Malefactor's page

Honestly, I have to say that I am very impressed. It's not every day that an adaption can go so far out of its way to insult the source material and anyone that liked it, but by Jove, Amazon has not only suceeded, but passed with flying colors.

Dragonball: Evolution is literally a better adaptation than this.

How did you all react to the reveal that now (or rather, from August 1st) axiomites are going to be part of the Aeon family?

I shall ignore it, like I do to everything Paizo related that isn't first edition Pathfinder.

TheGreatWot wrote:

Let's hope Arazni isn't the next candidate for redemption, then. I haven't read Tyrant's Grasp but if the trend you're describing continues, she'll probably be next. :p

Having read book 4 of Tyrant's Grasp, the answer is a resounding 'maybe' ** spoiler omitted **

Anyway, people are just cherry picking their objectionable redeemable choices here, because they're all over. In Wrath, the one with the succubus, you can redeem an old lich runelord, an evil dwarf cleric, a halfling spy, a cowed barbarian (tribe) and more. Carrion Crown has a Vampire Paladin you can redeem. It goes on. There are plenty of evil people of all genders and varying levels of attractive, and varying levels of evil that you can turn away from the dark in these products if the PCs have the inclination.

And being good looking and female doesn't get you the option all the time either. ** spoiler omitted **

Yes, but many of those people are people you can redeem, not people who are redeemed. No PC has to do anything to have Noctulia decide that being personification of evil is a bad thing. They do if the want

Also, I'd like to clarify that I know that there are plenty of of attractive females who are evil, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a greater likelihood of redemption than others. There are still plenty of evil succubi hanging out in the abyss, but when was the last time you saw a risen dretch? Just because I noticed that canonical redemption of beautiful women is more common than other varieties doesn't mean that it is common in general.

What is the coolest new capstone in your opinion?

*Squints at first picure*

Huh, I've seen this particular tiefling before.

Valeros, I'd suggest leaving right now, or a missing flagon will be the least of your problems.

Could you please tell us the names of the six cities, which planes they reside in, and maybe a short sentence summarizing the basic flavor of each one?

Folks, remember, book covers are not for us invested die-hard fans. You'd all buy this book even if the cover was jet black, for all that's worth. Covers are for distributors, retailers and casual bookstore browsing people who sometimes make their purchase decision based on the cover, not the content.

That is true. However, there is a difference between complaining about what's on the cover because you don't like the art or the scene depicted, as opposed to believing it doesn't fit with what the books actually about.

Let's take a look at Bestiary 6 for example, shall we. Personally, I think it's cover looks very nice, but there are some who don't share that opinion. Maybe the reason why they don't like the cover is because they don't like WAR, maybe it's because they wanted Krampus, or the Wild Hunt, or Lord Varklos, or a giant starfish for all I know, on the cover instead.

All of these complaints may have their supporters and detractors, but the fact of the matter is that the cover gives you an excellent idea on what the contents are going to be like. Bestiary 6 is big beefy book, and one that is full of high CR monsters, from demigods to dead gods, and the cover shows this, with Mephistopheles, Charon, and one badly out-of-his-depth brimorak hanging out in some unidentified hellscape. Even without any Pathfinder knowledge whatsoever, you can tell by the giant six-winged demon, the hulking humanoid bearing a blazing blade, and by the red-eyed boatman whose craft is decorated by severed heads that this book has some rather dangerous denizens.

Contrast the cover for Planar Adventures. While I also happen to like the cover as an art piece, it doesn't sum up it's purpose as well as it could. The astradaemon is a nice touch, but the background is comparatively drab. It doesn't exactly conjure of images of allying with archons, proselytizing with psychopomps, or haggling over trinkets in the Great Bazaar. To be sure, as many have pointed out, there are many points of the planes that do look like the background of this picture, but so do many points in the Prime Material Plane. It just doesn't have that distinct "Dorothy-you're-not-in-Kansas" factor that the planes can really exemplify.

Even with the Astradaemon, it doesn't necessarily scream out "Planar!" to the uneducated masses of non-Pathfinder buying people. Even a few people earlier in this thread expressed confusion over what type of creature it was, and it stands to reason that by shear virtue of being both subscribers (seeing how they saw the picture in the newest AP before it was posted online) and frequenters on the boards they would have greater knowledge on Pathfinder than your average player.

