Note that as awkward as Counteracting can be at first (for me too, and I'm a math/DnD nerd), it's somewhat of a universal mechanic in PF2 for one effect vs. another effect. So it's worth learning, and underneath all the charts it's kinda simple (and I wish Paizo had given a formula or flow chart rather than a messy table, so people could see what to plug in where).
So... work on this has stalled somewhat, but I am considering replacing an Allip with a (Weak) Shadow. Would that be too much for a first level party, even with some mitigating factors? CR 3 makes for a solid boss (especially at 1st when resources and breadth are minimal), so mitigating factors matter a whole lot. If the party regularly travels with the Light Cantrip and use big weapons, Force Barrage, and spirit damage, then no big deal. But if they rely on Precision damage and other types the Shadow's immune to, then that could backfire in a big way if/when a Shadow Spawn arrives (perhaps blocking for its boss or focusing fire on the one Enfeebled so they die and both can Steal Shadow). Also matters if they have ranged attacks or Reactive Strike, as a flyer can do hit and run tactics, avoiding anybody who looks Readied (even if they can't really do that with Steal Shadow unless it's every other round, which works well with going in walls). Which is to say, yeah, be wary. It's not a generic CR 3 bag of meat most any party can handle fine.
In a meta sense, the players via PCs are pitting their agency vs. the agency of the baddies exemplified in the BBEG. (Plus other obstacles, hopefully tied to that main conflict or subplot). So if the BBEG plays an "I'm immune to your agency" card to auto-escape (which means auto-win if that was their primary goal), that feels different than an "I'm capable of escape/made plans" card even if the results resemble each other. IMO, the NPCs ability to escape should be accounted for in their capabilities-budget (which includes favorable terrain, henchman, etc.). For example, I had a speed focused PC in PFS1, and chased down several escaping villains, one a BBEG who would've escaped (and likely would've killed me if he'd tried, shhh). That was very satisfying as I'd invested a lot in doing exactly that. If an otherwise normal NPC out of nowhere became faster simply so they could escape, that'd be gross. But if chasing say a Quickling, I'd tip my hat to the superior speedster, as their abilities do reflect a steep cost to getting such speed. Similarly if a party came built to catch a BBEG, with spells and counterspells invested in that at a cost to direct combat abilities, it'd be gross to overwrite that with a casual, "Nah, BBEG escapes". On the flip side, if the players/PCs are negligent, like perhaps they're told the BBEG has an escape boat and they don't address the boat or chasing on water, then maybe a BBEG meant to be caught does get away, maybe along with important clues/resources the PCs have to struggle without. I'd be offended too if a GM handwaved it so we caught them anyway despite our errors. That victory would be hollow, even if we otherwise won the battles. In short, "Your abilities don't work here" or "Your agency's being overwritten by the plot" are terrible GM tricks, while "BBEG paid good gold from their equipment budget/invested key spell slots/etc. to do X and I'll still give you a chance to stop them if you've invested in countering X" feels legit.
One unexpected source I've used for names is the Spelling Bee game online by the NY Times. Here are seven letters, kinda random, but kinda not because it leans toward more useful letters. How about this viable syllable with this one? Not a word, so maybe a good NPC name. Because yeah, it's easy to fall into one's linguistic habits. I've also used a d20 for consonants and d6 for vowels (including Y as a vowel). Pick which type likely follows next (in the given language) and reroll if unsatisfied. Just occurred to me the Japanese "alphabet" would also be a good table to roll off of, especially for Minkai names (though double check for unintended meanings). Could also be used in reverse.
...wait for it to happen naturally with random bad guy 47 who becomes the returning bad guy because of chance. ...it becomes a shared spontaneous story element and people tend to enjoy that. I have had these kinds of NPCs, and they do add to the RPing. That guy whose morale broke so he escaped? Yep, you'll see him again, likely in a different role as the first didn't work out well for him.Had several prisoners among many who stepped up to accept equipment to fight on the flanks of the PCs in an escape. Most maybe hit one enemy, but one guy rolled several nat 20s so obviously he got a name, and labeled with an implied level of ability in the eyes of PCs (even if the players knew better). While of course he didn't join the party itself, he joined their team in a back-at-base capacity. The inverse is true with BBEGs that fall early. That just means they weren't really the BBEGs, right? Not big enough, nor bad enough. Even if statistics & plan/intent would've said otherwise, the dice & fate disagreed. (And wouldn't the GM have to advance them anyway to keep pace?) Sounds trite to say "Roll with it" or more specifically "Roll with the rolls", yet gotta advocate what works.
That's one reason APs often use an organization as the BBEG, perhaps with a figurehead whose proxies the party can fight. "Oh, we've killed this unique lieutenant of the BBEG's. That oughta hurt." Moreso if that NPC had a specific role/ability the organization loses. "No more X's are going to serve them anymore." (Perhaps because X's are too weak to toss against the party anyway or have been run dry plotwise, but still.) Not that the figurehead's always visible, but sometimes, like in the Dragon's Demand megamodule, the villain overshadows everything even when offstage. Even fighting completely unrelated villains it's for the sake of fighting the dragon. (And the dragon doesn't make any appearances when the party might get lucky prematurely.) The point being one can feature a recurring adversarial element without any escaping going on. Putting all one's plot eggs in one BBEG basket doesn't jive well in RPGs where plot armor can lean toward heavy-handed authorial (GM) interference. "Because I'm Batman!" doesn't fly (except in certain genres I suppose.) Speaking of which, I don't necessarily enjoy Batman having recurring villains (and have long hated the Joker being his primary adversary with such better ones in his gallery). It's just with decades of churning out content, it's quite difficult not to resort to it. Many "new" villains would resemble the old too much anyway or fall into the flavor-of-the-month trap. While I've heard of tables that blitz through material (i.e. Gygax's original players), how much story does an RPG villain need to occupy/cover for? ETA: I'd only intended a brief note re: Claxon's comment...
You can spam pre-buffs of a 1st level spell much easier, like before most every door (another issue w/ Huge, going through doors.)Wait, which 1st level spell gets you large size? Lol. The one in a previous edition. :P Still getting interference from decades of residue.Yes, Enlarge is 2nd level now. Which is kinda funny given how much worse it is, but that might be why so many did spam it in PF1. I burned through a few wands in PFS1.
