Simply Gabriele's page

Stealth and infiltration focused paladin of Kelinahat. Premise being that she travels the land working herself into cults, vampire dens, evil organizations until she can strike at the root and purge it all. Usually posing as sword for hire, hiding her alignment and so on. While she doesn't lie (which would make her fall), she does allow people to make false assumptions about her and goes from there.
For example, to infiltrate an organization bristling with Dispater-ites, she plays up the lawfulness and dedication to order, perseverance, and strength, thus coming off as your very standard stick in the mud believer out to oppose demons and chaos. Easy for a paladin. Last time this happened, rumor spread that she was likely a hell-knight on assignment, even.

I realize that some DMs would not stand for having paladins who participate in deception of this sort, but hey. My DM and I enjoyed exploring the more 'unknown' Heavenly patrons and what their spheres are.

It sounds like I might be missing some since I only get hardcover pathfinder books, and have at least one to look forward to, so that's neat.

Simply Gabriele wrote:

The half wild elf 'bastard' in Bastards Of Golarion would suggested that might look more like our real world native americans than sub-saharan people.

Desert Half orc in the same book seems to be closer, but it is anyone's guess if the hair is a wig or naturally straight. Mountain halfbreed is a similar case.

I appreciate and am aware that half-breed characters do have like, individuals that represent different human races, though I haven't seen much of it in art. I am most interested though, in it happening with completely non-human characters though. Like Elves and Mwangi or Vudrani can have kids that look like their human parent is nice, but still in the domain of like "There aren't POC in non-human races."

I thought as much, but seeing as I couldn't find wild elf art, I thought that maybe a half elf of that sub race would still shed some light on what they'd look like. I myself think wild elves need more love, and as someone who hopes to go into illustration I'm always disappointed by artists who hardly give any thought to the descriptions of their assignments.

Oh well.

Wild elves in Elves of Goalrion have a picture that's leaning towards 'not your usual pale elf', but it's rather 'tan guy with dreadlocks' and the descriptions are not helpful in this matter either. The half wild elf 'bastard' in Bastards Of Golarion would suggested that might look more like our real world native americans than sub-saharan people.

Desert Half orc in the same book seems to be closer, but it is anyone's guess if the hair is a wig or naturally straight. Mountain halfbreed is a similar case.

That's what I got prom a glance. Can't comment on the gnomes, as I rather dislike the race and not look around for it quite as much.

Well damn, gotta say I'm disappointed my posts were deleted from the last thread since I'd certainly post them here.

Transsexual members of a single-sex race strike me as something that would happen during a time of plenty, much like homosexuality is often expressed in species when they aren't hard-pressed for resources or mates. They're producing resources for the community while drawing little out of it themselves, which as far as nature is concerned is a net positive and something worth keeping.

Your opening post does bring up the topic of magic, would a potion of sex change even work on a harpy? They're a mono-gendered race with no examples (as far as I'm aware) of men existing. Round hole, square peg, the magic just wouldn't work.

They might however be interested in magic that turns them into a binary race, however. A trans* harpy might not be able to become a man, but she could become a male strix.

Indeed, and I thought it was on topic of trans men, but that's moderators' business.

I considered the opposite, though not in all cases naturally. As I'd said if for reasons like war or disease the local region was rather cleansed of human/oids to prey on, would a harpy consider it, if she could? Even being a race of CE bastards, they might have some sense of tribalism or clan preservation and wish to preserve their group, or moving to better pastures might be a difficult undertaking. To be fair, I do consider it less likely than harpies trying to contact some fiends to 'help' with the matter, unless that failed or some harpy thought it would give her better standing or power.

Strix thing did remind me of my ulfen paladin trying to pass as a harpy for infiltration using Alter Self to look like a rather used and abused strix. The thing is, that changes the subtype. A harpy is a monstrous humanoid, while a strix is just your run of the mill humanoid. So spells like Alter Self doesn't allow for one to turn into a harpy. Presumably, it works fine in the scenario you suggested. Quirks of magic.

I think the spell would frizzle...also I don't think you'll find transgendered among single sex species.

I thought it would be an even rarer occurrence, maybe only something that might pop up after exposure to other races, where one could see a different lifestyle and physical make up and consider it. Naturally, it might simply result in an individual of a single-sex species changing their habits a little but still considering themselves fundamentally the same.

It also comes down to the matter of self presentation, as in, the same hypothetical harpy could do it because of a desire to appear a certain way while still thinking of one's self as just a harpy, as opposed to 'a man harpy'. Maybe she thought the men she was feasting on were so appealing she wanted to look like them while not thinking of herself any different. Naturally, this might be something more in the purview of Alter Self than any girdle or elixir.

