Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the answers you do give. We are clearly on opposing sides of how people think, and as I study rpgs as a scientist/academic would, I'm always looking for how those on your side of the spectrum take things. And you give good answers.
So, get anything good for Christmas?
Fair enough. I for sure lean more into the RPG side as an expression of art, and enjoy the way the rules can augment and supplement the art of the story, for sure.
And yup, got some fun stuff for Christmas.
Seen any good movies lately?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seen any good movies lately?
For sure; here's a few that come to mind...
"Dune" is pretty amazing.
"Antlers" is great, and has one of the best-looking wendigos I've seen in a movie since "The Last Winter."
I enjoyed "Venom: Let there be Carnage" but would have enjoyed it more if it leaned in hard to an R-rating rather than tame things down.
"The Last Duel" was quote good.
"The Matrix Resurrections" was... fine. More interesting when it wasn't doing fight scenes, which is a reversal of the other three, so that was strange.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I for sure lean more into the RPG side as an expression of art, and enjoy the way the rules can augment and supplement the art of the story, for sure.
So do I, but on my side of the spectrum, inconsistent or contradictory details are obvious and thus disrupt or break immersion.
So, how does the new Dune compare to the original, or the books?
I've seen the older film, but haven't gotten around to reading the books yet.
I saw the older film and appreciated its soundtrack and visuals but the story was kind of a mess and there were some weird things in there that put me off David Lynch for decades. I finally went back to watch Twin Peaks in its entirety a while back and now I regret not being a fanboy of Lynch all along, but I still don't really like his Dune.
I read the book in high school; it was in fact one of the required reading books for English class... but I didn't really enjoy it. I wish I did, because reading sci-fi for school was always fun, but the book itself was more frustrating than fun to read for me.
The new movie though? AMAZING. It's the best I've ever seen of Dune, and it made me really want to go re-read the novel, which I didn't think was possible.
Instead, though, I finally started reading Dan Simmons' "Ilium," and then got distracted from that by Richard Chizmar's "Chasing the Boogeyman" which is one of the most innovative horror novels I've read since "House of Leaves" I think.
How is your year so far?
(And Happy New Year and God bless you to you and all y'all folks at Paizo!)
Happy New Year! I have two questions, Mr Jacobs.
1. After Queen Galfrey became Iomedae's new herald, will she be transformed into a Celestial creature such as an angel or keep her human form like Iomedae herself ?
2. Wild Hunt didn't show up in 2nd Edition yet. Should we expect to see them in Kingamaker or continue to wait?
Thanks.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Happy New Year! I have two questions, Mr Jacobs.
1. After Queen Galfrey became Iomedae's new herald, will she be transformed into a Celestial creature such as an angel or keep her human form like Iomedae herself ?
2. Wild Hunt didn't show up in 2nd Edition yet. Should we expect to see them in Kingamaker or continue to wait?
Thanks.
1) That would be my preference. Heralds are more on theme as high level unique creatures rather than folks with class levels.
2) I'm hopeful the Wild Hunt will get to the game this year.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw you mention in the Kingmaker thread that, instead of a Background, your Kingdom has a Government. How wide ranging are the available Governments? Can we make a republic or democracy, or is it generally different flavors of feudalism?
I believe there's probably 6 choices? Not many, in any case, but if I recall correctly (and it's been 2 weeks now since I've been at work, so ... vacation brain is a thing), there's options to play different sorts of governments. We still call it Kingmaker and refer to it as a Kingdom in the book, so you'll want to adjust those words in play as you want, but yeah, I think there's options there.
Not really much in the way of "Let's switch mid campaign from this government to the other" though without just letting the PCs retcon the choice. Kind of analogous to how a PC can't really just change their background without just out-of-game rebuilding with GM choice.
While it might be "realistic" to have rules for revolutions and anarchy all leading into new governments, that doesn't feel like a particularly fun thing to play out these days for me, and it's certainly not the point of Kingmaker, which is to build your own nation, not to build one and then tear it down and rebuild it. The rules suggest that if the players want to change their government, they just do so with GM permission and continue the campaign like that was always the choice along the way; there aren't really rules for how to play that out in game this time around.
