Lost Omens Special Recap

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

If Urgathoa beefs it, then I have an excuse to use Zura even more…

Myself, I don't need an excuse lol

I do hope that divine mysteries provides info on the qlippoth lords and other "smaller" pantheons though. Or adds more of the 1e demon/empyreal lords.

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Generally agree with "Hate Aroden", but she didn't kill herself, Tar Baphon did her in and tossed her carcass back to the Knights of Ozem. For more messed up stuff, Aroden was both her patron and her friend when she was still a mortal.

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Arazni is still who she is, Remastered or not. The last time we saw her alignment, she was Neutral Evil. But she is clearly on a journey to something else, as evidenced by the varied alignments she takes as followers.

Most of her edicts and anathema do not imply Evil, except for the "do whatever it takes" part, which can be used as an umbrella for many evil acts.

So I can totally see her new appearance as an evolution towards Neutral. And IIRC she will allow both Holy and Unholy followers.

That said, being a victim of evil does absolutely not protect one from being evil themselves nor from becoming evil.

apologies, poor phrasing there, I meant "She herself was killed" I didn't mean to say she killed herself (which I now see that I did)

Ah fair enough, can see what you had meant to say now, just misread it. Will say that as she is now, Arazni does not have a complete character arc, nor can we call her current situation a good one for her to remain in. She's free sure, but she's still been shaped by centuries as a corrupted and tortured slave to Geb. Granted I feel that we need an adventure or AP that really solidifies her transformation into a new Core 20 too, before she replaces our deity-to-die.

The still unreleased "Dead God"'s adventure may related to it: For spoiling smth???

Dead God's Hand is referring to Aroden, not whatever deity is about to bite it.

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Arazni is still who she is, Remastered or not. The last time we saw her alignment, she was Neutral Evil. But she is clearly on a journey to something else, as evidenced by the varied alignments she takes as followers.

Most of her edicts and anathema do not imply Evil, except for the "do whatever it takes" part, which can be used as an umbrella for many evil acts.

So I can totally see her new appearance as an evolution towards Neutral. And IIRC she will allow both Holy and Unholy followers.

That said, being a victim of evil does absolutely not protect one from being evil themselves nor from becoming evil.

I would never say she was Evil. She was enslaved and forced to run a very evil nation. What has she done, of her own free will, that was evil? Administering Geb, not her choice. Being worshipped by undead, she openly hates them, and is known for being hostile to her own worshipers.

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Arazni is still who she is, Remastered or not. The last time we saw her alignment, she was Neutral Evil. But she is clearly on a journey to something else, as evidenced by the varied alignments she takes as followers.

Most of her edicts and anathema do not imply Evil, except for the "do whatever it takes" part, which can be used as an umbrella for many evil acts.

So I can totally see her new appearance as an evolution towards Neutral. And IIRC she will allow both Holy and Unholy followers.

That said, being a victim of evil does absolutely not protect one from being evil themselves nor from becoming evil.

Where did we see the Unholy/Holy sanctification? If that's true it would be really weird and distinct.

The Raven Black wrote:

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Arazni is still who she is, Remastered or not. The last time we saw her alignment, she was Neutral Evil. But she is clearly on a journey to something else, as evidenced by the varied alignments she takes as followers.

Most of her edicts and anathema do not imply Evil, except for the "do whatever it takes" part, which can be used as an umbrella for many evil acts.

So I can totally see her new appearance as an evolution towards Neutral. And IIRC she will allow both Holy and Unholy followers.

That said, being a victim of evil does absolutely not protect one from being evil themselves nor from becoming evil.

I would never say she was Evil. She was enslaved and forced to run a very evil nation. What has she done, of her own free will, that was evil? Administering Geb, not her choice. Being worshipped by undead, she openly hates them, and is known for being hostile to her own worshipers.

The point Raven was making is that she did explicitly have an alignment listed in Gods & Magic, and that alignment was Neutral Evil.

...

