Calliope5431's page

1,428 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cole Deschain wrote:

I think betting on any of the bad guys getting it might be looking at long odds.

Putting aside the fact that Arazni is categorically less-awful than just about any of them, the event isn't really being presented as the cause for celebration most of these dirtbags getting it in the neck would be.

Of the bad guys left, whose demise would make for a good story?

Azzmatazz and Urgathoa are both okay. That just leaves Nordberg, Zonny-Boy, Rover, and Lamashtu.

Norgobbler isn't one I'd miss (I find him more useful than Cayden, but it's marginal), but the sheer number of bad guy cults he can sponsor while being a wholly-owned bit of Paizo IP... and his death? Given his whole secretive schtick, he'd be like friggin' Alpharius in 40k...

"Ah, but is he really dead?!"
"Pretty sure, seeing as I ripped his head off."
"But was that really him?"
"You know what, I don't even care anymore."

Zonny-Boy feels like most of the gas is left in his villainous tank. His whole story is the mystery of what happened to him to turn Dou-Bral into Zon-Kuthon. Unpicking that feels like a more rewarding story thread than in just tossing his deific corpse into the stratosphere and bathing in the fallout. He and Shelyn are unresolved deific business, and with all due respect to the merge theories out there, the relationship is most interesting with them alive, opposed, but Shelyn holding out hope for her brother's redemption.

Lamashtu's whole deal is just so neat and omnipresent that I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where her death is more interesting than her survival. She's also a divine murderer of record, making her a natural suspect whoever else gets it in the neck, and I just don't see wasting a perfectly good red herring as wise.

Rovagug is loaded with importance as the guy so bad he could get Asmodeus to play a relatively straight hand with the other deities. Plus being presented as so insanely powerful that the gods banded together to imprison him... I...

I think it may have been categorically stated that we'll never know what is possessing Zon Kuthon.

It's similar to devourers. Any answers you provide make it way less creepy. And Paizo likes leaving open areas for GMs to fill in.

I agree with you that the death is not being presented as a good thing though...


keftiu wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
There goes the theory that Arazni would take over Urgathoa's domain.
We've been told several times now that Arazni is not taking the place or domains of the deity who dies.

Not really.

We were told she didn't *necessarily* take over those domains. It would after all be giving something away to say otherwise...

Have a direct quote from Luis on Reddit, 2 months ago:

Quote:
After this god's death, Arazni will be filling the empty slot in the core 20. Arazni is not taking over the dead god's portfolio or anything. There is simply an empty space that she will happen to fill.

This is not the only time it's been said; I'm almost certain it was reiterated on the LO: Divine Mysteries livestream.

My point was more that there was an open slot and Urgathoa had similar themes. So it would have made sense for her to get whacked because of the overlap.

Anyway, I'm quite happy Urgathoa is not getting whacked, because she's probably one the more unique pathfinder deities (everyone has a Poseidon knockoff nature god and a good sun god after all).


Perpdepog wrote:

Welp, there goes another of my guesses; amazing story though. Urgathoa's death being a perverse kind of generosity, countering her domain of gluttony by "gifting" countless, random millions with undeath is pretty fitting.

Still wish she'd been dragged down by lesser undeath deities, her death bringing rise to countless more, but that's a story I can always write for myself I s'ppose, and, you know, divine Arazni revenge fanfiction is good on its own.

I still bet it's Zon-Kuthon, because that actually would affect the Prismatic Ray without murdering Shelyn or Sarenrae (and Desna dying would just be weird - I don't even know what that would mean for the setting besides people getting lost more often)


keftiu wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
There goes the theory that Arazni would take over Urgathoa's domain.
We've been told several times now that Arazni is not taking the place or domains of the deity who dies.

Not really.

We were told she didn't *necessarily* take over those domains. It would after all be giving something away to say otherwise...

We're really checking off evil deities though. We've got Zon-Kuthon, Norgorber, Lamashtu, and Rovagug left. And there's no way in heck it's Rovagug.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There goes the theory that Arazni would take over Urgathoa's domain.

We now have three death gods. The goddess of the dead, the goddess of undead, and the undead goddess who sort of wishes she was dead.


Captain Morgan wrote:

I'd really like to see how unholy works with undead. I think I understand how it will work for fiends, but the trait makes more sense on them to me.

Similarly, I'll be curious what is immune to spirit damage besides constructs. Even some constructs shouldn't be immune, given awakened golem type shenanigans.

Well we did see that unholy mummy. No vulnerability to holy, but there's one particular spell (the new searing light) that blasts the bejeezus out of unholy creatures.

I'd guess that the vast majority if not all undead will have the unholy trait but no holy weakness. Especially because mummies aren't even that evil all things considered (compared to flesh eating ghouls, blood drinking vampires, or life draining wights and wraiths, anyway).


Captain Morgan wrote:
Veltharis wrote:

Nothing announced to that effect, so far as I'm aware, but I wouldn't expect an official 2e version of Rise of the Runelords any time soon regardless. Unless Paizo is okay releasing it via the OGL like the original - unlikely, in my opinion - it would inevitably need to be updated to fit the post-Remaster paradigm.

This would involve a lot of little changes (for example, swapping out OGL monsters for non-OGL ones, and possibly needing to retool encounters - or even entire plotlines - as a result) and at least some fairly huge ones: namely excising the classical D&D magic schools (transmutation, conjuration, etc.) from ancient Thassilonian magical tradition, and thus completely redefining the magic system the runelords operate under, without losing the bulk of their core characteristics and narrative in the process.

They'll need to do that eventually anyway if they ever want to touch on the runelords/Thassilon again in the future, but it's a much bigger job than it may look from the outside.

Good point, Rise is OGL as hell. That said, said, I've run conversions of it I did myself and it actually worked pretty well. Since a homebrew conversion doesn't need to worry about ditching schools and what not, you're in a great position to do it. The stumbling blocks to be aware of for converting PF1 adventures are:

-Loot. Magic items drop less frequently in PF2 and the gold conversion rate isn't consistent across levels.

-Yhe haunts in book 2 feel wonky. Long term ability damage is less of a thing now. The rules for detecting haunts have always been hard for me to visualize in practice, and you actually want them to go off here because they deliver important exposition.

-Lots of encounters are easier, particularly those that relied on incapacitation effects like ghouls. This isn't necessarily bad-- most PF2 adventures are harder than they need to be, IMO.

