Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG)

The Al-Zabriti are fantastic--I do own Qadira, Jewel of the East (and highly recommend it) from CS--so was surprised that such a newly revealed group was in here, but thoroughly enjoyed it. The spells are especially fun (Sun's Disdain? Nifty!)

Wouldn't have been complete without a spell that allows you to turn people into Seattlites.

So Tribal Hunter + tiny Valet familiar= Always on sneak attack?`

The wording on this seems so over simplistic I don't trust it...

Yep, as long as you and one of your buddies who also has this Feat are adjacent to an enemy you're considered to be flanking it.

It's not a strategy I'd be fond of since I'm not a fan of putting my familiar in harm's way.

Friend of mine let me read through his PDF, and sorry if any of this has already come up but a few issues I have:

1) With the Rostland Bravo Swash, was the feat tax to use your archetype-dedicated weapon intentional or oversight? As is, as the Dueling Sword is a one-handed non-piercing weapon very few Swash features work with it, sadly not including Swash Finesse. Admittedly this is fixable as early as level 3 with Slashing Grace, or 5 if you want to go with the flavorful new Aldori Dueling Mastery, but that still seems a disappointingly long time to wait to use your intended weapon.

2) The Scion of Talmandor's "Talmandor's Gift" ability should probably have some mention of uses per day. Now it's perfectly reasonable to assume it's the same 2 Smites as the Aura it replaces, but as written it's just an At Will ability.

Other than that though, I'm loving it, especially the Grey Maiden stuff. If I can get the timeline to line up I think I'll bring a Masked Maiden to my next game, an next time my group tries to do HR I think I'll bring a member of the New Council of Thieves.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Anyone think they could clarify a small section on Riventhun for me?

That alchemical mixture that's used (forgets the name), is that like a girdle of gender switching or merely something else? Like does it actually help the character change gender, or just look more like that gender?

The Aderos Salve and Mulibrous Tincture specify "secondary sex characteristics", which would refer to breasts, facial hair, Adam's apple, and general body type/shape. So it's not a girdle of gender switching which also changes out primary sexual characteristics, it's more of an appearance adjuster.

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

Alchemaic wrote:

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Anyone think they could clarify a small section on Riventhun for me?

That alchemical mixture that's used (forgets the name), is that like a girdle of gender switching or merely something else? Like does it actually help the character change gender, or just look more like that gender?

The Aderos Salve and Mulibrous Tincture specify "secondary sex characteristics", which would refer to breasts, facial hair, Adam's apple, and general body type/shape. So it's not a girdle of gender switching which also changes out primary sexual characteristics, it's more of an appearance adjuster.

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

From my read-through I didn't see any listed mechanical impact, it struck me more as a flavor item, kind of like the Alchemist's Kindness.

Alchemaic wrote:

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Anyone think they could clarify a small section on Riventhun for me?

That alchemical mixture that's used (forgets the name), is that like a girdle of gender switching or merely something else? Like does it actually help the character change gender, or just look more like that gender?

The Aderos Salve and Mulibrous Tincture specify "secondary sex characteristics", which would refer to breasts, facial hair, Adam's apple, and general body type/shape. So it's not a girdle of gender switching which also changes out primary sexual characteristics, it's more of an appearance adjuster.

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

In Pathfinder—as in practically all else—there are not mechanical advantages to gender. There is, however, the importance of gender affirmation and being able to have one's body reflect one's gender identity.

Thank you for clarifying that John Compton! :)

I wish they had adjusted the Signifer in a way that allowed the Summoner Archetype to progress his eidolon and still go into Signifer :(

The Al-Zabriti are fantastic--I do own Qadira, Jewel of the East (and highly recommend it) from CS--so was surprised that such a newly revealed group was in here, but thoroughly enjoyed it. The spells are especially fun (Sun's Disdain? Nifty!)

I will admit, the Al-Zabriti section had the most unexpected surprise in it. I had no idea Bloodragers had 5th level spells now!

I assume that Mass Sun's Disdain was supposed to be Bloodrager 4, not Bloodrager 5. Unless there's something very huge I'm missing.

Overlap Pete wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Anyone think they could clarify a small section on Riventhun for me?