Simply Gabriele wrote:

would a trans man hag be able to impregnate a woman with a changeling, or would something else prevent it?

I think the spell/effect would simply fail for as far as we know there are no male hags and they require other species to complete their reproductive process.

As for the harpies and what not I'm pretty sure the magic would fizzle.

But, maybe, it's entirely possible that it's not that it doesn't work it simply hasn't been tried.

It would also be absolutely terrifying to have harpies that reproduce true without necessary predation.

Terrifying? It might adjust their outlook and shift them from preying on humanoids to just doing their own thing minus the need to capture men. But there probably would be the initial boom of harpies terrorizing the countryside, good point.

And so there's an adventure hook based on one simple item creating hostilities.

As suggested, re-posting the conversation in a separate thread.

How would Golarion and the specific races deal with the single-sex species/races acquiring trans members? Namely creatures like lamias, harpies and girtablili or hags. Seeing as a sex change is 'perfect' using alchemical and magical methods, as in, there are no physical discrepancies or difficulties, would a trans man hag be able to impregnate a woman with a changeling, or would something else prevent it? What would a 'roost' of harpies think about a member of theirs changing like that? Would the individuals motivation matter much for them? Say, if one of the harpies sees the very low 'pick' of humanoids in their lands, would other harpies consider it a boon or something abominable to destroy? They may even feel pride for being a group with a proper harpy man.

Or would the items that change the sex of a person simply fizzle when single-sex races try to use it?

Thanks for your thoughts, I do love to consider such things in world building.

EDIT: Apparently girtablilus might not be in the category. My bad, considered that that scorpion women might be as hermaphroditic as some species of insects are, leading to interesting conundrums if one was to desire to change the human half. Again, probably my misunderstanding of the race being all half scorpion half human woman.

Crystal Frasier wrote:

Simply Gabriele wrote:

As a woman, I feel the need to point out that even if I can benchpress a horse and bind five devils to do the same with my powers, I am still the one carrying a child, giving birth to it and needing/wanting recuperation (albeit magically aided, most likely).

Competence is not the only reason why a woman might choose not to do something, or be not able to. You might be a marvelous ranger, a great shot with deadly aim. But you're seven months pregnant, you do not wish to go into war or explore that devil infested cave because your child might be exposed to the evil energies.
Sure, this doesn't mean that ALL cultures incorporate this in some limiting fashion. But simply because women have the exact same ability to perform.. It doesn't erase gender roles off the board, it gives more leeway and variety of approach.

Luckily, people with uteri don't have to spend all their time being seven months pregnant, and many women only choose to do it once or twice, or even not at all. A single dad raising a toddler would likewise probably take some time off adventuring to make sure his kid wasn't exposed to demon energy or ghoul fever.

And again, this have nothing to do with trans men and representation.

I thought we were talking about the average hum-drum population of a kingdom, the ones that generally carve out how gender roles and cultural norms develop, not the miniscule percentage of people who decide to become murderhobos.

And from what I learned in Anthropology, people living in economies that thrive on having an extra pair of hands on the farm typically produce a LOT of hands, which translates into having large families. I mean seriously, just take a look at Africa, they have large families because children are *cheap*, and start paying off the moment they can look after the goats.

They also have large families because, when you get old, who is going to look after you? Much of Africa lacks the type of highly developed social...

That is also my view. More over, I don't believe that this necessarily leads to oppressive gender paradigm, when it comes either to women, transgenders or queer people of any inclination. A "high virility = good" society could just as well be matriarchal (oppressively so or not), painting women as the lifegivers, and men as secondary when it comes to it.

Even in a system that does actually espouse what we consider the old conservative beliefs of women needing to stay put, in a setting like Golarion, that could have a widely different meaning. For example, a village of traditionalist Erastil worshipers could have a booming church based on highly skilled women as healers and priests, tending the farms, the sick and the needy while fully embracing the gender norm of devoting themselves to family and community.

And Crystal, I brought this up because the perception of gender and what it means to be a specific gender in a specific society was being discussed, especially in regards of physical capability meaning perfect equality in all regards. I do believe that the views of the community or the family would be of great importance while discussing how a trans person could feel and move in it. I do agree that a PC or any adventurer almost by definition is at least somewhat outside the norm, but we all carry a part of our roots and upbringing, whether to embrace or to rebel against it as we move in life.

Mr. Bubbles wrote:

Zhangar wrote:

Magic's a hell of an equalizer.

Golarion's a world where some 5'0" twerp that weighs 100 pounds soaking wet could kill Godzilla King Mogaru with her bare hands.

