Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I think my problem is that few of the Good gods have "ugly" flaws. Bigotry, a mean sense of humor, a bad temper—these are failings that Good people can have, as long as they don't go too far. I find those flaws a bit more interesting than "My problem is I love too much", which kind of sounds like a would-be employee saying his problem is that he works too hard.
You mean having more douchebags amongst the Goods than the Evils, and amongst the Lawfuls than the Chaotics isn't a flaw? (big enough to rewrite the alignment system)
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
More that there point of view of their portfolio can be narrow minded and way too focussed.
For what I know, if Xavier is still alive in the comics, he is probably still a douchebag.
At least Magneto doesn't hide the facts that he is quite the douche as well, unlike Xavier.
I'm sure in the 50 or so years X-Men has been around, Magneto has thought of every conceivable plot to mutant-ize the world. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an idea that involved incredibly smelly radioactive cheese.
You would probbly still prefer Magneto to Charles Xavier (comic book wise anyway).
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
People having conniptions about anthropomorphic good gods being less than perfect.... Me I'm all for Olympian foibles, it's the rough edges an imperfections that make for a more interesting game.
Kinda old, and kinda got retconned a few times.
Aw c'mon, despite Erastil not being that backwards anymore, not all Good deities are perfect. Iomedae waterboards people using electricity and Ragathiel is an omnicidial psychopath. Cayden is a horrible example for the young, Desna is a commie hippie, Shelyn is a hippie commie, Torag is just plain inhuman and Sarenrae failed to kill Rovagug, which clearly means she's in cahoots with him.
Re: Toning down good gods - I think a lot of that is happening because of folks actively misinterpreting the deity articles in the worst possible way ("This LG god advocates genocide!" or "This LG god thinks adventuring is stupidly dangerous and isn't comfortable with any of his clerics adventuring, so he's a misogynist"), so that Paizo then goes back and re-writes the articles to leave far less room for interpretion.
Ragathiel is probably LG because making him a CE Demon would be too close to DnD's Blood War. And probably because the game is more "Good vs Evil" than "Chaos vs Order"
John Kretzer wrote:
But, you being prone to accidents is part of Cosmo's Machinations.
I Blame Cosmo that I had to explain that...
In one Arc, he almost had the opportunity to do it via rewritting reality.
There are also a few Arcs where things like that happened via Reality Warpind, Time Travel, etc...
Doesn't part of him want to turn everyone into mutants?
This is why I added the expansion option (granted, it was misspelled), not make a new verse, 'just' make the existing one bigger.
* Add a few.* Save.
* Add a few more.
kinda like any work on a computer.
I blame Cosmo that most people can't learn/remember that.
James Jacobs wrote:
Would make a few things easier at first (lot of places where one can use the front door), then quite harder (ending up with one Hell of a bounty, or 666).
As for the conversation above, I think Paizo have done a great job about communicating what this AP would be. From the start, I thought it was clear that this was an AP about liberating Kintargo from the rule of House Thrune, rather than bringing them down altogether. Interviews, forum posts and the product pages have all given that impression.
Yeah, they said from the start that this wasn't the Devil version of Wrath of the Righteous.
Campaign Traits and modified Noble Scion feat: no option to play a rebelious Thrune?
James Jacobs wrote:
And Shensen? And Nocticula?
To WAR: Has anyone asked you to draw a male Catfolk in the Bestiary 3 style?
kinda like TESV: Skyrim's Dawnguard DLC?
Joe Hex wrote:
We got some playtests for Ultimate Intrigues recently, so if anything in Horror Adventures need any playtests, it would be somewhere between the end of October and the start of January, which is also when we should expect more detailed official info.
Wayne Reynolds wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant crazy as in; the subject interest and inspire you so much you go overboard, you end up drawing way more than neccessary?
Wayne Reynolds wrote:
They haven't made you an Honorary Paizo Staffer yet?
On topic: Is there any type of request that would make you go crazy and you would end up drawing dozens of pages of?
I agree with that.
All in a single group would be hard.
Multiple groups/games is another option (with its own problems).
But you are you, and know your limits better than we do.
Milo v3 wrote:
And I would say "raise the (level) ceiling", not remove it entirely.
Milo v3 wrote:
But not a lot of them, and they don't please most of the 3.5 Epic Levels Handbook fans.
Many AP would be easier for Evil parties than good ones, if just for circumventing many magical traps, a good deal of the "But Thou Must" and/or "But Thou Can't", or alignment restricted awesome gears. Kinda like undead PCs would have an happy time in many AP.
Planar/Multiverse Adventures: Could be a good idea (setting Neutral), with a Campaign Setting book to supplement it.
Wilderness Adventures: that too, and Nature themed Archetypes for the non Nature Themed Classes.
High-Seas Adventures: Kinda wanted by many as well.
Ultimate Dungeons: Very needed, and not just by the customers.
(X Creatures) Codices: Hopefully with some "Good" (in quality, not Alignment) Player/PC options, Templates adjustements/Clarifications, etc...
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Mummy's Mask :-)
That, Mummy's Mask has lots of undeads.
But I would like an Undead heavy AP which isn't kinda Construct/Golem heavy as well.