That alchemical mixture that's used (forgets the name), is that like a girdle of gender switching or merely something else? Like does it actually help the character change gender, or just look more like that gender?

The Aderos Salve and Mulibrous Tincture specify "secondary sex characteristics", which would refer to breasts, facial hair, Adam's apple, and general body type/shape. So it's not a girdle of gender switching which also changes out primary sexual characteristics, it's more of an appearance adjuster.

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

In Pathfinder—as in practically all else—there are not mechanical advantages to gender. There is, however, the importance of gender affirmation and being able to have one's body reflect one's gender identity.

I'm confused by your statement that there is no mechanical advantage in Pathfinder based on gender. There is a -2 penalty for trying to disguise oneself as someone of a different gender so clearly there can be a mechanical advantage to being a particular gender.

John Compton wrote:

Overlap Pete wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Anyone think they could clarify a small section on Riventhun for me?

That alchemical mixture that's used (forgets the name), is that like a girdle of gender switching or merely something else? Like does it actually help the character change gender, or just look more like that gender?

The Aderos Salve and Mulibrous Tincture specify "secondary sex characteristics", which would refer to breasts, facial hair, Adam's apple, and general body type/shape. So it's not a girdle of gender switching which also changes out primary sexual characteristics, it's more of an appearance adjuster.

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

In Pathfinder—as in practically all else—there are not mechanical advantages to gender. There is, however, the importance of gender affirmation and being able to have one's body reflect one's gender identity.

I'm confused by your statement that there is no mechanical advantage in Pathfinder based on gender. There is a -2 penalty for trying to disguise oneself as someone of a different gender so clearly there can be a mechanical advantage to being a particular gender.

I'm unclear as to how you get there logically.

There's no mechanical advantage to being a particular gender, just to trying to disguise yourself as being a different gender from your own.

Gisher wrote:

John Compton wrote:

Overlap Pete wrote:

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

In Pathfinder—as in practically all else—there are not mechanical advantages to gender. There is, however, the importance of gender affirmation and being able to have one's body reflect one's gender identity.

I'm confused by your statement that there is no mechanical advantage in Pathfinder based on gender. There is a -2 penalty for trying to disguise oneself as someone of a different gender so clearly there can be a mechanical advantage to being a particular gender.

I'm unclear as to how you get there logically.

There's no mechanical advantage to being a particular gender, just to trying to disguise yourself as being a different gender from your own.

I assume that's what was meant. And it does raise a good point, would this grant a disguise bonus if it was used for that purpose? Because I can guarantee there's going to be people who do that.

TOZ wrote:

Antony Walls wrote:

All of the non-world neutral content appears to have been scrubbed from d20pfsrd.com when they started selling their own content. For instance (as an example) the Pathfinder Delver archetype from Seekers of Secrets does not appear there - a reasonably 'generic' (as in no rules that tie it to the organisation) explorer that is locked by its PI name.

Here it is.

Thanks.

I think that the fact that I could not find it and it had to be renamed sort of supports by point about the divergence of the content, with potentially different names in different places.

d20psfrd has weird habit of switching names. Archive of Nethys doesn't do it so I don't think its exactly needed to do?

Well anyway, bestiary monsters are in most cases setting generic in just that country/plane names are filed off. If core book had called "Purgatory" "Boneyard" then nobody would bat eyelid at Golarion specific names for law/chaos axis plane names.

d20psfrd has weird habit of switching names. Archive of Nethys doesn't do it so I don't think its exactly needed to do?

It has to do with the Community Use guidelines and the other things each site does or does not do.

d20PFSRD lost the ability to use Paizo proper names once they went commercial.

Jessica Price wrote:

Gisher wrote:

John Compton wrote:

Overlap Pete wrote:

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

In Pathfinder—as in practically all else—there are not mechanical advantages to gender. There is, however, the importance of gender affirmation and being able to have one's body reflect one's gender identity.

I'm confused by your statement that there is no mechanical advantage in Pathfinder based on gender. There is a -2 penalty for trying to disguise oneself as someone of a different gender so clearly there can be a mechanical advantage to being a particular gender.

I'm unclear as to how you get there logically.