"Traditional gender roles" (a.k.a., I'm naturally bigger and stronger than you, so do what I say or get hurt) goes out the window when either gender's fully capable of suplexing ogres.

And that's just the pure martials. "Traditional gender roles" gets thrown out the window even harder the moment stuff like smite and ki and domain powers and spells get involved.

I'd expect Amiri's tribe to NOT go "you're a woman, you must do ____," I'd expect them to go "you're built like a brick s@~~ house, how about you do ____."

The general vibe on Golarion is that a society that actively discriminates against its members, for whatever reason, often has something deeply wrong with it.

Magic is indeed a great equalizer, but the problem with magic is both genders are equally represented as having magical inclinations, and magic in Golarion isn't as common as magic in, say, Eberron.

Again, see being able to kill Godzilla with your bare hands.

Physics in the Pathfinder universe don't work quite the way they do here.

In the Pathfinder universe, men and women are equally adept at both magic and physical combat. There's no physical (or magical) advantages from gender.

Another way to put it - in the Golarion universe, women are just a strong as men, and men are just as agile as women.

As a woman, I feel the need to point out that even if I can benchpress a horse and bind five devils to do the same with my powers, I am still the one carrying a child, giving birth to it and needing/wanting recuperation (albeit magically aided, most likely).

Competence is not the only reason why a woman might choose not to do something, or be not able to. You might be a marvelous ranger, a great shot with deadly aim. But you're seven months pregnant, you do not wish to go into war or explore that devil infested cave because your child might be exposed to the evil energies.
Sure, this doesn't mean that ALL cultures incorporate this in some limiting fashion. But simply because women have the exact same ability to perform.. It doesn't erase gender roles off the board, it gives more leeway and variety of approach.

Killing a terrorist doesn't stop terrorism. Stopping a dictator doesn't stop dictatorship. Killing one evil thing doesn't stop evil. It's my opinion that Paladins are concerned with destroying evil as an idea or a byproduct of actions. A paladin can certainly be concerned with winning the war rather than winning every single battle, which can definitely fall under forgiving something with the intent that it won't have the desire to commit evil anymore, and instead might even want to do good. What is the bigger win? Killing something evil, and setting the record to zero? Or converting it to good and allowing it the chance to go on and continue being good and performing good actions? Redemption is powerful. And redemption comes from forgiveness.

Well, I invite you to apply to the church of Sarenrae, since you'd clearly be great there. One half of it, at least, since the other would agree more with the others in this thread that after polite but stern confrontation, a paladin would not let thieving continue unabated.

A paladin is both lawful and good, not simply good. His vows and goals are to both uphold righteous order and to spread love and benevolence. A paladin could and often would forgive personal transgressions against him, but he cannot simply ignore it and wish the known culprit the best without even addressing it. Help him find "the light" and understand the wrongdoing. If not, the wizard is a criminal. And criminals must see the court, as that is what law commands. It is not "wrong" or "un-good" to insist that unlawful actions see consequences. It is to show the criminal that they do indeed carry those, and hope that it corrects his thinking and actions.

See, the problem here is twofold: The wizard is stealing while presumably not in need; and by turning the blind eye the paladin could encourage it, or fail to protect more vulnerable people from similar depredations. There's no real justification in the wizard pilfering the pickets of his comrades. He can't be notably poorer or more 'worthy' than the rest. As already stated in the thread, it undermines cohesion and trust in the party and is simply "wrong" by any LG measure. Moreover, to what extent do you think the paladin should ignore it? Oh, it's but a potion and some gold, no worry. But what if the wizard steals your equipment? Or the money you were saving up for a shield? What if it starts climbing up into high numbers of gold lost and impedes your ability to spread good and fight evil? Or what if it becomes obvious that the thief only goes for valuable personally important to the unlucky? That breeds pain and is evil. Shall it be ignored then?

A paladin should approach this with equal measure of benevolence and desire to maintain righteousness. You concentrate on the good, gentle and forgiving, to the point where it can be evil/chaos abiding. While chopping hands and screaming bloody murder is not the way to respond to lost beer money, swinging the other way and throwing yourself at the thief all "Partake of me, oh bretheren!" is not paladinic either.

Only to lawful stupid Paladins. There is no glory, honor or justice in throwing your life away in a battle you clearly cannot win for no cause and no gain to the powers of good whatsoever.

This meeting with a lich is the same as if the Paladin had walked through a town and detected evil on a peasant. The peasant and lich may be evil but they have not done anything or are not attempting anything that the Paladin has reason to oppose at this time.

In point of fact the lich is assisting good in opposing another evil which even the Paladin code says can happen on a limited basis.