Where did we see the Unholy/Holy sanctification? If that's true it would be really weird and distinct.

I think I remember reading that there are a number of deities that will offer both sanctifications, but I can't recall where I read it.

The Raven Black wrote:

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Arazni is still who she is, Remastered or not. The last time we saw her alignment, she was Neutral Evil. But she is clearly on a journey to something else, as evidenced by the varied alignments she takes as followers.

Most of her edicts and anathema do not imply Evil, except for the "do whatever it takes" part, which can be used as an umbrella for many evil acts.

So I can totally see her new appearance as an evolution towards Neutral. And IIRC she will allow both Holy and Unholy followers.

That said, being a victim of evil does absolutely not protect one from being evil themselves nor from becoming evil.

Where did we see the Unholy/Holy sanctification? If that's true it would be really weird and distinct.

Extremely odd. I cannot find where I based this from. I found a post I wrote 2 weeks ago where I already mention this and the way I wrote it feels like something I read in someone else's post.

But I cannot find the source. So maybe just I misinterpreted something. Sorry about this.

Calliope5431 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Zoken44 wrote:

Okay, someone above referred to Arazni as evil, and I take issue with that, and it's why I'm glad they're getting rid of alignment.

Arazni was a champion of Aroden, but she was abandoned by her patron, sacrificed by her followers, and eventually killed herself, only to be brought back as an undead lich against her will. She was then "worshiped" by followers were were an affront to everything she'd fought for and believed in life, and force to administrate a nation she found repugnant.

How is she the evil one? she's the victim of evil.

Now the cover shows her flesh back to one of living, so it's not likely she'd be stepping into the roll of a goddess of undeath (Although I could think of some awesome stories for that) I'm actually getting a little worried for Iomedae

Arazni is still who she is, Remastered or not. The last time we saw her alignment, she was Neutral Evil. But she is clearly on a journey to something else, as evidenced by the varied alignments she takes as followers.

Most of her edicts and anathema do not imply Evil, except for the "do whatever it takes" part, which can be used as an umbrella for many evil acts.

So I can totally see her new appearance as an evolution towards Neutral. And IIRC she will allow both Holy and Unholy followers.

That said, being a victim of evil does absolutely not protect one from being evil themselves nor from becoming evil.

Where did we see the Unholy/Holy sanctification? If that's true it would be really weird and distinct.

Extremely odd. I cannot find where I based this from. I found a post I wrote 2 weeks ago where I already mention this and the way I wrote it feels like something I read in someone else's post.

But I cannot find the source. So maybe just I misinterpreted something. Sorry about this.

Oh I'd totally believe it - most other options (only unholy, only holy, doesn't allow either) don't really fit. I was just curious where you'd seen it so that I could look and see if there was more info.

Zoken44 wrote:

I would never say she was Evil. She was enslaved and forced to run a very evil nation. What has she done, of her own free will, that was evil? Administering Geb, not her choice. Being worshipped by undead, she openly hates them, and is known for being hostile to her own worshipers.

The point Raven was making is that she did explicitly have an alignment listed in Gods & Magic, and that alignment was Neutral Evil.

I know, I'm being a bit obtuse with that. It just always struck me as odd that she was described as evil, but nothing about her said "evil" to me. Not her actions anyway.

Cori Marie wrote:

Zoken44 wrote:

I would never say she was Evil. She was enslaved and forced to run a very evil nation. What has she done, of her own free will, that was evil? Administering Geb, not her choice. Being worshipped by undead, she openly hates them, and is known for being hostile to her own worshipers.

The point Raven was making is that she did explicitly have an alignment listed in Gods & Magic, and that alignment was Neutral Evil.

I know, I'm being a bit obtuse with that. It just always struck me as odd that she was described as evil, but nothing about her said "evil" to me. Not her actions anyway.

Well. She did rule a country where thousands of humans are farmed for food. For centuries. Not only sanctioning it but being an active administrator.