- I never got to run Black Naga, but she'd probably be more dangerous in PF2.

Other than that, converting...

Yeah the OGL is sort of the elephant in the room there, for almost anything 1e really (and Rise has a whole lot of Tome of Horrors since it's Rise).

Cool to hear that compilations aren't off the table though!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Shelyn definitely goes into the "more interesting alive than dead" category. Zon Kuthon is just an edgelord without her.
Unless Shelyn's death sets Zon-Kuthton back on the path of light. That creates lots of interesting stories.

True, but it's also a minefield.

"Kill the happy nice sister so her edgelord brother can be redeemed" gets justifiably panned on a regular basis.

Of course, if there's anyone I trust to navigate that arc well, it's Paizo. I'm just guessing the other way around (with pieces of Zon-Kuthon becoming part of Shelyn) is more likely.

I don't think it would count as a "frigding," because Shelyn wouldn't be forgotten, we had plenty of time with her, and she had other connections. Like, Desna's hair trigger would be pulled, setting up a great conflict.

Strictly speaking, "Fridging" in this context is any time a female character is tortured or killed with the purpose of spurring a male character's plot forward. So yeah, if the kill Shelyn because that allows them to do something with Zon-Kuthon, it's absolutely Fridging even though she got to exist in the story before that. (In the most infamous case, the writer flat out said he developed the fridged character before killing her specifically to try to increase the impact, so its not like this is strictly for characters that we barely know.)

At the end of the day it's a trope, and tropes can be used in effective ways, not all of which are bad... but this particular trope has a bad reputation for a reason.

And of course, there's the whole problem of "we're going to drive the story forward by killing off the Queer Goddess of Love" in THIS political climate has a serious "Agents of Edgewatch" vibe to it.

It's absolutely fridging. And Zon-Kuthon would be the archetypal "male character" for whose benefit it happens. The trope is usually employed for dark, brooding antiheroes or villains, which is exactly his thing.

The fact that Shelyn is ALSO the gay goddess of love just makes it even more of a PR suicide. The look would be incredibly bad with the audience Paizo generally courts.


Kobold Catgirl wrote:
We're talking less about "is the deity evil" and more about how a cleric might interpret their worship, though. Like how Norgorber has special lore dispensations for nonevil worshipers. Just consider it a fun creative exercise and don't worry too much about it! I've moved it offthread.

Quite.

I still think one of the funniest things in Golarion is the fact that Nocticula's pre-redemption (around 4719 AR, or 2019 in our universe) "Redeemer Queen" followers went straight to the Abyss. Even if they were good-aligned. Because heresy doesn't pay.

demon cackling


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

The Lower Planes are still there.

Lamashtu is still an ascended Demon lord.

Her servants are still doing terrible things.

Yep.

The characters did not change just because "alignment" is gone. Just because there isn't a mechanic for "freaking evil" doesn't mean that, say, Socothbenoth isn't freaking evil. He's still an unspeakably vile predator.

It's like saying there's no "red" or "blue" keyword on monster statblocks, and therefore monsters do not have color. Color is totally a thing in-universe, but there's no need to spell out a purely RP concept like that mechanically. Likewise, morality still exists, it's just that it's not mechanically relevant anymore.


Ravien999 wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Shelyn definitely goes into the "more interesting alive than dead" category. Zon Kuthon is just an edgelord without her.
Unless Shelyn's death sets Zon-Kuthton back on the path of light. That creates lots of interesting stories.

There's an old segement from Paizo where they talk about how ZK never really was Dou-Bral, Shelyn's brother, but rather that Dou-Bral was a vessel for ZK's evil self to inhabit like a incubation chamber from himself in another multiverse altogether.

That is to say, if we go by the dev team's old intent, there never was a "Light" option for ZK.

Do you have a link? That sounds fascinating!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
He's just. So. Grimdark.

Yeah, but... so's Lamashtu. So's Nordberg. So Azzamatazz.

In general, most evil deities are quite capable of becoming pizza cutters depending on how they're handled.

Not saying being a weird self-mutilating sweat goblin makes Zonny-boy safe, he could well get it in the neck, especially with Asmodeus confirmed to still be around to do duty as an evil tyrant deity, but it's not as if he's especially in need of being sandpapered by comparison to anyone else on the Monstrous Pregnancy/Skinsaw Cult/Entire Empire Undergirded By Literal Deals With Devils spectrum

I'll give you Lamashtu. Norgorber though...you can DO a story about Norgorber without being edgy. Sure, he's the god of serial killers, but he's also the god of poison, the god of blackmail, and the god of thieves' guilds. Lots of different villain options.

Asmodeus is, well, the devil guy and honestly not that bad. "Deal with the devil" is not that edgy, all things considered. Also, we know he's safe and he's critical to the setting.

Zon-Kuthon? He's a walking sharps container. If you poke him, you're going to get sliced. And he's not as important overall.


Cole Deschain wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
But if Zon-Kuthon isn't a god of BDSM, he's a god of self-harm and torture. There's not a lot left if you dial him back past that.

Darkness and the fear to be found within it, and becoming that fear.

Loss, how both survive and inflict it.

Surviving your pain and showing others how it feels.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger" taken exactly as it is written without giving a moment's thought to all of the ways that statement isn't inherently true.

Expanding your sensorium through ever-more intense physical and mental trials to achieve self-mastery.

"It's what you can take, and what you can dish out."

"At first you don't think you can stand to get hit, then you realize you can take it 'cause the blood don't matter, and you know you're gonna live. It's a great gift I'm goin' to give you - to know it don't hurt to fight!"

Now, sure, ol' Zonny's right out of Clive Barker, and that guy never met a disturbing BDSM-with-only-the-most-tenuous-implied-consent angle he didn't like, and could be the lines are thin, but...Laori the chipper kinkster honestly feels like an outlier when set against what Kuthites usually get up to. Hell, I seem to recall her CotCT write-up being pretty clear on that.

Yeah I love Laori but that's fair...still. Edgy BDSM all the same.