Escapes are difficult to force because players have agency. As WoM suggests, a guaranteed escape undermines player agency...which IMO undermines the game and the GM/Player social contract. If the enemy needs to escape to fight another day, they need to be or have a clone, followers that will Raise them, or an identical twin (etc). Even 1st ed DnD with all its instant escapes and DM plot control often used these tricks in modules. Plus there's the pain of losing the boss's loot! (No, seriously, it hurts, and will often drive players to extremes to catch them more than the plot does.) Also consider trap doors or a door which opens instantly when they run toward them, but lock behind them automatically, a wave of fresh enemies that guard the escape route (pre-balanced!), or many other solutions that speak of a cunning enemy rather than a "GM says they have to live" enemy. (Not that the results are different...) And take care that the players feel like there's a victory, not a draw or even loss because the enemy attempting to escape succeeded at their goal. So thwarted plan, big treasure looted, NPC saved, some goal where the enemy's the obstacle, not the target...yet. ETA: I'd forgotten until a second after I posted that you're running published adventures...so make of it what you can. I've found 3PP often lack such finesse and simply brute force a route (with much reason to, given the amount of directions a party could otherwise take which a published adventure can't dare cover). But take ownership for the sake of player agency. I've left a campaign because the GM didn't do that for a campaign path with predetermined outcomes. Why's my PC here if all the story needs are her stats?
Yeah, I'd look at the battle's intended difficulty rather than a set norm so you balance at the group/narrative level rather than individual. So you might create two (maybe more?) translations per creature (and a lot of the humanoids in PF2 do have two types of peons for that). A generic, rigorous rule would break down as one gets into CR 1/6 creatures or classes that differed in power from each other or some of the bosses who'd become more legitimate threats in PF2. Also PF2's level 1 PCs are chunkier than ever in several comparisons. And I'd look at what Paizo did with a lot of "PC class" NPCs, where most are not built using a player's chassis. They cast with similar power to a PC, but have unique, signature abilities, higher attack/lower damage, and more h.p./less AC (sometimes much more h.p./defensive abilities in the case of those similar to 6hp/level casters). NPCs also have less breadth in most ways, yet some will be able to perform in two different roles better than any PC can (like a caster w/ a Fighter's attack proficiency or maximum expertise in multiple skills). Lastly, PF2 NPCs seldom rely on synergy, tactics, or pre-buffs (unlike PCs do or tons of NPCs from previous editions did). Those numbers have been baked into their stats.
I don't know if it's still online, but years ago I'd printed out a list of Greyhawk deities for 3.X that listed their domains (and more). It's quite long, about the size a Golarion list would be. PF2's altered or subtracted many of the domains, but it'd lay a foundation since Greyhawk's the source of most if not all Planescape deities (among those that survived moving from 2nd to 3.X). Not sure how much Forgotten Realms influenced. Pretty sure the list was on the Wizards website since it has their logo, though one likely has to dig into the archives if they haven't made a specific effort to erase such things. It's been years since I've visited there, but they'd had material dating back into 1st edition available, so maybe it persists. That said, reskinning the Golarion deities works too. Reskinning worked for Rome. ---
I think alignment is too integral to Planescape to extract from the setting, though maybe okay from the PCs. The whole ring geography, the factions in Sigil, and most cultural elements are based on alignment. But like suggested above, it might be converted to a Holy/Unholy system, though I'd add an Axiomatic/Anarchic dichotomy too (and think more so upon reflection re: the Blood War). Then PCs can opt whether they want to participate in such cosmic conflict, much like they do in PF2/Golarion. So the default PC position would be "none" or "insignificant", rather than neutral (which in Planescape might be its own Santification!). Then I'd measure how much of an obstacle alignment-themed environments are meant to be and find some balance, i.e. even a non-aligned PC should suffer a bit in a hazardous to non-Evil (non-Unholy) region.
Did anybody comment on science? I suppose it was the elephant in the room. Hmm. Arguably whether one accepts science (as tentative as its results are) is a better benchmark of well-being than faith/no faith. But both pale in comparison to having community, expressing gratitude, and doing charity. If one's faith delivers those traits, it's a net positive (at least for those criteria alone, negative elements might corrupt that). I felt you didn't think the magical essences exist in a magical sense, but it seemed you were positing them as existing as part of ourselves. But whether those (conversationally useful) essences are tangible or metaphorical is tertiary to my point about how PF blends them, i.e. mind + matter = arcane. Those are contrived and make a poor template for self discovery (much less knowledge beyond oneself). And it's those blendings and dry numerical mechanics that PCs interact with. Absent any emphasis on blendings, I agree RPing is a good place to investigate different outlooks, much like reading and acting can be. (I may be biased as an avid reader w/ a Drama degree.) But let's refocus: SDJenn mentioned trauma from faith. I'm operating with her lived experiences. And trauma requires a therapeutic approach (often with a lot of time) that PF can't provide. Stepping away from the source of trauma seems crucial. Dabbling feels dangerous, at least without a real-life mentor that few if any tables would provide. And for the record, I had positive religious experiences, and as an atheist have hosted dozens of multi-belief discussion groups at a nearby megachurch (which funnily enough has its own internal struggle between the toxic and healthy factions). So yeah, not operating out of a competing dogma, but am suggesting SDJenn step away from faith and its pitfalls until she can get her bearings and emotional stamina to navigate around those, if such paths remain fruitful after investigating alternatives. I'm unsure where you saw conflation between Golarion & Earth religions. I've posted about those first points (though maybe not on this thread), and a majority of my PF PCs (to my surprise upon reflection) have had Clerical or Druidic aspects. And the rest I feel I addressed above. Cheers to you for your empathic engagement.
Thank you, I hadn't known the Piraha believed in spirits. The documentary I'd seen hadn't mentioned that, which seems suspect given it covered the lack of religious concepts. Then again, that might be my faulty or selective memory. Hmm. Faith:
As written much earlier in the thread, pinning down faith in a way that covers the breadth of uses (and opinions of those uses), while satisfying all parties, eludes even scholars who specialize in such discussions. Which is to say, taking time distinguishing nuances of trust vs. certainty; evidence vs. belief would've detracted from my advice aimed at a specific audience, SDJenn and those escaping toxic environments that promote having faith to gaslight and manipulate. BTW I'm including non-religious, non-supernatural high-control groups that reflect the BITE model or promote faith in perhaps a self-help guru or dodgy corporation. That said I did and would again disparage faith when used as self-supporting certainty or a tool for foundational knowledge of the unknown. That's faulty methodology. But usage falls on a spectrum, right? Some use faith minimally, many judiciously, while another many gorge on faith in this sense to where they deny established evidence and justify harm. And in a discussion with a victim of toxicity, I'm going to address the toxic end of that spectrum. And it deserves disparagement.