That has to add up to a least one metric atrocity, right? Given at no point do we see any evidence that she tried to stop it or in any way objected? Sure, she didn't have a choice to be put in charge of the place, but we never hear a peep out of her saying "maybe don't eat people".

Also she personally reanimated large numbers of undead. Which is evil, because undead are evil. They've got the [unholy] tag and everything.

Zoken44 wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Zoken44 wrote:

I would never say she was Evil. She was enslaved and forced to run a very evil nation. What has she done, of her own free will, that was evil? Administering Geb, not her choice. Being worshipped by undead, she openly hates them, and is known for being hostile to her own worshipers.

The point Raven was making is that she did explicitly have an alignment listed in Gods & Magic, and that alignment was Neutral Evil.

I know, I'm being a bit obtuse with that. It just always struck me as odd that she was described as evil, but nothing about her said "evil" to me. Not her actions anyway.

Well. She did rule a country where thousands of humans are farmed for food. For centuries. Not only sanctioning it but being an active administrator.

That has to add up to a least one metric atrocity, right? Given at no point do we see any evidence that she tried to stop it or in any way objected? Sure, she didn't have a choice to be put in charge of the place, but we never hear a peep out of her saying "maybe don't eat people".

Also she personally reanimated large numbers of undead. Which is evil, because undead are evil. They've got the [unholy] tag and everything.

She does not seem to care that innocent people get hurt.

Also : "Arazni now cherishes her newfound freedom, embraces cruelty and power to defend herself, exacts terrible vengeance against her enemies, and holds scorn for those who think to venerate her."

And "Since the fall of Lastwall, some surviving Knights of Lastwall in the Gravelands who resent how badly their former leaders failed them have turned to her worship, but they are few in number and scattered, and most consider her overly harsh and vindictive."

The sense in which Arazni was evil was mostly the "Hurt people hurt people" sense. She has been wronged, severely and repeatedly, over centuries and is slow to trust and quick to lash out. She's less specific in her vengeance and more a generalized "anybody who impugns my dignity and threatens my survival is going have that go badly for them."

There's another part worth bolding too:

"Arazni now cherishes her newfound freedom, embraces cruelty and power to defend herself, exacts terrible vengeance against her enemies, and holds scorn for those who think to venerate her."

Decent people don't wantonly inflict horrible vengeance. They might seek justice but as lo these many Shakespeare plays teach us, justice and revenge aren't the same. I'm pretty sure they taught us that in Ethics 101.

For goodness' sake, one of her edicts is "despise and never forgive those who have hurt you". I cannot call a god who demands hatred as one of their core tenets anything but evil, no matter how justified (or not...) that hatred may be.

Heck, also the "scorn for those who think to venerate her". You like her "I'm an oppressed former slave" routine? You identify with her struggle against the system? You appreciate her striving against prejudice? You want to stick it to The Man? She does. Not. Care. You're weak, you're pathetic, and you're nothing like her.

1: ruled that country against her will bound by a ghost wizard.
what she did in that status can't be laid at her feet.

2: Why are undead evil? Does that include Undead like her, who are undead through no fault of their own and bound to serve others? What about undead to strive to be better? What about those who return to live through resurrections? are they evil? Am I splitting hairs for a character I like, problably?

3: TO DEFEND HERSELF. Look, am I bending over backwards to defend a character I like, yes. Am I wrong... I'm not willing to admit that.

I have to say it will be very interesting where Arazni's divine realm ends up. Even before when we had alignment, it didn't always align with "the aligned plane that matches the god", after all Gorum's citadel is in Elysium.

But Arazni doesn't seem like she'd want to live in Abaddon.

Since a thing I plan on underlining to go along with dropping alignment is the notion that individuals, writ large, are not generally good or evil- their actions are and their intentions might be. Arazni has done good, and evil. She might in the future do good, or evil- she's more an individual than a cosmic force.

There's another part worth bolding too:

"Arazni now cherishes her newfound freedom, embraces cruelty and power to defend herself, exacts terrible vengeance against her enemies, and holds scorn for those who think to venerate her."