He's just. So. Grimdark.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
I haven't been paying much attention to the blogs so I'm wondering what's to look forward to with Monster core releasing next month. I'm aware of some of the new dragons. Those seem great. I'm looking forward to seeing how demons and devils might change with the de-emphasis on law/chaos that the remaster has. What else are people looking forward to?
I wouldn't expect changes to devils and demons because of law and chaos. Law and chaos was always secondary to evil on those planes, especially compared to things like the Qlippoth. What we can safely expect are new demons and devils that aren't rooted in D&D. And I'm hoping the dinosaur demon becomes core, myself.

Vavakias are awesome yup.

I'm super excited because we get EVEN MORE fiends... and can still use the stats for the old ones!


Anorak wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

Also...he's the patron saint of evil BDSM (Laori Vaus is exhibit A). I've heard arguments before that by making him evil and horrible there's a tacit condemnation of BDSM.

See this is why it pays to stop and think sometimes about what we consume. On the surface level, I've always seen ZK as filling the Body Horror niche and never even stopped to consider the BDSM imagery with ZK or Cenobites. or Body Horror for that matter.

Hmm so while I think you're right even if ZK doesn't die, he should at least be rehabilitated. I'm all for Cenobite ZK because there are people like that in the world who chase their lust so much that it consumes them. But leave that for whatever infected Dou-Bral. Have Dou-Bral come back and be proper BDSM instead of a malicious psychopathic hedonist cenobite.

Yeah I want to make it clear - he's not all about BDSM. But having read and seen a lot of Clive Barker... it's definitely there.

And again, whether or not you think Zon-Kuthon is problematic is somewhat irrelevant. It's whether or not he could be construed that way. It's just not a great position to be in if you're Paizo. Same reason killing Shelyn is unlikely. Regardless of whether or not it actually is fridging, it absolutely can be taken as such and you don't want that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Shelyn definitely goes into the "more interesting alive than dead" category. Zon Kuthon is just an edgelord without her.
Unless Shelyn's death sets Zon-Kuthton back on the path of light. That creates lots of interesting stories.

True, but it's also a minefield.

"Kill the happy nice sister so her edgelord brother can be redeemed" gets justifiably panned on a regular basis.

Of course, if there's anyone I trust to navigate that arc well, it's Paizo. I'm just guessing the other way around (with pieces of Zon-Kuthon becoming part of Shelyn) is more likely.


Scarablob wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
This is the other reason besides the PR nightmare (shooting the gay goddess of love and rainbows sure makes a statement even unintentionally) that I think Shelyn is safe. Zon-Kuthon is just way too edgy and I think they're trying to move away from that. And he's an evil god and thus can be killed without immediately getting players up in arms. Shelyn has "good god" protection (same reason I think Sarenrae may make it) and her brother absolutely doesn't.

I also think ZK is likely to be the one (or at least, the most likely evil deity to be the one), but I don't his edgyness makes him a target. He is edgy and evil in an "unrealistic" way, which is to say that the horrors he dish out aren't the kind that are really found in real life. As such, while he is edgy, he isn't really problematic, so I don't think he would be on the chopping block for this. If an "edgy" or "problematic" domain is what would put a god on the chopping block, Asmodeus and Lamashtu would be far more likely to die (but Asmodeus is already safe, and I don't expect Lamasthu to die either, she's too emblematic and tied to too many plots threads).

The real reason why he is a likely candidate for me is that his domain is pretty narrow, and not usually the kind of stuff new players and GM gravitate toward. And since the core 20 is made to be introductory gods for new players (while more experienced players have no trouble looking deeper into the pantheon if the core 20 don't offer what they're looking for), it's important that the hole in the core 20 left by the dead god doesn't cover options that are too popular. Furthermore, his ties with Sheylin mean that she could absorb part of his portfolio (likely the darkness part without the cenobite torture stuff) to still keep it in the core 20. I think Sheylin is also a likely target for the same reasons.

Well. Somewhat unrealistic, yes. Though torture is a real world thing and many, many tables would prefer not to engage with that. And it's somewhat controversial in reality.

Also...he's the patron saint of evil BDSM (Laori Vaus is exhibit A). I've heard arguments before that by making him evil and horrible there's a tacit condemnation of BDSM.

I'm not at all saying I agree with that perspective, for the record. But I can see Paizo wanting to purge potentially volatile real life topics and cutting out even the hint of controversy or condemnation there. Much like how they whacked Erastil being pro-patriarchy and Pharasma being anti-abortion. It's not necessarily a matter of whether or not he's irrevocably and irredeemably problematic. Pharasma for instance is a neutral goddess, I don't think you can claim her opinions are an endorsement or condemnation of literally anything by the writers, regardless of what said opinions are. That's why she's morally neutral.

It's a matter of avoiding controversial topics not everyone wants to engage with. Same reason slavery was removed from the setting. Are some people fine with it? Totally. Is everyone okay with it? Not really, no. And nobody wants to look like they're supporting slavery because "well it exists in Absalom!"

Deities in a fantasy game taking a stand or being perceived to take a stand on real life hot-button issues just has a lot of ways it can go sideways. I wouldn't blame them if they decided they don't want to deal with Zon-Kuthon anymore for that reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gnollvalue wrote:
My current main theory is that Zon-Kuthon dies and Shelyn becomes more distant overall in grief or in pursuit of answers.

Zon-Kuthon is a good bet, since there's a real meta problem of "how do we solve the Nidal problem." Since some of the stuff that's been written about Nidal is dark to a degree that Pathfinder doesn't really do anymore. It just seems weird to say "well, Cheliax doesn't do slavery anymore" (a good change,, IMO) when their neighbor to the north is still kidnapping people to slowly and gruesomely torture to death in service of their warped god.

If Zon-Kuthon gets bisected by his sister, that sets up for Nidal to still be an occasionally horrifying place (There's a lot of vampires around) but less of an overwhelmingly horrific place.

This is the other reason besides the PR nightmare (shooting the gay goddess of love and rainbows sure makes a statement even unintentionally) that I think Shelyn is safe. Zon-Kuthon is just way too edgy and I think they're trying to move away from that. And he's an evil god and thus can be killed without immediately getting players up in arms. Shelyn has "good god" protection (same reason I think Sarenrae may make it) and her brother absolutely doesn't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:

"If you can convince enough people of the lie that you're divine, then you are" would be great news for Razmir.

Still worried about Shelyn, here.

Razmir does have an entry in Divine Mysteries...

