Since we know some species of giants have their own gods, such as Minderhal (stone), does that mean every species of giant has a racial god, and most of them just haven't been detailed yet?
Probably not. Some giant species have specifically giant gods, but at least as many worship (or are associated with) not-exclusively-giant gods.
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:
I've been interpreting the Chaotic of Golarion elves as a kind of Libertarian "I do my thing, you do yours", "you don't mess with me, I don't mess with you". Even if an elf (in their Good-ness) wanted to help another nation, there's no structure to allow them to force any other elves to help, not even the so-called monarch has that power.
How about this: Take four each of 4, 6, and 8; randomly assign two to each ability score, and sum. This gives you a result from 8 to 16 with an average of 12, and only even numbers.
The above is roughly equivalent to what you would otherwise get from your six free boosts during character creation. So, to this result, you just add your set boosts/penalty from ABC (getting only ONE free boost if you're human).
Something I used for PF1: Take a deck of cards and pull out the numbers 4 to 9 in two suits. Shuffle those 12 cards, and lay them out in piles of two, one for each ability. The sum of the two cards is the ability score.
The results are roughly equivalent to all the boosts/penalties you get in PF2 character creation, although you will get odd numbers which end up being slightly weaker than even numbers.
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.
And the petitioner is most certainly the creature according to the Bestiary and Pathfinder/Golarion canon. The creature == the creature's soul == the petitioner (after its death).
It is the soul/essence of the creature, but it is not the physical creature. My point is, regardless of appearances the petitioner is merely the "ghost" of the creature. And while the spirit is arguably the most important part of the creature, it is the physicality that makes a creature (especially a colossal creature) dangerous in combat (i.e. determines its CR). (The petitioner also lacks the substitute for physical ability, learned skills.)
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.
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
Three actions and a reaction every six seconds. Why not shorter rounds? Perhaps, two seconds with just one action and possibly a reaction?
I'm going to interpret your question not as "Why six seconds?" but as "Why three actions?". I strongly suspect the answer is fun. Turns where you just move are not fun. Turns where you perform 1/2 or 1/3 of a multi-action "action" are not fun.
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.