Your examples of movements with good intentions that resulted in overcorrection should give pause to navigate wisely. Thumbs up. But I'd hope beneficent believers wouldn't see themselves in my descriptions, would decry the BITE model as antithetical to their community, and empathize with SDJenn and others hurt by faith rather than scoff. I share more in common with my priest uncle than any faithless authoritarian. Yet that doesn't mean I'm going to send a person emancipating themself from a repressive religious institution (as you put it so well) to my uncle's church for aid. Hair of the dog? Nah. I appreciate your goals with the last paragraph, but disagree that all paths are equally valid. Many don't work, many warp one's principles, others destroy oneself or those around. And that assertion's also conman territory to assuage suspicion. As is the concept a healthy community can come from anywhere. The whole point of addressing toxicity is that yeah, there's toxicity out there, and it beckons. One would be lucky if all their advocates flew red flags (though some inexplicably do and persist). Perhaps I'm overselling wariness because I agree there's a bounty of beneficial belief systems and communities based on them, some religious, some metaphysical, some neither. Yet while they might diverge on methods and worldviews, the healthy ones converge on universal values and pro-social principles. Some litmus tests I made while helping my cousin involve checking out the web pages: do they lead with charity work outside their group, inclusiveness, and volunteer opportunities? Or in their inerrancy, mission to expand, and setting up donations to themselves? And are they open about or masking their affiliations? And I'll add a new one: Do they aim to let you transform or make you conform? While Golarion reflects those four aspects of the self in its magical traditions, I don't think the way PF blends them correlates with reality (never mind that I also think two of them only exist as useful metaphors). The grim aspects of those traditions muddy this further, like Occult also ties to mind-breaking horrors & Divine with Unholy. And IMO a Druid would be concerned with the soul, and its connection to nature rather than the planes. There can be useful metaphors (et al) one could extract from Pathfinder, but wouldn't that require a personal metric & schema outside the game that should operate well enough on their own? (I want to add that I've been appreciating everybody's input, even and maybe especially when I heartfully disagree.)
I'd noted it might be due to cultural differences, not realizing the extent. Thanks. Funnily enough Paizo went against the grain of their region, and that of their main customer base. Abrahamic?: Perhaps you'd meant Abrahamic faiths? It's more than contentious to include the whole Abrahamic batch under Judeo-Christian to the level of risking violent responses. And I'd say it's theologically unsound too by standard delineations of faiths. Never mind the number five. Meanwhile a small few assert there's only one. Lol. Also, I'd surveyed my Jewish friends about the term "Judeo-Christian" (and others have stated similar thoughts online). They've all disliked or despised it, giving solid historical and political reasoning (not merely theological). This is despite a few prominent Jews who do use it and emphasize the connection, namely right wing pundits like Shapiro & Prager. Let's say many Jews if not most reject the term and its implications, as well as the faux diplomatic gesture/opportunistic political maneuvering it represents. So yeah, another cultural fact to keep in mind.
Now I'm imagining a draconic "crazy old cat lady" except kobolds, caves teeming with kobolds (and their detritus), maybe the dragon dresses them up in silly outfits, teaches them tricks, and pampers them in ways they find discomforting.
Oh my, now I'm thinking of Of Mice & Men...
Moving Past Faith: Earth stuff setting aside philosophy and minced words to address traumatized nonsense from toxic beliefs. Apologies for my boldness, SDJenn, it comes from experience with shedding toxic dogma in general, obviously not insight into your particulars. tl;dr: Faith is an emotional placebo which can be replaced with healthier alternatives, often with time & turmoil. I was tempted to leave a spoiler empty to demonstrate what you've lost when you lost faith. But feeling that, even after knowing that, often takes years of deconstruction. It's an unmapped journey from that first seedling of questioning to shedding the tenacious fear of hell that outlives one's belief in it. And yes, that does seem the most pernicious myth, one possible scar among many. Which is to say that while some escape quickly, the traumatic tendrils often run deep and take finesse to extricate. Often w/ the pain one might imagine extricating tendrils.
A few days back I discovered Britt Hartley on YouTube, and she addresses this journey and its obstacles (including her own bout w/ nihilism). She emphasizes spirituality & personal well-being in a way lacking in most atheist channels which lean philosophical or cultural (though others are out there, as well as mentors who ignore faith). The main theme for Britt being to shift to a new worldview rather than only discard the old and be left bereft of any (and the flourishing elements that help one navigate life). Plus she has some credentials and research to back her points. And there's Recovering from Religion I mentioned previously. Faith serves a purpose so occurs naturally as part of the human condition, but the same could be said of other forms of shortcut-thinking/flawed thinking (plus human flaws all around). IMO faith's purpose is to help fill in the spaces that are prone to fear if left empty. One can go down the list of most common fears and see how faith addresses nearly all of them (or all with some cunning spin). Easing our fears is a key role. And it's rough to learn there's no substance to the putty that's been keeping oneself together, patching those cracks. But that doesn't make faith essential. Other concepts can ease those fears (or give purpose, grounding, etc.) like love, wisdom, knowledge, and acceptance. (Reject the claims that those rely on some other ideology!) When you identify your fears, what you've lost, what roles go unfulfilled, then you can create more grounded replacements. Faith is the generic placebo, overpromising yet bringing relief (however illusory or transitory). No need for such a stopgap solution, nor for scooping out one's PC's mind to investigate and reclaim a worthless concept. Look at the Piraha tribe, noted for having no religion and scoffing at faith (and lacking a few other concepts we take for granted). A missionary lived with them, learned their language to preach to them, and eventually gave up his faith because of his admiration for them. Years if not decades of study and effort traded in when he saw a better alternative. So yeah, faith may play an essential role, but is not essential itself, not at the personal level, and not at the cultural level. One of the pitfalls of escaping a toxic sub-culture is falling prey to another toxic sub-culture. The BITE Model provides a list of traits to beware in one's communities (or relationships IMO). Plus remember that deconstruction impels reconstruction, piece by piece w/ no quick fix, and IMO requiring reason and a clear alignment with one's principles. One common analogy for leaving a toxic religion is it's like leaving a toxic relationship, w/ the complete spectrum of implications and story-types. Yeah... (*another hug that suits you*) Edit: fixed YouTuber's name
The fact that the default is for dragons to indulge kobolds marks an interesting relationship. Maybe they're like cats are to humans? Cute, and like a wyrmling.
