I mean, I ain't throwing my PDFs anywhere.
Caleb Garofalo wrote:
If there was a substantially large backlash, maybe they would, but that hasn't happened, so it probably won't. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a slippery slope.
Me, I'm just gonna be miffed that there is apparently now less daemon harbinger content, which were already woefully underrepresented among the powerful evil outsiders despite being the most interesting (to me, anyway).
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Yep. When they errata a core game book, they change the download so that when you download it's the new version.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
That'd be unprecedented. They don't do that with other errata'd books.
I dunno if I’m really into the idea. “Sure, he murders a bunch of people and is fine with torturing people, but he spares this one criminal in the first episode so you know he’s technically a good guy.”
I liked the Ennis version. That made no bones about what a sick and awful person he was.
Not killing Danny is really the telling part. I know there are a number of writers would have absolutely had him kill Donny in that first episode.
Not saying if it’s bad or not but I’m generally unsure. I’ll have to watch more.
I haven't actually read Hell's Rebels because I'm playing in it (near the end of book two I think) and the GM doesn't want me to read spoilers. So I'm less qualified to comment on it.
Saw the first episode. It looks like they're going for a more sympathetic take, rather than "crazy person written by Garth Ennis." i.e. he didn't shoot the coworker who wasn't an obvious scumbag despite the fact he was part of the robbery as well.
I dunno. Might continue, but I don't know if I really like 'sympathetic' Punisher that much.
That is true. Thinking about other books that have details on the planes, I imagine there might be some things from Hell Unleashed, Heaven Unleashed, Wrath of the Righteous's article on the Abyss, and Shattered Star's article on Leng. Occult Realms also has some planar stuff, as well.
Should be interesting, at any rate.
I think The Great Beyond also covers a number of the demiplanes. Though I suspect that this book is largely going to be updates from The Great Beyond, as that's an older book from the 3.5 days and Paizo's been on a bit of a reprint kick with the last three mainline books.
I wonder if we'll get to see the Nirvana Dragon...
I do think a better content disclaimer might have been a good idea. Folca's one thing, but the other fiendish divinities brought up in Book of the Damned cover themes like genocide (Szuriel), suicide (Sifkesh), self-harm (Abraxas, Osolmyr), torture and mutilation (Andirifku), and rape (Socothbenoth, Zepar). I'm not bringing these up for a study in whataboutism. If Folca is triggering to people who have certain backgrounds, I can bet that some of these other ones might hit close to home with certain gamers a lot more than the usual human sacrifice baddies.
But shouldn't GMs and their players be the ones who ultimately make the decision what is and isn't okay at their tables? Tabletop RPGs allow for a number of very disturbing things, and Pathfinder isn't an exception to that.
You contended earlier in this thread that you don't need rules for NPCs, but many GMs do rely on rules. Malefactor pointed to his own GM preferences wherein he prefers to hold NPCs to the same standards as PCs for the purposes of abilities. Plenty of GMs don't do that, sure... but plenty of other GMs do. Some GMs don't like coming up with their own rules options, which is why rules material like this gets published.
I think there is a bit of a difference between the material existing in a rulebook that may or may not be used in a given game, and a GM suddenly springing something on the players. How big a difference that is may be a matter of debate and perspective, but I think the distinction does exist.
If I were to put forward a change suggestion, I think it'd make sense to change Fiendish Obedience itself. Make it so that evil alignment is a prerequisite for the feat in the first place. That eliminates the hypothetical "neutral-aligned child abuser" situation.
Rise of the Runelords, Hell's Rebels, and Ironfang Invasion are good recommendations.
With Rise of the Runelords I'd be wary about some of the content, depending on what your group is comfortable with. There are a few things that might not sit well with some people - Tsuto's journal entries in book one, the creepy stalker villain in book two (this one is very easy to change, though, as the book provides different motivations for the villain you can choose from), and the Iron Cages of Lust in book five come to mind.
The Beguiling Gift boon idea is an interesting one, but I'm a little less sure about the other details. In a way it looks like it kind of... waters down the menace? I mean, daemons are about death and evil in its purest form. Taking it and its cultists from "someone who is going to hurt you and kill you horribly" to "someone who's just going to scare you" feels less compelling to me.