Now, all of this is really just a bit of minor grumbling, and it doesn't change the fact that I'm going to buy it as soon as I am able, no matter the cover, but I still feel that the complaints regarding the cover are not unjustified, however minor they be.

Yeah, but being good ruler in your own age doesn't mean you would be good ruler in current age though.

Fair enough, but it will be interesting to see whether the AP addresses what the common folk think about the great hero-kings of old returning to lead in Taldor's hour of need. I can definitely see much of Eutropia's grassroot support dry up in response to this, as many of her former supporters flock to banners of the Legendary Emperors in the belief that they can restore Taldor to the halcyon days of yore. Seeing as they are the villains of the AP, I doubt that it would work out quite so well for them, but then I have the advantage of knowing who the PC's are supposed to stab to death and who they are supposed to help.

Malefactor wrote:

Now, I don't mean to seem overly pessimistic regarding the leadership abilities of Princess Eutropia, but does seem that the villains got a point here. It stands to reason that, seeing as Taldor was founded slightly under 6 millenia ago, that there has been many so many rulers of the empire that the title of " Greatest Emperor(s) of Taldor" has some rather stiff competition. I am sure her qualities as a ruler are up to a high standard, but I don't know whether they are up to the "greatest-leader-in-the-six-thousand-year-long-history-of-one-of-the-greate st-empires-of-all-of-Golarion" standard, a criteria that her opposition meets by default.

Just my 2 CP, though.

Do note that even if they don't come back as undead abominations, the "greatest emperors" might have been sort of like irl great historical figures: Really horrible warmongers and otherwise not really good people who are respected just because they had notable achievements for their country

Maybe, but being a good person and being a good ruler often doesn't have much to do with each other.

Now, I don't mean to seem overly pessimistic regarding the leadership abilities of Princess Eutropia, but does seem that the villains got a point here. It stands to reason that, seeing as Taldor was founded slightly under 6 millenia ago, that there has been many so many rulers of the empire that the title of "Greatest Emperor(s) of Taldor" has some rather stiff competition. I am sure her qualities as a ruler are up to a high standard, but I don't know whether they are up to the "greatest-leader-in-the-six-thousand-year-long-history-of-one-of-the-greate st-empires-of-all-of-Golarion" standard, a criteria that her opposition meets by default.

Just my 2 CP, though.

Honestly though, the paladin will probably stay Lawful Good in 2nd edition whatever the majority (or vocal minority, be as it may) says. This is not because I believe that Paizo doesn't listen to it's fanbase or anything like that, rather that it is a matter of realpolitik.

You see, this is rather like that issue a few months back about Folca and The Book of The Damned. Most of the forum disagreed with the sentiments of the OP, and I presume most of the greater Pathfinder buying public wouldn't have been overly shocked that a book about the embodiments of pure evil would have some rather unpleasant things in it, but at the end of the day Paizo decided to remove Folca from subsequent printings of that book. As Paizo let the material get published in the first place and several of their employees had defended the inclusion of Folca in the book previously on the boards leads me to the conclusion that, at the very least, they did not feel quite as strongly about that particular issue as those raising it did.

The fact of the matter was though, that Paizo could better afford to go against the wishes of the majority than to lose the patronage of a minority.

While fellows such as Gorbacz and myself were certainly disagreed with and were unhappy about that decision, it wasn't like we were going to stop buying Pathfinder books over something like that. The ones who took issue with Folca? They were entirely ready split with Paizo over that issue. In the end Paizo made the correct business decision.

The reason why I went on that long anecdote just now was to draw parallels in between that situation and this one. While folks like Wei Ji the Learner or Diminuendo would certainly dislike having Paladins only be LG, I doubt it would be anything they'd stop playing Pathfinder over, with my primary evidence being they're playing it right now. Even among people who strongly dislike alignment restrictions, the amount of them who would completely refuse to play a system they otherwise like just because paladins are LG only is infinitesimal.

HWalsh and folk like him on the over hand? This is a hill they're are ready to die on. I expect they would refuse point-blank to play in game that had non-Lawful Good paladins in it, and not wish to use any system where such a thing is the default. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, this sentiment represents losing players (and by proxy, customers) for a change in one line in the write up of the paladin class.

Paizo will, in all likelihood, keep Paladins LG. It is better to irritate part of your fanbase than to lose another part all together, and with the edition change and everything, they won't want to give anyone a reason to stay with this one when they don't have to.

