Human

Taishaku's page

126 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a big fan of Joan of Arc and Paksenarrion, if transported to Golarion I would definitely become a devotee of Iomedae. The problem is that I am really not at committed to being Lawful as I would like, so I'd probably not be a very strict adherent but I love her ideals. Also, as a cultural Catholic I think her tradition would seem more homelike.

IRL, I am an ordained Buddhist priest, but I find Irori annoying. His tradition kind of stands in for the Shao Lin types, but he is no Buddha. He just seems like a stern taskmaster and who wants to end up on Axis - a realm of cold impersonal Law? Brr... Unlike the Buddha (Teacher of Gods and Men), Irori is a mere god and isn't even committed to Good. I could deal with the Empyreal Lord Korada however. He is cool, and has more of the bodhisattva vibe.

I do like Pharasma - she seems civilized, and though not benevolent, she dutifully ensures that the cycle of birth and death operates smoothly and fairly for everyone.

I confess to having a gruesome and morbid fascination with poetic justice and creative forms of damnation such as one finds in Dante's Inferno (have read the Divine Comedy twice in two different translations) and I like the idea of the Machiavellian schemer who nevertheless abides by a code of honor (granted a bit twisted) and so while I would never have anything to do with Asmodeus, I find him fascinating. He is truly the cosmic Magnificent Bastard (as per tvtropes) of Golarion's cosmology.

Calistria truly annoys me. She just seems selfish and mean-spirited. Who needs that kind of drama?

Erastil is too conservative, rural, and patriarchal for my tastes.

Shelyn is the goddess of things I deeply appreciate and admire.

Abadar also annoys me. He just seems like the god of capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism - all things I don't much approve of. Is there a Golarion god for the proletariat?

As a bartender I should really be a worshipper of Cayden, and I do appreciate having good drinking buddies. On the other hand, drunks annoy me (unless they are tipping me well), and too many of my drinking buddies lately have been mooches and/or ugly drunks. I also get kind of a frat boy vibe from Cayden (granted, he is at least a good natured lug). So I wouldn't have much to do with him either.

In general I would approve of all other Good deities.

The Neutral deities and esp. Chaotic Neutral deities I would actively dislike as they are at best impersonal and callous and at worst violent and destructive).

The Evil deities aside from Asmodeus would be worthy of nothing but my contempt and I would kill their adherents as fast as I could identify them (or at least report them to Lawful authorities to deal with).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

O Lady of Graves we humbly call out to you,
To safely usher the departed into your presence
In the halls of judgment upon the spire.
Guide them safely past all hags and daemons
And with your implacable wisdom
See that they receive their just rewards.
You see all that must be
You watch over the cycle of birth and death
Watch, then, over us all
So that we may find and accept our true destiny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

This spell writes stuff down at the cost of a move action every round(aka. Concentration).

If you have to concentrate on the material what's the point? Is it not taking the exact same amount of effort to actually write yourself?

Admittedly, it looks cool and very mage-y. Style points aside, am I missing some aspect of this that makes it worthwhile?

** spoiler omitted **

Hmm. Would my mage Bartleby waste a spell slot on that?

He'd prefer not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:
The thing is morality changes over time. What is considered wrong or right can change over the years so at this time because over time what is good has changed hands so many times that no we cannot find a nation that is "good" right now due to our standards, but years ago imsure u could pick a few countries at a time that would be considered "good" by the morality of that time.

I would agree that certain things are deemed evil or bad in one place or time and not bad or even good or valued at other places and times - marijuana, gay marriage and other such issues show that society can change over time its views. However, I do think there are some baselines of morality that do seem to have stood the test of time and have been independently arrived at in different societies. For instance 2,500 years ago in India the Buddha taught that there are ten courses of wholesome conduct (and I am pretty sure these predated him):

1. Not to Kill
2. Not to Steal (or specifically "take what is not given")
3. Not to engage in sexual misconduct (usually explained as involving minors, incest, violence, deceit, unfaithfulness, etc.. - but yes, here there is room for debate about several matters)
4. Not to lie
5. Not to use abusive speech
6. Not to use speech to divide people against one another
7. Not to speak irresponsibly (yes, this is rather vague)
8. Not to give in to greed
9. Not to give in to hatred
10. Not to give in to delusion (also a matter of interpretation I guess)

So, yeah, there are areas there that are debatable but even in those I think most people would agree that irresponsible speech, delusion, and sexual misconduct (at the very least rape and incest and such) are not things we want to see done.