There's no mechanical advantage to being a particular gender, just to trying to disguise yourself as being a different gender from your own.

I assume that's what was meant. And it does raise a good point, would this grant a disguise bonus if it was used for that purpose? Because I can guarantee there's going to be people who do that.

Well no, because you're not "disguising" yourself as that gender, you are that gender you want to be.

Huh, never thought Paizo would print their own versions of the elven lightblade and thinblade...

Huh, never thought Paizo would print their own versions of the elven lightblade and thinblade...

I came here to comment exactly this. The Elven Leafblade and Thornblade seem to be identical to the Light/thinblade, but add a +2 to confirm crits. Quite nice, but probably no easy way to gain proficiency for free (that I know of).

Dark Midian wrote:

Huh, never thought Paizo would print their own versions of the elven lightblade and thinblade...

I came here to comment exactly this. The Elven Leafblade and Thornblade seem to be identical to the Light/thinblade, but add a +2 to confirm crits. Quite nice, but probably no easy way to gain proficiency for free (that I know of).

I'd have to go check, but to be fair the newer versions don't have as many bells and whistles. The leafblade and thornblade are one damage die lower than they'd normally be (Literally justified because "elf weapons are teeny tiny"), they're not counted as short swords and longswords like the lightblade and thinblade were, respectively; and like a rapier you effectively can't two-hand the thornblade.

Xethik wrote:

Dark Midian wrote:

Huh, never thought Paizo would print their own versions of the elven lightblade and thinblade...

I came here to comment exactly this. The Elven Leafblade and Thornblade seem to be identical to the Light/thinblade, but add a +2 to confirm crits. Quite nice, but probably no easy way to gain proficiency for free (that I know of).

I'd have to go check, but to be fair the newer versions don't have as many bells and whistles. The leafblade and thornblade are one damage die lower than they'd normally be (Literally justified because "elf weapons are teeny tiny"), they're not counted as short swords and longswords like the lightblade and thinblade were, respectively; and like a rapier you effectively can't two-hand the thornblade.

First, free proficiency is mostly a thing, since Elves count any exotic weapons with Elven in the name as a martial weapon. Just to correct myself.

Anywho, I missed that the Thornblade doesn't gain a damage die like the Thin/lightblade did. I suppose they are trading damage die for that crit confirm.

The 18-20 crit range for a "martial" light weapon is quite good, though. I do wish they had the "count as X weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities."

So I am slightly confused by my PDF, specifically the Red Mantis alchemist's mutagen.

It says you get +Dex, -Cha, but it functiond as the standard mutagen otherwise: Does this mean with Mutagen you get +Dex, -Wis, -Cha?

Then with Greater/Grand, if you apply to Con it is +Dex, +Con, -Wis, -Cha?

I think what it's meant to be is it lasts and behaves like a mutagen, except rather than a bonus to strength and a penalty to wisdom, it's a bonus to Dex and a penalty to charisma.

I think what it's meant to be is it lasts and behaves like a mutagen, except rather than a bonus to strength and a penalty to wisdom, it's a bonus to Dex and a penalty to charisma.

The thing is, a normal mutagen is +Str, -Int or +Dex, -Wis, or +Con, -Cha. +4 / -2 in all respects.

Greater Mutagen bumps this to +6 (Str, Dex, or Con), +4 (One of the two you didnt pick) and -2 (to both stats paired with the two you picked)

Grand Mutagen bumps this to +8 (Str, Dex, or Con), +6 (One of the two you didn't pick), +4 (the last one), and -2 to all mental ability scores.

With this in mind, I am not sure what you actually mean or if you are just misinformed. Hopefully the one who made thid archetype can chime in.

EDIT

After reading over Greater Mutagen, it seems that Mantis Mutagen is always +Dex, -Cha and then Greater Mutagen makes it +Str or Con, +Dex, and -Int, -Cha or just -Cha. It is unclear if you take the -Cha twice for a Dex/Con Mutagen

Greater doesn't actually require you have an unmodified Mutagen, only that you be 12th level; it should work for this reason, as should Feral Mutagen.

It means you're locked into +DEX -CHA.

Greater/Grand Mutagen is interesting. Can you even take those since Mutagen is modified?