After all, it's just good business.

All of this sounds good to me. I love evolution.

Perhaps, but I fear we may be on the wrong side of it.

First off, monsters are a lot easier to design. We've moved away from strict monster construction formulas based off type and Hit Dice. Instead, we start by deciding on the creature's rough level and role in the game, then select statistics that make it a balanced and appropriate part of the game. Two 7th-level creatures might have different statistics, allowing them to play differently at the table, despite both being appropriate challenges for characters of that level.

Well fellows, I'm afraid that's the dealbreaker for me. If monsters aren't made the using the same sort of rules as the adventurers, it's just not for me. It's what drove me away from Starfinder, and I doubt my reaction will be any different this time. I can only hope someone or other takes the mantle of Pathfinder First Edition in the same way Paizo took the mantle from 3.5, because as far as I can tell, this new edition won't be the next system for me.

Anyone else having trouble making new threads? I was trying to make a comment on a product that didn't have a discussion yet, but each time I pressed submit it would act as though I had pressed the preview button instead.

When in doubt, never neglect the classics of the genre.

“We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.” -Robert Jordan, The Dragon Reborn

"We'll drink the wine till the cup is dry,
And kiss the girls so they'll not cry,
And toss the dice until we fly,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows.

We'll dance all night until the moon runs free,
And dandle the lasses upon our knee,
And then you'll ride along with me,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows.

We'll sing all night, and drink all day,
And on the girls we'll spend our pay,
And when it's gone, then we'll away,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows.

There's some delight in ale and wine,
And some in girls with ankles fine,
But my delight, yes, always mine,
Is to dance with Jak o' the Shadows.

We'll give a yell with a bloody curse,
And hug the maids, it could be worse,
As we ride away with the Dark One's purse,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows!" -Robert Jordan, Wheel of Time

Order of the Stick #1112 "And Maybe a New Pair of Shoes"

...So, any chance of this book stating up more axomites? It would be nice to have more lawful neutral outsiders and axomites seem to be a natural candidate for such an expansion, even it it was just stats for when some of them combine to complete a task that is beyond them individually.

Kill it and make a clay golem.

Cley golems can supress all healing with thier cursed wound ability.

Have it maim the corpse.

Kill the golem to release the elemental you imprisoned.

Tada.

No, that won't work, because among the Tarrasques long list of immunities is an immunity to 'permanent wounds'.

Thanks Skeld! Mind giving us an overview of the monsters you listed (i.e. what they look like and what sets them apart from others of their type)?

I occasionally resurrect threads with my primary motive being that I hope that some of my own posts from earlier in the thread will get more exposure and get the recognition and favorites they deserve.

...It is not often successful.

Great to see you back, Nethys! I was starting to get worried!

Rysky wrote:

Abilties aren’t always traded out equally for Archetypes, it’s just how they’re structured, you have to look at the Archetype as a whole rather than on an ability by ability basis.

I mean, if we don't choose to look at these things holistically, the Water Dancer trades Evasion for Burn, which might be the worst archetype trade of all time.

Voices of the Spheres: At 2nd level, an empyreal knight learns to speak and read Celestial, if she could not already. This ability replaces divine grace.

The worst part of it is, if you already know celestial, either because you're aasimar or you just spent 1 skillpoint in linguistics, you are completely out of luck. You just lost Divine Grace, ability so nice 9th level casters have been known to give up 2 levels of spell casting for, in exchange for absolutely nothing. If somebody can show me a paladin build that is so skill starved that they would willingly exchange divine grace for one skill point, I'll take away everything I ever said about this trade, but as it stands, all other archetypes look better in comparison.[/rant]

Dragon78 wrote:

I like the small one that can't be cooked or cut to pieces.

I would also like to add the Gorgas to the wish list.

What's a Gorgas?

River Kingdom Spoilers:

They're part of the lore of Sevenarches, a former elven kingdom abandoned when the starstone fell. The elven gates left behind became corrupted and now produce horrific monsters called the "gorgas" whenever an elf crosses into Sevenarches. Due to this problem, the druidic circle of Oakstewards have banned all elves from re-entering their former kingdom. There are no stats or further explanations to be found for the creatures anywhere and those of us that use them have had to cobble together our own versions.

