Mechagamera's page

691 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

This isn't exactly an old spell, but I figure if magic users can summon dragons, giants, and constructs, they should be able to summon undead, just with the added limitation that they can't create spawn.


Yqatuba wrote:
I actually kind of like the idea of splitting a soul into multiple outsiders, as we already know it's possible to make more than one outsider out of a soul, as that's how dretches form.

I have done something like this in the past where all souls split into 9 pieces which gravitate towards the outer realm that fits them, with the biggest 2 or 3 pieces becoming outsiders, and the other parts becoming part of the scenery. I noticed that I tended to run the neutral outsiders (LN CN N) as a lot more active in the world, which I think was my subconscious telling me that "winner takes all" benefits the neutrals (someone who was LG then LE averages out to LN in PF2, but in my system LN might not get much out of the soul, where LG and LE both would).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In Pathfinder the Next Generation, the ship's security officer will be a goblin with a beard (because all goblins will have beards a century from now), and if that doesn't tell you what Torag thinks of goblins (and who is responsible for the change in goblins), well there is no hope for you.


My first thought was "well a heightened to 7th level spell should be good", but then I looked up awakened trees and saw they were creature 6, and getting an 8 and 2 6's (even if they are all minions) for one 7th level spell does seem more than generous.


Salamileg wrote:
In regards to the Witch, I just hope Cackle was changed. Either removed, made so it actually does something aside from change a couple traits, or made less prominent in the class description. In the playtest, the formatting made it look as important as a Rage is to a Barbarian.

Not much chance of this, but I hope it ends up being something like "anyone who hears your cackle and makes a save against a hex has their level of success on the save lowered by one."


More Windsong Testaments please.


I think it also depends on the circumstances the PC encounters the other worshippers. The TN alignment is a flaw on the path to enlightenment, but it isn't necessarily a flaw that needs to be removed right away. Maybe if the wizard reaches a stumbling block that he can't get over, then advice about greater discipline would go over better.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like the reason for a con "caster" is that the notion of "you channel magic in a way that harms you physically" is pretty easy to understand and yeah, that should be a con class.

You mean like the oracle?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main reason for a con caster was for races with no mental stat boost, but so far in PF2, it looks like everyone gets a mental boost and a physical boost (or a free boost), so unless orcs or gnolls don't get a mental stat boost, there isn't much need for one.

That being said, I wouldn't have minded if things like number of rounds of rage or wild shape (or some kind of ability where the fighter does more damage if the fight lasts long enough) were based on your con modifier.


I figure most all the champions want the world to change in order to be more aligned with the alignment they are the champion of. But the only way to make the world more TN is to keep the world as it is (or at least no more fantastic than it is), so if the TN champion hears about a wizard developing an 11th level spell (or even a new 10th level spell), I think the correct response is to find the wizard, kill him/her, and burn up all his/her stuff. Ditto if the TN champion hears about someone trying to summon a bunch of demons (or angels).


It may not matter much. If all the casting is done by focus spells, the summoner could be just like the monk who can be either divine or occult. So whatever you choose the focus spell type to be will determine what type of eidolon you get (construct or fey for arcane, elemental for primal, fey or aberration for occult, and celestial or fiend for divine).

To simplify things, I think they will go the 4e summoning route, and the eidolon's strength score will be the summoner's charisma modifier and maybe the eidolon's defenses will be based on the summoner's wisdom modifier.

Most of the customizing will be done with feats and focus spells. The class will provide the general boosts, so a GM only needs to know whether you took the right feats to give Pichachu "lightning tail attack", not is it able to do X level of damage, since level of damage will 90% be determined by your class level.

What I would like to see is some kind of greater minion ability: the summoner uses 2 actions to control the eidolon and it gets to take 3 actions


Ravingdork wrote:

I see neutral champions as I would the old 3.5 knight class, or the 1st Edition Order of the Cockatrice cavalier.

If anything, I feel they would be more like traditional armored knights or samurai (both heavy armor concepts) fighting on behalf of mortal traditions and beliefs rather than those of the gods.

The mercenary knight that follows coin and himself would be chaotic neutral. A samurai who follows their mortal master regardless of whether they do good or evil would be lawful neutral. Disenfranchised knights or ronin wondering the land would be largely neutral, at least until they can find a new path.

This could also represent a champion of Rahadoum, who hunts down champions and clerics of the faith.