If you can select them and you pick CON do you take an even bigger hit to CHA?

Gisher wrote:

John Compton wrote:

Overlap Pete wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Anyone think they could clarify a small section on Riventhun for me?

That alchemical mixture that's used (forgets the name), is that like a girdle of gender switching or merely something else? Like does it actually help the character change gender, or just look more like that gender?

The Aderos Salve and Mulibrous Tincture specify "secondary sex characteristics", which would refer to breasts, facial hair, Adam's apple, and general body type/shape. So it's not a girdle of gender switching which also changes out primary sexual characteristics, it's more of an appearance adjuster.

Does it provide bonuses to disguise to appear like a different gender? what is the mechanical point of the item?

In Pathfinder—as in practically all else—there are not mechanical advantages to gender. There is, however, the importance of gender affirmation and being able to have one's body reflect one's gender identity.

I'm confused by your statement that there is no mechanical advantage in Pathfinder based on gender. There is a -2 penalty for trying to disguise oneself as someone of a different gender so clearly there can be a mechanical advantage to being a particular gender.

I'm unclear as to how you get there logically.

There's no mechanical advantage to being a particular gender, just to trying to disguise yourself as being a different gender from your own.

You say that you can't follow my logic, yet based on the same rules that I read you seem to have come to the same conclusion - that there are times when being a particular gender can confer a mechanical advantage or disadvantage.

Imagine two characters who are identical in every way except for gender. One day both try to disguise themselves as male in gender. Contrary to John Compton's universal statement, one of those characters would have a mechanical advantage in that particular instance.

Your statement regarding a lack of mechanical advantage for a particular gender seems like a strawman argument to me since that phrasing is fundamentally different than that in the John Compton post to which I was responding. Had he phrased things the way that you did, then I would not have disagreed.

I was quoting you with the "particular gender" line.

And nothing you said confers a mechanical advantage to being a particular/specific gender (e.g. there's no advantage to being male rather than female--just one in trying to disguise yourself as someone else of the same gender rather than a different gender).

Again, the advantage is in whether your disguise matches your gender, not in being a particular gender.

You say that you can't follow my logic, yet based on the same rules that I read you seem to have come to the same conclusion - that there are times when being a particular gender can confer a mechanical advantage or disadvantage.

Imagine two characters who are identical in every way except for gender. One day both try to disguise themselves as male in gender. Contrary to John Compton's universal statement, one of those characters would have a mechanical advantage in that particular instance.

Your statement regarding a lack of mechanical advantage for a particular gender seems like a strawman argument to me since that phrasing is fundamentally different than that in the John Compton post to which I was responding. Had he phrased things the way that you did, then I would not have disagreed.

There are times when identifying as a particular gender could have circumstantial benefits or drawbacks, but that's based on an encounter's context. Are you trying to infiltrate a Golden Erinyes monastery (whose members are exclusively female)? Being female will likely make that easier. Are you trying to negotiate with an NPC who prefers speaking to women? Being female will likely make that Diplomacy check easier.

Based on these hypothetical examples, does that mean that being a woman makes one better at Disguise or Diplomacy checks? No, it means that the respective circumstances of the situations make it a little easier. My examples could as easily favor male PCs with the same results. When you ask whether these items grant a mechanical bonus, the answer is no; although specific circumstances based on mortal subjectivity and perception may make it easier for a male or female character to succeed at a task, there is no flat mechanical benefit to changing one's gender. Any modifiers are either baked into the rules already (such as a small penalty on Disguise checks to mimic someone of a different gender) or are specific to a scene—often applied on the fly by the GM.

I want to thank both Jessica AND John for helping to edify us all on the fact looking like ONE gender doesn't necessitate or add bonuses in checks. Circumstances are more important than say what something does.

I assume that Mass Sun's Disdain was supposed to be Bloodrager 4, not Bloodrager 5. Unless there's something very huge I'm missing.

I just noticed this too. Not the first time it has come up, but it is slightly discouraging to see it happen in the core line.

Ah well. A typo is a typo.

It means you're locked into +DEX -CHA.

Greater/Grand Mutagen is interesting. Can you even take those since Mutagen is modified?