I maintain Shelyn is safe because her not being so would be a PR train wreck for Paizo.


keftiu wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:
Sorry to counter this, but the worship of Shimye-Magalla was solidly debunked in Age of Ashes as Taldan propoganda. At a meta level, I recall it being explained that Golarion deities “just don’t work that way”.
Lost Omens: The Mwangi Expanse, page 144 wrote:
In the Mwangi Expanse, Desna is most often associated with a pale blue color, a relic of her former role as Queen of the Sky. The Bonuwat consider Desna one-half of the pair known as Shimye-Magalla, alongside of Gozreh, as the sky and the wind are so intertwined as to be inseparable[...] The Bonuwat see Gozreh as embodying the freedom of the wind, and have long paired Gozreh with Desna as Shimye-Magalla, a powerful aspect of the open sky.
It's my understanding that they're essentially a two-deity Pantheon, with Age of Ashes predating the 2e Pantheon mechanic.

Too late to edit this, but Age of Ashes actually agrees with me!

Age of Ages: Volume 2, p.40 wrote:
With a successful DC 17 Religion check, a character surmises that the temple seems to be devoted to the deities Desna and Gozreh, but that it combines their depictions into a singular entity. A critical success reveals something more—that this temple was devoted not to a combination of the two gods, but to a sort of “mini-pantheon” composed of both of them, named Shimye-Magalla. The Bonuwat have long admired and worshiped the two deities as equals. The age of this temple, combined with its inland location, suggests that the Bonuwat were more widespread long ago. To Gerhard, both of these revelations threaten some of his own (ill-informed) theories about Bonuwat history and Shimye-Magalla (who he has always believed to be an actual merging of the two deities rather than a pantheon composed of the two)[...]
The discredited Taldan archeologist is going "those stupid Mwangi think Desna and Gozreh are one god!", rather than grasping the nuances of their merged worship in Bonuwat culture. I'm actually very...

Oh that guy. I love that guy! He's one of the funniest characters Paizo has ever written. Especially with his heroic willingness to not let actual archaeological fact get in the way of his theories.


Qaianna wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

We've had talks about that too, yup. The total lack of international relations is pretty funny.

At the very least you'd expect some sort of expansionist power to gobble up Galt. Their military consists of angry mobs.

But I understand that from a game design standpoint. Not everyone wants to play "ninjas vs pirates" or try to figure out what happens when the Vikings try to raid ancient Egypt.

As far as Galt … who would WANT it? And inherit all that lovely chaos? And its neighbours are Kyonin, Five Kings, Andoran, Taldor, the River Kingdoms, and someone in Casmaron. Any of them up for the job?

There are international relations, even those other than ‘bigger army diplomacy’. Thise can eve nfigure into adventures. ‘Protect the Bellzen ambassador on their way to negotiations’ can lead to ‘Who sent the assassins?’.

Oh an expansionist power doesn't want ALL of it. No, that would be a headache.

But it's not like there's a hegemon or a UN running around enforcing international borders in Golarion. Just look at how Turkey is trying to expand its influence in Syria and get de-facto control of territory. Or the Sino-Indian border disputes. Or going further back, French territorial ambitions in Italy from the 1400s to the 1700s. Or the way Austria, Prussia, and Austria divided up Poland in the 18th century.

There's no need to gobble up all of Galt. You just carve off a piece of it and take that.

Unstable states have that issue. There's no unified military, so unless an occupying power is silly enough to attack everyone in the country all at once, it's pretty easy to get away with annexing a piece of land and laughing as the "government" of Galt tries to maintain even the faintest hint of cohesion long enough to actually mobilize to stop you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Millicent Velarno wrote:
Razmir, The TRUE LIVING GOD wrote:
Again, I am still safe. Thank you for your concern.

Razmir is not among the Core 20, so shall never be safe! Though if he's collateral damage, that would make the next Living Lodge scenario verrrry interesting...

In other thoughts, it could be Torag who's dying, since he's "missing" in Starfinder, but that seems far too obvious for the payoff we're expecting here.

Razmir was noted by Luis to have an entry in Divine Mysteries...all hail the god king!


NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Re: Stolen Fate: what was the deal with one recurring villain? ** spoiler omitted **

Not really. There are just some cryptic visions plus James has dropped hints on the boards about that...


keftiu wrote:
This one was super fun, thank you! And it puts to rest the theory that Asmodeus would be a casualty of the OGL fiasco.

Yup!


Scarablob wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Why is the alternative a big time skip ? I don't get it.

Way I see it, the death of a core 20 deity is to avoid the setting getting stale and has nothing to do with edition changes.

I think the problem is that PC1 (and Gamemastery Core) is supposed to be an introduction to the setting, and to still be relevant years after their release for new player to pick up, presenting the "baseline setting" and options. And with it being released so close to the "big world shakeup", it mean that the introduction to the world will be outdated and present one no longer existant deity option less than a year after it's release. Had Paizo not been forced to scram and released an OGL free remastered version, the big shakeup would have been released 6 years after the core books, so them being outdated after so much time isn't quite as eggregious.

It's why big lore shakeup work best in the transition between edition. At that point, you don't have to worry about having to stick to the "baseline status quo" presented in the introductory book, as you're about to create an all new introductory book that will present the new status quo.

And yeah that's my point about player core 1. Hit the nail on the head.


The Raven Black wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
You need big events for a setting to feel lively. And killing a god says that Paizo is ready to drastically alter the world of Golarion for story purposes. That's great, in my opinion. Especially because it's not at all drastic, it's just a small thing, even if I agree a small thing that can piss some players off.

I do agree with this interpretation.

Again, my main caveat would be that it's unfortunate that because of publishing/OGL timelines (totally beyond Paizo's control, I know) they're going to be murdering a god from player core 1. And that events like these have a nasty tendency to build up and compound until world history reads like a nonstop barrage of dying gods, extinction-level events, world wars, and violent coups. Or the fantasy equivalent of "so what if world war 2 went on for 50 years rather than 6-8, and ended with multiple nuclear strikes?"

But the alternative is doing a big time skip and that's not really an option when you're publishing a shared setting and would prefer players don't have to deal with "and now your human fighter from last campaign is dead of old age".

Why is the alternative a big time skip ? I don't get it.

Way I see it, the death of a core 20 deity is to avoid the setting getting stale and has nothing to do with edition changes.

