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?

While Pacts certainly work well with the Thaumaturge concept, their mechanics do not lend themselves to feats terribly well. Rather than allowing a specific gameplay concept (such as feats that let you fight with two weapons better, cast specific spells, share weaknesses, etc.), they are primarily there for RP flavor.

Moving them to a different space and then giving Thaumaturges better ways to access that space would not negatively impact the class.

But picking up an archetype that will certainly come with other baggage just because you want a mechanic that represents an oath to some fey (which is equally valid for other character concepts) is a rather clumsy way to handle it. It also goes against theme, as part of those stories is actively making, twisting, and breaking the pacts, rather than just having them.

How is this any different from the Champion's various Oath feats? They also are taken primarily for flavor but still have a mechanical benefit, and are absolutely something any other class could do. A fighter who wants to be a dragonslayer having access to the Dragonslayer Oath and Wyrmbane Aura would make perfect sense. he still needs to take the Champion archetype to get it.

Oaths and Pacts are very similar as far as I'm concerned. They're optional subfeatures of a single class that introduce additional flavor restrictions and roleplaying opportunities.

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.

Seems like you're not even getting what I'm saying.

I just gave the example of how I imagined the Patrons should've been way back when the Patrons could've been changed. They weren't and I frankly am a bit pissed by the fact that the concept that would've fit the Witch/Patron relationship like a glove way back then, became just a weird attachment to the Thaumaturge and just as a bunch of feats that don't even fit well with the class... Or even in the form of feats at all, as others said here.

Now, taking the wishful thinking and bygones aside, I think that Thaumaturges shouldn't have the monopoly of Pacts, these feats should be removed from the class and turned into a mechanic that can be accessed by anyone interested. If the Thaumaturge were to remain related to the Pacts, then it would make more sense so that the class could have benefits tied to them (even though it's unnecessary).

Doesn't matter if these pacts take the form of items like Contracts are, special class-agnostic feats (Similar how Spellcasters share a lot of Feats and some Martial has cross-class feats) or outright a mechanic on their own, what's important is that the mechanic is fleshed out so that all kinds of characters have the chance to explore these kinds of things and so that a GM can use them in the narrative, rather than just random options that a Thaumaturge randomly chooses to have without input.

If the question is the benefits these pacts are granting and that some players feel like they're somehow integral to the thaumaturge experience (I don't think they are at all), then keep the mechanic benefit (Fey pact becomes Trickster's Mask implement, for example) under a framework that fits better with the core mechanics of the thaumaturges (implements and Antithesis/Find Flaws).

Archetypes and Multiclass Dedications are already available to everyone. They are, in fact, literally the single most accessible mechanic in the entire game besides General Feats.

Everyone gets Class Feats. Everyone can take a Multiclass Dedication. Some races can even take a Multiclass Dedication as an ancestry feat. Something being available with class feats makes it more accessible than virtually any other alternative way to gain pacts. Literally any character in the entire game could get one of these Pacts if they felt like it. How is that not accessible?
I'm not opposed to the idea of a pact-specific archetype being added the same way anyone can gain a familiar through archetyping into spellcasters that get them or directly through familiar master. But I don't see any reason why the Thaumauturge shouldn't get to keep them.

Castilliano wrote:

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.

I was one of those that disliked the Witch's Patrons during the playtest and advocated for making them more prominent in the class. Sadly, the state they were shipped remained lackluster, even though miles above their playtest version.

Imagine my surprise seeing something very close to what I wanted for them done as an after though in a non-spellcasting class.

A Thaumaturge can conceivably pick up EVERY pact if he wants to, which fits the "magpie who picks and chooses from every tradition to benefit himself, has an eclectic assortment of favors to call in from every plane" feel.

A Witch has only a single patron. It doesn't make sense for a Winter witch to be double-dealing her soul with Devils and Psychopomps, while also upholding Fey custom to disguise herself and evade his supernatural debtors. A Witch would have ONE pact, with their patron, but that's already represented by the very fact that you ARE A WITCH and not just a Wizard. All of your magic power and familiar come from your one singular patron.

Now, I could absolutely see a Witch player taking one of the Thaumaturge Pacts and roleplaying it as a restriction from their patron, but that's not what the feats actually are. What you want- more involved witch patrons that have an actual impact on your witch, with flavor and mechanical consequences for different patrons- is simply not in the game. Patrons are left so incredibly vague that you just get a single "theme" to play along with. A witch's Lessons aren't even restricted by Patron, every patron can teach every lesson.

That's not the class fantasy I want either, but trying to poach from the Thaumaturge isn't the solution to the Witch's lackluster design. The Thaumaturge Pacts are to represent someone like Constantine or Harry Dresden who each have a dozen supernatural entities with big IOUs for their soul competing to see who gets to drag him back kicking and screaming. The overlapping and potentially conflicting conditions of multiple bargains is key to that fantasy. Obviously you can just ignore them entirely, or just take one and roleplay it as part of your background like the Rare Feybound Background already does, but if these were made into Contracts requiring Investment you wouldn't get to achieve that same fantasy. The Thaumaturge's Pact feats are not a Witch's Patron making demands, even if I agree that flavor is sorely missing from the actual Witch class.

With just the three playtest pacts you can already see a very interesting character archetype that's more than the sum of its parts, Similar to a Druid who takes Order Explorer and intentionally accrues multiple Anathema to be bound by.

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’m not convinced Pacts should be Thaumaturge only . I think every class should have access somehow and Thaumaturge either have easier access, early access or gain more from them

But don’t disagree on the focus spell part. And the fey pact needing a boost

If other people want Pacts they can get them through a Thaumaturge multiclass dedication or pact-specific archetype the same way other classes besides Druid and Ranger can get an animal companion, but I don't think they should be taken away from the thaumaturge. The fact that they're cool and other people might want them is not a reason to take them away or make them into general feats, it's a mark of good design- ideally when looking at EVERY class, you'd go "Oh wow, that's really cool, I'd like to play a character who can do that."

Some people have suggested making them into general feats or the existing "contract" series of items and I pretty categorically disagree with both of those. Class feats are the most valuable resource you have as a player character, the fact pacts cost class feats to get is what allows them to be strong and powerful and interesting and really deliver on the flavor. A general feat would need to be so watered down as to be pointless, and needing to beg your DM for a specific Contract item is way too Mother May I for my taste compared to simply choosing a pact on level up, the average player is never going to get the former while the latter is a simple matter especially if some are changed to Common.

I think they're also the ideal way to introduce focus spells and possibly other spellcasting elements to people who REALLY want the Thaumaturge to have spells, without harming people who don't want that in the base class. The existing playtest pacts already grant the ability to cast some innate spells, after all.

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.