Rankovich's page

Area Y, the Kobold Caverns, is listed as "Hidden". All the other Hidden encounters specify a DC of a particular skill to locate the encounter. This one just says that it's detailed in Part Five, and then part Five forgets to mention any DC at all.

It's a pretty important encounter. Do most people just make it a Standard to ensure that it happens, or do you keep it a Hidden with maybe a Survival DC 18 to find?

I made it Standard. I wanted them to find the place.

I haven't looked at your log as it popped up an adult warning and I'm at work. (If it's just language I'm fine with it, but nudity or gore [or descriptions of such] I'd prefer to avoid.) So just fair warning on that.

Ah! It's safe for work. It's a google site with the pre-constructed d20pfsrd template...which recommends adding that content warning to be safe rather than sorry. Perhaps I can remove that feature. Thanks [edit: done].

...that's...really good stuff, Orthos! Yes, a title will grant only that it's a female, that she's likely fey. It also leaves open 'motive,' which I could fill in over time while the PCs speculate wildly.

Thank you!

My group has acquired the magic ring from the final large monster of Rivers Run Red. They want to cast Legend Lore on said ring.

This is an opportunity, I think, to foreshadow some of the latter books' characters that many GMs have noted (on podcasts and in the forums) seem tacked on.

The book provides:

I have provided this much on the ring, not much, really.

So, if you had your druthers, how would you handle legend lore on the ring?

My ideas:

Something else, something I'm missing, or a different approach, would be appreciated.

Thanks!

So, nowhere near the wandering monster table, eh?

Something I spotted in RRR, also nowhere near the wandering monsters, that may come in handy for the next book.

Rankovich wrote:

I don't remember it, honestly. I mean, why would I? There were no headlines, really (or else they would be on the internet).

here, here, here, here, etc.

I mean, come on, you really could have Googled that one.

It's a little weird that you missed conservative fear-baiting over gays and children time after time after time. How did you miss this? Where do you source your news from, that you never saw this come up once? Were you maybe in a different country during the last election cycle? I'm really just looking for some kind of explanation here as to how you managed to create a mental impression of the conservative anti-gay movement that doesn't include insane fear-mongering.

Don't need to, since I never suggested that it was impossible, only that your example was not one of these, and therefore not evidence of Insane! Fear! Mongering! nor a good-faith justification for the character flaws dressed up as ideals that you express. You appear (now) to want to argue your own psychodrama, with heroes and villains...it sounds exciting, at least superficially.

I apparently missed the headlines at TMZ (you link to TMZ and then ask me where I get my news from?), at Gawker, at HuffPo's forum, and WaPo opinions. So, um, yeah, missed it. But, to restate what I wrote, if a 14 year old can Make Headlines at the above, imagine how easy it be to find senators, entire associations, making the charge, which is what you wrote, in order to prove the prior assertions to justify your prior slurs.

Might I suggest the dog-whistle assertion after this. It would be the predictable ad-hoc assertion to shore up the other assertions, to maintain the previous assertions, to justify the prior call to incivility. Make it appear that it's in a special code that conservatives (and you) hear.

One thing, though. I would warn you not to drink your own Kool-Aid. I mean, wild accusations aside, don't actually believe it or you'll make foolish choices based on spectral input and end up being the guy muttering at fruit at the grocery store. Seriously, if you look at people as categories (notably as self-serving categories), you'll not only miss some special moments in life, but you'll make some big mistakes, too.

Which makes me think of the video you linked to of that boy. It's sad to see this kid struggle, not to put together a coherent argument but to construct any sentence whatsoever. Well, if history is any indicator, people change over time. Maybe he'll hold the same opinions at 40 than he did at 14, but I doubt it, and that's good news, too.

Since you seem unable to let it go (and because you seem to think that it wins you all the points), let's take a look at this.

Thanks for responding. It was an interesting explanation you made, and was submitted as evidence to your assertion that the 'evil' conservatives manipulated their brethren...by saying their kids would become gay.

...and to think I found that absurd.

If I 'win,' can I get Electronic Battleship, by Milton Bradley? Never had that.

Actually, it doesn't show up on the internet very much, either way. A few similar searches turn up pages containing a lot of those terms, but as a coherent argument, it's rarely voiced online (except in rambling forum screeds).

Thank you for noting that rather salient point.

