Was my impression, but then paizo has to go and include some parts in the description and exclude others. Was it purposeful, or just incomplete? I suspect we won’t get a solid answer, but I had to try.
Incomplete. All the rules elements for the pantheon (including favored weapon) replace those for a specific patron god.
When my players were facing spriggans (coincidentally working for an evil hag), they asked, "Is it OK to just kill them? Are they inherently evil?" To which I replied something like, "They're not inherently evil, they have free will. But they slide easily into evil, because they are incapable of feeling joy. So make of that what you will."
Robert Peel wrote:
But yeah, my nitpicks are of this type of nature: Remorhaz in bestiary 1 mentions that ancient ones of them turn into frost worm while frost worm in bestiary 2 mentions their origins are unknown. So umm.. Does that mean remorhaz info on them being in stage of life of frost worm is incorrect?
I can only say that I was unaware of the remorhaz sidebar when I wrote the frost worm sidebar.
Personally, I don't think they're related as they have very different morphologies. (And as far as I know, they weren't related before.)
That said, it has been previously established that the Varki use the same word for both remorhazes and frost worms, so that may be the source of the confusion. The remorhaz entry may be what the Varki believe, a view not necessarily shared by scholars elsewhere.
Paizo Blog: Battle of the Pantheons: Pathfinder Society contest hosted by the Know Direction Network
Nicholas Ruchlewicz wrote:
Is there a Min and Max for the number of Deities in the Pantheon? Example Order of the God Claw has 5, and the Dwarven one has 10. I need to hurry up time is ticking!
No hard numbers. Enough to have interesting relationships between the deities both personally and philosophically, not so many that you lose focus on the core themes of the pantheon.
I once had a bad reaction to a (prescribed) drug: it made me angry all the time. It's one of the experiences that made me realize that free will is not as free or willful as most people think. But it also shaped how I view orcs these days. Orcs were created by their gods to be warriors, they are innately ferocious. When you're angry all the time, it's easy to be chaotic evil. Even if an orc chooses to be lawful or good, they still have to either subsume or refocus that anger. (I suppose one might compare it to the many versions of the Incredible Hulk.)
In the same way humans are the baseline for ability scores, I think of humans as the baseline for alignment. We have both good and evil, lawful and chaotic instincts. Fantasy races with alignment tendencies diverge from "human nature" in meaningful ways. Dwarves don't have as strong a desire for individuality (thus a lawful alignment and a Charisma penalty). Elves live long enough that permanence is less important to them (thus a tendency to chaos). Whether good or evil, by humans standards, goblins never stop being precocious children (and thus devoid of other influences go Lord of the Flies).
Small, similarly themed and aligned pantheons are easy to represent and understand. I'm specifically inquiring about the larger, more morally complex type.
While someone may turn to gods, even evil gods, when dealing with things in their purview ("Help me with my legal troubles, Asmodeus!"), no one worships all gods equally, and certainly no one is empowered this way because the whole of the gods are antithetical to the each other.
So, while ancient Osirians might recognize the existence of all their gods, there were no priests of all the gods. There might however, be as Luis demonstrates, a priest of all the magic gods.
Yet, just because the kind of pantheon that can empower a cleric must have an unambiguous thesis, that doesn't mean they are without nuance. The Godclaw deities are all lawful, but run the gamut from good to evil. The lawful good dwarven pantheon includes an evil deity, but he's the black sheep of the family that no one talks about.
Polearm with a hook (among other things). An infantryman would attempt to unseat a rider by swinging it to side of the head or the back of the neck and pulling. An real earspoon was a tiny spoon for removing earwax, the gag being the Bohemian infantry were going for the ear with much larger implements.
He is named Olorin in the tongue of the Valar and Maiar; Mithrandir in Elvish; and Gandalf the Grey (later White) in the tongue of Men.
Consider it translation convention then. Writing "Whosywhatsit (who those other people call Whatsisname)" takes up words that could be better used elsewhere.
Not having any good orc gods means that a good orc's religious practices are just going to be adopted from human cultures.
There are plenty of cultures on Golarion that are not human. But even if you mean an evil ancestry has to discover goodness from from another humanoid culture, that's not true either. Sarenrae is not and never was a human (even if that's how she is depicted). There's no reason an orc culture can't adopt a religion through epiphany just like many other cultures on Golarion (both good and evil) did.
(I also get the impression that people who play orcs/half-orcs want to play the monster--either to play to type or to disprove genetic determinism--and I'm OK with having an ancestry specifically to oblige that.)
Okay essentially put what is the closest culture to the Aztecs or even the Incans or Mayans in Golarion?
The Nahuatl (Aztec) equivalent in Golarion appears to be Razatlan. However, all that's been said about it is in Faiths of Golarion under the deity Kazutal.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
I really, REALLY don't like it when a character I make ends up conflicting with canon, especially if later canon emerges that invalidates it. It makes me feel like I interpreted the game or the story wrong. Like I ordered a pizza and then when you found out you said "Why'd you do that? We were planning on grilling burgers for dinner!" And then I feel like the jerk for ordering the pizza.
Pizza AND Burgers is not wrong.
...and neither is however you want to interpret the game or story.
Speaking for myself as a writer, if I wanted to control the canon I would write novels. When writing for games, I fully expect the end user to reinterpret anything and everything.
Ron Lundeen wrote:
I think many careers--the law included--have their own nerdy trolls. I know some people that get VERY excited over Supreme Court dockets, and follow oral arguments as rabidly as the most die-hard sports fans I know watch their games.
Did you hear about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
With apologies to anyone with a deep cultural or other investment in this weapon: it is such an unfeasible looking thing.
Hey, don't be a downer. Weird can be fun.
I’m also not sure why it was decided it should be a finessable weapon.
Lots of points. If you miss with one, you can twist the shaft and get them with another. (Also, elves.)
is a suffragan kyton based on the assumed root word, suffragette???
Suffragan "assisting or auxiliary to, as applied to any bishop in relation to the archbishop or metropolitan who is his superior, or as applied to an assistant or subsidiary bishop who performs episcopal functions in a diocese but has no ordinary jurisdiction, as, in the Church of England, a bishop consecrated to assist the ordinary bishop of a see in part of his diocese."
All the kyton types are Christian church titles.
The Fool wrote:
Bear with me here: Being unable to talk is a huge disadvantage, probably the biggest one for me. But as far as I can see there's nothing preventing the Oozemorph to take up an instrument, like a trumpet or harmonica, and use that to communicate at a distance.
The wibble-wobble bugle ooze from Company B?