Callibourc's page

Why are Evil gods allowed to have virtues that ARE "actively believe and advocate for things which are beneficial or constructive" but Good deities are not allowed to have corresponding fatal flaws?
Unless we're back to "Charity is Evil because Lamashtu says give alms to the poor", in which case that's silly.

“I make no excuses for it nor do I wish to downplay it.”

Then why are you?

Why are you going through all this to defend this non-canon interpretation, if gods having flaws is important focus on any other one, why is it so important that this one be kept? Misogyny isn’t context dependent, it’s evil no matter what. Killing is context dependent.

You bring up Ragathiel to prove your point but here’s the thing, Ragathiel knows that’s a flaw of his and IS containing it, barely or not.

Having a paragon of Good, something literally made of Good, be a bigot okays bigotry, you claiming otherwise doesn’t make it not be true, and gives a bigots a foot in the door to justify themselves. Trying to spin it as absolutes misses the point. It doesn’t “undo” all the other good he did, but the good he did doesn’t undo him being a misogynist, and we’re left with a god of Good, the biggest Good you can get, be a misogynist. That sends a message.

A horrible one that was excised so you’re beating a long dead and rotting horse.

Is your argument that Good gods should never have any flawed elements whatsoever for fear that the portrayal of somebody Good engaging in such behavior would be an endorsement? That seems completely at odds with the entire point of portraying the gods as actual individuals with complete personalities and flaws.

Do you believe Evil gods practicing kind behaviors is in fact an accusation that those behaviors are revolting and vile? I don't think anyone would look at Mahathallah's Anathema of "Become too invested in mortal affairs" and believe that it's really Paizo saying that all of Buddhism is actually capital-E-Evil because an Evil god has the same message.

In Wrath of the Righteous, the Lawful Good Iomedae kidnaps the party and can torture them to death with 15d6 sonic damage and permanently blind them such that even Wish cannot cure it if they get mad at her assaulting them. Does that mean Paizo approves of torture or kidnapping? No, it means Iomedae is a newly ascended god who behaves more like a mortal than she does an omnipotent cosmic being and is capable of acting impulsively or making errors in judgement.

The Erastil argument is silly since it's already been retconned, but there's plenty of times the Good gods behave in flawed ways and I don't think they all need to be retconned out of existence just to avoid this strawman argument that "A being of pure Good having a bad personality is actually a secret endorsement of improper behavior in your playerbase and dogwhistles that you approve of it."

That's just as ridiculous as the inverse argument: that it's somehow bad for Evil characters to occasionally show loyalty, kindness, understanding, or empathy. And indeed it precludes the entire fact that ALIGNMENT CAN CHANGE. How can a Good deity ever fall to neutrality or evil if they're never allowed to make mistakes in the first place?

I also disagree with the idea that Pacts don't fit well with the Thaumaturge or are a weird attachment. The Thaumaturge is explicitly inspired by stories like the Dresden Files and the web serial Pact. The Thaumaturge's getting access to an Implement, Familiar, and Demesne (with those specific terms) is something directly out of Pact, for example. The Rule of Three also plays an incredibly important part in that series, and it's certainly no coincidence that Thaumaturges can take a class feat evoking that same power.

Characters like John Constantine and Harry Dresden owe their soul to a lot of people. Making a deal with the devil in exchange for your soul, then making a Fey bargain to disguise yourself and hide when he comes to collect, and trying to atone by getting in the good graces of Psychopomps is in the same vein as Harry Dresden making deals with demons while he's hounded by his fairy godmother and nearly dying when he unseals the master of necromancy he keeps trapped in a skull in his basement. The *variety* of possible deals, and the fact you can make more than one, with potentially conflicting obligations, is part of the class fantasy.

yes, you can ignore the pact mechanic entirely when building your thaumaturge. You can also play a monk without Ki spells. I don't think Ki spells should be made universally available to everyone who wants them, just because every character could conceivably take up martial arts and meditation and start cultivating their body.
"Every class wants high Constitution, how is it fair that only Monks get access to unleashing their body's potential?"
Would obviously be a very silly thing to try and argue.