Since we're on the topic of what we would like to see in the bestiary section anyway, I would like to say the same thing I always say: I would like to see a CR 20 Archon. Archons have been in the game since Bestiary 1 and have had a long history in the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game, but here we are 8 years later with 5 more bestiaries, and archons are practically* the only aligned outsider group without one, and that makes me sad. When the tertiary groups of aligned outsiders can have CR 20's, why not the legions of the Heavenly Host?

*Waits for Directosaur to management-of-expectations all over my lawful dreams XD*

Shipping starts tomorrow :3

Eh, I saw the store blog had already said something about it, and assumed it had already started shipping. Serves me right for not checking, I guess.

Anyone have the book yet?

If so, would somebody please give an overview on the 9 monsters within (i.e. Name, Creature Type, CR, and brief explanation of the monsters schtick)?

Thanks in advance.

WAR! Good God! What. Is. It. Good. For?

It's good for you! It's good for me!

Am I the only one going to get that reference? Probably, but I'll keep making it until someone gets it.

Now, I'll preface this with the disclaimer that most of the time, not all the time but most, I play using the default Pathfinder Campaign Setting with most of the differences being due to the actions my player's have taken, with a few changes of my own (i.e. Lissala is Lawful Neutral, not Evil) but still, sometimes you just want to run a campaign that wouldn't work in Golarion as written, and you don't feel like making sweeping changes to the setting to make room for one campaign.

Still, even after you've constructed a new world in which your party of half-dwarves, psionic fishpeople, and valiant hobgoblins can successfully crusade against the insane machinations of the Twice-dead armies of the Gnomish Confederacy, there is still room for some things from Golarion proper to fill out the rough edges. After all, in the immortal words of Pablo Picasso "good artists borrow, but great artists steal."

Since I started the thread, I'll answer my own question first. A while ago I was running a homebrew campaign where all the continents had been shattered in an ancient cataclysm, creating a planet consisting of rough seas and vast archipelagos. It worked well for the type of game I was planning (a very episodic, Star Trek-esque new culture and threat every week sort of thing) but I felt like it needed an overarching threat to make it so my players would feel like they were actually accomplishing something other than killing things and taking their stuff. While I was debating what might be a good choice for the task, seeing as it would have to be a monster that was moderately powerful, had a good connection flavorwise, and wasn't such an obvious choice that anyone would be able to figure it out before I had a chance to properly set it up (e.g. "Oh we're in *not*-Egypt? I'm sure the villain is totally not a mummy!") my eyes caught upon one of the modules on my shelf, and after that, the choice was obvious.

You see, I happened to see one of the best Pathfinder modules there is (at least in terms of setting), that is to say The Moonscar and if you're anything like me, all you need to here about it is the phrase "Jungle Moon Succubi" and you're hooked. If you're a DM and that combination of words doesn't leave you proverbially salivating at the very thought of such a thing ...that is in entirely fine as no two tables are going to be exactly the same, and everyone gets something different out of this game, but for me that was the coolest thing since sliced bread. The Campaign practically wrote itself, with the PC's fighting islands whose leaders were dominated or charmed by succubi, lead by tieflings or half-fiends descended from the aforementioned succubi, or who worshipped the succubi as dark goddesses. Even when my players did fight succubi or other demons, they had no inclination that they we were popping in from the Moon of all places until very late into campaign and even then only after hints being dropped since level one.

All in all, it was one of my most successful homebrew campaigns, and it all started due to me blatantly stealing from another campaign setting.

Now, after I've spent the last couple paragraphs of this post boring you with personal anecdotes, back to the question at hand. What things from Golarion have you mixed in to your home settings?

Well, I am sorry that this is the decision that Paizo has chosen to make, but I respect Paizo's right to make it.

I guess I'll just have to move up The Book of the Damned in my queue of books to purchase so I can get the complete package before it's too late.

For likely the last time in this thread, Malefactor out.

I think they might have been referring more to the save penalty vs Aboleths.

Yes, but slimehunter trades in the +2 to non-aboleth mind affecting effects (and corresponding -2 against aboleth enchantments) for a +2 against against aboleth spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, so if anything it's even better for a campaign like this.

Eh, if you take the alternate racial trait Slimehunter from the ARG you should be fine as long as you submerge in water once per day, and even then you can just take the feat Surface Survivor if you don't want to have to deal with that.

Malefactor wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

If management has admitted an error, then they should also take steps to rectify the error. It doesn't matter if it's a small job or a big job.

While they're at it, they could maybe fix the art for Nocticula. To something a little less Male-Gazey?