This lich is in his own hole, keeping the deals he makes and is making a point of not attacking or molesting anything the party cares about or is protecting.

Will the Paladin note every damn thing he can about the lich, it's possible powers and weaknesses, lair, guards, abilities and items for possible future destruction? You damn well better believe he will.

But committing 'suicide by evil cop' should never be in a Paladins code unless the Paladin and player are playing lawful stupid. And if they are, why would a deity/the powers of good have imbued this idiot with divine powers to start with?

Honestly your best bet is to have the lich magiced to have either undetectable...

Oh, praise the Empyreal Lords, yes.

This scenario sounds like a completely functional situation for a paladin or anyone Good. The paladin and their party is clearly on a quest. Duty and desire to do good, help people, all that lovely spiel. So why would a paladin EVER shirk THAT holy duty, endanger their comrades and possibly ruin the quest, letting BOTH evils run free? Why? Deal with the underling, get as much information as possible, maybe the ex-apprentice even has insights and keys to destroying the lich. Even if that is not the case, why would the paladin not try to do their best then give all they can to their superiors? Are they not in a church or an order? Can they not contact Heaven to inform them about possible way to find and purge this lich? Are they horrifically separated from the world and unable to plan to any degree?
Paladins are AND need to be kept a functional class, part of a bigger picture. Especially since most of them are active parts of societies, churches and army units they are accountable to. They can't have any even semi-realistic ability to function if their first thought upon seeing a great piece of evil s@&~ is not "how can I bring this down?" but "AAAARRRR FOR ME IOMEDAE!".

That aside, I think that when anyone desires to play an ideologically-bound or code-restricted character, it should be discussed with the DM. Not just "can I play a pally?", but how the player interprets the code, game aside, and how the character would see it too, or how it is taken by their specific deity. That way you can minimize the chances of surprise falls or raging righteousness where none were foreseen. Have a conversation both ways, to see where issues could arise. Could have prevented this mess.

Where are these anti-LGBT militant players that everyone keeps mentioning? Especially those who will loudly voice their... Disapproval? Disgust? Ignorance? Over a character in fiction?
Most people like that are too fundementalist to play already, so we can expect to have a lot of breathing room already. After all, if you think that calling that elf druid that worships nature spirits "they" is too much, you will be horrified by all those completely cisgendered Asmodean inquisitors and quite the game anyway.

Are we still living in that long gone moral guardian era where DnD players were communing with the devil and spreading immorality?

Let's talk actual experiences, not "Well, I think there'd be bigots".

Isn't this exactly the issue? Unless it is an actual part of the story (for example, some noble demanding his son to marry a woman and produce an heir, but the son is a homoromantic asexual, and the story explains the crux of the issue in one way or another) or the author explicitly explains it later, we have no idea what the gender, sexuality, or kibbles and bits of iconics or NPCs are.

The DMs or players are free to speculate and adjust as they desire. After all, are all characters who do not 'partake' in tavern wenches asexual? No. Neither are characters whose stories do not involve romantic pursuits aromantic. Their personalities, preferences, circumstances, whatever might have such concerns pushed aside. In most cases we do not know any characters' private lives and thoughts, their self identities or attachments.

Nonetheless, I do not believe the topic itself should be avoided like holy/unholy water. But it must be addressed in a way that doesn't reek of tokenism or lazy writing. Would you really make someone being nonbinary/asexual/genderfluid a plot point? How would that happen? It's one thing if the town sheriff goes "My name is Jitt-- No, I prefer 'they'." and continue on their talk about the zombie menace. A whole another thing if you becomes a sort of hamfisted comedic scene: quest giver socialite shows up in a three piece pantsuit and a tophat, introduces themselves as Joseph, a man's man, then two days later it's Josie in silken scarves and pincurls, thanking PCs for speedily assisting a lady. Are you ready to explain this outside the game or will you go along when players get suspicious that this is some sort of disguise or something more nefarious? This is a world of possessions and cursed items and mind affecting tricks. Would the players not even be allowed to question something like this in game, since it's a sensitive topic?

The poor innocent gold-plated door in an abandoned pyramid that we, the horrible gold-thristy pcs, totally spent half an hour peeling gold flakes off of.

For 60gp worth of profit.

Good days.

Agreed with Anguish. New players are new players, that's it. Show them the ropes, figure out what interests them in the game - maybe it's exploring fantasy worlds, maybe it's combat, maybe it's roleplay interactions. If you throw things at them that do not appeal in the slightest or if you cryptic in explaining and enforcing the rules, that will turn anyone away. Integrate and cooperate, so that everyone is having fun. That will get you players and make them stay, female or not.