Decent people don't wantonly inflict horrible vengeance. They might seek justice but as lo these many Shakespeare plays teach us, justice and revenge aren't the same. I'm pretty sure they taught us that in Ethics 101.

For goodness' sake, one of her edicts is "despise and never forgive those who have hurt you". I cannot call a god who demands hatred as one of their core tenets anything but evil, no matter how justified (or not...) that hatred may be.

Heck, also the "scorn for those who think to venerate her". You like her "I'm an oppressed former slave" routine? You identify with her struggle against the system? You appreciate her striving against prejudice? You want to stick it to The Man? She does. Not. Care. You're weak, you're pathetic, and you're nothing like her.

Her enemies being the Undead who forcibly reanimated her and forced her to serve agaisnt her will, the undead who killed her? The god who abandoned her? The worshipers who forced her into combat she couldn't win?

Again, I'm just arguing for a character I like, if this is getting annoying let me know

1: ruled that country against her will bound by a ghost wizard.

what she did in that status can't be laid at her feet.

2: Why are undead evil? Does that include Undead like her, who are undead through no fault of their own and bound to serve others? What about undead to strive to be better? What about those who return to live through resurrections? are they evil? Am I splitting hairs for a character I like, problably?

3: TO DEFEND HERSELF. Look, am I bending over backwards to defend a character I like, yes. Am I wrong... I'm not willing to admit that.

1. raised eyebrow Yeah. I agree. She was "just following orders". It's a justification. But it's one with a very dark and morally dubious history.

2. She's not exactly trying to be better. She's cruel, vindictive, and dangerous. And it seems like she actively hates life as much as she dislikes unlife.

3. Lol yes I like her too don't worry. Albeit mostly because of her flaws, rather than in spite of them.

She wants to survive in a world that has been exceptionally unkind to her, which is worth sympathizing with. Her mindset seems to be "screw you jack, I got mine". Which is definitely an mindset to have...just not one north of neutral.

But she's still a deeply flawed and extremely punitive person, is the impression I get.

(and nope, not annoying at all, I'm happy more people like the character)

we never hear a peep out of her saying "maybe don't eat people."

Note that this same statement is missing from (as far as I'm aware) the platforms of every political party in modern day nations.

Coincidence? I think not!

Calliope5431 wrote:

we never hear a peep out of her saying "maybe don't eat people."

Note that this same statement is missing from (as far as I'm aware) the platforms of every political party in modern day nations.

Coincidence? I think not!

Oh, so true, so true! But what about the ghoul parties? What about the parties that advocate for eating people! When will the anti-cannibal persecution stop?!

Even more notably, none of the Inner Sea Deities have anathema involving eating people!

My name is Abadar, and I approve this message

1. raised eyebrow Yeah. I agree. She was "just following orders". It's a justification. But it's one with a very dark and morally dubious history.

2. She's not exactly trying to be better. She's cruel, vindictive, and dangerous. And it seems like she actively hates life as much as she dislikes unlife.

3. Lol yes I like her too don't worry. Albeit mostly because of her flaws, rather than in spite of them.

She wants to survive in a world that has been exceptionally unkind to her, which is worth sympathizing with. Her mindset seems to be "screw you jack, I got mine". Which is definitely an mindset to have...just not one north of neutral.

But she's still a deeply flawed and extremely punitive person, is the impression I get.

(and nope, not annoying at all, please continue)

When magic is at work, it's not a case of "Just following orders' it's a case of I literally do not have full access to my free will. Especially in those who are turned undead against their will.

Calliope5431 wrote:

1. raised eyebrow Yeah. I agree. She was "just following orders". It's a justification. But it's one with a very dark and morally dubious history.

2. She's not exactly trying to be better. She's cruel, vindictive, and dangerous. And it seems like she actively hates life as much as she dislikes unlife.