Therefore, it is not an "example" that the evil conservatives are manipulating the dumb base with it, and that their base loves to be manipulated, and that there is no point in civility, because conservatives don't respond to civility, seeing it as weakness, and it would be more helpful to approach them like one would the Ku Klux Klan.

Yes, you've made one hulluva string of assertions, you nut you *cheek pinch*

Where it is voiced is on talk radio, and in conversations with those who actually believe it.

Ah...well, I cannot capture 'conversations,' so maybe the board game is yours.

I do recall that talk radio has several committed watchdogs whose purpose is to publicize such things (on media channels such as the internet). I'll get back to that...

LGBT rights groups didn't just make up the idea that some people actually thought gay people would turn their children gay.

Well, I didn't say they did. I did say that it wasn't an argument that conservatives would likely make to whip up their base. I didn't buy what you were selling, the premise or the conclusion.

I did suspect that if someone on earth did say such a thing (such as this 14-year old boy that you link to), it could be used as a substitute for argument by their opponents, and could be used to justify all sorts of wild accusations (see above).

That was something crazy conservatives actually believed (and many still do!).

Oy vey.

Yes, now it's probably used more often as an example of exactly how insane those people sound, or to lampoon their thought process, but you seem to want to pretend that no one actually believes it! So yes, it's more likely that the LGBT-rights crowd would "latch onto" a claim like "Gay people want to turn our kids gay!" because it's just that insane. Unfortunately, it's also something that some anti-LGBT groups actually believe. You might remember this kid, who made headlines for a) being a 14 year-old conservative talk show host, and b) for blaming Obama for turning kids gay. (Unfortunately, merely blaming Obama for turning kids gay doesn't make national headlines - it's just too run-of-the-mill.) Now, mind you, Obama isn't gay himself. But does, "The President is turning our children gay!" sound any less insane and paranoid to you than, "Gay people are turning our children gay!"? Or...

I don't remember it, honestly. I mean, why would I? There were no headlines, really (or else they would be on the internet).

Talk show hosts, elected representatives, and political advocacy groups - these are the heads of the anti-gay movement, and plenty of them have tried to push the "Gay people want to turn our kids gay!" message over the past decade. Who do you think they're talking to, exactly, if not the conservative base?

Strange, if, over 10 years, talk radio hosts, elected representatives, and advocacy groups were pushing that argument (or even mentioning it as insightful), it would be all over the internet. I mean, not just from 'liberal' sites, but from libertarian and conservative and frankly non-aligned sites. It would be free entertainment! Agree?

Honestly, I think it's wishful thinking. And what a strange thing to wish for. I mean, it's good news that it isn't being used, over the last decade, by any said groups. Let's not hemorrhage over good news.

So go ahead. Tell me that the gay rights movement manufactured that particular pile of crap.

No need. I'll let the 14-year old speak for himself (go to 1 minute in), and people can independently determine whether he (perhaps, imagine an adult saying the same thing) is compelling, and then determine whether he is one of the aforementioned conservatives successfully manipulating his base.

I think you've done well demolishing an argument here, it's just a matter of which one.

Rankovich wrote:

Well, to be fair, it was an assertion by Scott--one of many, that wasn't backed up,

I backed it up with a website filled with links to published, peer-reviewed articles supporting that assertion (which Irontruth has, helpfully, added to). You (predictably) pulled the equivalent of, "Those damned liberal academics and their 'facts', if they were real scientists they would have agreed with my views!"

Nyoooo...I did not. I said I read the first published article, questioned its limitations (which I explained), noted the article's own caveat, and then questioned your inference from it. It did not make me uncomfortable; it made me laugh, like when reading the science of phrenology (perhaps, a too-loud laugh with tears of salty terror pouring from my blinkered--yet shockingly beautiful--eyes).

Your response was an appeal to authority. I suggested you question authority (my response ostensibly makes me a conservative: which you define as someone who would embrace the status quo, which speaks to the quality of your definitions).

The assertion referred to...your example of how the 'evil' conservatives appeal to their 'dumb' (and fearful?) conservative counterparts. It was that conservatives have been warning that:

For example: "Gay people want to turn our children gay,"

I asked you to back that up, by asking:

Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?

Which you still haven't done. And won't. 'Cause you can't.

But it sounded like BS (actually it sounded like "wishful thinking"), which should be red-flag, even if one is sympathetic.

What part of it sounded like BS, and why?