If you can select them and you pick CON do you take an even bigger hit to CHA?

Reading Greater Mutagen, here you can take them. Greater has no prerequisite, so you can even take it if you don't have Mutagen to begin with (though it does nothing so don't do that). Grand requires Greater, but otherwise has no 'Mutagen' requirement.

From what I can tell, once you get Greater Mutagen, your +Dex / -Cha Mutagen is superseded by Greater's effects, but still keeps being considered a 'Mantis Mutagen' for the discoveries of the Archetype.

So, at 12th+ your Mutagen goes from Dex / Cha, to +6 / +4 / -2 / -2 as if it were a standard mutagen - due to 'Specific Trumps General'. It could be argued that Mantis Mutagen requires that you choose Dex as the +4 or the +6, making a +Con / +Str mutagen illegal, but that is sketchy by RAW.

The key text is The alchemist’s mutagen now grants... and the fact that the prequisites are Prerequisite: Alchemist 12 - having an unmodified Mutagen is not mentioned anywhere.

TL;DR - RAW says, yes, you can select Greater/Grand/True Mutagen as a Crimson Chemyst.

While overall I like the book thus far, I was a little disappointed about a few things. With Path of the Hell Knight out, we could have skipped the Hell Knight section completely and gone with something(s) else instead, (Silver Crusade, Rift Wardens, Concordance of Elements).

I think a few too many of the factions and organizations in here where just too small or regional, (Silver Ravens), to have pushed out others.

I'm not sold of the change for the Lantern Bearers, as we have been told multiple times that Drow in Golarion are not redeemable, and Good Drow do not exist. Part of me is a sucker for redemption, but this one basically rewrites the setting and the group to force that in, which is not cool, and I kind of prefer the original group that hunts drow because they know the truth and want to make sure the "plague doesn't spread" so to speak. Opening it up to non-Elves also kind of defeats the purpose of the group, which is to keep some things a secret from non-Elves.

While I'm not a fan of the White Mage style Cleric, the Blossoming Light seems to fall into the exact same pitfall that similar attempts have, (reducing their ability to cast spells). It's not terrible, and not a build I even want, but this one does somewhat look interesting for other reasons.

The Al-Zabrit looks great, but it would have also been a perfect place, I think to introduce a Priest of the Wastes style Cleric Archetype, or a really cool Cleric Dervish. All in all, mechanics-wise, spells, usefulness, and flavor, I'd say this Faction's section was the strongest part of this book, and I wish most of the others looked a lot more like it.

Fourshadow wrote:

The Al-Zabriti are fantastic--I do own Qadira, Jewel of the East (and highly recommend it) from CS--so was surprised that such a newly revealed group was in here, but thoroughly enjoyed it. The spells are especially fun (Sun's Disdain? Nifty!)

Wouldn't have been complete without a spell that allows you to turn people into Seattlites.

Ah, so you folks are susceptible to Searing light, Sunbeam, Daylight, Sunburst, et al? I shall remember that in the future....mwah-ha-ha!

I'm not sold of the change for the Lantern Bearers, as we have been told multiple times that Drow in Golarion are not redeemable, and Good Drow do not exist. Part of me is a sucker for redemption, but this one basically rewrites the setting and the group to force that in, which is not cool, and I kind of prefer the original group that hunts drow because they know the truth and want to make sure the "plague doesn't spread" so to speak. Opening it up to non-Elves also kind of defeats the purpose of the group, which is to keep some things a secret from non-Elves.

Not wanting to "let the Drizzt out of the bottle" is completely different than saying they are not redeemable, which has not been stated anywhere.

As for opening the organization up, that was the point as they're showing their purpose have evolved, they're no longer about hiding the existence of and eradicating the Drow.

Also, Rysky, I think the major thrust is "Lantern Bearers now don't have to follow a secretive council that was pretty much corrupted by their own power."

But yeah no where did I read that there COULDN'T be redeemed drow. Just not a common occurrence.

Yeah that too, Blaine :3

Well I never did much care for the Winter Council...so when they dissolved, I was kind of happy. :)

But yeah no where did I read that there COULDN'T be redeemed drow. Just not a common occurrence.