3. Lol yes I like her too don't worry. Albeit mostly because of her flaws, rather than in spite of them.

She wants to survive in a world that has been exceptionally unkind to her, which is worth sympathizing with. Her mindset seems to be "screw you jack, I got mine". Which is definitely an mindset to have...just not one north of neutral.

But she's still a deeply flawed and extremely punitive person, is the impression I get.

(and nope, not annoying at all, please continue)

When magic is at work, it's not a case of "Just following orders' it's a case of I literally do not have full access to my free will. Especially in those who are turned undead against their will.

Honestly? I'm not sure one way or the other there.

She got turned into a lich, which unlike a skeleton or vampire spawn is normally free-willed. Obviously Geb had some sort of control over her, but it's nebulous how much choice she had.

And she obviously had enough control over herself to run the kingdom. I'm just pointing out that it's sketchy to say she's not culpable for ANYTHING that happened in Geb over the CENTURIES she was in charge of it because of unknown mind control. At no point do we hear stories of her minorly rebelling against that control or small acts of kindness that she performed - pardons or stays of execution or the like. That could well just be because the writers didn't have time to include it - but it's somewhat damning. Especially because Geb has too much ennui for me to believe he'd have forbidden her from helping the suffering people of his nation. Doesn't seem the type.

My headcanon? She saw people getting eaten, sacrificed, and otherwise suffering from time to time, and just couldn't bring herself to care after all the horrible stuff she'd been through. And standing by and watching someone drown, even if you didn't push them in, is still wrong. Running a kingdom of the undead and doing nothing to make it better? That's morally destitute.

Even if she was 100% under Geb's mind control and had NO agency for those centuries (which I'm not entirely willing to believe, given how much agency she presumably had in running the place and Geb's general disinterest in his kingdom as a whole)...there's still the matter of her having hateful edicts and a moral framework built around cruelty, hatred of the living, and bloody vengeance.

Coming to this late, but “we need an AP about Arazni’s arc” is semi-satisfied by Tyrant’s Grasp.

I feel like the state of Arazni's morality can probably best be summed up as "it's complicated", which is what makes her so interesting to me. Does she have interesting and sympathetic reasons for lashing out and hurting people? Absolutely. Does she still lash out and hurt people? It seems so. Her alignment is in a nebulous state right now, which is fine and fitting given that alignment is no longer an objective tint to your soul. Was she probably evil for some time? I figure it's no difference to the people you hurt whether you have a sympathetic reason for hurting people, that's what makes it complicated.

She's undead, so inclined to evil by instinct, and forced to administrate an evil nation, so at least partly not responsible for her actions, but also she was still there and still did those things. Saying she might have been capital 'E' Evil at some point during her reign is not an indictment of her character, its the starting point of her complicated character arc as she decides now who the real Arazni is--the one who dedicated her life to helping others and got sent to Nirvana thousands of years ago, the one who got betrayed by the arrogant and self-absorbed Aroden one thousand years ago, or the one who has been the efficient and ruthless administrator of death since then.

You can be a completely interesting, reasonable and even likeable person or deity and still be evil.

Arazni had a horrible fate and escaped it. Does not make her good or even neutral though.

She has been described as ruthless, vindictive and ready to do anything to survive. I have zero problem with her being a great character and an evil one.

Even though I honestly think she will end up neutral.

But then I like evil characters portrayed as normal people whom you can like and appreciate but who will not be stopped by little things such as morality and innocence.

Much more interesting to me than caricature evil such as Asmodeus and Rovagug.

I feel like the state of Arazni's morality can probably best be summed up as "it's complicated", which is what makes her so interesting to me. Does she have interesting and sympathetic reasons for lashing out and hurting people? Absolutely. Does she still lash out and hurt people? It seems so. Her alignment is in a nebulous state right now, which is fine and fitting given that alignment is no longer an objective tint to your soul. Was she probably evil for some time? I figure it's no difference to the people you hurt whether you have a sympathetic reason for hurting people, that's what makes it complicated.