But then again if I'm being honest, I suppose I wouldn't really care what the changes were. They could do something in an errata and I wouldn't even really notice. If a change were made I'd probably just go "huh. Okay." and then go on with my day. I dunno.
And honestly, 'collectors editions because suppressed content' feels a little silly to me. We're talking about a minor entry in a minor section. Like, did earlier copies of Ultimate Equipment become big items before the changes to Snapleaf? I dunno, I don't think that makes sense.
A better content disclaimer, though, I could definitely agree with that.
I'll thank Mortonator and Dudemeister for not being as hyperbolic as the OP. Sure, I'm open to hearing an argument as to whether or not the subject matter is "too much" for the game. Less open to declaring Paizo the "child abuse company" or comparisons to FATAL.
I find it's just difficult for me to really take the "incentivizing child abuse" thing particularly seriously, because... well, Daemon Harbinger boons are kind of lame. I don't know about everyone else's game groups, but I've found that it's fairly uncommon that you'll even be doing a campaign that allows for evil characters such as fiend-worshippers, and even if you are looking to do a fiend-worshipper there are dozens of other options. I mean, a small bonus on checks and three spell-like abilities. Woo. Meanwhile Charon has you summoning his horse to age people, Shax gives you a wing of his house, and Areshkagal makes you into a bling warrior. If like only one in five or six or ten of your games will even allow those kinds of options... how many players are actually going to be incentivized? Hell, I'm still waiting on a chance to play a Red Mantis Assassin (I've got like three different character concepts there).
I'm honestly far more open to arguments about trivialization and exploitation for cheap horror value. But I can't help but be reminded of, yes, the 1980s panic with Patricia Pulling and BADD. Or with a think piece I saw about the Rocky Horror Picture Show complaining about Frank-n-Furter being a sexual assaulter...
"Basic good judgment" isn't really something you can measure with a ruler. You might say "mechanically-incentivized child abuse," but the judgment I operate on is "players aren't going to be picking this option because even in games where evil-aligned fiend worshippers will be welcomed as players, Daemon harbinger boons are too boring to be taken over the more interesting and varied boons from the more powerful fiendish divinities." My "basic good judgment" in this case says "not an issue." Your "basic good judgment" suggests otherwise. That's the problem with referring to a subjective thing as though it's objective.
Aroden does have domains listed, however, in AP 100. No subdomains, though.
And Razmir... kind of has domains. Paths of Prestige has the Razmiran priest, who can gain the domain powers from one of the domains Razmir supposedly has (but not the spells, because Razmir's a faaaaaake).
I do think that the change of the imp from a companion to a familiar is probably the biggest nerf. I mean, I don't really see the reason to tone it down. These tend to be NPC prestige classes rather than player prestige classes, so it makes sense to make it something that'd make for a boss fight. That's a bigger issue, I think, than just missing out on a spell level. I mean, an end boss NPC has probably got enough wishes to pick up that slack. I guess I'm just a bit annoyed because making Kaltessa Iyis current rules-compliant might take some work. I think I just react poorly to rule changes in general 'cause I get used to things being a certain way. That's a me thing more than anything else.
I also have some general confusion. Like, for the Fiendish divinities if we want to use the ISG classes, it's supposed to raise the entrance requirements... does that apply for the ones that already had ISG stuff? Asmodeus, Lamashtu, Mahathallah, Cyth-V'Sug, and whichever archdevils got them already? I dunno. I guess with Lamashtu I could figure that because she has two different sets of Evangelist boons you could have them be separate things. I dunno.
I do like the Soul Drinker changes, though. The boons are definitely a big plus and now they can be something other than spooky item factories.
Also, now that we have Trelmarixian's boons I can make a stat block for Malefactor Tryfilion!
Hhhhuh. That's gonna be a little weird given some of these guys have already gotten the evangelist/exalted/sentinel boons. Like, Cyth-V'Sug got those in Ironfang Invasion, so I guess it's retconning it so it's the fiendish version and not the regular? Not to mention all the archdevils and stuff who got those boons in Hell's Rebels and Hell's Vengeance. Or are the new Fiendish Obediences going to be different from the Deific Obediences? Blimey my aspergers is making me so confused.