I don't know how well that would fit with divine ally. Normally I would be okay with mad-libbing any pesky adjectives, but that one seems a little too detailed for that.


I could see the 1st focus spell being some kind of variant protection spell that protects you against both good and evil (you gain more protection but lose the ability to chose).


The balance cop is probably the best role for the LN champion, since I can't see the paladin or the LE champion (hope it is called the oppressor to keep the 'er' 'or' type endings) worrying too much about balance. How to make that work without being super annoying to the rest of the party is a big question.

For the CN champion, I would go with the Braggart Champion who swears to do big deeds and goes out and does them, regardless of whether they are good or not; more for the challenge and the glory (blame this on the talk of Valkyries and 5e's oath of glory paladin). I can see the liberator and the CE champion (hoping for defiler or corrupter, 'cause that's what demons do) doing that on occasion, but not their main gigs. Plus, I can see Besmara, Cayden, and Gorum being into this. And it isn't like every party doesn't have some bozo who gets them into trouble with his/her mouth anyway.

Nothing comes to mind for TN, hoping to see the NE champion (hoping for destroyer, 'cause that's what daemons do) to see what fits in between redemption and destruction (or whatever the title of the NE champ is). Preserver? Some kind of super body guard who doesn't care if the body he/she is guarding is good or evil, lawful or chaotic.....


My memory isn't what it used to be (the second thing to go, and I forgot the first), but I thought I read somewhere that they were going to focus on members of B1 races of celestials and fiends in B2 so that there would be a level 7 devil for summon fiends (for example) so you wouldn't have to settle for a demon (if devils were your thing) or you had a 15th level angel to summon if you spent a 10th level slot on it (which I admit I find reasonable). As I said, I could be wrong on that.

May is coming up pretty soon, so hopefully a list of critters will be coming up pretty soon too.

And they reintroduced velsacs (formerly known as kytons) in an AP, so Valkyries could show up before B3, even if they aren't in B2.


GM_3826 wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:

I think it is worth quoting James Jacobs over in the other neutral champion thread (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42og8?Where-do-you-think-we-ll-see-Neutral-Ch ampions):

"For example... I could see a place for a true neutral champion that's all about protecting the flow of life and death and souls, and would be a full-on fighter against undead and creatures that capture or consume souls. That would absolutely be enough meat to base a class around, but conceptually, that starts to feel like it's stealing some of the
lunch of the good champions who already do pretty well against undead.

The trick is finding a role for neutral champions that is interesting and can support an entire class but doesn't poach things from other champions. When (and IF) we come up with an idea there... only then will we start to look at possibly doing a neutral champion. But from the office of expectation management, that day might never come."

And in a separate quote: "All of them are on the proverbial table, but I don't think it'd be satisfying to do just the LN and CN ones and not the N ones. Furthermore, while a LN champion could be all about fighting chaos and a CN one all about fighting law... again, that starts to potentially step on the toes of other champions a little. They'd need more than that. "

It is nice that they want to do something interesting with the champions of neutrality other than mad-libbing some adjectives in other champion's abilities, but it doesn't sound like anything will happen soon.

I wish someone had posted this sooner. It's good to know exactly what they were thinking, but I kind of wish they were less rigid about this. Oh, well.

Either way, I want Paizo to do more with Valkyries.

I agree on the Valkyries; I have thought for a long time that the CN defining outsider should have been some kind of Muse that inspires mortals to do wild and crazy things, and Valkyries fit that bill.

There were a lot of ideas in response to those postings on that thread. Admittedly too many (including some of mine) where "just like a liberator champion but...." which were pretty much DOA, but there were other ones with potential. On the plus side, that might have been the first alignment thread that didn't degenerate into angry bickering....

It is frustrating to hear about champions of any alignment, and have three be put off. I am genuinely hopeful that it will be worth the wait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is worth quoting James Jacobs over in the other neutral champion thread (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42og8?Where-do-you-think-we-ll-see-Neutral-Ch ampions):

"For example... I could see a place for a true neutral champion that's all about protecting the flow of life and death and souls, and would be a full-on fighter against undead and creatures that capture or consume souls. That would absolutely be enough meat to base a class around, but conceptually, that starts to feel like it's stealing some of the
lunch of the good champions who already do pretty well against undead.

The trick is finding a role for neutral champions that is interesting and can support an entire class but doesn't poach things from other champions. When (and IF) we come up with an idea there... only then will we start to look at possibly doing a neutral champion. But from the office of expectation management, that day might never come."

