Wyntrewolfe's page

What is the casting time for Frightful Aspect? I assume it's a Standard Action, but it's not noted...

Entire book nothing. As far as I can ascertain, that method has been used exactly once in every Pathfinder sourcebook yet published. :/

Also email'd. :3 Very excited to read and review.

So with the Handle Animal skill, you can teach an animal companion the trick "Perform". If you do so, and you have your animal do the trick while you're using your Perform () skill, does it give you a bonus on your Perform check? And if so, does this apply for the PFS Day Job roll, or would that be "unbalancing"?

- Arandur

Thanks for the tip! I'll post there, as well. :3

Hello! I've got two different games at my house setting up in Colton, CA.

The first is PFS, but we don't have enough players yet. We have one GM and two players, so we need two to three more. The game isn't set up yet, and it won't be until I have verification from my prospective players. I'm thinking of holding the games bi-weekly, but we'll have to see what works for our players.

The second game is a Pathfinder homebrew campaign that isn't fully built yet; I'm building the plot around the backstories of the characters. As such, if you're not so much interested in character development, don't bother applying. You'll need to submit a character backstory and character sheet before I can tell you much about the plot, though the setting will be a classic Gygaxian world. The plus is that we only need one more player to begin.

We're an LDS (Mormon) household, so no alcohol, no tobacco, no drugs, and cursing will not be permitted. Also, we cannot play Sundays.

If you're interested, please leave a note below, or else email me at vl.arandur@gmail.com . Thank you, and I look forward to playing!

- Arandur

Dang. Leave the board alone for a week, and you come back to four new pages of material. Who'da thunk?

In all seriousness, I do apologize for my absence, especially in light, of my last post here. Samnell, I will attempt a reply to your commentary after I walk our dog. For now, I will explain that the ":3" face is a "cat smile", often used in anime-influenced communities. It's related in meaning to the ":P" emote, except only in a playful attitude. It varies from gentle self-mockery to an acknowledgement of sarcasm to a cute sign of approval.

Be back soon. Oh, and Moff Rimner, we teach about casting out devils in our church, too, though not very openly, because a) it's not something we come across particularly often, and b) there are some people who'd react to anyone acting strangly by raising their arm to the square and admonishing them in the name of Christ. Generally it's missionaries who are given the information necessary; it's not a day to day thing.

Though giving various blessings and healing the sick is something that is given to all worthy priesthood holders...

My wife does not consider herself to be a Mormon (I don't actually know what label she'd apply to herself - she's a more private person than I). I'm sure the church still has her on the records somewhere, but trying to get her officially out of the church would just be symbolic and more effort than it's worth.

Ah, okay. :3 That makes sense. Not that it matters; I was just satisfying my curiosity. Pardon the intrusion.

I've been without internet for a week. Gotta get my dot back.

Fair warning: I am not going to go back and read everything I missed, I am simply starting back up with this page.

Very interested in the apparently upcoming debate on the veracity of Mormonism - the topic is close to me, as my in-laws are LDS.

Your spouse, as well? Or did (s)he decide to leave the faith? o.o

First of all, I'll note that Jeff holds the site as a compilation of sources, not claiming them all to be his own. Likewise I do not claim to be an expert on the religion I'm defending, just a lifelong member. ^_~

If you're not familiar with the Book of Mormon, I would recommend browsing through here before going any further, else you'll have very little context. Further, this is Joseph Smith's own account of his finding of the Book of Mormon.

Once you have a good understanding of what on earth the book is about, this serves as a very direct and to-the-point list of strong evidences compiled for the book's veracity.

Finally, to address your second point, the fact that the Book is at least "authentic" should serve as an evidence that, at least, angels exist, or else how would Joseph have obtained and translated the book? :3

If anyone is interested in seeing a remarkably well-documented, albeit indirect (through evidencing the veracity of the Book of Mormon, therefore Joseph Smith must have gotten it from an outside source, making his story as he told it exceedingly likely) evidence for God's existence, here's a good page. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

And for those who are concerned because they don't understand why God does what He does, I must warn you that He said you wouldn't; I reference Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

You can construe that as either Nietzschean or Christian, however it suits you. :P

Sorry to interject my MORMON!; I just thought I'd toss in my two cents a little late.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Samnell wrote:

This thread, to judge from the name, is about the discussion of religion.