She's undead, so inclined to evil by instinct, and forced to administrate an evil nation, so at least partly not responsible for her actions, but also she was still there and still did those things. Saying she might have been capital 'E' Evil at some point during her reign is not an indictment of her character, its the starting point of her complicated character arc as she decides now who the real Arazni is--the one who dedicated her life to helping others and got sent to Nirvana thousands of years ago, the one who got betrayed by the arrogant and self-absorbed Aroden one thousand years ago, or the one who has been the efficient and ruthless administrator of death since then.

I'd agree here, and also with what The Raven Black said above. Arazni can be on track for neutrality. She can have a complex morality. She can be interesting.

And for all of that, she can be evil, or at least not a blatant heroine. Victimhood does not make you into a saint. I love and adore evil characters (including ones far less sympathetic than Arazni) precisely because of their nuance. "Evil" is not a dirty word - it doesn't prevent the character from growing and is not a searing indictment of their personality. Not every evil character twirls their mustache and goes out for kitten brunch. Nor is every evil character a villain.

Some of them are sad, broken, flawed individuals who would love to be heroes...but first, they have to brutally murder everyone who ever wronged them and set those people's houses on fire. You know. To balance the scales.

That's the sort of attitude that makes you into an interesting and complex character...but definitely not someone I'd be comfortable naming "hero" or "morally good."

I think Arazni’s arc is plenty fascinating without assigning one of nine messy labels to it. I’ll still like her just as much with Alignment gone.

I think Arazni’s arc is plenty fascinating without assigning one of nine messy labels to it. I’ll still like her just as much with Alignment gone.

I find it interesting that she is finding her way through several of them.

It should also be noted that while Arazni absolutely was a victim, she's now a GOD. That kinda shifts the power dynamic A LOT, and means that any actions she takes towards people who aren't at least demigods are not going to rationally be done for the sake of survival. While it's hard to say how a god's mind works, there's probably some level of trauma response there, but the actual danger has largely passed. It adds another layer of complexity to her situation. Obviously trauma doesn't make someone evil but if you are on a scale of power that massively outweighs 99% of beings in the multiverse, it can be trivially easy for that trauma to become something that is used as an excuse for abusing others.

In some ways it could easily become a sort of supercharged version of real-world cycles of abuse if she doesn't acknowledge that power in her interactions with others.

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know that happened after she got free of Geb by having her body be destroyed by the positive energy nuke Tar Baphon unleashed in tyrant's grasp, also talking about how evil she is having vengeance in her motivations and edicts, that's Calistria's whole thing and she's not evil

Has Arazni like done anything after getting free from Geb, like from I can tell she just kind of keeps to herself.

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know

It's an open secret that she's the power behind

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know that happened after she got free of Geb by having her body be destroyed by the positive energy nuke Tar Baphon unleashed in tyrant's grasp, also talking about how evil she is having vengeance in her motivations and edicts, that's Calistria's whole thing and she's not evil

Calistria has the advantage of not being power-hungry, not being cruel (just vengeful), and not having ruled a nation of undead who eat people for hundreds of years. And also not having been labeled with an evil alignment - yes, alignment is questionable, but there's PROBABLY a reason for that, given that alignments are descriptive. Her methods and motivations are probably a lot less vicious and destructive.

Also Calistria has this as an anathema: "Become too consumed by love or a need for revenge"

Whereas Arazni has an edict that basically reads "be consumed by a need for revenge" (despise and never forgive those who have hurt you).

Calistria wants you to get revenge, but also wants you to have a good time and keep things in perspective. You should always get revenge, but you shouldn't let it take over your life. Arazni doesn't care about having a good time or keeping things in perspective, she just wants to hurt people.

Arazni is a fascinating character (goddess) for sure but I feel like this topic would be better as it’s own thread so people can chat about all of the Tian Xia preview goodness here.