The part I responded to, quoting you, then explained why.

But a summary of it is: because it was incandescently sloppy and transparently self-serving, and I should hope that such sloppy methods don't creep into structural systems because I like things not to fall over.

So I think it would be helpful for you to examine why you saw this as BS. It wasn't, obviously. Was it because it said something that made you uncomfortable, rather than something that struck you as unlikely? Because, let's be honest, a link between conservatism and fear shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. And if it made you uncomfortable, [i]why is that? What are you concerned that it says about you and your beliefs? Does it make you question how many of your beliefs are grounded in rational thought versus how many are motivated by easily manipulated fear? I don't really want to hear your answers to these (and, besides, I can guess at what they'd be if you typed them out now); I'm more...

I'm more than happy leave it up to anyone interested (undoubtedly millions, or perhaps a handful of really bored people) to read my direct responses to you and let them determine whether these are an example of fear or a disturbing lack of introspection or knowledge of the human character (well, I am arguing on the internet...).

I did make one big assertion (not addressed other than to declare it uncivil) that I think is salient:

I couldn't tell you the differences between dubious categories of people by vision, ideals, or otherwise with a sample size of 10,000 much less half a busload. I couldn't tell you who is better or worse by category. It is vain and arrogant (something aptly demonstrated above) to presume you have that ability.

Rankovich wrote:

I questioned it's validity

its

So-called "conservatives" always seem to be very liberal when it comes to spelling and grammar.

Dang! No love, here.

Although I appreciate the high standard. I shall endeavor to do better.

...waitasecond...I didn't call myself a conservative...

An article about a study on the brain and politics. Conservatives are motivated by fear.

Also, someone who asks the question: What would a simple google search turn up?

Should stop being a lazy ass and just do the search and show the results. If you have to ask the question, but can't be bothered to actually do it, you're showing me you don't actually care about the results, the question itself, or any of the underlying concepts involved.

Well, to be fair, it was an assertion by Scott--one of many, that wasn't backed up, just sort of "known," perhaps incorrectly called "common sense." But it sounded like BS (actually it sounded like "wishful thinking"), which should be red-flag, even if one is sympathetic.

I questioned it's validity, with smarminess lathered in smugitude sauce (which I hope tastes like raspberries). And sure, I did the search (after all, what if he was correct?).

But he wasn't. So, I asked him a series of questions about his assertion, allowing him to find this argument that supports his conclusion (suggesting the internet as a good place to use to find it...), suspecting that he couldn't pull it off.

Instead of answering, he avoided it, repeatedly. Which makes sense, really.

Am I to believe that you didn't realize all this?

Rankovich wrote:

As far as my analysis, I thought I made clear that I looked through the lens of p-values on sample size and the failure to address limitations on a study of 38 drunks!

You understand that p-values are influenced by sample size due to sample size's effect on standard error, right? A larger sample is more likely to find significance, distribution held static. The fact that they found significance with a sample size in the mid-30s indicates that their sample size was sufficient for that finding and that confidence interval.

No it isn't. Run the samples multiple times, with higher and lower samples, of different ages, in different regions, control for others overhearing your questions, control for outliers ("yeah, screw private property, *belch*!"), and consider that drunk people can BE outliers (a serious limitation that is avoided in the articles stated limitations). That is, it is more than possible and reasonable that his results are useless in the study as written.

All it shows is that 38 similar age drunk people resulted in an answer. No serious statistician would take this, and similar scholarly work, as more than sampling bias with appeals to authority attached at the end.

One 38-person study finding significance isn't enough to base consensus on.

Sure isn't.

A body of similar studies all reaching similar conclusions using independent methods, however, is. If only such a body of research existed, and had been linked to recently in this thread!

Awesome. Like I said, I have more that I could provide you to help you in this quest. And if I take those apart too, then, there are more, and more.

Question: What were the issues you found with them? Any of them? Have you simply accepted them? They are, after all, peer-reviewed.

Also, "They're drunks!" isn't exactly a damning criticism when the point of that study was to use alcohol as a means of disrupting thought. I mean, it would be more damning if they weren't inebriated!

It is if you are attempting to classify the ideology of vast swaths of people from Earth by having 38 college kids from NE drink liquor until they are plowed (at unidentified levels) and then record their answers in order to reach a conclusion that aligns with the thesis. It is a particularly damning criticism.