I notice that you've either forgotten or ignored the first 33% of the thread's title -- which is mostly what people's annoyed posts have been about (hint: not the "religion" part, nor the "discussion" part).

I addressed it directly. I do my best not to be gratuitously insulting.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Now, in the larger world, there IS a real dilemma in that many, many people stupidly and mistakenly view any discussion or questioning as an "uncivil attack." I don't have much good to say about those people. However, there seem to be blessedly few of them here, per capita, and I hope we can keep it that way.

Here we do disagree. I see that attitude as rather common here. (In fact, it seems to comprise the majority of posts addressed to me.) Either I can twist my self into pretzels to be maximally deferential, or someone will complain. But complaints about tone are ultimately moot as they have nothing to do with the validity of the positions that concern us.

I'll say that I'm fascinated by your view of tact, though I don't agree with it. o.o;

I must apologize for the lack of quality in my last few posts. I was attempting to multi-task, and doing it poorly. >>;

Out of purely academic reasons, I am curious.

However, I am still stuck on a few assumptions that I do not agree with.
1. There is a god
2. The Bible and/or The Book of Mormon are divinely inspired by him

There are plenty more in there, but I am keeping the list short. Why should I give any credence to the Plan of Salvation when I am still unconvinced there is a god or the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired?

Let me put it another way. You are telling me that A = B and B = C therefore A = C. I am saying, hold on a moment, A != B, therefore C is irrelevant until you can prove A = B. To which you might reply but D, E and F!

I'm not expecting you to give credence to the Plan of Salvation, given you take issue with points 1 and 2. In point of fact, this entire discussion only has merit academically, if you fail to accept point 1. That was my expectation of this debate; I'm not trying to convince you, because I believe that, once again, it's only possible to come to a knowledge of God through building a personal relationship with Him. My offerings are only for your academic perusal.

I will, however, give you a passage from the Book of Mormon which may interest you (Moroni 10:4-5):

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Here is a direct promise to you, the reader, from a prophet of the God of whom you seek proof. He offers you this opportunity: read "these things" (the Book of Mormon, in this case), then pray to God as to whether or not it's true, with the hope and expectation of an answer. In that way will you receive one.

I can speculate on the purposes and motivations behind God's actions (or non-actions, as the case may be), but I cannot speak with any personal authority, except that of a holder of His priesthood and a member of His church. Even those speculations, though, are grounded in the Plan of Salvation, so I would urge anyone who is curious to read what is contained in the link, even if purely academically, before we further discuss that topic.

... oh. :3 Okay. That works. Thanks for the input!

Wyntrewolfe wrote:

Because, if you give God a chance, He'll respond to you.

Still waiting.

Wyntrewolfe wrote:

Why are you so quick to dismiss the possibility that God has something to gain from it? What father doesn't like to hear from his children? :3

He could let me know he is there and wants to hear from me.

Still waiting.

*sighs* There's a plan, CF. And that plan involves giving us a certain measure of autonomy. A lot of autonomy, actually. It's all about free will, and faith, and personal growth and stuff. And those things can't happen if God comes down and says "Hey, guys, I'm totally here, so you should worship me now". I've given you the link in my previous post.

Wyntrewolfe wrote:

I think it helps to remember (or, if you don't believe it, to picture) that God is, in a literal sense, our Father.

If he were a father down here on Earth, he would have lost custody of his children by now for neglect.

That's hardly a logical argument. It's a different scenario. Just as we have to let our children make mistakes in their own lives, we have to make mistakes in ours.

Wyntrewolfe wrote:

What Father wants to force His child to talk to Him? It's vastly preferable that the child keep communication open, to show their love.

I do not force my daughter to talk to me, but she can see, hear, smell and feel me. She knows where I am when she wants to talk.