A general rule, but if you're only an a&$~+#! to women, it might well go overlooked in an all male group.

Or even overlooked when women do try to participate. It's fairly common for some types of sexist behavior to be unnoticed or excused by other men. If it's not too blatant, at least.

And now you're being "benevolently" sexist. We women are not gentle beings just so much more susceptible to someone being rude or childish. And what I've personally encountered is just the opposite - people being hypersensitive because a woman is at the table. Oh, no, that evil sorceress cannot try to make the naive brute back stab the party by batting her high cha eyelashes at him! No, that might somehow make me uncomfortable. Or worse yet, if there's a disagreement at the table over anything at all, there are suggestions I should be pandered to, cause isn't it great to have a female player? We wouldn't want to turn her away by resolving the problem or a rule interpretation in the usual manner.

Now if you have a player or players, or, gods forbid, the gm, who specifically picks on a player because she is a woman or because the character is female, that's horrible. But not more horrible than another player being singled out for some other arbitrary characteristic. We can only hope to spot these people in public events and deal with them accordingly.

I agree with the consensus that that it is always good to strive to keep the prejudiced, mean spirited or plain rude players at bay, but this is simply for the general health of the community and for the sake of gameplay. This might help with the female percentage or it might not, but that's quite irrelevant, it needs to be done anyway.

Gabriele, I do no believe in special rules. However, I think that GMs and players can be respectful of others and welcoming. This has worked well in my local PFS group, I believe. We have several women gamers in our group.

This is a general rule. If you're an a~+~*%% at the table, you'll only have a mess or similarly unbearable people playing along, regardless of their physical characteristics or gender.

Absolutely nothing. Nothing turns me away from a hobby faster than feeling pandered to or put on a pedestal, which is an almost inevitable result of campaigning to get women into this or that. Women do not need special rules or marketing. Yes, in the past the stereotype of an rpg was sweaty barbarian beefcakes saving weak damsels in flimsy silken skirts. But it has not been the case for a while, and marketing has been inclusive in showing all genders and races participating on equal grounds.

In my opinion, only time will shift any remaining opinions that table top rpgs are a 'no girls allowed' type of scene. The other geeky activities you mention are more transient, quick to gain and lose hype and customers. Tabletop is more stable, moving along slowly. No wonder the general opinions about it are slower to change.

You should try making them the cool new thing.

Start a trend and people will pay anything for them.

...That is ...actually possible.

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Derrick Winters wrote:

As they are *creatures of the moment* they probably cannot be trained, and thanks to their Freedom of Movement, caging or restraining them might be difficult.

Then how are they ever familiars?

"Debate rages as to whether or not the strange and capricious creatures called voidworms are actually proteans at all. To the wizards and sorcerers who summon them as familiars, the answer seems obvious—these tiny dwellers of Limbo have all the requisite racial traits of proteans, down to their serpentine shapes. Yet the established protean castes find such claims outright insulting, claiming instead that it is such acts of conjuration that call voidworms forth from the raw stuff of Limbo, giving them shape and life according to the spellcasters' expectations, and that these lesser beings are but pale reflections of their formidable kin."

I'm not sure why these Voidworms would be used as familiars, as wizards are supposed to reach out into limbo and create them from out of raw chaos.

If anyone at the university tells my PC her voidworms are too "stale" to buy, they're getting slapped with a couple.

It is not really a problem that the paladin won't be around to raise the child, so long as this is communicated beforehand and provisions are taken to give the child a good upbringing. I would guess temples would have provision for this if they have paladins. Simply put, the paladin is out there to fight and die in service to the god in question and for Good. The paladin has other duties than raising a child. I doubt this would be seen as a problem by the church. And of course, the child might not like the idea, but that is not going to be first on the priorities of the other people involved.

I disagree. One duty does not override the other, exactly why I think a paladin would have difficulties with this 'father a child' proposition. Of course, knowing that the baby would have great care is a mitigating circumstance and the demigod might convince the pally that this is the best thing to happen on Golarion since the invention of holy water... But can you really expect a LG character to not have a pang in his heart about not knowing his child? The demigod might tell him how she will talk of him, of his mighty deeds and great character, but is it truly the same?

It is not a problem in the sense that the paladin won't be a 'provider' for the child, as you say, a demigod or an orphanage might be just as adept at taking care of a child's needs and upbringing. The hiccup that I think the majority of paladins would run into is taking on another duty that they know clashes with ones already upon his shoulders. In my opinion fathering a child at the drop of a metaphorical hat would be about as paladinic as making a promise that is not congruent with ones duties. Sure, the other person might say that it's not big thing and you can forget about it, but it doesn't mean that you will.