And in a separate quote: "All of them are on the proverbial table, but I don't think it'd be satisfying to do just the LN and CN ones and not the N ones. Furthermore, while a LN champion could be all about fighting chaos and a CN one all about fighting law... again, that starts to potentially step on the toes of other champions a little. They'd need more than that. "

It is nice that they want to do something interesting with the champions of neutrality other than mad-libbing some adjectives in other champion's abilities, but it doesn't sound like anything will happen soon.


I don't think they are struggling with mechanics for neutral champions. It is more they struggling with a story for neutral champions that doesn't step on the toes of the good and (upcoming) evil champions. Once they feel good about a story, then the mechanics will follow shortly. Once the evil champions come out, it should be pretty simple to create mechanics that are less selfish than theirs and more selfish than the good ones--instead of worrying about reacting to someone else getting hurt, you react to you getting hurt.

As an aside, I think they would have been better to make neutral champions before evil champions and then embraced evil for the evil champions. I figure there is a good chance they will pick not particularly evil-feeling mechanics for the evil ones to avoid "disruptive behavior", but is champion the place for "evil, but not really?"


I would like something like a martial sorcerer where you get better at hitting things (or get new and interesting ways to hit things) because of your bloodline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It might be a little bit hard to be lawful and be in the wild order and your evil druids have to be selective about what they inflict wanton cruelty on for some of the other orders, but none of that seems insurmountable.


If you are immune to needing to eat, drink, and breathe in a Hellish landscape with no food, water, and plenty of poison gases, then you probably don't need to worry about not drinking in a mortal desert. That being said, nothing about the celestial, fiend, or monitor suggests that they are immune to suffering the effects of dehydration, starvation, or suffocation induced via magic.


For evil mortal races and monsters, most of them have a connection to an evil god, demon lord, archdevil, etc. and it would be a pretty incompetent Big Evil not to go as far as possible to hard code evil into them (socially, biologically, psychologically). I figure for most types, you need to make a choice to be evil (ritualized in most evil cultures), so the hard coding can't be 100%.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because Kender are WotC IP. I kid, I kid.

"The war sucked and we don't feel like being evil anymore" is workable, but it feels like it is cheating the poor goblins out of a mythical moment. Everyone deserves a mythical moment, so:

My PC's heard from a drunk in a bar that it was because the 4th person to pass the StarStone test was a goblin who has been hiding out from Lamashtu ever since (and has been so successful that even Paizo hasn't heard about it).

Or....

Goblins love fire.
The Sun is made up of fire.
Sarenrae is the goddess of the Sun.
Sarenrae is the goddess of redemption.
Do the math.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a feeling a couple of these things (summoner, gunslinger, shifter, or anything else that had "issues" in PF1) might have long waits before they show up. I think they all will show up, but I think Paizo really wants them good (and be acceptable at most tables) when they do arrive and that takes time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think they are locked into 4 essences, but they made them so big that it will be hard to make more. When people talk about shadow, I think they are thinking about a handful of spells, and that is an order of magnitude too small.


I wonder if there will be a feat that lets you add things to your summoning spell lists, maybe as long as the thing uses your tradition for its innate spells. That would add Rakshasas to occult summoning list (I can see them adopting the Yugoloth fiendish mercenary role). I could see Oni as innately-casting-arcane fiends and Agathions as innately-casting-primal celestials.


The Rot Grub wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Sorcerers don't require actual material components (their blood is a material component), but still uses the same action with the same limitations. I would assume innate spells work similarly.

Likewise, I'd assume Verbal components require the creature to make noises and Somatic ones require them to have freedom of movement, but I would also assume that their specific forms are dictated by the creatures' anatomy.

So yes, a dragon must speak and gesture to cast spells...that's really not especially odd to me.

But that would be a house rule, yes? There's nothing about Innate Spells as written that makes them function like a sorcerer's class feature. I'm just trying to find out whether the intention is reflected in what's written.

And by what you're saying, then monsters will have to make noise to use their innate spells, which in my examples I don't think makes sense.

I would think Paizo's intent, one way or the other, would be apparent from whether they had a monster in an AP use components in casting an innate spell. So if a Cornugon was described as tossing guano at the PC's to use fireball, then I would argue that shows Paizo's intent.

I am sadly really behind on my Pathfinder reading, so hopefully someone more up to date can chime in.