The kobold egg situation seems absurd without the dragon's approval. Sneaking in, getting the caretaker to ignore such a tiny egg, and then the baby thriving among hungry rivals while inside a mature dragon's lair? No. And yeah, there are dozens of dragon species with even more temperaments and natures, so there's no answer to this question other than they treat enough of their eggs well enough that some survive to lay more eggs. With well-enough ranging from abandoning after destroying whichever eggs look inferior to nourishing and mentoring so their offspring reach their full potential. Some might even sneak their eggs into other nests, not necessarily those of intelligent dragons, but maybe a Roc's where it can eat the nurturer's eggs upon birth.
In economics, one of the major x-factors to tackle is the irrationality of market forces. And that took far too long to accept despite those forces being ya' know people. Now consider religion which lacks such quantifiable costs & benefits. Calling religion in all its variants as well as religion-adjacent practices transactional is akin to calling romance transactional. Are there people for both that approach them as a transaction? Certainly! Stories in their lore support that notion. (And one can debate what success means given that). But to somebody swept away by love or whose religion identifies themself and defines their world, that transaction talk can sound absurd or contrary to the notion. Funny thing is if one applies rigor to the latter or gussies up the former, one can reconcile the dichotomy.* Couples in arranged marriages do have a low divorce rate. :) Contrast being immersed and navigating from within the religious landscape with PF where we have explicit numbers, objective knowledge, and (usually) no emotional investment/coercion/bias in one's PC's religious choices. Players choose a religion in pursuit of the table's goals in playing Pathfinder, often then crafting a character to match. That's purely transactional (usually), w/ a deity's mechanical benefits front and center. Check some boxes, flavor one's dialogue, and so on only to set it aside at the end of the session. So different. Just putting that out there there as my thought exercise you can join me in if desired. Cheers. --- *And perhaps should given how relationships can flourish with romance, and romance can benefit from sober appraisal. Similar with religion, which IMO requires mature analysis and skeptical deconstruction to overcome human biases.
**cough, cough.
I don't think any theory on religion in Golarion would manage to cross the gap between tables. Nor should one. That would take a lot of labor to limited effect and minimal payoff. Plus it's too personal and abstract, contentious even among those that worship (etc) in the same buildings. Same could be said about political theory or other touchy cultural topics; it's better to set them aside during one's fun time. It'd be awkward if Deriven and I broke into a debate about how Earth's monotheistic religions do display transactional features while other players plotted to thwart a Runelord. More so given limited play time. Unless the whole table decides that's fun of course, but Pathfinder feels like an odd venue in which to flex those philosophical muscles. Here in the forums though where engagement is tangential and optional, wheee!
transactional faith:
I've witnessed believers approach their monotheism in a transactional manner. Apologists put up Pascal's Wager with a foundation that is a cost/benefit analysis, or that atheists pretend to disbelieve for a supposed benefit (which yes, is absurd, but I've heard that from dozens of mouths). Opponents of the prosperity gospel complain it turns Yahweh into a vending machine, yet it's popular (even in churches that deny they're preaching it). And while those examples skirt mainstream Christianity, inside there's the common pitch of what one can gain from Christianity, often with examples of what believers have gained as enticement. Heck, the Bible shares stories of Patriarchs haggling with OT-fierce Yahweh. None of these situations involve other gods or religions.
One might aid demonic pacts, Faustian bargains, etc., though that then blurs definitions on what counts as divine or not, even if there's technically one capital-D Deity (not touching the Trinity today). I do agree that a fantasy with one omni-god that made itself and its wishes known (like most Golarion and RPG gods do), religion would be a shallow well from which to draw story elements (which might be best for some campaigns). Monotheism might work if the deity's given enough obstacles that PCs must aid against, and if it supported a diversity of paths. Hinduism comes to mind there, where the deities are ultimately facets of one overarching deity, and Hindus have ample combat in their (awesome) myths. But yeah, that's kinda cheating re: monotheism. A hidden god w/ lots of warring denominations would also work, much like we've seen on Earth w/ hostile schisms and such in every major religion, and nearly all the others too. ---
Don't have immediate thoughts on a Golarion deity that promotes critical thinking except that having an internal skeptic is something that Earth churches (and governments and media outlets (et al)) have done to avoid confirmation bias. It's a mark of truth seeking, so maybe a deity with that Domain? Or Knowledge of course, where learning & investigation should fall. Isn't there a science deity? Your Cleric could be the peer-reviewer.
Going back to the title of the thread, I don't think there is a way to understand faith through a roleplaying game. Maybe? But it wasn't until my third response that I interpreted it as looking at real-life faith so maybe it was worded fine if you were only looking at faith re: acting the part. (No method acting required BTW.) And it feels like neither a mistake nor silly. We're discussing published material that's interfering with play for those with a common enough lived experience that there are scores of YouTube channels tackling it.* There are going to be other players with this issue who've perhaps felt too shy to address it or have avoided playing divine classes for similar reasons. I've known some. You're not alone. And Paizo seeks this kind of input. They've created a trauma survivor risen to goddess and a powerful country defined by its struggle with the aftereffects of religious strife. This thread involves both, so you haven't gone astray with this. Personally I've enjoyed blending two of my favorite interests: RPGs & religious impact. So thank you in return, and you're welcome. *ETA: The Recovering From Religion Foundation offers support, even a hotline, for those who, well, are recovering from religious experiences. My city (U.S.) has in-person meetings, and they operate in a couple other countries too. Take care.