Karneios wrote:

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know that happened after she got free of Geb by having her body be destroyed by the positive energy nuke Tar Baphon unleashed in tyrant's grasp, also talking about how evil she is having vengeance in her motivations and edicts, that's Calistria's whole thing and she's not evil

Calistria has the advantage of not being power-hungry, not being cruel (just vengeful), and not having ruled a nation of undead who eat people for hundreds of years. And also not having been labeled with an evil alignment - yes, alignment is questionable, but there's PROBABLY a reason for that, given that alignments are descriptive. Her methods and motivations are probably a lot less vicious and destructive.

Also Calistria has this as an anathema: "Become too consumed by love or a need for revenge"

Whereas Arazni has an edict that basically reads "be consumed by a need for revenge" (despise and never forgive those who have hurt you).

Calistria wants you to get revenge, but also wants you to have a good time and keep things in perspective. You should always get revenge, but you shouldn't let it take over your life. Arazni doesn't care about having a good time or keeping things in perspective, she just wants to hurt people.

When was Arazni power-hungry or cruel? She didn't want to become a lich queen and rule over a city of undead, she made the place stable and didn't make the undead lives of the people she hates hell there, and I do not see a difference between "despise and never forgive those who have hurt you" and "take vengeance" beyond verbosity, Calistria's priests aren't out there after a while forgiving people who hurt them and despising and never forgiving does also not mean do everything you can at all times to get retribution

I am just ignoring the "it says evil on her page so clearly she must be evil unlike calistria" part of it because that is I feel a useless part of argument especially when I believe that the only reason arazni has evil on there is because she was turned undead and undead are evil

A minor correction; Arazni has been at least a demigod for over a thousand years--she served as the original patron goddess of the Knights of Ozem, including then-mortal General Iomedae. She may not have been an overwhelmingly powerful demigoddess, but she was still up there.

Oh, and PS this discussion has been engaging, but we may consider hopping over to its own thread--we run increasing risk of drifting from the topic the more into the weeds of Arazni's personal arc we get, and there's several other topics in this blog post to manage here

I much prefer the idea of a deity being determined by their ideals and character/expression of those ideals than by an alignment.

One of my favourite pieces of short fiction for D&D was from around the time D&D 3rd edition was released set in Greyhawk. It was about the conflict between a ranger and a paladin. The paladin followed Pelor and killed a hell hound the ranger had spared/reached an agreement with leading to a conflict between 2 good aligned characters based on ideals, both which could have been 'good' based on point of view.

Having them not being good/evil allows for a lot more nuanced concepts and faiths (and relationships to faith and between faiths).

Getting rid of alignment is probably my favourite change in the remaster.

I much prefer the idea of a deity being determined by their ideals and character/expression of those ideals than by an alignment.

One of my favourite pieces of short fiction for D&D was from around the time D&D 3rd edition was released set in Greyhawk. It was about the conflict between a ranger and a paladin. The paladin followed Pelor and killed a hell hound the ranger had spared/reached an agreement with leading to a conflict between 2 good aligned characters based on ideals, both which could have been 'good' based on point of view.

Having them not being good/evil allows for a lot more nuanced concepts and faiths (and relationships to faith and between faiths).

Getting rid of alignment is probably my favourite change in the remaster.

Oh that sounds excellent. Do you know where you saw it? I imagine it's long gone by now...

But I agree - this is one of the best parts of the remaster.

Oh that sounds excellent. Do you know where you saw it? I imagine it's long gone by now...

But I agree - this is one of the best parts of the remaster.

Dragon Magazine #271 'By the job' by Paul Kidd I think.

Calliope5431 wrote:

Karneios wrote:

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know that happened after she got free of Geb by having her body be destroyed by the positive energy nuke Tar Baphon unleashed in tyrant's grasp, also talking about how evil she is having vengeance in her motivations and edicts, that's Calistria's whole thing and she's not evil

Calistria has the advantage of not being power-hungry, not being cruel (just vengeful), and not having ruled a nation of undead who eat people for hundreds of years. And also not having been labeled with an evil alignment - yes, alignment is questionable, but there's PROBABLY a reason for that, given that alignments are descriptive. Her methods and motivations are probably a lot less vicious and destructive.