Thankfully it doesn't seem too much of a stretch. Now with boons in hand I can finally make a stat block for Maralictor Tryfilion (and thankfully the given class levels in that book already work).
Does the fiendish Sentinel not require Weapon Focus, then?
Lord Gadigan wrote:
Thanks. That all sounds really neat!
Freehold DM wrote:
By all means, feel free to tell me who the church killed because they thought science was witchcraft.
John Kretzer wrote:
I'd say the show does get better. Episode four has some really awesome scenes, and the show never again sinks to the stupidity of that first pre-credits sequence.
But there are a lot of issues and "huh?" moments. You know, I recently watched "Inglourious Basterds" and I found myself with a similar feeling; flashy and fun and hugely entertaining but very confused and frustrating for a lot of reasons.
Why did the church excommunicate the Belmonts? It's not really well explained. I mean, if the Belmonts were using magic to fight that'd at least fit the whole superstition angle, but... he doesn't. He just uses conventional fighting with blessed weapons, salt, and holy water. What did the church object to, apart from being too awesome?
So I binged it. It was fun, but boy does it have problems. Great animation and action and some really good moments, but boy are there problems. Pacing and tonal issues are the primary ones. Trevor Belmont's dialogue is... bizarrely anachronistic. The amount of f-bombs and edgelord gore are kind of silly.
Also the one-dimensionally evil church. The opening of "the evil church burns the woman at the stake because they think science is witchcraft" is so unbelievably stupid I actually had to stop watching for a bit. Conflict thesis isn't supported by actual history, people. The fifteenth century church was actually doing pretty neat stuff in architecture and engineering. Flying buttresses and all that. Then the flashy intro revealed that the executive producer was Warren Ellis and I went "ohhhh that explains so much..."
Having a message about the dangers of superstition is certainly good, but it's less effective when you make a caricature of history. Also doesn't really mesh with a franchise that's about fighting vampires.
I was talking about the death penalty in real life, and briefly glancing at the real-world objections (which is not a 'fringe position'). Personally my interest in fantasy logistics is somewhat limited.
Tho as a counterpoint to the "just making more fiends" argument, though, it has been indicated in setting that the circumstances of death can actually affect the soul's destination. For example, Corosbel's intentions for Hanspur and Moloch's bestiary entry. Something similar may be implied in the Dammerich entry in CotR. I'd never thought of that.
That's actually a very interesting thing actually. I'll need to think about that...
Still a bit dodgy that it's still kind of a pro death penalty thing (seriously, ask me about Arkansas) but that's a very neat spin on it that I think makes me appreciate it a bit more. So I'm gonna amend from "flat out worst empyreal lord" to "interesting but with some pretty awful political baggage/implications."
Okay, let's unpack a little.
I admit I am measuring my responses a little (the death penalty is a matter I feel very strongly about), though perhaps it's worth saying that the amount of discussion generated justifies its presence in a game. Not boring, after all.
If you're interested in understanding arguments against the death penalty, there's no shortage of individuals, ranging from Victor Hugo to the ACLU, on grounds ranging from ethics to legal positions to religious imperatives. Some of it is a little over my head (my field's music, not matters of metaethics).
True. There are comparisons to be drawn with the more militants figures like Ragathiel and Iomedae. As a pacifist there are certainly arguments to be made there. However, there are other considerations. Iomedae is generally (I admit I haven't finished WotR) more of a 'War for purposes of defense' deity and Ragathiel is deliberately presented to be dubious, and handled more as a character than a personification of concept. There is, however, another key distinction: in a war or self-defense situation, you're doing an act to neutralize a threat so it can't hurt you. With the death penalty, you are killing a threat that is already neutralized. Furthermore, the others at least have an archetypal precedent that makes them easier to swallow (Iomedae is a noble crusader, Ragathiel is a vengeful angel, and Smiad's off to fight the dragons), which... Dammy don't really got.
In the end I'm simply a little perplexed at paizo's handling of the politics. While not perfect, they make an effort to be conscious (for example, the sex-positive empyreal lords in the book), even to the point of making lore errata of sorts (for example, nixing the abortion but from the Zyphus article when it was reprinted in Inner Sea Faiths).