I'm not saying that it is something the paladin would fall for or just flat out refuse upon hearing it. But depending on the actual situation he might ask for some way to visit the child, if ever so often, or for some kind of contact. Or, he could thank the demigodess for considering him worthy of respect and hero's name, but admit that the preposition, however kind and well-intended, does not sit well with him. There are other party members the half deity could offer this to, this is not a crucial matter.

I'm going to be the Debbie Downer here.

I do think that sex and short term dalliances are completely allowed for paladins, as long as they are LG - respectful, honest, consensual and so on. That's not what ticks me off about scenario like this one and the 'my god sent me an angel to make an aasimar with, what honor' idea... Why would the mortal do it?

In most of these cases, just like this time, the character is a paladin, someone who is devoted to duty, doing the right thing, going out of their way to help others. Why does someone like that agree to have a child that they won't be able/allowed to take care of? To love, to see them grow, to have a relationship with... Wouldn't a paladin want to fulfill his or her parental duty to the best of their abilities, instead of being a glorified breeding stock for divines? Wouldn't it weigh down on their heart that there's a child of theirs somewhere and they will probably never see them?

This is completely off topic, but perhaps a future reference for the OP:

I tend to instinctively avoid any thread that has "plz look ladies" or equivalent in the topic.

Yep. Especially since this topic is about deity preference/how fleshed out they are, nothing really requiring 'female perspective' since opinions of all sexes and genders are just as valid, and being 'a lady' doesn't make you any more qualified to talk about personalities of gods.

Also, on a more childish note, Irori, Nethys and Abadar kick ass. Nethys is my personal favorite of the male gods (he's like Sollux/Mituna, but a god!).

I do so love Nethys, you can do so much with a mad god of magic.

@Simply Gabriele: just wanted to share that I do not play a lot of good characters but instead I play almost exclusively neutral of some kind. And my favorite deity is Asmodeous so I get what your saying about the bad boys... I just don't want to always play in to the normal fantasies of being the bad boy who can kill everyone he cant trick. And by the way You made a GREAT post and went in depth on the matter, much appreciated.

Well, I guess that's where our main disagreement lies: Unless the character in mind is a cleric or otherwise part of the deity's church, I think they can strongly gravitate to only one key point of the deity, pretty much disregarding the rest. Which, in the case of evil gods, doesn't necessarily have to be the slaughter of all that look at them the wrong way. And thus you can have rule mad nerds that do everything by the book without being evil, you can have Dispater worshiping gallant knights that are no necessarily slaughter happy, since a nice duel to submission or first blood can suffice... Maybe someone who worships Charon because they see death not as some evil that cuts your life and joy short, but as a necessary end of all lives that gives meaning to existence in the first place.

Evil gods don't have to have only 'bad' people worshiping, after all. Religion can be heavily regional, as per Cheliax. The evilness of it can be intentionally downplayed by the clergy, again, as Cheliax shows. Or Andoran, if you will, where evil churches are permitted to operate in public and focus heavily on other aspects of the faiths to draw people into their congregations. Then there are racial gods. A CN or even CG gnoll can pay serious homage to Lamashtu as his creator, having heard many stories about her giving life, being a mother of many, about her overcoming challenges and achieving godhood. Maybe that gnoll feels Lamashtu blesses him on his travels or grants him powers, whether she does so or not (say a barbarian who thinks Lamashtu fills him with power to defeat his enemies or a ranger who thinks Mother of Beasts blesses him with successful hunt to feed her gnoll children).

22, female, disagree with you wholeheartedly.

For one, you seem quick to dismiss evil (male) deities for little reason. I can only assume you play mostly good characters, otherwise they are fair game and, in my opinion, not particularly lacking in character, no matter how much I love Lamashtu. You can always appreciate the unbending cold law of Asmodeus in all the flavors you can come up with. Or Dispater, he has plenty of development to work with - his marriages and unconventional (for an archdevil) relationships with women to begin with and his son Ragathiel, him being Asmodeus' favorite, the First King title, his industrious, if evil, civilization building... If Asmodeus brings up the image of an evil lawyer or judge, Dispater is the ideal malevolent aristocrat - all manners, propriety and cold-hearted decisiveness. And that, to me, is as interesting, if not more, than a 'cheer-leading' goddess of love and beauty.