Going back to the title of the thread, I don't think there is a way to understand faith through a roleplaying game. There's a quip to the effect that studying many religions is understanding none; with one interpretation that to know requires devotion (or ignorance of competing religions if being cynical). Which is to say RPing won't resemble that much while juggling stats, fighting monsters, and generally goofing around. Even the utmost immersion into Golarion's faux religions with no actual depth, history, or culture isn't going to reflect how faith operates in the human mind. Heck, I was listening to a podcast/radio show where one of my favorite philosophers was going to debate a veteran apologist. The first order of business was to define faith before launching into the main topic. I looked forward to getting a definition of faith suitable for such discussions...and never got it. They spent 3/4 the time arguing over the definition (mostly because they both knew how foundational their own particular definition would be to later premises). And then the host had to move them along to the advertised topic (which I can't recall). So yeah, understanding faith gets into contentious territory. I'd say the two radio guests were describing the same phenomenon, except had such divided opinions on its value that it altered their interpretations of it. Is faith a god-given blessing of insight or a mind virus? How load-bearing can/should faith be in determining truth? And how personal/subjective/objective is that truth/path/insight? Many who are pro-faith equate faith with trust (and many have insisted I must too). Many who are anti-faith equate it with circular reasoning, faith based on one's faith is like saying trust is warranted by the trust itself. And that's still only surface level as emotions, sensations, logic, and epistemology broaden the use/abuse of the word. So yeah, delving directly into how faith operates on Earth leads into a hedge maze with umpteen guides with different agendas, some to lead you out of having/using faith, others to tangle you in its darkest deadends, and others to show you the pretty paths. This vagueness also makes faith difficult to reclaim, or determine which if any aspects of it are worth the bother (if not toxic).
I dislike that divine magic essay for two reasons:
2. It also feels limited by a narrow category of real-world religions*, namely those that require finding one's identity/power/etc. through submission and worship.** There are many holy traditions that do not require that (or manifest devotion in different practices), yet provide those same benefits. If one were to become an unthinking devotee of the Buddha for example, then one would have failed as a Buddhist. Buddhism encourages the Buddhist to find their own path, their own balance, not mirror Buddha's. *This isn't necessarily Paizo's fault, as Religious Studies itself has roots seeded by scholars focused on the Abrahamic traditions who then shoehorned a useful structure for those atop religions & philosophies with much different systems, as if there were corollaries for each aspect. There aren't. ** And even that can't be applied to the whole of any religion and their paths to spiritual leadership, given the variance in denominations and traditions (plus the mystic traditions within). Which is to say, the essay needs work. And I think Paizo would agree at most it's a guideline, not a doctrine, and best set aside if it interferes with how one wishes to approach the game, or in this case divine classes.
The problem with that theory is that it presupposes that the Emperor is a powerful fighter....and if you're talking about spell casters vs martial fighters it's a very lopsided sort of contest. Yeah, there are lots of "kung fu" challenges where it'd be better to have martial abilities, like batting away all the incoming logs or surviving a test of endurance (maybe even while forced to be silent). And ways to disguise a challenge, like did the competitor stop to help the drowning child or put their victory ahead of that? (And which is the right answer will say a lot about the country!) Plus puzzles that test for knowledge, wisdom, cleverness, physical strength, etc., where just having spell slots/high DC won't help. I imagine a gauntlet to gain a dragon's approval would test all the traits that dragons respect (or fear). Since dragons are among the most well-rounded creatures out there, I'd expect both martial & magic abilities to be tested (and moral in the case of this dragon). There'd likely be some test re: greed or corruption, maybe several re: philosophy & administrative skills much like the ancient/medieval tests to join the Chinese bureaucracy. Then geography and regional knowledge.
While submission is an aspect of religion, Golarion has some deities, as SuperBidi mentioned that despise submission as a concept. I'd start with the Freedom Domain for example, or Knowledge if one wants to emphasize thinking over unthinking, Confidence if stressing agency, and so forth. Your Cleric wouldn't have to take those Domains, but some of the deities with those Domains might have the desired traits. Or, since we're talking about dozens of deities, a player could choose a deity whose Edicts & Anathema line up exactly with the PC's personality you wish to play. The PC was literally made for that religion. Hard to say one's submitting & unthinking when one already was like that and thinking that way. It can be an internal calling rather than an externally imposed self-destruction. Parents & friends knew all along so-and-so would pursue that religion because they were already living it out. In the same vein, the Edicts & Anathema might be aspirational. While the PC might not sync well with them, they might match the PC's self-improvement goals, i.e. Irori. The parts the Cleric needs to conform would be parts they're aiming to alter anyway. Think of celebrities who've gone on spiritual retreats to improve themselves or even those who embrace cults like Scientology. Except in your Cleric's case, the retreat's ongoing and the benefits are tangible. (And their religion might be personal enough one doesn't need to evangelize, rather try to live as a beacon others learn from.) And when thinking of the religion's structure, as an adventurer I doubt the PC will be beholden to any superiors in actual play. On the grimmer edge, the deity might be one that encourages making one's own authority structure (a.k.a. cult), where your PC isn't the one submitting & changing their thinking so much as enforcing it among followers. Their relationship with their deity might be more transactional, like bargaining for power. I'll do X ONLY because you grant me magic, and that exchange suits me. (Though no, I wouldn't recommend this interpretation for you, StarDragonJenn, but maybe for others reading this who lack toxic experiences with real-world religion.) That said, the majority of my experiences with Cleric players involves token gestures toward their deity's existence and desires, or a PC that is more like a mini-version of said deity. No debasement or other real-world toxicity, at least not at the table. And given the gregarious nature of some deities, i.e. Cayden and Shelyn stand out here, roleplaying their follower encourages friendly, pro-social choices at the table, even if a bit drunk or artsy.
FOR INSTANCE: Cayden Cailean LOVES Jesus' party trick. Sarenrae thinks he needs to butch up, but does appreciate his philosophies on forgiveness. He is one of the few divinities allowed to walk in the Garden of Arazni. He doesn't speak, or try to counsel her. He just sits, and appreciates it with her, though she notices the marks at his hands and head and side. It is ultimately Erastil he gets along best with, providing for his loved ones a simple, humble, honest life. In PF1, there was an ability that let Cayden Clerics create alcoholic drinks with Create Water, then a Cantrip so it was unlimited. While unavailable to players in PF2, I imagine there remains some variant of that ability in their churches, likely as a slotted spell though I can imagine a Focus spell too if one wishes it to remain unlimited. Sarenrae might appreciate Yahweh's vengeance coupled with Jesus's forgiveness, and then roll her eyes at the Trinity after Jesus balks at her equating it with her own threesome. Excitement wanes, then sours when Norgorber's similar multi-being nature comes up. "Not like that either!" Re: Arazni that's tricky territory re: religious abuse, though yes, I think she'd connect re: being scarred from torture. Zon-Kuthon's ears perk up when he hears Jesus suffered willingly. I agree Erastil would get along well with him, much because I've long equated Erastil's religion with a rural Christianity, including its previous patriarchal interpretation called "lawful good" although blatantly harmful. It's now struck me that bows would be the closest thing to hunting rifles culturally. Hmm. ---
I can imagine Jesus's surprise (if such is possible) that the Egyptian deities made it to Golarion already. Not to mention Asmodeus being so dominant and that can of fiendish larvae about The Fall occurring on Golarion. Self-doubt ensues if it hasn't already been instilled by polytheism itself. Heck, poly-pantheonism, with lots of head gods with scores of others. And they generously grant spells, many of which equal or surpass his best miracles! And then there's Pharasma's role and pre-cosmos origin, Golarion cosmology/planes as a whole, and the Elder Gods. Which all says that Christianity on Golarion could no longer remain Christianity with that influx of contradictory "truths". This would be too tricky to finesse for any publisher targeting a mainstream audience. (Though if a 3rd party embraced this, and included denominational differences/multiple Jesuses and other Earth religions too, that'd be amazing (although I admittedly wouldn't buy it and might get a bit judgy about accuracy)). ---
I'd likely change that to "everything he wants, he gets" which with his long-term, chess-master thinking might include most any angle the GM wishes to take, what with Asmodeus wanting to maintain his reputation for future negotiations w/ others if not you. And by chess master, I don't mean master of the game in front of him, but also master all the games to come with all the witnesses to that game.