Basically, my point is this: fantasy settings and worlds have a very nasty tendency to change dramatically very quickly when protagonists are involved. This is fine if you're only in the setting for a few years. For instance, the events of LotR take about a year in universe. The events of Wheel of Time take around 10. Your typical comic book arc takes a few years to resolve. And that's fine. You can have an action packed five years. It happens in real life all the time (see: WW2). You kill some gods, murder some Runelords, destroy an archlich or two, and have half a dozen coups. Sink a country into the sea. Good stuff.

But then you have to tell another story. You have to, as you say, "keep things from getting stale" (though I'll point out that Eberron hasn't changed in like 20 years and people still like it). So you come up with another grand arc. Another country sinks into the sea. Another half dozen countries have coups. You kill some more ancient wizards (where are all these wizards coming from anyway? Yeesh). Topple another dark lord.

This continues for a few more cycles, and assuming you don't do a continuity reboot (Mystra is alive again! The Joker didn't actually die! Voldemort is back! Again! For the third time!) suddenly you look around and you realize... nothing matters. The PCs saved Varisia in Rise of the Runelords...shame it fell into the sea like Atlantis. The PCs put their favored candidate on the throne of Taldor in War For the Crown... shame there was another war for said crown afterwards. Your cleric retired after Curse of the Crimson Throne, a faithful servant of (your god's name here). Shame that god just kicked the bucket.

That's why continuity reboots happen. It's because after 10-20 years, the authors have killed Superman, redeemed the Joker, and sent Robin off to college. The setting is unrecognizable.

It's not an issue for pathfinder yet, but it will be eventually.

I admit the time skip thing is really a separate issue, revolving around implausible PC leveling rates (if it takes three months to go from level 1 to level 20, why aren't there more level 20 characters around? Why are there so many thousand-year-old wizards who are level 12?) but it comes back to the same issue. Fantasy worlds can suffer from being"lived in" for too long, and you can only do so many "this arc will CHANGE THE WORLD" stories before you start getting jaded about anything actually changing the world.


SuperBidi wrote:
You need big events for a setting to feel lively. And killing a god says that Paizo is ready to drastically alter the world of Golarion for story purposes. That's great, in my opinion. Especially because it's not at all drastic, it's just a small thing, even if I agree a small thing that can piss some players off.

I do agree with this interpretation.

Again, my main caveat would be that it's unfortunate that because of publishing/OGL timelines (totally beyond Paizo's control, I know) they're going to be murdering a god from player core 1. And that events like these have a nasty tendency to build up and compound until world history reads like a nonstop barrage of dying gods, extinction-level events, world wars, and violent coups. Or the fantasy equivalent of "so what if world war 2 went on for 50 years rather than 6-8, and ended with multiple nuclear strikes?"

But the alternative is doing a big time skip and that's not really an option when you're publishing a shared setting and would prefer players don't have to deal with "and now your human fighter from last campaign is dead of old age".


Captain Morgan wrote:

The situation hinges on the following.

Kinger wrote:


After an argument, we brought the remaining bandits back to civilization and turned them over to authorities.

The party was able to hand the bandits over to the authories, evidently with no particular trouble as it only warranted a single sentence. Killing people because it is mildly more convenient than going to the authorities is a bad start. Can it be justified? Potentially. But it is dependent on factors we don't have from the OP (and probably won't get since this kind of feels like a fire starter thread posted to several different forums from a new account with zero other posts.)

Maybe the authorities worship Torag and would have executed the bandits anyway, in which case the PCs would just be "passing the buck." But maybe the authorities worship Saranrae and would want to imprison the bandits and rehabilitate them. (In D&D this would be conflating lawful with good, but Pathfinder doesn't have Alignment anymore so I think it is fine.)

As a general rule of thumb, killing people when there are less extreme measures available to prevent them from hurting others isn't good. You can manufacture reasons to do it anyway, but those weren't presented in the OP, and I think if you're arguing in favor of killing someone the burden of proof should be on you.

If someone broke into your home with the intention to harm you, but instead was easily subdued by you... Could you really argue you should just kill the person rather than wait five minutes for the cops to arrive? Yes, modern day sensibilities, fantasy setting, blah blah blah. But we really don't have anything else to go on here. And we really need that before we can make hard and fast rules in a setting like Pathfinder. The bandits could have been mind controlled by a hag into their acts for all we know.

Modern sensibilities are really all we have to go on here. And there are loads of criminal cases in a variety of countries that would support the "killing someone who broke into your home after you've subdued and tied them up is murder" interpretation.

Is that true in older judicial periods? Nope, definitely not. But randomly applying, say, the laws of ancient Rome or the "wild West" (which frankly still had murder laws, they just weren't enforced) in this context that say you now have the right to murder the person feels extremely inconsistent. Especially because nobody would dream of applying Roman or medieval laws to anything else in the game. Like by having torturous public executions as entertainment.


Ravingdork wrote:

Alignment threads are as tenacious as always I see.

Kaspyr2077 wrote:
Next time a group of people attacks the party in the hills, the party should wipe them out, not knowing if they're cannibal bandits or a defense force that got anxious and assumed the party were raiders?

Absolutely none of that matters. If someone is actively trying to kill you, and you have no reasonable recourse for immediate escape, you must kill them. Anything else is a foolhardy deathwish.

Because if you don't, you're dead, and nothing else will matter anyways.

If you pull your punches, then you're either not in immediate mortal danger in the first place, value the life of your attacker(s) over your own, or are just going to get yourself killed.

It doesn't matter who they are or what their reasons for trying to kill you are. All that matters in the moment is that your life, and possibly the lives of others, is under immediate threat. Such threats needs to be dealt with swiftly and with brutal efficiency, or you're all gonna' die.

It's not good. It's not evil. It's survival.

Of course, that's all moot in the scenario the OP proposed.

Yeah this is basically my point above.

If you think "killing is always wrong" you can still kill people in self-defense. It's just not a great thing to do. Killing people NOT in self-defense is, well, wrong.

If you don't think "killing is always wrong", that's a different story. That's honestly fairly common in RPGs though. PCs get numbed to murder because they do so much of it. The average campaign is going to have a body count in the hundreds, and the average party tends to shoot first and apologize to corpses later.