Leaving archdevils alone, Zon Kuthon has plenty to offer, besides S&M. He's a tragic tortured being, twisted into evil. But that aside he has his deal with Abadar, his residence being in the shadow plane, his relationship with his sister. Those can all bleed into his clergy or Kuthon-loving societies. One of my all time favorite character concepts is a devout Kuthite artist who paints eerie pictures in blood and gore; and this is entirely within Zon Kuthon's purview - pain, sadism, death, destruction of living and breathing beauty to make a mockery. It could even be spitting in Shelyn's direction, mocking her beliefs in the most gruesome of ways. And let's not forget that despite the fact that mad leather clad cultists who go mad with sadistic rage come off as chaotic at first sight... Zon Kuthon is lawful, which is an interesting spin and can come out in your Kuthite characters (a better Christian Grey, anyone? After all, that character could use polish.)

Leaving evil behind... Why not Cayden? A good portion of your stereotypical adventurers are exactly the kind-hearted drunken oafs that Cayden would have among his flock. Wenches, mead, glorious adventures and saving the day, full package. He's easy to work into more standard worship too - celebrations to mark brewery events like first grape crop or opening of the first bath of year's beer, opening of inns (they can even have a shrine at the bar). He's a god of t~%* and wine and, more likely than not, little accidental next generation adventurers that happen when you mix the two. His ascension is both amusing and interesting, which could even prompt many an adventurer to emulate his favored deity to try to reach some piece of divinity for themselves, and there's always the fact that he's also a god that values freedom above all.

And what about Aroden? You can't possibly claim he's underdeveloped or unrelatable. From him being the last Azlanti to his fight for humanity and his death, he's fleshed out as well as the rest of your gods and goddesses. He's 'real', as you like to use that term, he comes off as someone who tries to do his best to protect what he loves, which happens to be the human race and culture.

TLDR: I disagree that flavorful devout characters need to stick to female deities as male gods have plenty of angles and domain interpretations to work with, just like the goddesses.

P.S. Noticed your edit. Being a god of booze and sex is not inherently sexist or "icky" for women, even straight women, since otherwise bar wenches are once again appealing. We are just as capable of "lowbrow" humor or appreciating a beer (or ten) with some side of cheesecake. Unless your players are particularly sensitive to the subject, which is not necessarily limited to your female players, he shouldn't be a problem.

Ok, if you know that all the players are comfortable with the theme, feel free.

If you KNOW.

Though I have to wonder if you'd find it hilarious to use black tentacles on male characters to the exact same effect. They're not immune after all, and it would have the same effects used on a Generic Big Guy Fighter #9 as it would on a Generic Big Girl Fighter #9.

Also be aware of how such things might affect IC atmosphere. For example, the oracle gets violently attacked and violated, how does the party react? It can cause a lot of conflict if other pcs make a joke out of what would be a traumatic experience. What if that lone male party member gets hit by uncontrollable lust and goes for the sorceress? Will the woman continue to feel comfortable around him? Will she blame him for being too weak willed? Will she accuse him of using magic as an excuse? How will the guy feel? Ashamed, mocked or brazen about it? After all, men aren't just 'haha mammaries!' int 5 trolls, it might have different effects on different personalities.

It might be just my opinion, but you shouldn't fear "justifying" actions of evil PCs. Of course, I don't mean arguing vehemently that painting the orphanage red with blood was a Good action. What I am saying is that most Evil characters have completely valid reasons for what they do.

You don't have to avoid characters that are misguided, for example, an LE character can have a warped sense of respect and honor where he or she responds to slights violently, and even takes pride in it. Have your PC have a deeply rooted belief, like might makes right, take it a step further and you're on your path to evil. As long as you have internal consistency for some semblance of sanity, deeply held beliefs that are evil by definition or in practice are completely valid and interesting, and not just a mark of low mental stats. After all, Asmodeus is cunning, experienced and incredibly intelligent and made no less Evil by any of those qualities.

Of course, like any of your good characters, they can be agenda-driven. And not just "Well, I worship Asmodeus, therefore I want to help out his cause", but more defined, practical goals, say, some wizard or alchemist who started in the neutral alignments but quickly slipped south by taking bloody shortcuts to gain power, knowledge or to finish their research which by itself might be completely neutral or even benevolent(Crazy doctor who thinks nothing of experimenting on defenseless or "undesirables" to find out how to overcome some debilitating sickness, anyone?). Good parties are often set against characters who are neck deep in evil not by default but because they got blinded by their goals - protecting their family or themselves, retaking some lost lore or land, winning a war.. It can be whatever suits your particular class or or taste, see if you find any inspiration in your favorite pathfinder villains.