I imagine he's the kind of villain the GM must have fail forward, where no matter the outcome for PCs, Asmodeus profits. "Didn't want that Pit Fiend (who had been working on his behalf) around anymore anyway with its rebellious schemes. Thank you, bugs (PCs)."
Almost certainly, the hard part is knowing which parts are lies and which parts are truth. And also which parts are complicated legal style jargon designed to intentionally confuse you and get Asmodeus the result he wants. Or paradoxes & nonsense so entangled in his beautiful rhetoric it's near impossible to unwind how and why his words carry no meaning. His words sow doubt in the listeners who assume he speaks in good faith, that they must have failed to comprehend what Asmodeus meant, when all Asmodeus meant to do was gaslight with gobblygook then follow it up with accusation, shame, faux bewilderment, or whatever else pulls the listeners' strings, pushes their buttons. Quite hard to roleplay I'd say. It's one thing to add retroactive causality to bestow godlike intellect on an NPC, but there's too much lingual mastery here to adlib (or maybe email). I suppose one can summarize it rather than attempt such divine prose and oratory bent into a maze of meanings.
Most of the APs didn't have a canon finish until much later (if ever). Even then Paizo doesn't present it as authoritative over however events unfolded at your own table. AP-endings-canon acts as a placeholder which as mentioned only impacts a few following APs, sequels or if in the same region. Of course GMs with alternate canon might have to connect the dots themselves to set up the next AP. PFS has alternate timelines too, especially when there are multiple "win" options. Each PC has their own Golarion history which interweaves with those of other PFS PCs. Different orders of events, different results, different heroes attributed honor, etc. I've played around with PFS meta, once remarking "Didn't you die?!" to an NPC who very well had died in front of my PC (and with much honor/tragedy). And now she was fine, assigning us a new mission. The GM rolled with it well, having the NPC accept that as fact, act stunned, quip to relieve tension, and move on despite this puzzle she'd have to solve. And there's the common "I don't remember you being there??" to other players when discussing a previous scenario. The PFS special events which have the largest story impact are weighted so nearly all conventions (et al) can succeed even if individual tables might struggle, so there's that for continuity I suppose. Which is to say, like most everything about PF2, the game & setting serve the narratives of each table above rules, and above some single vision Paizo holds (if the employees could even find consensus!).
Maybe Cheliax looks down on Tieflings for the same reason they look down on Halflings, because of their names. One might say it's a lingual quirk. And they're against fun, against flings. Language jokes aside, we have an authoritarian system w/ little in the way of competing ideologies to balance it. As standard for such, those in power delineate the haves from the have-nots, so obvious markers like say being a Tiefling (or Halfling) show one is a have-not, thus worthy of despising. With other races/Ancestries one can tell they're different, but kinda outside the Cheliax system so it's harder to place them (what with magic & leveling). Without shows of wealth or power, they too, as well as humans, likely suffer bigotry. If Tieflings had been in the mix from the beginning, there likely would be no ideology against them. But they weren't. They're obvious bastards, orphans, "other" and what not, whose existence demonstrates a failure on the part of the Golarion parent. Either a person powerful enough to run in diabolic circles succumbed to Hell's temptations (Outsiders being outside the system and inhuman) or worse. And one doesn't elevate tainted people, not in an authoritarian system because those feed on targeting the different. I imagine an influx of non-Golarion Tieflings of wealth would alter such perceptions, but also that Cheliaxian powers-that-be would fight any such influx from any source, though especially from known schemers, dictators, corrupters, even if they are tenuous allies. I can also imagine Asmodeus being proud of Cheliax's tactics while also seeing their bigotry as a worthy obstacle for his own forces to test their mettle against...on their path to takeover.
In D&D, city guides would often list shops such that some high-end or esoteric items might only be available from specific stores. (So better be nice to the proprietors!) In smaller settlement, i.e. Hommlet, you might have very granular knowledge of who provides what (and in Hommlet's case, even which of the two prevalent religions they followed). And I ran it this way, and shopping was a facet of play (so bring your skillful ally along as there might be bartering, price gouging, forgery, searching, etc.), not to mention what PCs and third-party NPCs might add to the mix. Pathfinder settlements lack such granularity and work more in the abstract, down to the smallest village with one store on the map. Which is to say Paizo did away with the fine-scale shopping aspect of RPGs w/ the exception that a settlement might have a few above-budget items available and an order time based on how near the larger settlements are. This suits players' limited table time, and that many tables handwaved shopping anyway (and my D&D tables did much of this RPing via e-mail). One can safely say there's no official stance on Golarion markets at the store level, much less how their schedules might work. So have at it. ...or don't.