EDIT: In the end the feel of the rules is pretty much the same, regardless of the type of government you chose. Your government helps to determine a few boosts to your Kingdom abilities and gives you some trained skills and a feat type thing... it really does work about the same as a character Background from a rules stance (again, if I recall correctly), so the TYPE of government your kingdom has is largely flavor and roleplay fuel once you get going. It's not going to drastically impact how you build your kingdom or what sort of events or plot twists will happen.
|
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a Paizo forum community legend that the continet of Sarusan was built by Paizo as a "GM sandbox", and that you've set it aside for that reason and hermetically sealed it from the rest of the world with appropriate lore, and that you don't plan on ever publishing anything for it. Yet in one post of yours I saw in the forum you say that your third I think it was favorite choice for continent to work on is Sarusan. That, to me, coming from the Creative Director of the world, tells me that the forum community legend is false. Is it?
I am making a West Marches campaign for Pathfinder, and I am looking for a place to put it in Golarion that won't clash with current or future Pathfinder lore, that's why I am asking this question. If there is no spot on Golarion that you plan to leave untouched, I would consider putting my campaign on one of the other planets, in which case I'd appreciate a recommendation. And even if you can't give me a single spot in the entire solar system that you plan to stay out of, maybe you can give me one that would be your LAST choice to publish something for in the foreseeable future? But I need it to be general-European flavored and not something exotic like Asian, African etc.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
It's not a false legend but it's a bit overblown. Sarusan is a region we've deliberate chosen not to develop because we value the concept of there being "blank places on the map" and the idea of mysteries and wonder. The more we reveal about the game, the fewer mysteries there are, so we decided from the start that we'd keep away from Sarusan to at the very least ensure that as we developed the world we'd be sure to have part of it with a "here there be dragons" kind of spot on the map.
At one point, there was an idea that Sarusan was similar to Australia, but I personally think that's a bad idea since that puts stories inspired by Australian history into stasis, so we've started seeding Australia elements elsewhere—not a lot yet but they're not waiting for us to start detailing Sarusan, which we have no plans to do anytime soon.
We might publish something about it some day. I can't tell the future, and if Pathfinder outlasts myself and the current staff into a new set of caretakers at some point, who knows what they might decide to do. So I won't say we never plan to publish things for it, but I will say we don't plan to publish things for it.
That all said, when a GM builds a custom campaign set in a published setting, one of the things they need to be at peace at is that the published setting will do things that clash against your choice for your version. The longer both go on, the more likely that clash will occur. Your version of Golarion is the RIGHT one for your group though, so if something does eventually clash, you should either just ignore it or rebuild/revise it as needed to mesh with your vision.
It sounds like you might be better off placing the West Marches on another planet, and frankly, if you're going to be building all of the setting yourself, that sounds like a more satisfactory and compelling solution. Remember that even if you build your own setting, you can and probably should borrow bits of lore and content from published settings because the GM has a lot of work and doing that will help you get more done than you would otheriwse.
And as some last minute non-world building advice, using the word "exotic" to reference other places is fraught. Not everyone considers "general European flavor" to be the expectation. You can pretty much simply drop the word "exotic" in this context entirely and the communication doesn't change, other than that you reduce the act of othering Asia or Africa or whatever place you're talking about. An even better solution would be to say "This setting is based on European history and lore" and leave it at that. When you explicitly go on to say that you're not including content, you're excluding a LOT of people from being interested in your work and run the risk of seeming like you're saying something else entirely about your work.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks a lot for your reply. It covers everything that I wanted to know, and much more besides.
P.S. By exotic I meant to me, and to my friends at my table. I am not dropping the word because I need it, as I need many others, to express my straight while male Greek-European viewpoint ("exotic" is a Greek word, and we're extremely proud over here of our heritage). Cheers.
Fair enough, but words have power and they mean different things to different people, so it's good to keep in mind what their effect might be when you use them beyond close social circles in larger public areas such as a messageboard like this one. I absolutely wasn't trying to confront you on it, just sharing some help/advice that I've very much appreciated receiving myself.