Well, I'm not sure if it was ever spelled out with 100% clarity, but I have to admit that everything I read about it, especially at the time Second Darkness came up, seemed to heavily imply exactly that and that they wanted their Drow to be pure evil without exception.

So while I haven't read the Lantern Bearer chapter, I'm very suprised if that mind-set has changed now. Not that I mind too much (still love the Realms even with all the Kiaransaleee stuff in it),it's just that I didn't see that as possible.

Thomas Seitz wrote:

But yeah no where did I read that there COULDN'T be redeemed drow. Just not a common occurrence.

Well, I'm not sure if it was ever spelled out with 100% clarity, but I have to admit that everything I read about it, especially at the time Second Darkness came up, seemed to heavily imply exactly that and that they wanted their Drow to be pure evil without exception.

So while I haven't read the Lantern Bearer chapter, I'm very suprised if that mind-set has changed now. Not that I mind too much (still love the Realms even with all the Kiaransaleee stuff in it),it's just that I didn't see that as possible.

I'm pretty sure they've never said Drow are unredeemable (an impossibility, given that they're Humanoids with no special racial abilities that says they have to be Evil), the most common thing they have said is they don't want to pull a Drizzt at the time, cause once it's out there it's out there.

Also one of James Jacobs' favourite deities is Eilistraee so....

Difficult, but not impossible. I.e. Something a PC might accomplish, but you won't find redeemed drown without PC intervention.

Oh, and Second Darkness had a CN Drow in it so there's been non-Evil Drow from the get go.

Also one of James Jacobs' favourite deities is Eilistraee so....

Heh, my wrong, that was the one I actually meant, not the Lady of the Dead.

Oh, and Second Darkness had a CN Drow in it so there's been non-Evil Drow from the get go.

Oh, well, seems that my memory isn't what it used to be. Don't remember that at all.

When I say redemption, I mean turning something from Not Good to Good Aligned.

Paizo has said, multiple times that there are no Good Drow in Golarion, and that that is one of the features of the setting that is meant to separate it from other settings like Golarion. Non-Evil (Neutral) Drow are also supposed to be extremely rare, but possible. Just to be clear, this is not an idea I actually use myself, I'm simply pointing out that it is a retcon of some sort, that sort of invalidates Second Darkness and other material.

The new version of the organization feels a bit watered down, in my opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, though. :P

Hm. If the least evil Drow in Second Darkness was Chaotic Neutral, how does the assertion that there are no good Drow on (or under or within, presumably) Golarion invalidate that adventure path? And what other material does it invalidate?

I think the "irredeemable Drow" issue is a conflation of two things. If I recall correctly, what has been said not to be do-able is a reverse transformation of a Drow into a "regular" Elf, which is significantly different.

Also, as noted, the content here is meant to the Post-Second Darkness situation (or at least one way that could be; differences are likely among the various groups that played it out). What was said about there being no Good Drow was summarized in the Introduction of Shadow in the Sky.. essentially, 'a key point of this AP is to reveal that Drow exist, and for them to the bad guys at this time.. so let them be the bad guys for now'.

When I say redemption, I mean turning something from Not Good to Good Aligned.

Paizo has said, multiple times that there are no Good Drow in Golarion, and that that is one of the features of the setting that is meant to separate it from other settings like Golarion. Non-Evil (Neutral) Drow are also supposed to be extremely rare, but possible. Just to be clear, this is not an idea I actually use myself, I'm simply pointing out that it is a retcon of some sort, that sort of invalidates Second Darkness and other material.

The new version of the organization feels a bit watered down, in my opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, though. :P

To be fair though, the good drow in article is just elf who got bad luck with reincarnation spell :D

Yeah so it's more of a fluke by spell than by anything.

Did a bit research on that topic.

1. Funny that we just talked about Eilistraee. She was once compared to Sarenrae, so to have the latter's church now working closely with the lantern bearers is only logical consequence from this point of view.