---
If you want the setting to take priority, then "What works best for you campaign(s)?" is the answer: that's the guiding principle for the setting. Ex. There's a pumpkin-themed festival in Galt created just so there could be Halloween-ish scenario for PFS. Also unsure how Downtime rules would be changed by shops being closed. There's a lot of work to be done on holidays too (if desired), even by the Mom & Pop stores. Also ask the many retail workers who come in for abnormal overnight shifts on Thanksgiving for the major Christmas overhaul (if not a midnight Black Friday opening). Or looking at Medieval Europe, there were tons of holidays on the annual calendar so peasants might get 1/3 of their time off, but with no pattern to it. And that's with one religion's holidays, much less dozens. Speaking of which, and as mentioned by others, there's the diversity. The Inner Sea region is larger than Europe and never had an overarching religion, not even pantheon. The countries likely only share a calendar for the sake of players rather than verisimilitude (just look how the 2nd month happens to have 28 days). Would Abadar or any of the gods of toil want zero work on their holy day? Erastil's Harvest Feast holy week is "marked primarily by hard work in the fields." And would the more chaotic gods want to share a holiday or have a set routine to them? Would civic authorities want a day when the economy dips? Maybe, for bonding & to avoid labor abuses, but they might even encourage diverse belief for the economy's sake (and to dilute clerical political power!). I imagine a lazy person might find many religions appealing so they have plentiful holidays to honor. Coming back to ground, what's Paizo say?
So even with a cultural norm, there'll be enough diversity that PCs should be able to choose when to rest (if they do) and be able to find staff willing to work any shifts necessary. Not counting the biggest annual holidays for whatever culture(s) they're in.
What resources does Hermea have? Even taking the "The authoritarian was actually good, so all his rules should last because they're reasonable" at face value, it's not that big an island off the western coast of Avistan. Either they have an abundance of resources which will quickly make them a target to aggressors like Cheliax, or they lack important resources, which means trade is going to be important, and again, the biggest power on the Western coast of Avistan is Cheliax. I find "abundance which attracts invaders" and "lack of important resources" to be a false dilemma. There's also "enough to meet needs, but not so much as to profitably invade" and "less than other, easier targets of Cheliax". And military costs would get expensive versus high-level characters who could execute guerrilla tactics via teleportation to your capital. Cheliax would have to infiltrate for a threat assessment, and Hermea's resistant to that. Of course they might also strike out of ignorance, but I doubt the citizenry of Hermea would be threatened much if Cheliax doesn't know what it's dealing with. (Also not sure how well Cheliax's navy fares after Skull & Shackles.)Also, what resources would you need for your everyday flourishing? In this thought experiment we aren't mirroring Kingmaker on Hermea, rather Animal Crossing...with superhero neighbors who lack supervillains.
I'd vote Hermea. I believe the canonical ending rectified the dark undercurrent, leaving a community of very high-level NPCs interested in human flourishing with no high-level threats. While created by an authoritarian dragon, their ethics reflect reason so should endure his absence. Narratively, like all the regions in Golarion, Hermea had a problem for PCs to fix, except they did unlike in most areas. Since it's on the outskirts and interacts little with the rest of Golarion, there's little to disrupt Hermea again. Compare to areas in the spotlight which draw chaos much like peaceful Metropolis draws invaders that wipe out neighborhoods. And again, they're very high-level, showing that their average non-adventuring citizen can achieve great ability w/o risking life & limb. That's pretty cool and I believe impossible to duplicate anywhere else. So yeah, assuming AoA events corrected any corruption, Hermea should be both peaceful, powerful, and progressive. At least until some AP writer revisits it and ignites turmoil, something inevitable in places that beckon conflict like Absalom & Magnimar.
Yes, Perpdepog, using that spell slot to cast a spell as a service gains more gold. And it can also gain more gold if applied against low-level, gain-zero-XP enemies, ones that don't pose a risk. This also falls in the "Why don't you open a store then?" territory of what actually drives your PC to adventure?
I've never heard of the elemental planes being described as particularly bureaucratic. Nor efficient. Though I have heard them want to control access to their element, that's seems mostly a narrative conceit so the GM can close the "infinite resources" gates if necessary. And being unlimited, that 10,000 gallons would hardly be noticed anyway, though it could easily be a spark for some water-themed shenanigans in Absalom. Trouble at the waterworks, as it were. Edit: fix quote block.
This reminds me of how Robert E. Howard stated he hadn't wanted to be forced to craft cunning puzzles for cunning heroes so he created Conan the Barbarian and other brute heroes. Except as uneducated as Conan was, he was so multilingual that Howard also didn't have to deal with translation issues. That would've grown stale with how much travel Conan did. So that solved it much like how Common eases issues in RPGs. Not that Conan wasn't cunning, often using that multilingualism to outwit enemies, but it was on Howard's terms, much like puzzles & translation issues in RPGs should be unforced and on the RPG's terms, which include the PC doing the work on behalf of the player.
In my experience, players will be so tenacious it makes it difficult for an enemy to escape. Even 2nd level PCs might surprise you with a scroll, but mainly there's willpower where you might need to admit your ploy, adlib a chase scene, or play along as if PCs might catch the bad guy (and waste everyone's time, risk breaking irretrievable trust). But yeah, I left a campaign (using published material) when I learned a module ending had been scripted and lost all respect for another RPG's writers when I saw how they forced module finales to maintain the setting's status quo, despite the adventures being about changing the status quo. Anyway, it's necessary to assume that any character you put into combat might die. I even had an ultra-boss meant to scare off the PCs die when the guy who stayed behind so the others could get away* rolled several 20s and killed him! That led to him becoming undead, so there's that. Which by the way is what Paizo's done, with one villain coming back twice from death, but there had been an actual death; no escapes. Even though you can tilt the odds strongly, you can't rely on them. *I hadn't wanted that either! Which is to say, have a backup plan if the PCs bypass the portcullis, can jump down that cliff, don't accept the surrender, or simply roll too many 20s too fast.
Or have a clear win condition such that the party feels they've achieved their goal even if the villain escapes. Escaping feels like a win for many villains, so add some sort of oomph, like "Now the assassins will be after him." Or "He just wasted his family fortune." Or shamed himself if seeking glory, lost a body part, something other than scot free. Otherwise players will still be pumped, analyzing speeds, distance of a Translocate, sanctuaries the enemy might hide in, etc. etc. Moreso if they feel the enemy's getting away with treasure!!
Yeah, Diplomacy was practically mind control in previous edition, even against hostile enemies acting against their own desires. So now Paizo has provided GMs with a narrative out so skills won't tromp all over a plot while Diplomacy remains one of the most important party skills.
Like the Common language on Eox is Eoxian, the Common Language in Russia is Russian. These are both places your Pathfinder character could go (or maybe even be from). It's also handy that many of the language puzzles in ruins correspond with English patterns. There are a lot of 26-letter alphabets out there. :-)
No...was my original answer because it's the whole point of the spell.
Restart.
First sentence, you become Tiny. Straightforward.