I would expect some armor proficiency for Archon-blooded Aasimar.

With all those traps, I think int would make more sense than wis for kobolds.

I don't think they will make an int deficient race (or at least not until they PC up Xulgaths and maybe not then). That brushes a little too close to racism for some folks, especially when you are talking about orcs.


Until there is a PF2 version of the Unchained Summoner (assuming a Summoner will be in PF2 and that it will be based on the Unchained Summoner), I don't know if there is a compelling mechanical reason to create new kinds of celestials instead of creating new members of angels, azatas, etc.

While it isn't a need, I notice there are some occult-casting fiends (rakshasa), so some non-divine casting celestials might be interesting for the story of why they changed focus from souls to other matters if nothing else. I could see agathions as primal casters and sphinx-like celestials (like shedu) being occult casters.


Quandary wrote:

If I had to speculate on their (now confirmed/ret-conned) specific existence, it seems like it would make sense connected to Apsu and his divine demesne... I could see them being an element of Tianjing in Tian Xia as non-"humanoid" parallel to "normal" Aasimar locals, with Celestial/Apsu alliance making sense in dragon-drenched history of Tian Xia. A presence in (Dragon ruled) Xa Hoi society also seems plausible IMHO, possibly deriving from Tianjing group. Really, "Metallic Kobolds" could be represented by Kobold Ancestry with Aasimar Heritage (with specific rules re: Metallic Dragon aspect): if Kobold+Aasimar do exist, why wouldn't they be Metallic?

That seems like the type of ret-con that maintains the coherence of old paradigm by properly carving out distinct exception rather than just ignoring the previous canon. They would be semi-celestial with significant presence only in specific corner of the world, avoiding broader impact to Kobold's global niche which had led metallics to officially "not exist" before (albeit maybe that overplays JJ's earlier take). Their rare existence on material plane and position in Apsu's demesne might also prompt Good-aligned (non-metallic) Kobolds to hold them in special status and so on, as blessed priest-servitor class in a way... Somewhat mirroring general vibe of Aasimar, but very focused and tied to specific Good deity and of course Kobold/Dragon ancestry.

I think metallics as aasimar is a most excellent idea. If sylphs become a universal race, then I could see the sylph kobold being the cloud dragon proxy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we haven't seen them on Golorion before, it is time for the hidden kingdom of the metallic kobolds. I look forward to some Wakandan/Themyscian style arrogance: it is not your fault that your metal work is so poor, you are just a dwarf, but, take heart, it is levels about the cheap limericks elves pass off as poetry.....


I think the Balor could spam dominate, but it is a 2-action spell, so it would have to sit around all day dominating to get a bunch of slaves. If it wanted to spend all its time bossing around inferior life forms, it could stay in the Abyss abusing manes. Besides which, intimidation is soo much more fun....

Remember nothing about chaos says "high tolerance for boring, repetitive work."

I figure it is more there for paranoia; the PC's find out the mayor is dominated and that there is a Balor in town, so who else is being puppeted?


I think Arathuziel showed up in the Redemption Engine book, which I highly recommend (as well as Death's Heretic, which has the same protagonist).


I always like spells with limitations that they can only successfully be cast at a certain place and a certain time. Lots of plot value there, both for the case where the PC's are trying to stop the spell from being cast, and for the case where they are trying to be the ones to cast it.


Rakshasas are fiends (which makes them connected to evil-aligned planes, although the Rak description only mentions the material plane) but they are also occult spell casters, and I think the general idea is that beings who live on the outer planes are divine casters. It seems like a disconnect, so maybe they should have been aberrations instead, but I am sure someone wiser in the ways of PF cosmology will tell me why fiends is more appropriate than aberrations soon enough.

That makes me curious about oni.

I think they want to fill up the ranks of the Big Nine in Bestiary 2. That being said, Velstracs (formerly Kytons) have stats in Pathfinder Adventure Path #147: Tomorrow Must Burn (Age of Ashes 3 of 6), so if Asuras are going to show up this year, AP's seem like the most likely place.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Nah. The five current colors are it. There might be exceptions now and then, like the weirdo purple kobold from Kingmaker, but I'd rather not have kobold versions of every dragon.

So, hopefully you check back in to read this because this is a real design question that has always puzzled me.

As Paizo actively moves away from the potentially racist/sexist tropes that have plagued Drow since their inception I am incredibly surprised we even still have dragons split into good and evil camps that are completely defined by their "race" as it were.