Likewise, you've found out that you can pray, if you want to talk to your Father.

Wyntrewolfe wrote:

How then would we grow?

Why do we need to grow?

Ah. Well. Here we come to the crux of Mormianity, and this is were we differ from the other Christian religions. If you want to know about the Plan of Salvation, I can direct you to that source.

Hey Wyntrewolf, take this with a grain of salt but if I understand the story of Joseph Smith correctly. He was lead by the angel (Moroni I think), to a burial spot where he found these golden plates. These golden plates were "The Book of Mormon". And today these golden plates are inside the mormon Temple where no one is apparently allowed to see them. I will admit this is based on what most people have told me, (including a mormon). To me having those plates is like having t he ark of the covenant holed up in your church basement but letting no one see it "just because". Why not show it to the world it would certainly lend major credence to your church.

Then again i could be totally misinformed about everything I just said and you will indeed correct me :P

I believe that the idea that the golden plates are still on this earth is simply a myth. I've never heard it from any reliable source. o_o; You're right, it doesn't make any sense.

But then again, I refer you to what I said before; it's a matter of personal faith. No vicarious faith allowed. :3

Moff, we don't have a "King James or nothing" viewpoint. That's simply the version we've decided to stick with. I rather like it, myself. ^^

Wyntrewolfe wrote:

The difference is that people base their entire lives on belief in God, where they don't do so with a belief in Santa Claus of fairies or the FSM. Calling into question the existence of God therefore calls into question their raison d'etre, as it were. Hence, defensiveness.

I understand the reason for the defensiveness. The problem remains that both instances look exactly the same. How does one casually dismiss Santa, fairies and the FSM and not casually dismiss god?

Because, if you give God a chance, He'll respond to you. Not in a measurable, tangible way, but in ways that can't be proven. It's that way so that no one can gain "vicarious faith", as it were. It has to be personal. Santa Claus won't talk to your heart.

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Maybe. I don't really see it that way but I understand why you do.

So, help me out. It obviously can not be for god. What do you get the father that really has everything? Prayer has to be for us. So what purpose does it serve us?

Why are you so quick to dismiss the possibility that God has something to gain from it? What father doesn't like to hear from his children? :3

#8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Who determines what "translated correctly" means for the Bible? And why isn't the Book of Mormon under the same scrutiny?

The second question comes down to what I said before; the Bible has been translated by men over thousands of years several times, whereas the Book of Mormon was translated once, and by divine revelation.

The first one is the reason why we use the KJV; it was revealed to Joseph Smith that that was the closest one to the truth. As far as judging the veracity of any particular passage goes, our default position is "yeah, this is probably true", unless it conflicts with what the BoM or other revelation says.

Joseph Smith also did some work on a translation of the Bible, and our particular printing of the KJV has footnotes linking it to relevant passages in the Book of Mormon, as well as bits and pieces that Joseph Smith said actually ran a little differently. Most of these are little changes (e.g. "Thou shall not murder" instead of "Thou shall not kill"), some of them are bigger (I can't think of an example at the moment, but I'll see if I can find one).

I don't think I was. >_>; In the setting as I had initially described it, there is no divine magic, so there is no difference.

It makes perfect sense. I am skeptical of divine revelation, though. Especially since I do not believe in god. How do you tell the difference between someone who says they have had a divine revelation and a charlatan? The fact that they would look exactly the same gives me pause.

It is for this reason that divine revelation is open to everyone. Remember James 1:5:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Authority is given only to those in power, but God encourages us to double-check with Him. It's for that reason that the label of "cult" does not apply to Mormonism; we don't blindly follow our leaders. (Well, perhaps some of us do, but we're not supposed to.) We have the ability and privilege of double-checking.

Something I always had problem with in the Book of Mormon, why does the Spirit of God order Nephi to kill Laban and steal the plates? Why not just steal the plates. Laban is passed out. The ten commandments included thou shall not steal and thou shall not kill. I do not remember any footnote that says, "Unless I send a Spirit to tell you otherwise."