Naturally, they CAN be raised surrounded by selfishness, backstabbing or apathy. It's pretty common for people to create characters who come from horrid backgrounds of war torn countries where people have started to turn on one another, but most of the time PCs like that take the higher ground and fight the evil that haunts their memories. However not everyone is like that, some people are too marred by their experiences to re-evaluate their worldviews. You can have someone who thinks stealing some guy's last supper is perfectly valid, cause if he cannot defend it, he doesn't deserve it. After all, this person would expect no better treatment if they were the weaker party in the situation, everyone's out for themselves, right? Added to that, a lot of races have racial prejudices that can easily push someone towards capital E Evil. So if you have a particular race or nationality you want your character to be, dig for nuggets of questionable beliefs or events in that culture and expand upon them.

If you're leaning more ...Impulsive and chaotic, raw emotions are the easiest way. Grief is a terrible, overwhelming emotion that can do horrid things to people's minds and push them to do even more terrible things to others. Have mental scarring from any kind of abuse you feel comfortable putting in your character's sheet and head. For example, pain of abandonment, be it friends, family, romantic love. Show confusion, lack of direction, someone who lives for the moment because they are not able to force themselves to think of the future, to imagine it without pain and sadness. To maintain functionality, you can have your character keep it bottled until something sets it off - threat of being betrayed again, death of companions, maybe even some Evil actions like children being mistreated or a particular type of evil being that has caused the trauma to begin with. This tends to take some serious consideration, so you might want to try to imagine what exactly happened to harrow the character so and what was the immediate follow up, especially internally, within the character's mind. Were they failed by their community or their law? Did they feel left behind by their god, their prayers unanswered? Are they seeking revenge or are they just lashing out?

Either way, I hope my endless rant gave you some vague idea of how you want your character to be. Having a character whose evils are not just something they stab at with their +1 longsword is great fun and can bring a whole new set of roleplay possibilities.

Riddle: 3) The more that there is,

The less that you see.

Squint all you wish when Surrounded by me.

Speak my name!

Clearly "Darkness". That one is very easy. Then again, the dragon might start out with that, to gauge the party's intelligence and hook them into the game.

As to being fair, I like riddles and don't see them as some burden. Of course,not in ever dungeon or every "intelligent ancient being" encounter, as it can get old quickly, but to me it is a nice pause. Stop thinking about damage, dice and tactics and get shoved into an entirely new ballgame. But this depends on the players. Some might find this annoying, especially if there is not way to obtain hints. Even if a party has a wise sage or a wizard with extraordinary command of language, the players might not be able to match those skills in real life and that can be irritating. In short, if you are willing to leave a little trail of crumbs for the players to follow, full steam ahead.

Ah. See, I knew I was missing something. Yep, I'd Nix that transformation any way I could manage whether I use the excuse of balance, mechanics or RP is irrelavent. The most important reason is to save the game.

Its a shame. I'd think it could make for some excellent roleplay if it the other players could handle it. It actually sounds like a pretty interesting character concept.

I get the sentiment, but not the execution. Why lie? No one in the group would throw a tantrum, at least no one in this group. Disagree, yes, but not stomp their feet and cry foul.

Nonetheless, I agree, the whole ritual business, having to perform evil actions to secure the demon's trust, adjusting to the new nature and so on... A lot of fine roleplay opportunities.

Ipslore the Red wrote:

In this case, I believe the idea is to turn into a succubus. I am so very confident of my players' maturity that I plan on disallowing that particular idea.

Could you explain this a bit more? It might help us in providing the most balanced answer for you for the specific circumstances of your campaign. I can't tell what you mean from the above statement. Do you mean that your player lacks the maturity of roleplaying a succubus? Or is it the opposite that you have confidence in their ability to play a succubus but do not want to do so for a balance/mechanics reason?

Ipslore is afraid the campaign will devolve into endless sexual jokes and innuendos. We have already had both succubi (that's how this whole becoming demon thing came into existence) and just general sexual themes, like existence of prostitution, rape, and the fact that those slave markets are not just to buy big burly musclemen to lift heavy things for you. So it's definitely not going from a puritanical cloister to a red light district.

Personally, I doubt the snickering would happen any more often than it already does, but I might be way too subjective.

Also, as I've already told Ipslore himself, I'm more than fine with the demon lord in question being puzzled by or downright suspicious of the evident lack of pingable evil in my druid, leading to more trials or whatever else. Wouldn't be any fun if there was no challenge. Or a lot of it. And I agree that a crafty demon lord would find more than enough uses for an underling that doesn't set off alignment alarms everywhere she goes.

G@+ d%~mit, you were reading that page too.
And, again, it says "apply modifier" not "apply modifier*X".
So, no. No 5 extra languages per int modifier "cause boohoo, this one page is ambiguous". It's nowhere near ambiguous. If 99.99% people know what it means, it's by definition NOT ambiguous.