I went out of my way to present those studies in a way that didn't paint conservatives in a overtly negative way (though, let's be honest, those findings make that really tempting) because the point wasn't to make conservatives feel bad but rather to maybe give them a moment's pause to take a look at where they get their information from and who they choose to listen to.

Actually, you went out of your way to find studies that attempted to prove that conservatives are easily manipulated by other, evil conservatives, and that the former love to be manipulated due to their differences in thinking, etc, etc. What you actually delivered was pretty silly, your conclusions transparently self-serving (you inferred from the above sources' banal--and dubious--conclusion to bolster your prior assertions). And then you suggested I look past my ideological bias, and finally, alas, lamented my failings. As proof of my failings, you noted that I disagreed with the findings, which Cannot Be.

I will soldier on, however, despite my crippling faith-based dogma and scripture waving.

As an aside, you didn't answer my questions. I've attempted to address yours as best I could. Could you go back and answer them, please? Start with:

"Gay people want to turn our children gay."

Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?

Technotrooper wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Technotrooper wrote:

Because I don't believe hating or mistreating

I don't view it as mistreating at all. In fact, I think it's utterly appropriate treatment. It's how people who treat others as less of a person than they are ought to be treated.

I understand your feelings, but can't agree with your call for "uncivil" treatment of those you disagree with.

Civility is important most of the time. But, in this case, it is no longer called for. The only people who are left on the opposing side of the gay marriage debate are those who didn't respond to civility.

Again, approach this from the standpoint of trying to persuade the Klan with civility. I'm not arguing against civility. Civility is, in most things, essential. But it has largely outlived its usefulness here.

My advice: If you want us to stop calling the things conservatives do "evil", stop doing evil things.

As for the personal attacks, take them elsewhere. I don't much care for them, and calling someone "vain" for providing you with information that contradicts what you believe to be true is really unflattering behavior.

Well said, sir. Wait, what?

Rankovich wrote:

Look, I can understand the article's appeal to vanity and self-congratulation (which is, incidentally, a great way to manipulate someone). Why, it would provide license to certain sorts of people, those with a need to believe themselves categorically superior to others--but without the requisite ability to produce superior results--to measure by self-regard, either by exulting themselves or demonizing others. It's taking a character flaw and making it a noble ideology.

I was worried that this would come down to an attempt to discredit the mass of studies (which have all already made it through peer review) rather than an attempt to analyze your own positions and beliefs through the lens they provide. In fact, you took it a good ten steps further and actually tried to discredit the very idea that these kinds of studies can hold any value at all.

I can show you more studies that you may like to use. Peer-reviewed even. Just as funny as this one.

You didn't really address the issue of 38 drunk undergrads in a bar as a useful sampling. You cling to peer review, like a ward, like waving a cross at heretic. It was published in a journal! A journalllll!!!

That being said, I didn't go much further in the other sampling issues and statistical limitations and frankly the subsequent methodological failings and question selection because there was no real need. As far as my analysis, I thought I made clear that I looked through the lens of p-values on sample size and the failure to address limitations on a sample of 38 drunks!

But I will point out that the authors unintentionally 'prove' that 38 college age drunks have more personal responsibility (a listed 'conservative value') than a liberal. Not that I buy that for a second. Seriously. Do you?

Rankovich wrote:

2. So the evil ones are manipulating the slow ones, who love being manipulated.

That's what it boils down to, unfortunately. (They don't actually love being manipulated in a conscious sense, of course; no one does. But they nonetheless seem very enthusiastic when that manipulation takes place - and it takes place often.) American conservatism, by its very nature, is incredibly vulnerable to manipulation. A lot of people have made very solid livings taking advantage of that vulnerability.

This isn't just conjecture, either. It's supported by a massive amount of scholarly literature.

Conservative ideology relies on low-effort thought, which means that half-truths or outright falsehoods are more likely to be found persuasive.

Conservatives react more strongly to offensive imagery, which means that imagery can be used to influence opinion in the absence of rational argumentation.

Conservatives are more sensitive to fear (see this paper as well), which means fear-based manipulation is an incredibly powerful tool for influencing the conservative base.

Conservatives are more motivated to preserve purity, which means the perception of being for or against purity can be used as a political wedge.

There is no difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to reactions to positive stimuli, but conservatives are more susceptible to...

