K'Thal's page

My question is what is the offspring of an orc and an elf? Or of a half-orc and a half-elf?

The answer, as of right now, is unplayable!! Though I can't comment of the former but as for the latter that would make the half-orc and half-elf character one-half human, one-fourth orc, and one-fourth elf so I would wager human. But in your campain world they can be anything you (or the GM) says they are!

While we can't use a lot of the intellectual property of the D&D history... we at Paizo are quite fond of the implied history of the D&D world that's built up over the past 30 years

Thanks for the response, one door seemingly closes (D&D), guess I ll boldly go through the door that opens...i m looking forward to learning about the Golarion world and as memory serves me from Paizo's tenure with Dragon, it ll be a door i m glad i went through.

The Pact Primeval myth ignored tons of planar history, and is a really poor fit unless you strip out any use of Good and Upper Planes and Gods, and replace it with Law, Lawful Planes, and Primordial Exemplars of Law. As a warped, modern retelling of an older myth it works, but not as openly written in FC:II, because many of the beings in it (Saint Cuthbert? Come on...) simply didn't exist at the period of planar history it purports to describe. At that period the planes of law were obsessed with the planes of Chaos, and the planes of Good and Evil were off doing their own things (which FC:II doesn't touch upon at all).

I know, i was just searching for something canical and official for the basis. I played through the an adventure in my youth and help defeat Miska the Wolfspider and scatter the Rod of 7 Parts. It really is a throw back to the good ole box D&D sets where alignments came in 3 flavors, law, neutral and chaos. We all owe Michael Moorcock a thanks for establishing the whole ethics debate which only got deeper with the edition of moralities of good and evil. The one good thing that came out of the Fiendish Codex series was the addition of the obrilyths imho. James Jacobs has established how the fiendish dilemma will be handled in Pathfinder. As individual Gms of different campaign worlds, i suppose will have to do the same. Im relatively new to pathfinder and am still wondering how much of the D&D history will be incorperated into the Glorian setting. To each his own

Yes. Velderan, as Edwin mentioned, what you describe is exactly what 4e did, which means it's exactly what Paizo won't do -- they're like the Hindu Gurus of Gaming -- slaughtering sacred cows is taboo.

I agree but i always thought that the succubi should have been daemons/yugoloths. being one of the most productive soul harvesting productions of the lower planes i always believed that they would be true to the natures and provide the services to anyone for their own profit and gain, a very greedy yougoloth trait. yes i know that the devils had erinyes but i always used them as "evil valkyries" that dragged souls to hell instead of seducing them. Fiendish Codex II had to add pleasure and harvester devils to fill the succubus niche.

In my own games, I'm going through the process of reflavoring the two. Demons, I'm pretty much leaving alone (except for things like the nafalshee, that I think need a switch). Devils, on the other hand, are all being made more humanoid/corrupt angel, like Erinyes, Hellraiser Cenobites, or some Silent Hill...

I agree with you, the current mish mash of fiends throws a wrench in the intelligent design theory of my own campaign world. Generally, i leave demon/tanari and daemon/yugoloth fiends alone and gave the devil/baatezu a cosmetic upgrade to appear more or less humanoid. Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells adds the Pact Primeval to the D&D/Pathfinder mythos and explains the Blood War between the demons and devils. Clearly, the daemons need to have a role defined for them, I use demons to represent evil manifested from the lower planes themselves, daemons to represent corrupted mortal souls and devils represent the rebellious factions of the upperplanes. Perhaps the answer is found in the upper planes. Solars, planetars, and devas are not bound to any ethos or plane (aside from being completely good). Perhaps there can be a pit fiend/balor class of fiends that could be chaotic, neutral of lawful evil and have a few representitve types to fill out the lower planes, like the archon/lawful, gaurdinal/neutral and eldarin/chaotic creatures fill the niches of the upper planes.

I've never understood why rangers have this option for 2-weapon fighting. What does that have to do with being a ranger? I can see archery, but wouldn't some extra skill with a spear or some kind of ambush attack be more "ranger-ish" than wielding two swords? Is this a 2e legacy thing? Why have it?