I'll note, first of all, that a better translation would be "Thou shall not murder. But that's largely moot.

The way I've always understood it is that killing for a just cause, while not always Divinely Sanctioned(TM), is sometimes (rarely) the right thing to do. Remember, Nephi also struggled with this very question (source 1 Nephi 4:10-18):

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

The rationale comes immediately afterward:

And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

We see similar situations in the many wars that the Israelites fought with the Canaanites and the other peoples of that area, and of course people have similar problems with the justification. IT comes down to trust, in the end.

I think it helps to remember (or, if you don't believe it, to picture) that God is, in a literal sense, our Father. We're far away from home, and he's watching our lives through what is essentially a one-way mirror. When we pray, we're talking to him. What Father wants to force His child to talk to Him? It's vastly preferable that the child keep communication open, to show their love.

We do, though, come to the puzzle where the one-way mirror is largely self-inflicted, but there's a reason for that, too, that that stems from our purpose here on earth. We wouldn't benefit from being on our own, away from our Father, if He was stepping in at every opportunity. How then would we grow?

CourtFool wrote:

No. I think it is at least implied. If you ask for proof of god's existence, quite frequently, the first response is, "Prove he does not exist."

My problem with that is no one is expected to prove there is no Santa Claus, fairies or FSM. Why then does the burden of proof switch to the non-believe just this one time?

This. Yet somehow it is considered hateful to point out the parallels between God, fairies, and the FSM, seemingly for not other reason that it hurts peoples feelings. Is it tactless? I don't believe it is, at least not in an appropriate context, but I can see making that argument. What I can't see is that it crosses the boundry into hateful.

The difference is that people base their entire lives on belief in God, where they don't do so with a belief in Santa Claus of fairies or the FSM. Calling into question the existence of God therefore calls into question their raison d'etre, as it were. Hence, defensiveness.

Hmmm. (Thank you for your responses by the way.)

Most Christians I know feel that you are wrong. I've heard most Mormons say that they believe the same that we do. Your statement here seems to differ from that. Do you feel that we are essentially the same or critically different? How?

I believe that we are fundamentally the same, and intrinsically different. :3

If you'd like a good, fundamental basis of our belief system, you'll want to look at the Articles of Faith, which were written by Joseph Smith way back whenever to give a brief overview of our basic tenants. You'll find, I think, that many of those core beliefs are the same as of any Christian faith.

There are, of course, differences. The one I find brought up a lot is the fact that we are a non-Trinitarian faith; that we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages. But that's relatively unimportant to our present discussion.

I guess a good way of looking at it would be this: we believe that we have a bigger piece of the truth than any other faith on the earth. So all the Christina faiths (and, in fact, most to all of the faiths on this earth) have some piece of the truth; for the Christians, it's that they believe in Christ, to some degree or another, among other things. We just have more pieces of the truth, due to our direct receipt of doctrine, unsullied by hearsay and the wickedness of the world.

... I hope that didn't sound haughty. >_>; That wasn't my intent.

The type of prayer that the study is trying to "prove/disprove" is more something I feel is "led". Call it a "warm fuzzy"? I don't know and it's difficult to explain (and you know how I hate the "God works in mysterious ways).

The Standard Mormon Phrase to describe that is "a burning in one's bosom". :3 I know exactly what you're talking about, and I agree with ya.

... I must be failing my understanding check. That's a good idea and all, but I'm not sure what relevance it has. What are you trying to fix in my setting? o_o;

"Not my will, but Your Will be done..." From a strictly logical standpoint, what a stupid phrase. Assuming God exists -- of course His Will will be done. Either that or somehow we have more control than God. So then, from a strictly logical point of view -- why put that phrase in there?

Because the prayer (pray-er) is expressing acceptance of God's will. It's an echo of when Christ said it in the Garden of Gethsemane; he asked that God would remove the task from him, "nevertheless, not my will, but Thine, be done". He accepts that, if he has to do this, if it's God's will, he'll do it. It's a humility thing.