Also there's no way to get faster or gain even more special senses like by becoming a mantis shrimp or bat, etc. In fact, you could transform into a snail, and be neither slow nor nearly blind. You might even become more acrobatic. :-)
I think the dev is saying they won't be letting go of Legendary Spellcasting in order to beef up Martial Weapon Proficiency (unlike say Warpriest & Magus). With Thralls, their attacks, & Grave Spells being the chassis, I prefer keeping Legendary. But if Paizo's going to entice us with these gish feats, there has to be more synergy & reward. Or, as mentioned, a Necromancer-adjacent Archetype for martials, which IMO would fill the last concept niches. I'm thinking of the final boss in Return to Castle Wolfenstein for those familiar. That warrior's undead weren't that threatening or durable, but they harassed and needed to be accounted for.
It appears so. I think I let the show Lucifer influence my thinking here. I kind of liked the idea that it was beneath him and if he had to lie to win he didn't really win did he? I concede that Asmodeous would not let anything get in the way of subjugation. There are older sources that portray Lucifer as truthful, yet utterly deceptive nonetheless because he's misleading you into thinking he's said things he hasn't. That's established enough that there's another layer saying that of course he encourages that kind of PR, but has no qualms about lying. And then there's the question of when would he need to lie? Seldom, so one might assume he's just as happy (or more likely prideful) not lying to show he doesn't need to. One might argue that as an exemplar of law (once Law!), he wouldn't lie, except there's a problem there: he makes* the only laws he recognizes.I think I'd play him as too vain to lie to mortals except as a lark. Not that I'd expect mortals that interact with him to come out whole & sane even if alive. He has a multitude of level 20+ servants to handle anything involving such petty creatures anyway, and divine threats in his own realms (and beyond) more worthy of his time. *or agrees too w/ other major deities, perhaps w/ a lie embedded, etc.
Both Diacritic Runes & Composite Invocations were seen as "very interesting"? Huh, that's curious. Wouldn't have guessed from the forums. The former was seen as only worthwhile outside combat w/ all the better options w/ one action; and thus not so worthwhile w/ so few slots available. And I read zero appreciation of the latter, even though I'd posted a thread asking explicitly for feedback about them. I mean conceptually they sound cool in light of "written magic", but balancing them as is seems impossible given how its foundation is already difficult w/ its action-investment-future-reward mechanics (which composites compound by asking for even more patience and more variety of runes, some of which kinda have to be sub-par as it's impossible for all to be equally effective against all opponents). Anyway, I don't feel debriefed about the direction Runesmiths are going, while I do feel Necromancer's heading in at least two good directions.
I understand the move away from a gishy necromancer, but osteo armaments is one of my favorite feats ever. Having a scaling, disposable weapon you can create with an action is extremely cool and I really hope it finds a home somewhere. It is what I hoped for in things like mindsmith, soulforger, etc.Maybe include it as some sort of necromancer-adjacent archetype, Bonemoulder or something. Then you could be a Kholo barbarian who uses their bone collection to summon weapons and bone armor. Summon bone barricades, throw skulls, etc. Most levels had a gish/Strike/melee feat option, so I wonder if he's just talking about proficiencies, the emphasis on Focus Spells, or what. I'm not holding Necromancer to a Warpriest or Magus standard, but that of a melee Bard or Druid where a Strike adds to one's action arsenal rather than defines it. Hopefully w/ some macabre oomph. And yeah, transplanting all those feats over to an Archetype that martials could enjoy would solve a lot! Then one can play a "necromancer" by taking the Necromancer-adjacent Archetype to fully explore all those options (and w/o the 2x cost of an MCD.)
Atheism is really not a persecuted minority group, and I say that as an atheist. Please do not act like Rahadoum is somehow massively yikes on par with actual bigotry, thank you. Not in the modern West by authorities, no. But there is bigotry toward atheists. I know of people who've lost jobs and spouses after revealing their atheism, or who've been harassed at criminal levels. Worse yet, some countries execute atheists. It is easier to hide from that kind of persecution since most atheists can feign retaining their belief, but many do have to hide. Which is why one call out is for atheists to make themselves known so that it becomes safer for other atheists. ETA: Most bigotry against atheists comes from people who are also bigoted against many other groups, most of whom get treated worse. And those bigots organize against those other groups, even rally around that evil banner as an identity marker. Not so much against atheists, other than in a few theocratic countries.
That said, Rahadoum's pseudo-atheism does not mirror any Earth atheism. Atheism has diverse and conflicting options just like theism does. Hatred of active deities who've devastated one's region makes little comment on absence of belief in deities even existing. If anything, Rahadoum's story paints theism as the worse of the two camps. Yesterday I'd written a lengthy response to Trip that apparently was deleted w/o notification, so I'm reluctant to expound. But in short there are no societies on Earth, nor sub-cultures as the case is here, that one can point to and say "Those Earthlings have the same worldview (et al) as these evil guys on Golarion." Meanwhile many other countries & cultures do have corollaries on Golarion, and I doubt the French are offended by Galt, as grim as that country gets.
Earth stuff:
Technically atheism's not a religion, and it's not even a position on religions because some religions are atheistic, BUT... In the USA (et al), it is a legally protected class re: religious beliefs. So too is secular humanism, which many atheists prefer since it highlights what they do believe, rather than what they don't.
And yes, many of us are anti-theists, though anti-fundamentalist is more often the better term since most of our allies against toxic religion are Christian humanists who share our values. And there also are toxic atheists that side with toxic Christians. Much of this is on a personal level as there's a long-running comparison between assembling atheists and herding cats. On a societal level, most atheists support reason and critical thinking as the path to shedding religion (if they care at all!) rather than coercion or legislation (or worse). But outside that, there's too much diversity to qualify further. Apologists that attack atheism more often are attacking naturalism which while common among atheists is optional. Many do have supernatural beliefs, even religious ones sans gods.
Note that the most vehement antitheist, Christopher Hitchens, explicitly did not want to eradicate religion through force. He once said that religious folk can play with their toys as long as they don't make him play with their toys. Or of course pass laws based on their toy-playing.
I imagine if the Pure Legion were dismantled, a truce could arise. It'd be interesting to see the benevolent nonreligious and religious combine against the toxic elements in each of their camps. Greater good and all, though then we'd need another source of tension in the region which would spoil such harmony. One thorn in that is Saranrae worship played a major role in the devastation, and she's kinda Good incarnate. And yeah, Vidileths.
|