What do you like better about writing/developing a one shot adventure compared to developing a 6 part AP?
Where did the idea of doing a 6 part AP come from?
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you like better about writing/developing a one shot adventure compared to developing a 6 part AP?
The amount of space I have to create a story in a 6 part Adventure Path is much more permissive and roomy; one-shot adventures I always struggle to get everything in there.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where did the idea of doing a 6 part AP come from?
Because the amount of space we had to do an Adventure Path in Dungeon, if you strip out the ads and other adventures, was about the same amount of material that would fill a six part 100 page Adventure Path. It's what Dungeon Magazine without anything but the Adventure Path and the directly supporting materials would have been.
|
I wanted to say that I've been reading through Ruins of Gauntlight and it's great! I plan to run it, the Beginner Box adventure, and Trouble in Otari soon.
Question:
Ghouls are absolutely great for rogues and that type and are my favorite undead there, but I was mostly thinking about the categories of templated monsters (which, when you get down to it, I think should have been how almost all undead should have been handled from the start of 3rd edition D&D...).
What do you like about ghouls?
|
Mierani & Fierani Forest:
So, the Elves of Kyonin returned to Golarion after millennia and settled back in the Fierani Forest. Where they called it, “The Fierani Forest.”
But in their old Mierani Forest, Drow and Ettercaps and Goblins, yada yada yada, had infested the woods. So just the Lantern Bearers (pretty much) returned to reclaim their abandoned home. (Um, right?)
But it’s not as though The Lantern Bearers are known for being open and forthcoming to non-Elves, ie: the residents of Varisia.
So all of the sudden (while working on/ designing a Kyonin campaign) I am wondering how the peoples of Varisia have named the Forest the Mierani?
….The only way is that at some point after the Elves’ return to Golarion they did indeed tell the native Varisians their own ancient name for the Forest — and in time the Varisians accepted the ancient, original name the Elves named it.
Is that pretty much the case? Or am I missing something? (I know this is a pretty arcane question; it just stuck out at me and raised my eyebrows working on this Kyonin campaign that the Mierani is still called that by the Varisians even after the Elves were gone for millennia and returned quite xenophobic.)
….Of course, we do have the Korvosan citizen, Perishial Kalissreavil, the Mierani Ambassador — not sure exactly the story there (I suspect just a Mike McArtor invention to help introduce the campaign setting to the gaming audience right as Golarion was first being written.)
Anyway, if this naming history has any head-canon or Creator insight, I’d be thrilled to hear it!
Thanks as always for the consideration!!!!
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mierani & Fierani Forest:
So, the Elves of Kyonin returned to Golarion after millennia and settled back in the Fierani Forest. Where they called it, “The Fierani Forest.”
But in their old Mierani Forest, Drow and Ettercaps and Goblins, yada yada yada, had infested the woods. So just the Lantern Bearers (pretty much) returned to reclaim their abandoned home.
But it’s not as though The Lantern Bearers are known for being open and forthcoming to non-Elves, ie: the residents of Varisia.
So all of the sudden (while working on/ designing a Kyonin campaign) I am wondering how the peoples of Varisia have named the Forest the Mierani?
….The only way is that at some point after the Elves’ return to Golarion they did indeed tell the native Varisians their own ancient name for the Forest — and in time the Varisians accepted the ancient, original name the Elves named it.
Is that pretty much the case? Or am I missing something? (I know this is a pretty arcane question; it just stuck out at me and raised my eyebrows working on this Kyonin campaign that the Mierani is still called that by the Varisians even after the Elves were gone for millennia and returned quite xenophobic.)
….Of course, we do have the Korvosan citizen, Perishial Kalissreavil, the Mierani Ambassador — not sure exactly the story there (I suspect just a Mike McArtor invention to help introduce the campaign setting to the gaming audience right as Golarion was first being written.)
Anyway, if this naming history has any head-canon or Creator insight, I’d be thrilled to hear it!
Thanks as always for the consideration!!!!
Mierani Forest was named by the elves when they first settled there long before Thassilon came along. They were living there before Thassilon (hence why Thassilon's border doesn't extend into that area). It's an elven name, not a Varisian name. The Varisians call it that because that's what it was called when they first encountered it during their travels and expansion through the region long ago. The elves of Mierani Forest and the Varisians were aware of each other before and during Thassilon came along.