If you're going to make a book with mature themes you have to be incredibly careful about what lines are being crossed, and how you're representing the game.

I understand that books are complex, but unless direct action is taken to rectify mistakes, then this is another bit of lost faith in Paizo as a company and Pathfinder as a game.

Nocticula is demon lord of lust. She has a charisma of 40. One of her abilities is actually called "Seductive Presence" for Shelyn's sake! It is one thing for random women to be drawn in a sexual way, but this the queen of all succubi, if anything, it would be weird for her not to be drawn in that way. Dear lord, what's next? Being afraid people will be offended at religious themes in the game and getting rid of the celestials and fiends? I rather not go back to the 1980's level on censorship if it's all the same to you. Mature themes can happen is this game. If you don't like it, don't use it at your table, but don't try and force everyone else to play like you because something that offends you.

Malefactor, out.

So is demon lord of gluttony depicted as a sentient pile of donuts, fried chicken, and waffles or is it depicted as an obese demon? Is the lord of pride a big trophy with an all A's report card? Greed a pile of gold? Wrath a bruised and broken body?

Why is the personification of lust portrayed as the object of lust when other sin demoms are portrayed as the subjects aka creatures that commit the sin?

Is the "sin" of lust being the target of it or is the sin being lustful?

Lust seems to be included as a sin for pedantic reasons: it's not really evil but Six Deadly...

Well, if we are going back to what "4th century monks" thought were sins, as you put it, then Nocticula does fit the classical definition. You see, traditionally speaking, it was not considered to be so much of a sin to merely feel lust, as that sort of thing is necessary for offspring and nobody wanted the church to die off because nobody had children, but it was to inspire it in others, as it could lead others away from the monogamous in wedlock relationships church officials required (hence the requirement of modest dress found in some denominations, and why sex is seen as fine in wedlock) and as such, by your own qualifications, Nocticula is prime example of such of thing, as she has absolutely no shame in flaunting what she has in order to tempt the righteous off the proverbial straight and narrow. As such, it is no more out of tune for an embodiment of lust to be extremely revealing and provocative than it is for wrath demons to be muscular and violent, pride demons to have an overly inflated sense of their own appearance, or sloth demons to appear indolent and overweight. Just because you don't like how a sin is personified doesn't mean it isn't a valid personification of the concept.

Malefactor out.

It could really read "Double post or thread".

It can be used for:

• duplicate posts in the same thread
  
• duplicate threads made by the same poster (due to a posting error or someone trying to cross post to different forums)
  
• two or more threads with the same subject which result in two of the same conversation happening simultaneously. (Either they can be merged or one closed and directing further posts to the open thread).

The majority of the flags I see for this are the first two reasons.

Alright then, just wanted to make sure I wasn't inadvertently adding to the mods workload, thank you for the response.

Yeah, but The Great Beyond, A Guide to the Multiverse was only 64 pages, so seeing as this is a 200+ page book, I think we can expect to see a good amount of new content, as well.

Anything on the Planar dragons would be very nice, seeing as currently we don't have much more than the stat block in terms of knowledge about them. I would be nice to know the basic philosophical differences between say, a Gold Dragon and Paradise Dragon for instance.

If the first post in a thread is flagged as a double post, I think the general assumption is that it is in fact a duplicate thread.

I have seen some interesting merged threads where the conversation in each thread went on for a little while before the two threads were merged.

Yeah, I thought as much, but just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something obvious that everyone else already knew about. Thanks for your time.

Go into one of the threads. On the first post click FLAG at the top-right of the post. From drop-down select “Double Post”.

Done.

I know that. I was just wondering if Double Post was the most appropriate thing to use, which you would know if you actually read my post, as opposed to assuming I didn't understand how flagging worked.

I've always just flagged them as being Double Posts, but it never seemed entirely right to me, seeing as if a moderator sees a thread that has been flagged as such with no actual double posts in it, they might just chalk it up to it be false alarm, and go on their merry way not knowing that there is a literally identical thread in the exact same forum. Should I be doing something different, of have I been right all along?

*To be clear, I don't mean multiple threads with the same focus, I mean that OP accidently pressed the submit post button one too many times when making a new thread

I'm just glad no one gave King Mogaru levels in Cavalier so he can't do Green Knight... ;)

BRB, know who the BBEG will be will be in next campaign.