I've seen credible claims that under modern international law most PCs are war criminals. Between the spells that are literally war crimes like cloudkill, the "well that guy surrendered but he's in an inconvenient place for me to throw my fireball and hit his buddy", the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" approach most PCs take to hostage negotiations, and the "what do you mean, there were orc children in that mine we collapsed, stop walking all over my out of the box problem solving Ms GM!"


Kinger wrote:

Hey, my group is having a debate about an encounter we had recently. Pretty standard encounter, the 4 of us saw a group of humanoids with mules across the plains. We moved toward them, they moved toward us. Once we got close, they attacked us. We defeated them, stabilized them, tied them up and healed them.

We interrogated them and discovered that they were basically bandits and cannibals. While discussing what do to do with them, one to the party members executed one of the bound bandits. After an argument, we brought the remaining bandits back to civilization and turned them over to authorities.

The person who executed one of the bandits thinks that it was perfectly alright citing that they attacked us. Someone else disagrees since they were tied up and helpless.

What are your thoughts?

Their being helpless isn't irrelevant but it is not the most important thing. If it's right to kill them, it's right to kill them regardless of whether they're tied up. Especially given how easy it is to knock people out in pathfinder 2.

It might well be dishonorable to kill an unarmed prisoner. And you might well think it's not your duty to perform summary executions and they should instead be brought back for trial. Or that capital punishment is wrong.

But that's not really a question of morality. It's a question of personal ethics. If it's wrong to kill them, it's always wrong to kill them. Killing people in self-defense when they attack you is a justification, but it does not make the killing right. It only makes it excusable.

To put it another way, would it have altered the moral calculus if you'd untied them and handed them a sword and "given them a sporting chance" before you executed them? I say this not to antagonize but to illustrate that it's the act of killing itself that is morally right or wrong, not really how it's done.


The Raven Black wrote:

FWIW I think we can have Holy racists through ignorance. But when you realize you were actually bigoted, you have to choose between keeping on being Holy (and very likely making amends) or keeping on being racist.

But then I would have considered Good racists the exact same way too.

Yup I agree there.

Believe me when I say that I've seen what "good and evil are just hats we use for theming" looks like. And it's extremely gross. It's basically the 3.0 Book of Exalted Deeds version of good.

It's fairly decent up to a point and then it goes off the 1984 deep end with mind control.


The Raven Black wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Jan Caltrop wrote:
So far, all arguments against Nethys dying seem to be "Forgotten Realms kept killing off their goddess of magic, and Paizo wouldn't pull that same stunt"; but I'm (actually genuinely) wondering how valid that line is.
I wouldn't say it's 'valid' (and who would, btw?), more like the stunt is unwelcome. As far as I understand it's not at all a popular plot move in dnd space now. And there aren't any reasons it would be more popular here for Golarion, especially when seen as a copy of Wizards' moves.

Truth be told that's sort of my concern with killing off deities in general.

Sure, "this god is now dead" is dramatic. But it undermines the new core rulebook that was just published, and when done at an edition change it's very easy for it to feel like a stunt.

And of course comic books and the Forgotten Realms show us what happens if you kill off too many iconic characters. No one these days is actually worried when the joker or the Fantastic Four or Drizzt bites it. Because they've all died and been resurrected too many times to count.

I love Golarion in part because it's not the tangled mess of "how many times has Mystra died again? Which retcon are we on now?" that is Faerun. So while I'm very interested in the War of the Immortals arc I can't shake the feeling that I have seen this all before, and that it can lead down a very silly road.

I think the problem lies in the resurrection part.

Simple solution : keep them dead.

Definitely agree.

And again it's Paizo so I'm less concerned. I just know that rapidly changing continuity can cause merry hell for new players and really make people unhappy with the setting. And the death of a god is the biggest setting change it's possible to make, since it affects everyone who plays in that setting (as opposed to killing off the Pharaoh of Osirion, which only really affects people playing there)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sy Kerraduess wrote:

Corruption assumes the authority figures go against their oath or overstep their authority in some way. I think in most circumstances it's more that fantasy governments have a lot more power and far fewer checks and balances.

If an elected representative in Andoran forces his constituent to fight the evil medusa before he will stop the local hospital from being foreclosed, then that's corruption.

If the same interaction happens between an Archduchess of Cheliax and one of her subjects, then she is probably completely within the bounds of both her oath and her authority.

That was sort of my thought. In an autocratic world (and yes, Golarion is definitely run by autocrats for the most part - Cheliax, Osirion, Irrisen, the Land of the Linnorm Kings, Oprak, Numeria, big chunks of Ustalav, Brevoy, Geb, Nex, Minkai, and more do not have elected heads of state. Whether they're benevolent or not) personal connections matter more. And there aren't the same checks and balances as in a democracy, meaning that state business and the king's personal affairs are often the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Jan Caltrop wrote:
So far, all arguments against Nethys dying seem to be "Forgotten Realms kept killing off their goddess of magic, and Paizo wouldn't pull that same stunt"; but I'm (actually genuinely) wondering how valid that line is.
I wouldn't say it's 'valid' (and who would, btw?), more like the stunt is unwelcome. As far as I understand it's not at all a popular plot move in dnd space now. And there aren't any reasons it would be more popular here for Golarion, especially when seen as a copy of Wizards' moves.

Truth be told that's sort of my concern with killing off deities in general.

Sure, "this god is now dead" is dramatic. But it undermines the new core rulebook that was just published, and when done at an edition change it's very easy for it to feel like a stunt.

And of course comic books and the Forgotten Realms show us what happens if you kill off too many iconic characters. No one these days is actually worried when the joker or the Fantastic Four or Drizzt bites it. Because they've all died and been resurrected too many times to count.

I love Golarion in part because it's not the tangled mess of "how many times has Mystra died again? Which retcon are we on now?" that is Faerun. So while I'm very interested in the War of the Immortals arc I can't shake the feeling that I have seen this all before, and that it can lead down a very silly road.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've had talks about that too, yup. The total lack of international relations is pretty funny.

At the very least you'd expect some sort of expansionist power to gobble up Galt. Their military consists of angry mobs.

But I understand that from a game design standpoint. Not everyone wants to play "ninjas vs pirates" or try to figure out what happens when the Vikings try to raid ancient Egypt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
It feels as if someone was trying to put prophecy back in place. I wonder if the Stolen Fate AP shed some light on this.

Stolen Fate:

It totally did.