One of the remarkable things about the links (all from one site) is its phrenological approach. The first attempt, for example, is to try to define conservatives and liberals en masse, then use a sample size of 85, 38, and 36 for their test.

No wonder the 'scholarly literature's' conclusion is a banality:

Motivational factors are crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial responses depending on one’s goals, beliefs, and values.

But you manage to conclude something else, something more self-congratulatory (which, looking back at your other posts, suggests you are looking for license to hold the beliefs that you hold):

...which means that half-truths or outright falsehoods are more likely to be found persuasive.

Funny, I don't find you persuasive at all.

Continuing with your conclusion, I enjoyed this relevant caveat for Study 2:

...and so our hypothesis is largely silent on the relationship between deliberate thought and liberalism. We made no firm predictions about the effect of load on liberalism other than to expect a pattern distinct from the effects of load on conservatism, which would indicate that load’s effect is not due to acquiescence or other nuisance processes.

Harrowing stuff. Which, I would like to reiterate, they derive from 38 participants, all undergrads at a university. They do not give an age range, but since it was a intro PSY course I'd wager the sample was 19-20 year old PSY majors and college kids who don't know what they want to do yet.

Wow...based on your assertions, would it be fair to call you the conservative* after your linking to this paper?
Fight the power! Don't believe everything you read!

...or did you think I wouldn't read the article. That a simple appeal to authority would work?
Question authority!

Look, I can understand the article's appeal to vanity and self-congratulation (which is, incidentally, a great way to manipulate someone). Why, it would provide license to certain sorts of people, those with a need to believe themselves categorically superior to others--but without the requisite ability to produce superior results--to measure by self-regard, either by exulting themselves or demonizing others. It's taking a character flaw and making it a noble ideology.

Should I go on? Sure. Let's take your first example of devious conservative manipulation, your example:

"Gay people want to turn our children gay"

Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?

I couldn't tell you the differences between dubious categories of people by vision, ideals, or otherwise with a sample size of 10,000 much less half a busload. I couldn't tell you who is better or worse by category (sometimes I'm not equal to myself on a given day, and I'm a category of one). It is vain and arrogant (something aptly demonstrated above) to presume you have that ability.

*fair to whom, would be the best answer

Kthulhu wrote:

MeanDM wrote:

Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.

You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.

1) There is no one here who is serious about portraying all conservatives as evil. We're joking.

2) Most liberals don't believe that conservatives are all evil. Many of us believe that some conservatives are evil, and that many of the rest are not particularly well-informed or politically sophisticated. We believe that the ones who are evil (or greedy, more accurately) have become very adept at manipulating the conservative base by pulling the strings of religion, racism, and anti-intellectualism. This is easy, because the conservative base is very, very vulnerable to manipulation, and loves to be manipulated.

3) Conservatives (again, not all of them, but enough) are far guiltier of painting liberals in broad, negative strokes - for evidence of just how effective this has been, you only need to look at how dangerous the word "liberal" has become to use publicly. Conservative politicians will call themselves conservative while campaigning. Liberal politicians stay the hell away from calling themselves liberal because to do so would give conservative pundits something to latch onto.

My advice: If you want us to stop calling the things conservatives do "evil", stop doing evil things.

1. I don't think anyone really saw you as serious. But that doesn't mean what you say here is true. Honestly, come clean; don't attempt the clown nose on/clown nose off shtick.

2. So the evil ones are manipulating the slow ones, who love being manipulated. Compelling argument, there.

3. As we see here. And yet, liberal (somehow!) has come to be seen in a negative light. Must be marketing, nothing more. After all, you're awesome!

Kthulhu wrote:

MeanDM wrote:

Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.

You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.

It's a human thing; I see a lot of conservatives doing the same thing, particularly the more religious ones. Frex, here's a (admittedly second-string at best) Christian fundamentalist radio host, Rick Wiles, talking about a pro-choice demonstration in Texas:

End Times Radio wrote:

These demons weren't hiding behind bushes, they were out in the street; they were in the streets possessing the people who were demanding the right to murder babies.

I hope this is sinking in to our audience of the severity of the Satanic attack that the church is under right now. Make now mistake about what is happening; this is raw Satanic sewage coming up out of Hell. The sewer pipes of Hell have broken open and this is raw hate against Jesus Christ, against God, against the Bible, against righteous men and women, against life, against anything that is good and decent.

This is the face of the Obamanista revolution and this is only the beginning. This is only the beginning of what these people have planned.