Now you make think I'm joking, and I am, but what is really concerning is that was actually more than half-serious, there's an actual chance I'm going to do this

I wonder, does Pathfinder need a daemon of pedophilia? Does Folca really add anything to a campaign? Has any GM ever said “You know what my campaign needs? A fiend that molests children!”

At least two people seem too think it adds something to their games, and judging from the amount of favorites those post received, such opinions aren't what one what one would call uncommon or unpopular.

Does your game need to have Folca in it? Probably not, if the thought of having it in their makes you uncomfortable, but the nice thing about Pathfinder is if something isn't to your taste, you don't have to have it in your game. If your DM is looking to add Folca to your game (or if one of your players/ another player is) you can simply talk to them, politely explain that it makes you uncomfortable, and request for it not be put into play.Most people would accept the request and take the game in a direction in which all the players can enjoy themselves. If they refuse, then you can either request the help of the other members of the group in convincing them, to the extent of booting the person who is making you uncomfortable out of the group if necessary, but if you are unable to sway the other members of the group, or if doing what I proposed would make you feel uncomfortable, you can just leave that group, which is really what you should do if nobody in the group cares enough about you the care if what they're doing upsets you. No Pathfinder is better than Bad Pathfinder, after all.

Still, assuming everyone in the group is okay with it, and the DM wants to use him, why shouldn't people be able to use Folca in their home games, as long as nobody is being hurt by it?

*Edit: Ninja'd! As usual, Rysky managed to make the point in a more brief and eloquent way than I, but I'll let this post stand as I think it addressed one or two points they didn't cover.

I love the Batarang. Especially the ones Terry McGinnis got to use.

Batman Beyond is criminally underrated show.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Tears to Wine works on liquids that aren't exactly water. Like oil. Or melted wax. A friend tried to argue he could use it on lava, but the whole table shot that down(despite it being funny).

Where are you getting that it doesn't work on water? The target is liquid (liquid water is a liquid) and the text says that it includes contaminated liquids, which implies clean liquids are viable options.

I believe he was it works on other liquids in addition to water, not that it works on other liquids with the exclusion of water. That's just my interpretation though, I could be wrong.

Perhaps whether or not it is okay to include truly terrible acts of evil at a table should depend on the table. Perhaps it is acceptable to include setting material to support the darkest paths.

It's not okay to include a deific obedience style ability for this. We don't need deific obediences for NPCs. It's not a helpful GM tool. It's a format that invites players to look at and consider it. For such pure evil a line about his followers' actions would've been more appropriate.

It's not okay to include as little warning as this book does. Warning are not about existing or not. They should be appropriate to the content within. The warnings in similar books of DnD's history were far better at exploring the ideas of clear consent to use such materials this book pays lip service to.

It's not okay to do so while the issues of sexual abuse are being laid front and stage for American without some respect to the context into which the material is being released.

It's not okay to be slow to act after realizing how bad this is.

Why not? NPC's need stat blocks too you know, and you have to have an obedience feat to qualify for several prestige classes. I am well aware that a DM is perfectly free to give an NPC whatever abilities he wants, but some DMs (like myself) prefer to (templates excluded) build our NPCs with the same rules the PC's themselves have to follow. It's not entirely fair to my players if I ignore the prerequisites of prestige class in order to free up feats and skillpoints for things that will make killing the players easier, and it can feel more satisfying to play by the rules and live by the roll of the dice, than to go "This NPC has an undispellable freedom of movement effect on him with duration of constant. It's DM fiat, I don't gotta explain crap!" There is nothing strictly wrong with playing that way, and I would be lying if I said I never gave an antagonist an ability that wouldn't typically be available to them, but on the whole, I like it when we are all on the same playing field, and that is why I like Obediences for deities that I would NEVER let a player near with 39 and half foot pole.

Ah, yes whataboutism, the tactic commonly used by the USSR to deflect criticism towards them by pointing out failings of the western world. While that doesn't change the fact that USSR may have done those things, it also doesn't mean that the things they pointed out weren't true, at least, not by default. If the pot calls the kettle black, is being a hypocrite, it is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the kettle is still black. As for my comment about Fandarra, it was not meant to be linked with my previous post, it was just that I felt it was odd that people were complaining that evil (quasi)deity did evil things,so I went looking for the worst thing a non-evil god wants their followers to do, which could misconstrued as Paizo believing that the action wasn't an evil act (whereas with Folca, I can't see anyone looking at the portfolio a neutral evil daemon and going "Gee, What a swell guy!") and found Fandarra, who, being a true neutral goddess could theoretically lead someone to believe that human sacrifice isn't an evil act and posted my findings as what I thought an example of something that could legitimately lead to someone arguing that killing a sentient being for no other reason than "my god wanted blood" to be non-evil. I apologize if I seemed to be doing something else, and try to make my intentions clearer in future posts.