Ive often wondered this as well. Somewhere at sometime I read that elves called war as the "great hunt" so in my campaign fluff i simply say that the first effective warriors the elves had were their hunters. as the tactics and methods of warfare changed, the changes were incoperated into the ranger tradition, with an empire/kingdom primarily composed of forests their hunters also served as border sentries and passed those traditions to other lands. Perhaps Paizo will publish an official reason but for now just invent your own or see the message boards for alternate ranger combat builds.

That the race/nation/tribe is an enemy of your people is not a troubling idea – History is replete with examples of different groups of people being enemies of each other. But, can an entire "race" be evil?

Do Fantasy RPGs promote the idea that a race can be evil – and can therefore be slaughtered without compunction?

I completely dislike having a simple black and white campaign world. I like having the shades of grey, try not to look at the whole alignment thing from afar and focus in. define evil and good in relative terms. an elf who would kill to protect the forest and an orc who must kill or raid to ensure the prosperity of his clan would both view themselves as "good" while any opposition would be defined by the elf/orc as "evil" Each race, kingdom, or even religion would define its ethics and morality by its own internal measures. While you could have detect law/chaos, i disallow detect alignment spell/abilities based on this. In my campaign, dwarves (dengar) and duergar are all dwarves. the differences are all in culture and religion like the whole Catholic/Protestant thing in Ireland or any of the different sects of Islam. I view dwarves (dengar) as more modern and liberal and the duergar more puritan and old fashioned using this method, i have no problems with rival nations/clans or even differing churches/cult with the same pantheon of dieties go to war with each other, allowing for deeper and more complex campaign plots i use moral ambiguity to force pcs to question themselves and their actions to fully immerse themselves in the game to make the game engaging and fun

Bear in mind, this isn’t a complaint, merely an observation.

At some of the early campaign development stages the statement was made that Orcus would have a role in Golarion. However that role would be de-emphasized, because WOTC would drawing a lot of attention to Orcus in their new 4E product line.

Thus Baphomet was selected by Editorial to receive some attention in the Golarion setting, as a Demon Lord that was cool and often underutilized. A favored and powerful patron of some Drow Clans.

Strange indeed, Paizo, through James Jacob in his Demonicon series fleshed out the fluff for most of the "minor" demon lords. Most of Baphomet's popularity is due to the Demonicon article. I've used Baphomet in my campaign since reading that article, deeming him as a man who was made a beast, the exact opposite of his rival Yeenoghu, a beast who was made a man. I use these two in the my elven pantheon, with Baphomet worshipped by the elves who were erudite in their savagery, while Yeenoghu were the rabid elves, more beast than elf.
For you Moorcock/Elric fans, think of how Melniboneans and Pantangians view Hionhurn, one elegant and debased the other perverse and savage.
Turaglas the Ebon Maw, would by my choice for an underutilized demon lord. It took an alliance between Demogorgan and Orcus to defeat subdue him. he is evil on the level of Tharizdun. Turaglas slumbering nature also lends itself nicely in a Lovecraftian sort of way...
lets not forget about the obyriths either!

OK First no idea where this should go... so please move to the proper forum

OK Meat of the question is as the Subject says...

I just cannot get into Prestige Classes. This is a personal thing I am sure. But to me they just seem so contrived, a means to deliver really cool abilities with no real reason to exist for the most part.

For me, a Prestige Class would represent the training undergone by an adventurer who joins an organization which produces soldiers, students, apprentices, and the the faithful to fulfill specific roles.

I agree. for the most part i feel certain classes such as paladins should be a prestige class instead of a core class. Aside from the 1e bard which probably was the basis for the prestige classes of today, the paladin was always a difficult class to qualify for a fighter strolls into a church and declares a local woman to be a witch, the parishoners probably take pause and consider. a paladin declares a person a witch and all of a sudden torches are lit and pitchforks are raised. paladins themselves are that prestigous. I also pine for the old 2e specialist cleric rules. to me at least, not every cleric is a combat savy man of cloth, some clerics are, because of their dieties, meant for the pulpit. i prefer variant rules for the base classes to cover more mundane needs and prefer to use prestige classes for the truly unique needs of the campaign