Also Calistria has this as an anathema: "Become too consumed by love or a need for revenge"

Whereas Arazni has an edict that basically reads "be consumed by a need for revenge" (despise and never forgive those who have hurt you).

Calistria wants you to get revenge, but also wants you to have a good time and keep things in perspective. You should always get revenge, but you shouldn't let it take over your life. Arazni doesn't care about having a good time or keeping things in perspective, she just wants to hurt people.

When was Arazni power-hungry or cruel? She didn't want to become a lich queen and rule over a city of undead, she made the place stable and didn't make the undead lives of the people she hates hell there, and I do not see a difference between "despise and never forgive those who have hurt you" and "take vengeance" beyond verbosity, Calistria's priests aren't out there after a while forgiving people who hurt them and despising and never forgiving does also not mean do everything you can at all times to get retribution

I am just ignoring the "it says evil on her page so clearly she must be evil unlike calistria" part of it because that is I feel a useless part of argument especially when I believe that the only reason arazni has evil on there is because she was turned undead and undead are evil

I gave above excerpts that show how people in the setting see Arazni as cruel, vindictive and overly harsh.

And undead are not always Evil on Golarion, so Arazni being tagged as Evil actually means something about her.

Finally, Calistria's priests can perfectly be Evil too.

Why can't people just accept that a character they like and emphatize with can be evil ?

I much prefer the idea of a deity being determined by their ideals and character/expression of those ideals than by an alignment.

One of my favourite pieces of short fiction for D&D was from around the time D&D 3rd edition was released set in Greyhawk. It was about the conflict between a ranger and a paladin. The paladin followed Pelor and killed a hell hound the ranger had spared/reached an agreement with leading to a conflict between 2 good aligned characters based on ideals, both which could have been 'good' based on point of view.

Having them not being good/evil allows for a lot more nuanced concepts and faiths (and relationships to faith and between faiths).

Getting rid of alignment is probably my favourite change in the remaster.

I am of the opposite opinion.

I think without alignment we would never have such a philosophical tale as the one you mention.

Who would care ?

It is much easier to get people's opinion on what is presented to them as opposed to a blank page.

The alignment grid pushed people to think about what Good and Evil and Law and Chaos meant to them.

This thought-provoking and philosophical aspect of the game will just disappear with the grid.

I get how the alignment was sometimes used as a straightjacket or even worse as a normative tool forcing people to fit within someone else's conception (and prejudices) of what the alignments meant. So I am not that sad to see it go because it's more important that people feel comfortable playing their PCs how they wish.

But I will miss the philosophical dimension.

I am of the opposite opinion.

I think without alignment we would never have such a philosophical tale as the one you mention.

Who would care ?

This feels a little overstated to me - there are countless stories that examine how we view morality that have been created through the ages, and the vast majority don't have a 3x3 alignment grid as something motivating their examination. Even in the world of tRPGs, there are a large amount of games that place a larger amount of importance on discussions of the nature of morality that do not have anything like the alignment system - it clearly isn't required for people to care about morality.

Yeah lawful and chaos especially have issues because, with how it's described in pretty much every book, following a religion is by its nature is lawful, which seems like an issue for chaotic gods.

The Raven Black wrote:

I am of the opposite opinion.

I think without alignment we would never have such a philosophical tale as the one you mention.

Who would care ?

This feels a little overstated to me - there are countless stories that examine how we view morality that have been created through the ages, and the vast majority don't have a 3x3 alignment grid as something motivating their examination. Even in the world of tRPGs, there are a large amount of games that place a larger amount of importance on discussions of the nature of morality that do not have anything like the alignment system - it clearly isn't required for people to care about morality.

True. Some people would care even with nothing external to motivate them.

And some would not care no matter how you try to motivate them

But there being an external part of the game that you could not just ignore meant the majority of people had to consider it even a little.