(Mierani Forest is an export from my homebrew where it's also an elven forest. Fierani was not, and I didn't invent that for the game, so I can't speak to where that word is from. And Perisial is an NPC we haven't really done much with as far as I'm aware—not everything we threw at the proverbial wall in the first year or two of our race to invent proper nouns to build a game around stuck.)
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did you all choose the name 'Pathfinder' for the product line back in 2007?
By having several meetings where we brainstormed ideas. I forget who came up with the phrase "Pathfinder", but it seemed right for two reasons:
1) It leaned in to the "adventure path," which was arguably the most successful new element Paizo brought to the magazines.
2) It implied setting off into a new, uncharted wilderness and discovering a route through it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to run adventures out of Otari (which is great!). Which ancestries, besides the common ones, are found in the surrounding environs?
The Abomination Vaults Player's Guide would be your best bet for more info along those lines if you're looking for "official" suggestions... but beyond that, the choice of what ones are available really should be left to the GM's preference, perhaps guided by player desires and interests.
I guess my Question is multipart. Who is the new Demon Lord of Lust? Is there one yet? Is it Socothbenoth? Shamira? Zura? Pazuzu? Is it someone unnamed? Is it coming up somewhere soon so wait and read?
Who got the shadow demons?
Or am I misunderstanding things and it is still Nocticula?
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my Question is multipart. Who is the new Demon Lord of Lust? Is there one yet? Is it Socothbenoth? Shamira? Zura? Pazuzu? Is it someone unnamed? Is it coming up somewhere soon so wait and read?
Who got the shadow demons?
Or am I misunderstanding things and it is still Nocticula?
There is none. Maybe some day one will fill the role, but it's not like when one demon lord abandons a role those things get snatched up by others like badges. Doesn't work that way. For the moment, there's still plenty of demon lords to worship that align with your interests if you're lustful or an invidiak, but none that precisely map to those words.
Is there a type of playable undead coming in Book of the Dead that you're most excited about? I have high hopes for mummies.
There is none. Maybe some day one will fill the role, but it's not like when one demon lord abandons a role those things get snatched up by others like badges. Doesn't work that way. For the moment, there's still plenty of demon lords to worship that align with your interests if you're lustful or an invidiak, but none that precisely map to those words.I guess my Question is multipart. Who is the new Demon Lord of Lust? Is there one yet? Is it Socothbenoth? Shamira? Zura? Pazuzu? Is it someone unnamed? Is it coming up somewhere soon so wait and read?
Who got the shadow demons?
Or am I misunderstanding things and it is still Nocticula?
But I thought that Socothbenoth is the demon lord of lust as well, since both succubi and incubi are heavily related to lust. Am I missing something?
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a type of playable undead coming in Book of the Dead that you're most excited about? I have high hopes for mummies.
I've not really read any of the book yet so I don't know how the rules for how it'd play out would work, but for story reasons alone I think I'm most intrigued by ghouls... so long as it's an evil campaign I get to ghoul around in. I'm not super interested in playing non-evil undead PCs... although the concept of switching to a non evil one as the result of an event in-game (like, my PC dies and becomes a vampire and then I get to play out the struggle between staying non-evil and succumbing to bloodlust) is the only exception there.
Significant stories involving deep dives into Socothbenoth are ones that a GM should absolutely get consent from the entire table, and they shouldn't be played in public (such as on a convention floor) where passers by who wouldn't consent might be exposed. Same reason one shouldn't watch porn on their phone on a public bus.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I thought that Socothbenoth is the demon lord of lust as well, since both succubi and incubi are heavily related to lust. Am I missing something?There is none. Maybe some day one will fill the role, but it's not like when one demon lord abandons a role those things get snatched up by others like badges. Doesn't work that way. For the moment, there's still plenty of demon lords to worship that align with your interests if you're lustful or an invidiak, but none that precisely map to those words.I guess my Question is multipart. Who is the new Demon Lord of Lust? Is there one yet? Is it Socothbenoth? Shamira? Zura? Pazuzu? Is it someone unnamed? Is it coming up somewhere soon so wait and read?