But honestly I'm kinda sad if that's the case. Because, well, it's supposedly a big part of the setting that there's no prophecy. That's one of the ways it was supposed to be different from other settings. I recall James saying that prophecy made things kind of boring and cliche, actually.

Also if that were true, they'd have to change the name from the "age of lost omens" to the "age of omens that someone just found rooting around under the couch cushions".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

...Nethys is a god of magic but not the only one, and he's very, very new as a god on the timescale.

...
As a side-note, my favorite deity of magic is Yuelral. I'm hoping we'll get more info on her and the other elven deities as the remaster progresses.

Yup.

She's so neat! And so special!


PossibleCabbage wrote:

One of the main issues with Nethys is that if your character is super into magic, and you want to learn more about magic, so you can do more things with magic, and that magic is exciting and you love learning... your character is a Wizard who might worship Nethys, not anyone who actually receives divine power from Nethys.

It's just kind of weird to me how Nethys's clerics are not wizards. It's sort of similar to how if nature is your thing, it probably makes more sense for you to be a Druid or a follower of the green faith than Gozreh worshipper.

This is why I homebrew clerics of Nethys getting the arcane list and clerics of Gozreh getting the primal list.

Because "cleric of the god of rangers/paladins/wizards/druids" probably should resemble that class more than they should resemble the vanilla Sarenrae cleric.

But again this is why I think "the generic god of monks" or "the generic god of magic" who exists solely so that there is a "god of magic" is less likely to bite it than the god of BDSM. Because the god of monks by definition doesn't have a lot of drama going on.


Kaspyr2077 wrote:

If a government governs something larger than a small town, it is definitely corrupt. If it governs a small town or village, it's only extremely likely to be corrupt. This is true throughout all of human history. As Themetricsystem says, that's human nature. Authority in the hands of imperfect people makes corruption inevitable, and the more people and the more authority are involved, the more corruption will inevitably happen.

For a fun experiment, you could try explaining real governments to your friend as "fantasy" governments, and see if you get the same reaction.

Oh it's very fair.

It's just interesting that so many fantasy quests boil down to boilerplate corruption.

"I'll totally help send an army to help the elves against the evil army invading them", says the king of a human kingdom nearby "just as soon as you recover my ancestral scepter from its ancient haunted tomb".

"I'd love to give you the Blade of Demon Slaying" says the Lord Mayor, "but first I'd really appreciate it if you helped me reclaim my manor house from the ghost living there."

"Maybe if you humiliate my rival I'll tell you where the dungeon is," says the local guild master."

It'd be like a president in the modern world declaring war on another country because someone bribed him with a lost Van Gogh painting.


So I was talking with one of my friends who works in international relations recently about fantasy government.

Her comment: "wow, fantasy RPG settings are pretty corrupt."

How true do people think this is for Golarion? A lot of Pathfinder quests do seem to revolve around blatant cronyism and quid pro quo arrangements with authority figures... but on the other hand, it's semi medieval, when EVERYONE was corrupt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:

Calistria seems likes shes the goddess of paradoxical aloofness.

never forgetting or forgiving a slight means a lot of a persons heart and memory will end up dedicated to holding grudges. It is paradoxical to say dont get too consumed by these and yet always hold on to them at the same time. I would argue if you go by the motto of never forget a slight then you are already consumed.

You've gotten it snarled.

- Callistra is the one that says to never let a slight go unanswered, but not to be consumed by it. If someone slights you, you find a way to make them suffer for it, and then you move on and let it go.

- Arazni is the one that's all about never forgiving those who have hurt you. She's the one who will cling to her hatred of someone until the end of (their) days. She also seems to have a somewhat higher bar for putting someone on the hate-list. It takes more than just a slight.

It's true that trying to follow both at once would probably end badly.

Pretty much.

Though I feel like Calistria has a specific vibe of "letting it go". It's not forgiveness. It's "I've gotten revenge and your life is now ruined, loser. Sucks to be you. I'm going to go to a party and forget all about you ever existing now. If I see you again maybe I'll shoot you if I remember who you are."


SuperBidi wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Lots of stuff

Sorry, but I can't be on board with what you say.

The definition of holy is made in a single sentence, so it's short. Stating that holy is limited to altruism and helping others but can then be racist, sexist, murderous, manipulative, abusive, etc... seems very much a flawed reading. It is the good ol' Good as we know it. It's not a new version that only cares about helping others but can carry very problematic political or personal views in the name of "holy".

Yup.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's possible to have unholy heroes and holy villains. But it's not any different than previously evil heroes and good aligned villains. Evil heroes work as antiheroes, good villains as misguided-but-still-decent people.

It's the difference between "the angel just doesn't want you to have the necronimicon" and "the angel is Genghis Khan with wings and a halo".


Kittyburger wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:

I shall now read way too much into this.

Gods that only allowed evil worshipers were pathfinder society illegal anyway. So they're not safe.

Merged gods are fine. So something like Zon Shelyn would keep working.

Pharasma's death (and Aroden's) both break their clerics' ability to cast. So it's not as easy as "you can just keep worshiping them and your faith sustains you".

So I hypothesize that it's either an evil-only deity, or the death transfers domains, or both.

Keep in mind that Lamashtu is now Society-legal - The addition of so many monster ancestries as core meant that not having Lamashtu as a legal Society option meant basically any Society monster ancestry character would otherwise basically automatically be outcast from their people. So it's not true that not being Society-legal NOW is a strict bar from becoming Society-legal after WoI or a guaranteed target on the deity's back.

Right now, Pharasma is the ONLY deity we know is safe, because she's supposed to die - just not NOW.

True!

But I still think this tilts things in favor of PFS-illegal deities dying.


I shall now read way too much into this.

Gods that only allowed evil worshipers were pathfinder society illegal anyway. So they're not safe.

Merged gods are fine. So something like Zon Shelyn would keep working. It's more likely that would come from Zon Kuthon dying and merging with Shelyn than the other way around though.

Pharasma's death (and Aroden's) both break their clerics' ability to cast. So it's not as easy as "you can just keep worshiping them and your faith sustains you".

So I hypothesize that it's either an evil-only deity, or the death transfers domains, or both.


Sanityfaerie wrote:

...and while I can see the argument that "self-sacrifice at an unhealthy level" might feel twitchy as an exemplar of "Lawful Good", I don't think there's any question that she counts just fine as "signed up for the War in Heaven on the side of the angels".