Would it make a lot more sense, from a world building perspective, and from a 'staying away from problematic concepts' perspective, to just say:

"There are only chromatic dragons. A dragons ethical outlook varies from individual to individual"?

No need to engage in literary ethnic cleansing.

Gold dragons are very interested in social engineering the lives of lesser life forms (pretty much everything non-gold dragon). Gold dragons almost always have large groups of kobolds living near them. Alignment: any lawful

Silver dragons tend toward high levels of religious fervor. Alignment: within one step of their god

Bronze dragons enjoy spending extended periods of time disguised as a humanoids. It is dangerous to "out" them. Alignment: any neutral

Brass dragons enjoy lifestyles of luxury and stimulating conversation. Unlike other dragons, they are willing to work for lesser beings to fund that lifestyle. Alignment: any neutral

Copper dragons are born entertainers. Sometimes they don't recognize (or care) if their antics hurt others. Alignment: any chaotic

Red dragons desire to be recognized as the best at what they do. An evil red dragon is the worst monster, and a good one is the greatest hero. Either way it is good for your health to recognize (and sing the praises of) any red dragon you meet. Alignment: any non-neutral

Blue dragons prefer to live in more complicated societies than other dragons, using magic to communicate with their peers with great regularity (since they don't like living around other dragons anymore than any other dragon). Blue dragons almost always have large groups of kobolds living near them. Alignment: any lawful

Green dragons think of themselves as authors and lesser beings as their books. A green dragon might help an orc become chief of her tribe only to engineer the orcs downfall because the Green feels like telling a tragedy. Or a Green might terrorize a Halfling family to prod a member of the family into becoming a paladin. Alignment: it doesn't matter, you won't know until it is too late anyway

Black dragons are the most territorial and antisocial of dragonkind. As far as they are concerned anything with an int of 3 or higher should stay out of their swamp. Or else become dinner. Alignment: CE

White dragons are a subrace of Silver dragons that turned to nature worship/druidism. Alignment: Any neutral


In the movies, whenever the besiegers of a castle are going to use a battering ram, they often have a guy with a shield next to each of the smucks holding the ram so that the defenders have difficulty hitting the smucks.

It seems like the evoker could benefit from a similar arrangement. Put him/her in a chariot, and he/she could use all 3 actions to cast....

That being said, if military fantasy has taught us anything, it is that the primary use of magic users in large scale battles is to negate the other side's magic users.


I think I would be good with something like hellfire rebuke (someone hits you, they take fire damage unless they make a save) for LE, plague rebuke (someone hits you, they get sickened 1 unless they make a save) for CE, and draining rebuke (someone hits you, they get enfeebled 1 unless they make a save) for NE.


graystone wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
"Fluffy, wait out here, I will be back in a bit" is far more valuable for the familiar's lifespan than any spell.
How is waiting outside the door alone any less dangerous?

On one side of the door, you have something dangerous, so the expected value of danger is high.

Nothing dangerous might show up on the other door, so the expected value of danger is already lower, although it may not be low. But let's look at this a little deeper. If something dangerous shows up while the fight is going on, what are the odds that a loud fight is going to be more interesting then a cat or other small animal? I would say pretty good that the danger will either be interested in joining the fight or getting the heck out of there.

On top of that, remember the GM has to keep track of all of this stuff. What GM is going to waste any time tracking a couple of ogres trying to chase down a cat familiar when the PC's are fighting an ancient dragon?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dimension door doesn't force you to leave your familiar to die, the fact that you didn't think through the implications when the party rogue said "I think the next room is the dragon's lair" is what forced your wizard to leave his/her familiar to die.

"Fluffy, wait out here, I will be back in a bit" is far more valuable for the familiar's lifespan than any spell.


I always liked the Aspect of the gods (or demon lords or archdevils, etc.) monsters, so I assume that there are a bunch of Aspects running around for each god, giving out spells, keeping track of other Powers, doing fun stuff, etc. and whichever Aspect was doing the most important thing (or the most fun if nothing too important was going on) was the Prime Aspect (what most of us think of as the god). It also explains why there is no point giving the god stats, because if you kill the Prime Aspect, another Aspect just becomes the Prime unless there is some kind of super cataclysm or some scheme of the most powerful demon lord to "lock" the Prime into place.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Yqatuba wrote:
But she did have a relationship with Apsu (as someone mentioned), and even had a kid with him (the dragon Peace Through Vigilance.)