It also comes down to the Golden Rule that has also been independently spoken of in different cultures at different times.

So I am wary of the argument that morality is totally relative. I do think there are baselines even though peripheral issues are arguable and changeable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HotLanta wrote:

I'm playing the Shattered Star AP with a monk in a party of 7. At level 8, We have: Sorcerer; Rogue/SD; Ranger/Sorc/AA; Cleric; Paladin; Barbarian. We've not all been in at the same time since the first few sessions, but we've got 5-6 players in a session consistently, between the 8 of us.

Spoiler:
In our last session, while ascending a staircase to the top of a broken tower, we were attacked by three wyverns. I jumped from the staircase and grappled one of the wyverns, which then (to my surprise), flew up and out of the tower, and out over the wilderness we had barely explored, taking full-round move actions each round, going higher and further from the party. I maintained my grapple check, but my GM wouldn't allow me to even attempt a second grapple check to try and pin one of its wings, or even attack it (which wouldn't under normal circumstances require a grapple check). He said, when I asked:

1) Because it's a large flying creature, it could move even after I grappled it (I didn't expect it to be able to, looking at grapple RAW, but I'll take it).

2) Because it was flying at 120 ft/round (whatever that equates to in normal speed), I couldn't do anything but hold on for dear life. - I expected to at least be able to make another grapple check to do something (pin a wing, make an attack; effectively grapple my way around the creature). I'm also somewhat curious as to why 120 ft/round would be so debilitating when my monk has a 50 ft base speed, for 200 ft/round at a flat out run.

I haven't seen anything in the mechanics (and I am fairly familiar with the rules for grappling) that deal with this situation, and I'm curious about what you all think about how the situation was handled.

I guess it depends on the type of game your GM is running and how he/she envisions it. If this were to happen in my game I'd take the cinematic route and allow the PC to grapple, fight, or even use handle animal or ride to try to take control of the beast. I would probably also make the PC roll against relatively high DC climb or dexterity checks to see if they are able to hold on and not fall off while doing those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The first chapter of our campaign actually deals with only one of the PCs - Jharalion Aeirandi, the elf magus, or Jharad for short. The player actually wanted him to appear naked on the road, robbed of everything but his spellbook, when the other PC's met him - inspired by or in homage to the appearance of Geoffry Chaucer in "A Knight's Tale." I thought this would dovetail nicely with the idea that goblins were attacking travelers on the Lost Coast road and so this sequence happened:

The Misadventures of Jharalion Aeirandi

One of the things about this chapter is that backstories for elves are really long in span of time and so because this character was a Forlorn elf tied in with Koya (as per the campaign trait chosen) we really had to think about what that long life span would mean in terms of Jharad's relationship with Koya, Koya's mother, and in fact the history of Sandpoint that this elf character was around for in the beginning. This would mean later that the elf would have known personally (at least as passing acquaintances) the founders of Sandpoint including the Ameiko's father.

Also, the end result of this chapter resulted in a kidnapping (or goblin-napping) that kind of put a complication into the first part of the Brinestump Marsh expedition. This had to be resolved and that led to further complications that will appear in later chapters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think of the Bloodguard from the Thomas Covenant series.

In campaigns I run there are many situations in which characters might be attacked without their full combat gear. Monks would have a definite advantage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Carl Cascone wrote:
But look at the Golarion Gods. We have Asmodeus, and we have Irori. OK Irori is not CALLED Buddha but I could see how it might offend some of that religion (actually are they ever offended?) to have a mock portrayal of Buddhism.

Funny you should mention that. I just finished reading the write up on Irori in the latest Adventure Path (#53 I think) and wondered if I should even bother sharing my thoughts about it here. As it happens I am an ordained priest in a Japanese Buddhist lineage and I knew that Irori was supposed to be Golarion's analogue for Buddha, so I was a bit disconcerted to find that he is not a very good analogue at all. So good thing Irori really isn't Buddha. At the same time, I wondered if the people who think he is supposed to be the analogue for Buddha and Buddhism will think that he really does represent Buddhism and he does not at all. What's wrong?