But yeah... chalk this one up as yet another reason (in retrospect) why ditching the alignment system was actually a good thing.

Sometimes you don't realize how toxic something was until you're clear of it.

Yeah I don't think "cannot bear to see evil exist" is actually sketchy. There are plenty of real life people who cannot bear to see the different manifestations of evil exist (racism, genocide, cruelty to animals).

She has vibes that you see in a lot of mythology and religion, ranging from Bhishma on his bed of arrows in the Mahabharata to Oedipus Rex putting his eyes out rather than look upon the horror he has unwittingly created. It's very realistic.

Anyway, that's my long form way to say that I hope she survives.


Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I kind of worry that "Bury Your Gays" has become a little overused as a trope term. I don't think it applies if the death is narratively appropriate and the gay couples aren't being treated like they're expendable. The Prismatic Ray is the most prominent deific love story in the setting--even if they all died (which they won't, of course), that wouldn't be gay relationships being cast aside in favor of straight relationships, that would literally be love itself being destroyed, which is the very opposite of devaluing gay people. I literally can't think of a straight couple among the gods that could "take their place" the way it happens in movies.

Anyways, it's not Bury Your Gays if Arazni takes Desna's place. ;)

You're right, though, that Desna might be too pivotal to the setting. I'm not sure I agree, but she's definitely up there in terms of "thematic keystones". Like, she's the centerpiece of the first scene of the first installment of the first AP Paizo ever made.

Given her background (plus the lack of love interests even before her untimely demise), I'm not sure Arazni really wants that at the moment. Just my two cents, though. We shall see!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Stormlord506 wrote:
Just gonna throw my two cents out there, I think it's gonna be Iomedae. No reason to have two heralds of Aroden in the core 20.
Actually that should engender some rivalry between the two, which would be good narrative fuel.

Imagine the drama, though, of Iomedae dying in Arazni's arms and passing on her portfolio to her. Arazni is now forced into the role of the Successor, but Iomedae wants her to do what she couldn't, say what she wouldn't. The new Successor's active dislike for Aroden would reflect our own maturing understanding of the God of Humanity and perhaps give Iomedae a final bit of closure to her arc. She never wanted to be the Successor, and her loyalty to Aroden prevented her from realizing she was better at her job than he ever was.

In general, if it's not someone like Torag (and Torag dying alongside the orc gods while fighting against a mutual threat would be a great way to send him off), my strongest theory is that whoever dies, Arazni will be given/take a piece of their portfolio, as Desna did with Curchanus. Maybe it'll be Desna herself. Now there's a wrinkle for the Prismatic Ray.

A lot of gods could make sense, but the ones I think I'm comfortable saying are safe? In order, from "least safe" to "most safe", Abadar, Erastil, Gozreh, Lamashtu, Calistria.

I don't think Arazni would let Iomedae into her arms. She seems pretty "don't touch me".

In general I'd argue that the vanilla/generic "he's the x god" deities are safer, because their deaths would be dull.

Gorum is "the war god". That's pretty much it. Irori is "the monk god". He sort of has a backstory, but I don't think most people know it by heart and he mostly exists to be a patron of monks.

Whereas deities like Sarenrae have complex relationships with other deities, well known mythology (the imprisonment of Rovagug, her background with the pit of Gormuz, her disputes with Asmodeus) and are generally more impactful to kill.

The response you don't want to "one of the core 20 gods died!" is a collective yawn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:

Also, the loss of Abadar would almost certainly result in the loss or embezzlement of a TON, if not the majority of all banked coin and valued assets across the globe given the fact that the crumbling of the church would make the institutions fail as well as the instant and irrevocable loss of all extradimensional vaults that the church uses to protect its assets once the divine powers of his followers dries up.

There would be some wealth that is protected by mundane means but given just how trivial it would be to pull a heist on such locations when you have access to the world shaping and descriptive powers and magic I cannot imagine that even those would be safe for very long since anyone who would guard it with their life would likey be armed and paid by the church itself which would no longer exist...

If you're looking for something that would shake the entire setting to its core and probably spark widespread panic, revolution, and hyperinflation of the value of coinage/currency this would be just the ticket but I'm not sure that economic intrigue and the global collapse of governments and businesses is what they're shooting for.

It would certainly be...novel. But I don't really think adventurers are equipped to deal with a stock market crash or widespread financial panic. Especially because most PCs have the economic sophistication of a prepper with all of his assets stashed under his mattress in the form of gold bars, canned corn, and automatic weapons.

Besides, "create liquidity" and "summon collateral" aren't really spells. And don't get me started on the horror show that would result from dragon hoards suddenly losing all their value in the face of runaway inflation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
MadamReshi wrote:

It's going to be down to the way its handled.

Only to a very limited extent.

Don't forget that a LOT of players will not even be buying the book so the first time they hear about it will be when they sit down at the table and are told that their character is now illegal (or has no spells, or whatever).

This will be especially true in PFS. You know, the public relations/outreach thing designed to entice new players. The new players who won't have read the book but will be supremely peeved to find that their cleric of <whomever> must suddenly change.

As I say. I think this is overall a bad thing. I (very sincerely) hope that I am wrong about that

Pretty sure that PFS is going to be flexible on that one for a while yet.

Like, you can still play adventures from Year 1, you know? Updates that are driven by remaster-style rules changes are somewhat forced, and even those are at the "you can keep your existing characters functioning under the old rules, you just cant' make new ones" level. I'm pretty sure that "must suddenly change" isn't in the cards for an event that's more lore-driven than anythign else.

As you say, PFS is about enticing new players... and they're not dumb about it.

Side note: I don't think that Zon-Kuthon is going to get the axe, if only because it would make Nidal so much less interesting.

Depends who takes over as Nidal's patron...

My biggest argument for why Zon-Kuthon dies is because he's an evil god (ergo fewer players impacted) and because his themes are pretty edgy/arguably problematic.

Plus the Zon-Shelyn stuff in starfinder (I know they don't have to synch... but what GM wants to explain the difference between Zon-Shelyn and Zon-Kuthon to new players?) and the comments regarding the Prismatic Ray changing.


Meridianbot wrote:
I'm sure we'll find out who dies on April 1st.

Do we have confirmation of that?

1 to 50 of 1,428 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>