Once you go dragon, you will never stop braggin'


zimmerwald1915 wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
Iomedae doesn't strike me as a "giving in to unnecessary distractions" type. After the Abyss, Abaddon, and Hell have been conquered by the Forces of Good, there will be plenty of time for romance.
Will there? Pretty sure that'd be an end-of-the-multiverse-level event.

That's what we think looking in from the outside, but inside the campaign world, I figure most of the Big Cosmic Types are aspiring to some kind of Big Victory (details vary by Big Cosmic Type of course). Since Iomedae is the big paladin/soldier type among the LGooders, I figure her Big Victory is militaristic in nature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Iomedae doesn't strike me as a "giving in to unnecessary distractions" type. After the Abyss, Abaddon, and Hell have been conquered by the Forces of Good, there will be plenty of time for romance.


A longer version of "NPCs don't necessarily follow the same rules as PCs":

It also might be that what counts as a deity for a demon might be different than what counts as a deity for a PC. A demon might be able to worship the Abyss as a deity (with Anathemas of not being a demon, not being CE) that a PC couldn't (since being a dwarf, elf, etc. would violate the Anathema), and since a PC couldn't worship the Abyss as a deity, there was no reason to include it as a possibility in the Core Rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I would go with each god having a single "most common" domain, a paragraph saying gods often benefit from having servants with other domains, so clerics can pick any common domain. Then I would make lists like "tyranny, pain, and undeath are uncommon for good aligned deities", and players should talk to their GM's if they want to make a good cleric with pain domain (messed up follower of Vildeis).

So, new players can easily play the "most common" domain for their PC's god, experienced players don't have to worry about whether Plague domain is available for Urgathoa or not, and GM's can decide if they want to put up "necromancy isn't evil because I have a cleric of Sarenrae with the undeath domain."


I could see a kobold that hangs around/serves metallic dragons using powders, makeup, or even wearing ornamentation that invokes the metallic color without actually changing the color of the kobold. I wouldn't make that worth any mechanical change though.

That being said, I imagine living conditions of kobolds that serve metallic dragons are generally better than those that serve chromatic dragons, so I could see that being one of the "you start with more hit points" ancestries. But I wouldn't make it so that kobolds with that ancestry had to paint themselves silver or anything like that (a number might chose to do so [including a PC kobold], but it wouldn't be required).


The champions of neutrality could be by default pantheon powered: I am neutral because I have to juggle the demands of the evil dwarf god and the good dwarf god in my quest to make the world better for dwarves. And I am lawful because dwarves. The only issue I have with that is that it gets close to the TN balance accountant, and they were pretty annoying.


citricking wrote:

To answer the ops question, it looks like it's to keep their damage in line as a proportion of a martial character's damage.

Check out this analysis I made

Very nice. I was about to post that I think it is more of an art than a science (and maybe to look at CR 16 monsters to see if there was something that devs wouldn't want the PC's to have), but this makes it look more like a science again.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Neutrality = Balance" isn't really a thing in the ontology of Pathfinder though. Since that sort of thing doesn't make a lot of sense in a metaphysical system where "good" is actually good and not just "self-righteous and equally destructive as evil."

If you look at the TN deities, they're mostly about "singular focus on their particular area without being particularly concerned about the morality of it" whether it's nature (Gozreh), Magic (Nethys), Clockwork (Brigh), the Fate of all Souls (Pharasma), Time (Shyka),etc.

Golarion doesn't have a "hold things in balance" deity, so it would be a weird concept for a TN champion cause.

I doubt anyone has bad-mouthed the "paladin of Nethys" more than me, but looking at that list of deities, I wonder if the Champions of Neutrality should be less "champions" and more "fixers." So if there is a threat to magic that magic can't fix, one of Nethys' "fixers" comes in to hit the something until the problem goes away. Likewise, if making a deal with a lich would stop kind of mass undead creation, Pharisma could call in her "fixer" to do something that would scandalize her clergy and psychopomps (and if the lich "mysteriously" is destroyed afterwards, well all is good in the Boneyard).

I admit that steps on inquisitor toes, but since I dislike that class name, I won't lose any sleep over it. It does differentiate neutrals from the shining beacons of good and the dark harbingers of evil that are good and evil champions.

1 to 50 of 691 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>