Also an obedience thing, as far as the Christ example goes; Christ technically could have refused, and doomed us all. He had free will (theoretically). But he was saying "I'll put what You want ahead of what I want". That's why his sacrifice worked, because he went in willingly.

Welcome to the thread, Wyntrewolfe. We are not exactly on our best behavior now, but I am sure things will settle eventually and we can go back to debating Free Will.

Ooh, Free Will! That's one of my favorite debates! :P

What about the Anthon Transcript forgery and the incidents surrounding Mark Hofmann?

I'll refer you back to my note that those in authority are still human. They can make mistakes and be taken in; they're not immune to that. I don't know everything about the Hofmann case, but I see nothing in it that contradicts my viewpoint.

Here's where I'm kind of going with this. It really feels like your faith is in the institution rather than in God. And I don't understand that. It seems to lead to lots of other potential problems.

Most Mormons I know say that their faith is in God, but when asked questions, it turns out that their faith is in what the institution tells them. That seems like a tricky balance to maintain. (But then I'm probably missing something. Hence the confusion.)

Well yes, it is a tricky balance to maintain, and I think that a lot of people lean on the institution tells them, because it's honestly less work than finding out the truth for yourself. If you had an infallible source of truth, how hard would you work to find your own truth?

I accept that this may have been the case with the Mormons you've spoken to, and I'm not surprised, though I also do not condemn them; it's a good first step, having faith in the institution. I, however, like to think I have faith in God. I also have faith in the institution, believing it to be the correct and true church on this planet.

How are bishops, stake presidents and prophets identified/chosen?

By divine revelation, through either the previous holders of said office, or the authority above them. Same as all positions in the church; the bishop (or whoever) receives revelation as to who should go where, they extend the calling to you, and you are free to accept or deny it (though if you believe it's the will of God, you're generally going to accept it). Make sense?

You can still have divine magic while having a world where the gods are not directly involved in the world.

I do this all the time, and it doesn't require you to nerf clerics and/or paladins into oblivion.

The part of the old D&D paradigm you have to get rid of is that the power of a diety is directly proportional to their number of followers, and the power of a diety's clerics is directly proportional to the power of the diety. That paradigm has been dead since 3.0.

By the PF RAW, you can have a cleric that has faith in the power of helping others. This person would be able to wield divine magic as well as any diety based cleric. The key to a cleric's power is the sincerity of their faith. If a cleric believes that Banjo the Puppet grants then divine power, then they get power.

In the worlds I DM, true faith is pretty rare. Most of the clergy are experts with ranks of knowledge(religion). They love to sit around a debate about the nature of the gods, and study books on the subject, but they lack the faith to take the plunge and put their lives on the line for what they believe. Many of them are outright hostile to actual clerics of their own faith, because they see their divine powers as a threat to their comfortable status quo. I find this to be very realistic as it is very similar to the biblical accounts of how Jesus and the Jewish priests got along.

Finally, spellcrafted is a trained only skill. The average commoner simply cannot tell the difference between divine and arcane magic. Further, in a world where wizards, druids, and sorcerers exist. How would someone know the difference between a cleric casting cure light wounds, and a rogue faking it with slight of hand and cure light wounds potions.

Hrrm. That's a good idea... I'm not quite sure if it'll fit into the game I have in mind, but it's certainly an option, and a good one at that. I'll certainly take it into consideration, thanks!

When I was referring to what the average commoner would think, I was referring to the differences between Sorcery, Wizardry, and "Glyph Magic", which should be evident to anyone who watches and has knowledge about magic. (Though the difference between Wizardry and Sorcery may take quite a bit of observation, and may not actually be known to the commoners.)

Is the institution ever wrong?

*grins* Very pointed questions you have, but I like how you're not jumping on me.

Simple answer is "no", because we believe in direct revelation. If the institution were ever wrong, then God would have to be wrong, because he told the institution what to say. :3

However, we have to define what is meant by the "institution". The church is set up as a hierarchy of authority; certain people have the authority to receive revelation for certain parts of the church. The Bishop has the authority to receive revelation for the ward (congregational unit), the Stake President has the authority to receive revelation for the Stake (collection of wards in a geographical area), and the Prophet (currently Thomas S. Monson) has the authority to receive revelation for the entire church.