I don't think Sour Grapes from the Witch's poor design is enough to take away the Thaumaturge's cool toys. If you want them, you can take them. if you don't want them, you don't have to take them. If you want them, but don't want to play a thaumaturge: congratulations, you're in luck! They're not something like a Fighter's permanent +2 bonus to attacks that can't be obtained with a Multiclass Archetype. If you want a Thaumaturge pact, take a Thaumaturge dedication.

Plenty of other classes have optional subfeatures that could conceivably be something everyone else has access to as well, Pacts are not alone in this respect. The nice thing about 2e is that if you want those...you can just take them.

I'd note that in much of the lore, many of the pacts made by Constantine & company are short term to solve an immediate issue (often w/ negative long term consequences!) or long term as reward for a service (yet seldom strong enough to solve future notable obstacles!).

And as mentioned by Lightning Raven...Witches. To exclude them from Pacts seems counter-genre.

Witches have a lot more problems than that. Only getting a single Hex cantrip, Patron having barely any influence on your character, a mess of weak or useless class feats (the entire nails and hair line...), etc.

If a Witch wants to take a pact feat as an archetype they're free to do so. Just as an unarmed Fighter can take the Monk or Martial Artist dedication. I don't think Pacts should be so exclusive that nobody else can take them, but in 2E that sort of exclusivity only applies to base class chassis features. You can archetype into a familiar, animal companion, spellcasting, sneak attacks, Ki spells, etc. Somebody who wants a Pact can already get one if they want it even if they remain as Thaumaturge class feats.
"But I don't want to spend class feats on it", well, I don't want to spend class feats on getting a Familiar for my Summoner, but I'll still do it for flavor the same way a Witch who wants a Pact can spend her feats on one.

Contract Magic Items are not guaranteed, class feats are. I think rituals are terribly implemented in general and absolutely don't want more interesting effects being shuffled off into that corner to waste away.
You can buy a horse with gold, that doesn't mean Animal Order druids should lose their animal companions. Making character-defining features into items is something that should stay in first edition. Also, once again the matter of access is worth bringing up: begging for a specific, Rare magic item that requires Investment and isn't even legal in PFS is completely different from just taking a pact on level up.
Should a Druid's Anathema and Champion's Code be turned into Contract magic items rather than remaining class features?
"But I want it too!" is not a convincing reason to me. There can easily be a Pact based Archetype the same way that anyone can take Beastmaster for an Animal Companion or Familiar Master for a Familiar. If they were turned into Contracts they would likely need to have their power level reduced as well, things that cost class feats are allowed to be unique and powerful because they have a high opportunity cost.

I said I'd be fine with focus spells. I think tying focus spells to the pacts would be one of the better ways to do it, and doesn't step on the toes of the class's identity as non-magical, since the magic you're drawing on is explicitly not your own but borrowed from the pact (which already allow you to cast spells anyways). Pact of Fey Glamour is very flavorful but underwhelming in actual power, I think instead of "you can cast Illusory Disguise as an innate Primal spell once per day", it would be much better if it granted you access to a Thaumaturge pact focus spell that allowed you to do something similar to illusory disguise. Focus spells in general are one of my favorite parts of 2e, so I'll freely admit I'm biased towards their inclusion, I think the way Monk and Ranger make use of them is a great solution to the usual issues half-casters face

There's hundreds of monsters with magical abilities that don't rely on spell slots or verbal, somatic, or material components. The thaumaturge's abilities are what would be considered Supernatural or Extraordinary in previous editions. Words have power, patterns like the rule of three have inherent power, and certain connections evoke power. Reducing that occult element to simply slot-based spellcasting like every other class completely defeats the purpose.
Monks do not need spellcasting in order to use Ki to achieve the impossible, stop aging, run on walls and water, or *turn people to stone*. The Thaumaturge does not need to be a spellcaster to achieve the extraordinary. I think Monk is the best class to compare them to in this regard, and simply making them yet another caster class would completely kill what I enjoy about the class's flavor and fantasy.