1. The Buddha, even in the pre-Mahayana teachings, was not just Lawful (in that he upheld a monastic code and also secular morality) but also encouraged the cultivation of loving-kindness and generosity and tried to counsel kings and brahmin priests against war and animal sacrifice. If Irori was really an analogue for Buddha then he should be Lawful Good. I very much consider myself the priest of a Lawful Good religion (not that I am a perfect LG but still that is what the atonement spell… I mean repentance ceremonies are for).

2. It mentions various ascetic practices endorsed by Irori. The Buddha actually rejected most forms of asceticism after their practice nearly killed him before he was able to attain enlightenment. To live simply but keep one's basic necessities for food, water, shelter, clothing, and medicine covered so that one's body and mind remain in good health is one of the reasons he taught the Middle Way. The self-torment practiced by some of his contemporaries he actually repudiated. The Buddha did teach a series of very mild ascetic practices called dhuta but they really consist of wearing cast away rags instead of accepting donated cloth or insisting on begging for food door to door instead of accepting invitations to eat in lay supporters homes and other such things that are more about living simply and not self-torment. To be honest though, there are people in my own lineage who undertake some pretty severe ascetic practices, but those really can't be blamed on the Buddha and have more to do with East Asian shamanism and the yamabushi (mountain warrior) traditions of Japan that were and are done for the sake of cultivating supernatural insights, perceptions, and powers of blessing and exorcism.

3. Irori is a god and lives in a heavenly realm (well, a nice place on Axis anyway). The thing is that the Buddha specifically denied being a god, and one of his titles was "teacher of gods and men" which set him apart from and even above the Vedic gods. Nirvana was also not any kind of heavenly realm but simply the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion. It is true that idealized buddhas living in pure lands did later come into the picture, and functionally that may seem like a deification of Buddha living in a heavenly realm. These idealized buddhas in pure lands are not however meant to be understood as the ultimate reality but are merely skillful expressions that lead to liberation from birth and death. Despite superficial appearances, Buddhism does not view Buddha and nirvana is most definitely not a place but a state of liberation from suffering and being awake to the unconditioned. I hope those who think of Irori as Golarion's analogue for Buddha will not mistakenly think that RL Buddhism is like what is being described for Golarion.

In short, Irori is not an analogue for Buddha, but an analogue for superficial impressions that many people have about Buddhism/Asian religion that people may want to use for their Pathfinder stories and campaigns. I am fine with that as long as it is clear what Irori is and is not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
roccojr wrote:
Zmar wrote:
Can anyone sum-up the problem with the Geisha for me? I think I'm failing my perception check again.
Where is this geisha that you speak of? The king of the kingdom in my Kingmaker campaign LOVES everything Asian. Considering the new kingdom is being raised as a free trade hub, I'm guessing a diplomatic envoy from the far east might give the player a good smile.

The diplomat could be named Inara! (For you Browncoats out there).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I am about to request has already been mentioned elsewhere but I just want to add my voice to the clamor.

One of the things I love about Pathfinder is that its rules really give me as the GM a toolkit to craft any kind of campaign I want. One of the things I would like to be able to do is a kind of Flash Gordon campaign and that means having balanced rules for winged human looking humanoids, lizardfolk, other types of beastmen, insectmen, and so on. Others have already stated this so I just want to say that I would buy something that would let me do this also.

Also, I really really want to have a balanced way of using doppelgangers and other more powerful "monsters." In the campaign I was running (and hope to start up again someday) I used the rules for Races of Destiny whereby the character had doppelganger levels whereby they gained more and more doppelganger powers until they were full strength. This really helped maintain balance with the rest of the party so that the doppelganger didn't overshadow the others in terms of capabilities nor was s/he too weak to keep up with the other party members. So I for one didn't have any problem with a powerful creatures powers being parsed out over several "monster-levels."

Having said that - I my campaigns are actually more centered on human civilization, human characters, and those closely related to them. So I would not want to see a situation where the severn core races are sub-optimal to more exotic things.