These leaders are still human, though; they can have opinions and ideas that aren't meant to be taken as The One And Only Truth. Revelation is revelation and is True, anything else is advice and commentary.

Clear enough? >>;

Hmmm. Let me start by saying "thank you".

Thank you.

Let me start by asking this (and I'll admit very pointed question) -- What's more correct or right? The scriptures or the institution?

Well, that's a more complicated question than it is with most Christian religions, since we have more scriptures than most. :P

For those not in the know, Mormons absolutely believe in the Bible. We use the KJV, believing it to be the most correct extant translation. However, the history of the Bible being what it is, with its crazy retranslations and bits and pieces being lost (or cut out for political reasons) over the years, and the iffy question of what's canon and what's not, the Bible has some errors. Some of those errors are commonly pointed out by atheists and other non-Christians seeking to undermine the validity of the Christian faith; I shan't go into them here.

So as far as the Bible goes... on the one hand, we have a book of scripture that certainly was divinely written and inspired (or, at least, most of it... I don't believe for an instant that Song of Solomon has any divinity whatsoever, and I've heard several stories of authorities in the church stapling shut those pages in their personal copies!), but which has had men, with their errors (and sometimes evil intentions), intervene over the millennia. On the other hand we have a religious institution which believes in direct and personal revelation ongoing today. We have a prophet and apostles, patriarchs and bishops, and the holy priesthood. So in cases where the institution and the Bible disagree, the institution wins.

However, on the other hand we have the Book of Mormon. We claim that said book was written and compiled by righteous men, mostly prophets on the American continent, then sealed and buried for some 1400 years before being found by the 14-year old boy Joseph Smith, at the direction of an angel. The book was then translated to English directly, and since that original translation there have been but a few minor changes in the grammar and wording of a few phrases. Therefore, if we accept the origin story of the book, we see that it must be much closer to its original state than the Bible is. Therefore, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon disagree, the Book of Mormon wins. This doesn't happen particularly often, though; in fact, they match up in several places.

We have further items of scripture: the Doctrine and Covenants, which are a collection of visions and revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which are obviously as true and correct as can be, having been written not 250 years ago; and the Pearl of Great Price, which is an appendix of sorts, containing a translation of a few odds and ends, among them a clearer account of the creation of the world and the story of Adam and Eve, and an excerpt of Moses' talks with God. These we hold to be as true as possible; any mistakes or misinterpretations are the errors of man, not of the works themselves.

Finally we come to the case of where the institution contradicts the Book of Mormon et al., which fortunately never happens, said book being the keystone of our religion. :3

Makes sense? Maybe?

Hmmm. Let me start by saying "thank you".

Thank you.

Let me start by asking this (and I'll admit very pointed question) -- What's more correct or right? The scriptures or the institution?

Well, that's a more complicated question than it is with most Christian religions, since we have more scriptures than most. :P

For those not in the know, Mormons absolutely believe in the Bible. We use the KJV, believing it to be the most correct extant translation. However, the history of the Bible being what it is, with its crazy retranslations and bits and pieces being lost (or cut out for political reasons) over the years, and the iffy question of what's canon and what's not, the Bible has some errors. Some of those errors are commonly pointed out by atheists and other non-Christians seeking to undermine the validity of the Christian faith; I shan't go into them here.

So as far as the Bible goes... on the one hand, we have a book of scripture that certainly was divinely written and inspired (or, at least, most of it... I don't believe for an instant that Song of Solomon has any divinity whatsoever, and I've heard several stories of authorities in the church stapling shut those pages in their personal copies!), but which has had men, with their errors (and sometimes evil intentions), intervene over the millennia. On the other hand we have a religious institution which believes in direct and personal revelation ongoing today. We have a prophet and apostles, patriarchs and bishops, and the holy priesthood. So in cases where the institution and the Bible disagree, the institution wins.