2. I found a comment by JJ that good Drow NPCs (and Telessel Neirenar is no standard Drow so in my book, she doesn't count) wouldn't turn up in future products, but actually nothing about redemption being impossible. Now, assuming that redemption doesn't necessarily mean becoming a good-aligned character, my take from this is that the Adventurer's guide isn't so much retconning things but using a possibility that existed from the very start. And in the Adventurer's Guide it's explicitely spelled out that this would be a rare thing indeed, so I guess it's mainly directed at players that might want to play a non-evil Drow without suddenly having whole tribes of good-aligned Drow running through Golarion.

But I think I let James Jacobs explain it himself:

One of the huge pieces of feedback we got from these boards when we announced a drow-themed adventure path was a not-too-surprising assumption that we'd suddenly have all sorts of good drow antiheroes in Golarion. So for much of Second Darkness, we've been trying to combat that perception. We don't WANT good drow NPCs in Golarion, and that's what we're talking about when we say there are no good drow.

At least, there aren't any yet.

If there IS a good drow character, that'd be something relatively unheard of in Golarion. To this date, the drow have been pretty good at ensuring newborn drow are raised in societies to be evil. There may be a good aligned drow somewhere, but that drow has the unfortunate double-edged-sword situation where he/she can't live among her people, and can't live among her people's enemies. That type of situation is one of the main reasons that makes Driz'zt such a popular character; despite those difficulties, he moves on to become a hero.

If a character like that were to rise in Golarion, I'd expect it to be an equally unique/rare situation. Something that would be the focus of an entire adventure path or novel. or even better... a PC. In fact, that would be my preference; for the first good drow to appear in Golarion to be PCs.

But for Second Darkness, we wanted to reset the whole "good drow" thing back to the baseline, and in the light of so much opposition to drow being good, we came down pretty hard on squashing the concept. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but it does mean that it won't happen among the NPCs of Second Darkness.

As for a drow becoming good... since it's never happened in Golarion as far as anyone knows yet, who knows if that means the drow would change abilities again and become a standard elf? My gut feeling is that they should not, because if someone wants to play a good drow, they should be able to. Forcing good drow to turn into normal elves defeats the purpose of playing a good drow in the first place.

The actual process and catalysts for the transformation are not going to be spelled out. We talk a little bit about the process in Pathfinder #17, but basically it's like this: Elves turn into Drow only when the adventure's story demands it for dramatic reasons. And those elves have to be VERY wicked, they have to be demon worshipers, and they have to be unrepentant about their evil. Even then, the change isn't guaranteed.

and

And it bears repeating.

If you want good drow in your campaign, go for it. We don't want good drow NPCs in Golarion at this point, so that's why we're being pretty strict about it. And Second Darkness doesn't work well with drow PCs anyway.

I suspect that eventually we WILL have a good drow NPC in Pathfinder. I'm a big fan of that kind of character, to be honest; two of my most recent characters have been good drow, in fact. But we want to make sure the world knows that drow in Golarion are evil and mostly villians before that, and we want to distance ourselves from the perception that so many drow are good-aligned scimitar-wielding antiheros as well. Driz'zt is easily the most popular drow, and he's the one most folk think of when you mention drow, for good or ill. Golarion is not the Forgotten Realms, though, and we don't have a Driz'zt in our world.

At least, not yet.

Good find Wormy.

Just picked this up and am enjoying it immensely. I personally would have liked an appendix for further reading recommendations on each organization, with exception to the Hellknights that have a book named after them.

Indeed; well done! ^_^

That matches up very well with my own preferences, which is why I was so eager to write the Lantern Bearers section. While my goal wasn't to include good drow (Telessel excepted), I did want to facilitate the possibility for players interested in exploring that story and plot line.

As for the Lantern Bearers themselves: as I understand it, their presentation in Second Darkness (along with that of elven society in general) is something that's needed realigning for a long time. Much as with certain other notorious incidents, once something sneaks into print, it takes a lot of effort to correct course. I did my best to fit things into the timeline so that as little of Second Darkness as possible is actually straight-up contradicted; the Lantern Bearers entry in the Faction Guide plays a part in this as well.

Funny that we just talked about Eilistraee.

Eilistraee is actually one of my favorite deities as well.

If I ever actually get to play in a mythic campaign, I'm almost certainly going to be a good drow aiming at becoming a demigoddess of drow redemption. ^_^