Malefactor wrote:

Okay, this is not a rhetorical question. This is not me be snarky or sarcastic or trying to make a point. This is me legitimately trying to understand your viewpoint: What do you think Paizo has done that is morally wrong, and why hasn't anything that has been in the game beforehand not been morally wrong if this is?

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/consequences.html

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/effects-child-abuse-and-neglect-adult -survivors

https://www.frcmo.org/resources/resources-for-professionals/effects-of-chil d-abuse/

Paizo took a serious issue, which people deal with on a daily basis, and turned it into '+2 charisma bonus' and 'magic spells that make the abuser better at abuse' - quite literally the more you abuse kids, the better you get at it.

This isn't an issue of having Folca as a theme, it's giving magic powers for child abuse - rewarding abuse.

Pathfinder, in the main, is a game about heroes overcoming obstacles to be, well, big damn heroes. It's not 'Don't Res Your Head' for the most part, it's not 'Whispering Vault' or a Shoah Wraith campaign. And absolutely there are groups that can explore and deal with mature themes on a mature level.

Pathfinder's hardbacks have, traditionally, been player-focused, or player/GM split. So this is a book for players, not exclusively for GMs.

And yes, while there's a nod at a content warning, at no point does it say 'by the way, we give child abusers magic powers' in this book.

On reading Folca's entry, and the magic powers it grants, i flashed right back to my abuse and what happened to me.

And then I got angry, because this was Paizo, a company I thought of as being better than thisk, a company I thought of as broadly trying to do the right thing, sure with some mishaps and mistakes along the way, but actually trying to do better, to be better.

And then they ignored it, and dodged the questions and the criticism.

And then the only responses...

Yeah, I get that child horrible and all, but what I do get is why only child abuse? Why don't we see this same reaction for the obediences that require torture or murder or anything like that. Why is it only child abuse crosses that line, but none of the other awful things you can do to get power (such as graveknights sacrificing 13 good aligned creatures and then committing ritual suicide in order to become an undead monstrosity) do? Why is child abuse the pinnacle of evil in a way nothing else is?

Honestly, seeing how worked up people in this thread are getting about the possibility of player playing a neutral character who worships the daemonic harbinger of child abuse (if the DM isn't paying attention and the player's a dick) imagine their reaction when they find out you can be the Neutral Good worshipper of a goddess who requires (for lack of a better word) "Human" Sacrifice. I mean, at least Ragathiel requires them to be evildoers guilty of crime, what's her excuse for staying neutral?

Malefactor wrote:

Strictly speaking, I don't see anything here as a moral wrong on Paizo's part.

Okay.

However, those that disagree believe that direct action, and responsibility should be taken by the company to fix this.

Okay, this is not a rhetorical question. This is not me be snarky or sarcastic or trying to make a point. This is me legitimately trying to understand your viewpoint: What do you think Paizo has done that is morally wrong, and why hasn't anything that has been in the game beforehand not been morally wrong if this is?

I genuinely want to know.