Who got the shadow demons?
Or am I misunderstanding things and it is still Nocticula?
Many demon lords are into lust and that stuff. Nocticula was the only one whose areas of concern used that specific word for it. Socothbenoth doesn't have that word in his areas of concern, but he's for sure into it... particularly the taboo and destructive and significantly evil elements of it that we leave to the GM's imagination and each table's varying consent for how R or X rated they want their game to get.
As a result, Socothbenoth is one of those evil entities we aren't likely to do much with in print beyond what we've done, or beyond some tangental references, since his baseline is well above what we would publish.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do demons like succubi care if they use their powers versus their words? For example, does a succubi care if they use suggestion to make a human act?
What about sahkils and their magical abilities to make humans experience negative emotions? They like making humans feel a certain way, but are they actually affecting souls through magical compulsion?
That'd be up to the individual, but for the most part, powers are there to be used, not saved for "special occasions."
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
:(
Are there any "monsters" that Desna likes?
Sure; the good ones or neutral ones. The evil ones though? She's not a fan, because they tend to make life awful and painful and agony-filled for her followers.
Being good doesn't mean that you have to find something to like in everything. Desna'd be the first to point out with a smirk that that's Sarenrae's job, and it's one of many things she loves about Sarenrae, but it's not for her.
That said... Linnorms are particularly deep in the relentlessly cruel and horrific monster category. The game needs those things, more so now I think than before, because for a lot of people, the fantasy of being able to actually stand up to and defeat evil and make a world a better place is a welcome escape from the real world where evil isn't always so obvious or so simple to confront.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do all intelligent undead have souls, or just specific types? I've been looking for information regarding this topic for a few days, and the lack of it has been driving me up the wall. Hahaha :)
If a PC who died, were to be brought back to life as, let's say, a skeletal champion using something like Create Undead, they really wouldn't be brought back as themselves now would they?
If I recall correctly, Pharasma and her psychopomps really hate all undead and the creation of them. In a campaign where the players are being revived by other members of the party as intelligent undead, if those intelligent undead still had souls, Pharasma would eventually send a psychopomp or two to eventually return them to the cycle of souls right?
Have you seen the trailer for Studio 666? It's an upcoming horror movie by the Foo Fighters, of all people. Looks great.
|
|
Dear James,
Let's get right to it: Why does Ranginori, Good (if perhaps a bit narcissistic and parsimonious) Elemental Lord of Air and no doubt the most high-profile of all the Pathfinder Society's beneficiaries, take exactly the same form as...Yaldabaoth, the degenerate tyrant-god and Supreme Evil of Gnosticism?
Just what message are we being sent, here (to be clear, that is not a rhetorical question; if there's an actual answer, I'm profoundly curious to hear it)???
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do all intelligent undead have souls, or just specific types? I've been looking for information regarding this topic for a few days, and the lack of it has been driving me up the wall. Hahaha :)
If a PC who died, were to be brought back to life as, let's say, a skeletal champion using something like Create Undead, they really wouldn't be brought back as themselves now would they?
If I recall correctly, Pharasma and her psychopomps really hate all undead and the creation of them. In a campaign where the players are being revived by other members of the party as intelligent undead, if those intelligent undead still had souls, Pharasma would eventually send a psychopomp or two to eventually return them to the cycle of souls right?
The whole thing that gives an intelligent undead their sapience is their corrupted soul. Some of the more powerful undead have multiple souls inside them, in fact, but all of those who are not mindless do have their original soul, corrupted and warped and infected by undeath, inside them. That's a key part of what makes them what they are. Whether or not a PC who comes back as an undead thing is still "themself" is up to the GM and player and story, but that's such an invasive and significant change to existence that I think it's missing the point and cheapens the story if the PC doesn't change at all. Book of the Dead will have more info.
There are more undead in the multiverse than there are psychopomps, so they don't automatically come after all of them. Sometimes it takes a while. Whether or not they come for PC undead depends on if that's a story the GM wants to present.