If the restraints are ever taken off these people, they're going to kill us. There is going to be mass slaughter of Christians; that's what these people desire.

Yes, 2nd-string, cartoon fanatics do sound awfully similar in their lunatic denunciations.

MeanDM wrote:

Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.

You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.

Heretic!!!1!!

Hey, me toos are fine. But while you're me-too-ing, if you're running Kingmaker you REALLY want to check out the latest from Legendary Games: the expanded print edition of ULTIMATE RULERSHIP. The PDF version is already available right here at Paizo, shop.d20pfsrd.com, and DrivethruRPG/RPGNow, but the best way to get it is from our website.

Thanks for the tip, Jason.

And while we are me-tooing, might as well throw my hat in:

This is why our group plays Pathfinder in the Conan setting...to avoid these sorts of intractable ethical dilemmas.

'Paizout' claims that Amiri is a BINO (Barbarian in Name Only). She's got cafe curtains and track lighting in her yurt and knows the use of every fork in a placesetting.

47. The First Taboo by Melchizadek: only a few copies of this volume are known to exist, and it is known that many of the good religions consider possession of this book a "burnable offense".

Within its pages is the story of Arthur Melchizadek, a human sorcerer who later became a ghoul lord by studying under the tutelage of Vampire Lord Bellicose. The tale recounts his life of loneliness and purposelessness until he swore loyalty to that vampire, who instructed him in the ways of something called "The First Taboo", a reference to the long-lost practice of eating the flesh of one's own species (cannibalism), the development of something called "The Hunger" (the unnatural hunger felt by all ghouls and zombies), and ways to overcome it (and rise to ghast-hood and develop self-control) as a means to obtain immortality.

The Secret: eating the flesh of "one's own kind" heals 1d4 damage per day and grants +1d8 temporary hit points. A Fort save of DC20 must be made to avoid addiction (moderate).

Flesh Addiction "The Hunger"
Type: Injested Addiction:(Moderate)DC20
Effects: Heals 1d4 damage, +1d8 temporary Hit Points
Damage: 1d4 Con damage

A person whose Constitution drops below 10 becomes Chaotic Evil (as the Hunger calls to them). If it drops to 0, they become a ghoul (undead).

If a ghoul can overcome the addiction, they have "mastered The Hunger", and they become a ghast (ghasts are sometimes called "ghouls" as a type of undead).

While possession of this book is not evil in and of itself, to be seen reading it by a member of a holy order (who keep it a secret) will likely label one as evil, or under evil's influence.

This thread also validates the need to carry torches.

Considering the number of images of Seoni everywhere and her appearance in a sizable number of the adventures, I believe she is asexual, reproducing via binary fission.

There are thousands of her in Golarion. Mitosis is the only explanation.

(mystery of the tattoos solved)

I've run Kingmaker twice and started a thread a while back about things I might do differently if I were to start over. Might be useful for you, lots of good ideas from several people.

link
2) Before the PCs leave Restov, I'd have a party or something where they'd meet Meager Varn, Drelev and the Iron Wraiths. They just knew too little about their neighbors until it was action time. I'd want them to know what's going on and have relationships (good or bad) with these folks from the beginning. It's would make later events more meaningful, and it seems strange that they barely learn about some of these folks in book 5 and 6. Foreshadowing = good.

I like this idea. I stuck mostly to Varn and his team, as the party would likely journey through Nivatka's Crossing from Restov. It gives the impression of a Bigger Mission that you can tie in later in Book 3.

1. a simple ruin, a burned out coaching inn perhaps, suggesting either bandit activity or a rather harsh punishment for some would be Rostlandic partisans (i.e. a posted note saying "for the crime of harboring separatists, by the Regent of blah, blah...) and everyone else who happened to be in the inn at the time. It informs/legitimizes the mission and could even make them a little nervous about their role.

2. there is a fort on the Shrike (can't recall the name but it is also in Book 3). Inform them (via their patron/benefactor) not to stop there, that they must sneak by it as there could be spies reporting back to the Crown. Sneaking by should be very easy. PCs are paranoid by design. Making their NPC friends paranoid as well tends to freak them out, in my experience.

3. Don't go overboard! The real key is getting to Oleg's.

I'd respect Valeros if he were more like Gregor Clegane.

Why's Brass Demur hanging in Sandpoint?