However, on the other hand we have the Book of Mormon. We claim that said book was written and compiled by righteous men, mostly prophets on the American continent, then sealed and buried for some 1400 years before being found by the 14-year old boy Joseph Smith, at the direction of an angel. The book was then translated to English directly, and since that original translation there have been but a few minor changes in the grammar and wording of a few phrases. Therefore, if we accept the origin story of the book, we see that it must be much closer to its original state than the Bible is. Therefore, if the Bible and the Book of Mormon disagree, the Book of Mormon wins. This doesn't happen particularly often, though; in fact, they match up in several places.

We have further items of scripture: the Doctrine and Covenants, which are a collection of visions and revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which are obviously as true and correct as can be, having been written not 250 years ago; and the Pearl of Great Price, which is an appendix of sorts, containing a translation of a few odds and ends, among them a clearer account of the creation of the world and the story of Adam and Eve, and an excerpt of Moses' talks with God. These we hold to be as true as possible; any mistakes or misinterpretations are the errors of man, not of the works themselves.

Finally we come to the case of where the institution contradicts the Book of Mormon et al., which fortunately never happens, said book being the keystone of our religion. :3

Makes sense? Maybe?

Well, as far as the game mechanic goes, druids will be using "nature magic". It's just socially that the line between sorcery and druidism is blurred: they're both powers that seem to come from within, that don't require study; the hoi polloi will view druids as simply a distinct branch of sorcery.

As far as rangers go, I always liked the idea of having them be naturally adept at what, until I find yet a better name for it, I shall indeed deem "glyph magic". I'm not sure whether to replace their arcane (not divine anymore!) spells with said magic, or to augment them with it, or what. x3 As they stand now, again, they would be viewed as specialist sorcerers by the general populous, at least in magical terms, though they would obviously also be "rangers", people who wander the earth and track creatures.

CourtFool wrote:

I dare say you are anti-Mormonism.

And I feel that I should address this. I know that you feel that I am "anti-Mormonism". And I'll admit that I have said some choice things about it. But I don't think I really feel that way. I just really don't understand how or why they think. Similar to you and me.

Christians (for better or worse) typically will hold onto their beliefs with their dying breath or, as is often seen recently, will come up with "apologetics" to make their beliefs "fit". I understand that and feel it makes sense. Whether or not you agree is beside the point. I understand that thinking and why.

Mormons on the other hand (at least the MANY that I have talked to) don't look at things the same way. The actual "beliefs" vary and differ greatly from person to person and typically don't matter as much. What does seem to matter is the institution. And this thinking is rather foreign to me.

(And I'm not sure how to figure this out. Generally when the discussion gets to that point with Mormons, they feel offended and angry and I'm still left not understanding why they feel the institution is more important than the beliefs. Hence the reason I'm often "quiet" about this subject.)

Well, here's a Mormon who won't easily get upset. :3 Sorry to come late to the conversation, but which beliefs, exactly, do you find the Mormons vary in? Some of them can be easily explained. Some of them can be more difficultly explained. And some of them come down to the hypocrisy of men, and not a fault of the religious institution.

You may note that I claim that none of them are the fault of the religious institution. That's because I believe that we're right. ^_~ But please, expound upon your observation; maybe I can help clear things up.

Eh, that works, I suppose. :3 Better than the alternative.

For my upcoming game, I'm making some important changes to the Pathfinder roleplaying system, and as such need to fully consider the implications of such changes. I hope that the good members of this forum will assist me in this venture.

Divinity
The first change I have made is to assume that the gods have little, if any, influence on the campaign world, thereby bringing the religious and political situations a bit more in line with real-world history (which, while not my original intent, is an interesting side-effect). After careful consideration, I have decided that this effectively nullifies divine magic. The most direct result of this change is, off course, to nerf the Cleric class; I have decided to remove it form the class list completely. This of course raises the problem of access to Cure spells; I explain how I repair that flaw in the next section. "Clerics" still exist as church officials, like bishops; their character classes, though, will probably mostly be Sorcerers or Wizards specializing in Abjuration or Necromancy.