Strictly speaking, I don't see anything here as a moral wrong on Paizo's part. Oh, you could say it is wrong in the sense that if they didn't print Folca they wouldn't have deal with threads like this, but that is a matter of practicality rather than morality. What happened was Paizo published a book called the The Book of the Damned said it would focus on the fiends (i.e. the races of outsiders that are literally made of pure evil), the leaders thereof (i.e. those ruthless and powerful enough to not only survive, but thrive in an environment made out of evil, with their peers constantly trying to make them fail and suffer for all eternity), and finally the worshipers the aforementioned monsters. They then specifically noted at the beginning of the book that you may find the contents of the volume disturbing and unpleasant, in order to warn people who may find the deeds of beings of pure evil distasteful, with specific notice that the "foul boons" gifted to their most devoted worshippers. After that, it should be of no great surprise after being told that you may not like what demon lords and archdevils do for kicks and giggles, you find that you don't like what one of the being of pure evil asks his followers what to do. At that point, it is kind of like reading The Bacon Lover's Cookbook and complaining that food inside isn't kosher, I mean, yes it's true, but on the other hand, what were you expecting from something like that? The second point is that no real person has been hurt by this. Okay fine, some people might of been reminded of traumatic experiences they or those close to them have suffered in the past, but 1)The book opens up with warning about the contents of the book (Nicely provided by Gorbacz earlier in the thread) letting them know that that was a possibility, and 2) The same thing could be said about other demon lords if someone had or had a loved one who committed suicide, was murdered, sexually assaulted, robbed, assaulted and so on and so forth, but if being pure evil can't actually do evil things, that calls their supposed misdeeds into question if they are limited to being the moral equivalence of saturday morning cartoon villains. Unlike what happened in the late unpleasantness mentioned in passing earlier in this thread, no actual people have been hurt by this psychotic or his depraved minions. No children have scarred for life, and no families have lost a son or a daughter at Folca's hands because none of the preceeding people exist. What horrors Folca has forced unto the world are entirely up to you. He could be the greatest threat to children everywhere, with everyone knowing at least one person suffered at his cultist's hands, or he could have been killed so long ago that even the empyreal lord who slew him no longer knows whose skull adorns her pike. It's all up to you and your group. Themes such as these are not unknown within the realms of entertainment, writers such as Stephen King and George R.R. Martin have had plots with child predators in them before, as have popular movies television shows and (probably) video games. why is Paizo uniquely at fault for having similar themes as possible addition to their game as opposed to all these others? If anything, Tabletop RPGs are perhaps better suited to such themes than other media. While I can only hope that the kids manage to escape from and defeat Pennyworth in IT, I can take personal initiative Folca and his cult never hurt anyone again, something I could never do as passive observer to a media. So I must ask again, what has Paizo done wrong?

Just my 2 cp though.

Malefactor wrote:

So? This is for EVIL people, who do EVIL things. I mean, yeah someone is going to go "well, you can be a neutral worshipper of Folca" and yeah, RAW says you can, but that runs into the same problems as being a Chaotic Neutral worshipper of Socothbenoth, who's pretty much demon lord of rape, which is RAW says you can, but basic human decency says you can't. I mean, I would understand this uproar if this obedience was for a good or even neutral deity, but not only is Folca a neutral evil deity, but he is a Daemon, a fiend so evil that devils and demons team up with celestials to combat. No reasonable person is going to look at Folca and come to the conclusion that Paizo supports child abuse. And as for unreasonable people, do you really think someone who is legitimately okay with pedophilia is going to go "Gee wiz, I wish their was a mechanical benefit for abusing kids, because otherwise, I just won't bother." I still have not heard a compelling reason why we must remove all mentions of Folca, even though using the same logic we shouldn't let any villains kill people because someone who is okay with murder might think that the game encourages killing random innocents. Bad guys are supposed to BAD things so that the players realize they are BAD...

Would you be rolling the saving throw for the 8 year old child that the abuser has cast unnatural lust on?

Will your players be rolling a saving throw for the unnatural lust cast on them?

Will you be detailing the magic aura for the modify memory cast on an abuse victim after one of your players casts detect magic when they arrive at the aftermath just too late to catch the abuser but see the abused child there?

Will you be describing how the child has been turned into a perfect representation of the abusers ideal victim, so they can follow those down and hope to track down that abuser?

Will you be stopping with your slippery slope arguments and straw man fallacies anytime soon?

Please show me where I...

If I decided to use Folca cultists in campaign, yes. Sure, Folca is not right choice for every or even most campaigns, and I'd make sure everyone at my table would be okay with exploring such themes, as this is a sensitive issue for many, but if I felt that it was something I wished to explore and everyone else was okay with it, then maybe I would. Let it be known, however, that this would not be a game of "watch the children be horribly abused while you can do nothing about it", it would be "hunt down the horrible piece of rectum that's hurting children and destroy him so utterly that he shall be deafened by the shrill sounds of his own screams". You talk a great amount about fallacies, but you are committing some of your own. Just because I am, if not comfortable but open to allowing Folca and his cult into my games does not mean I condone his actions, rather that I am more accepting of villains being truly vile monsters who my players must put down posthaste. Now I understand that this is heavy issue for many people, and do not expect you to have Folca in your home games, but why would it be so terrible for other people to have them in theirs?