of the Damned with or without sexual child abuse. It's probably just going to increase attention and the ebay value to my book. You want that?

My call: Satanic Panic.

Just wanted to say I would also really really like to see the stats of the new iconics too. That sorceress is cool.

Wow...I've been collecting Dragon for maybe 8-9 years now. I just signed up for Dungeon. Dragon is the only magazine will get religiously, I just love it...even though I never play the game anymore. I can't believe it.

If you guys wanted to sell issues, it worked. I picked it up the stand for $8, something I almost never do. Great adventures inside, but its the cover art that pulls people in. The girl's a great concept, and getting a name and stats for this character would be awesome.

As far as people thinking its too sexy or even "pornographic," you've got to be kidding me. This girl's nearly 80% covered with only a sliver of breast showing. The picture not corrupting anyone, you guys got to lighten up if you ask me. I agree with Azzy, this level of prudishness borders on the unhealthy.

Anyway, I hope you guys continue with the great cover art.