Druids stay largely unchanged; I have simply switched their magic type to "arcane". More details may be found in the following section.

I have not decided how to modify the Paladin yet, in order to balance out the lack of divine magic; any suggestions are welcome.

Rangers, instead of drawing from a divine spell list, will gain use of Magic as defined in the next section.

As a side note, I have also determined that it would fit well into the setting to remove all resurrection spells (e.g. Raise Dead) from the corpus.

Magic
The first change comes from needing to allow access to the Cure spells. While these are, in the normal Pathfinder game, under the Conjuration school of magic, I feel that adding them in with the other Src/Wiz Conjuration spells will overload that school. Therefore I have decided to move all spells of the Healing subtype to the Necromancy school, turning said school's modus operandi into more of a "manipulation of life energy" than a "perversion of the sanctity of death", thereby giving the school more credence and applicability for non-evil users. (As an aside, it may be noted that this also allows for an easier path to corruption for magic users; the delineation between good and evil becomes a bit more fuzzy when the same school is used both for giving and taking away life.)

The second change I have made has nothing to do with the absence of gods, which may come as a breath of fresh air. I am trying to introduce another system of magic into the world, wherein spells are "cast" through miniature rituals involving the drawing of runic diagrams. This type of magic, to which I am temporarily attaching the uncreative appellation "Magic" (as distinct from Wizardry or Sorcery; see below), is rather useless in a combat situation (unless advance planning is a factor), as in its current incarnation it takes a full minute to draw out the requisite diagram for a single "spell", but it makes up for its shortcoming in that area by being infinitely more versatile than the other two types of magic; Magicians are not bound by a limited number of Spells per Day (because the power of their magic comes not form themselves, but as an inherent quality of the diagrams), and spells can be "linked" together, one casting after the others in sequence, or affecting the others it is linked to.

Magic is viewed as three major groups, or types:

• Wizardry is magic which is studied by wizards, written in spellbooks and prepared daily; a structured and scholarly approach available only to those with connections to the academies of the world.
  
• Sorcery is magic which is inherent to a creature (person), coming from a taint in the bloodline or other some such aberration, volatile and mysterious.
  
• "Magic" (I need a better name; my inspiration came from Fullmetal Alchemist, but 'Alchemy' describes something much different from what I'm attempting here) is almost a type of "folk" magic; in its most basic form it's accessible to almost anyone, since it takes no study or special ability to use; just copy a fancy shape and speak an incantation.
  

Druids are grouped (in the public eye, though not in the rules of the game) in with sorcerers, since their magic manifests in a similar fashion.

Magicians
The Magician class runs roughly as follows, I think:

BAB is 3/4 HD, at the rate of the Cleric; I figured that, since the special ability of the class isn't combat-oriented (or even particuarly combat-applicable), the BAB should be greater than that of the other two main spellcasters.

Good Reflex and Will saves; the good Will saves are a staple of the spellcasting class, and the good Reflex save comes from the constant scrawling of symbols and shapes. Or something.

Hit Die d8; I stole this and some of the following from the Cleric without any thought; I don't know if it's a good match or not. Playtesting will tell, I guess.

Starting Wealth: 4d6 x 10gp

Skill Ranks per level: 2 + Int

Proficiency with all simple weapons and light armor.

Magicians don't have to worry about Spells per Day, but they do need to track which "spells" they know, similarly to how wizards expand their spellbooks as they grow in level and experience, and/or by stealing spells from other wizards' spellbooks.

I have not yet created a spell list for the Magician; likely it will be the same or similar to that of the Sorcerer/Wizard.

I also had the idea that Magicians could gain the class ability to imbue weapons, armor, rings, etc. with spells, at the level that they would (were they Wizards) become eligible for the Craft Magic _____ feat. They won't actually be able to smith the sword, but they'll be able to take a Masterwork sword and imbue it with the markings to turn it into another version of, say, a Vorpal sword.

I am debating whether or not the Magician should gain a familiar.

That's all I have so far; any commentary or advice would be appreciated!

- Arandur