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.
I don’t think players need a guaranteed chance of success in every scenario they face to ‘have agency’. A no win scenario is a thing. And how you react to it is still agency.
And forcing the big bad to flee is still a victory.
That's all context dependent. Sometimes, like in the horror genre, survival means you won, yes, (at who knows what cost). But in a light, escapist genre, that's a draw or even loss. Expectations change responses.
Similarly, if you force a BBEG to flee, undermining their plans, then that's a victory (except for that whole RPG "losing BBEG's equipment/loot" aspect). But if the BBEG's plans are to escape, then no, there's no victory in them succeeding because your goal was (probably) to catch/kill them. Ex. It's more important for Bond to stop Blofeld's plans than kill Blofeld (and escaping mastermind villains in the spy genre's kinda a trope). While letting a serial killer escape will probably feel like utter failure, especially if the PCs didn't unmask them or save anyone. Or like in Seven, where the cops "win", but the villain wins far more. Powerful as a movie, and the MCs have plenty of agency, but in an RPG that conclusion would reflect PC failure despite even catching the BBEG.
...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.
Batman stuff...
There's a great dialogue between Jason Todd (long after the Joker "killed" him) and Batman re: killing the Joker as a uniquely irredeemable murderer who will perpetually escape and kill.* Batman played the moral card, but Todd pressured Batman into revealing he feared killing at all, even the Joker, because then he wouldn't be able to stop killing the others too. He had to bottle that vengeance in. Powerful stuff, that is if one chooses to ignore that Batman has killed many times albeit nearly all in his earliest incarnations. And kills non-human sapient beings often (as has no-kill Spiderman).
*I'd posed this situation to a pacifist, and they'd struggled to grasp the premises of irredeemable and guaranteed-escapes, which isn't a knock against him because we're not in comic book with plot paradigms.
---
In a combat-kill RPG w/ player agency, comic book and real world sensibilities just don't factor in unless the players buy into it too, and that'll vary too much for simple solutions.
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...
"In PF2, I find enlarge to not really be worth the actions to cast, especially in combat. The damage bonus isn't great, the main attraction is reach. But the increased "aggro" from being large and the reduced AC make it not worth it to me." - Claxon
This.
Coupled with fewer AoOs/RS's per round for Reach to mesh with, and the primacy of each round's first Strike attempt making movement less costly (esp. vs. its cost to 3.X/PF1 Full Attacks).
I wonder what the player's expectations are (or how many hordes they're fighting w/o party AoEs).
Are Serpentfolk redeemable in your interpretation? Or are their ties to evil as much metaphysical/innate as cultural/learned?
That said, there should be mundane methods to keep the prisoners isolated, and as long as their numbers match, all's good in cell block S.
If that's too difficult (or they're too cunning, which they kinda are) and it's the 1st level version of the Zyss, then one might coordinate something involving worn and/or held items. All creatures in the prison might wear items they cannot remove, but which get removed when exiting or entering key zones (then replaced). If disguised as a guard, their item will revert to a prisoner's version when removed during the check. (And of course, one would want to prevent being able to attack it to oneself after killing a guard too.)
One might also use guards of very dissimilar height and/or weight to the Zyss, beyond the spell's ability. Maybe even Small or Large.
Maybe dangle a mouse in front of them and see how they respond. :)
I think the more troublesome aspect is Suggestion. You'd kinda need to ferry them through checkpoints in numbers much smaller than the guard count, or maybe with hoods so they can't target. Hoods might also be necessary because of their bite attacks.
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?
Also consider timing and positioning.
It's great when you can go in pre-buffed, but PF2 buffs have such short durations that more often one would need to buff in the first round, and that's kinda costly. Even worse if a Barbarian trying to self-buff via spells.
And while it's easy (and AWESOME!) to imagine a Huge Barbarian attacking a horde via Whirlwind, in play any bunched-up minions will already be fireball bait. So are you going to plant yourself in the middle? Better have Haste to get to attack them all in round one because you're intentionally surrounding yourself...and cutting off allies who'd love to launch their AoE attacks w/o you there.
That is if there's a path to get there, and if they've left you room.
Whirlwind's still worthwhile holding the line, not surrounded, if you can hit two or more, but one has to consider the party's spatial needs too. While battle sites do get larger with higher levels (yay!), so do the enemies, so they can't bunch up that well, and w/ Reach often won't.
Large size (with a Reach weapon) provides most of the benefits with much less investment. You can spam pre-buffs of a 1st level spell much easier, like before most every door (another issue w/ Huge, going through doors.) And as noted there are other routes to Large, not so much Huge.
For the same reason the average Bandit and Pirate NPC isn't Unholy.
Barely anything that was Evil in Premaster is Unholy in Remaster.
Sanctification is the exception, not the rule for anything "formerly Evil".
I like to explain Unholy as "Extreme Evil" and Holy as "Extreme Good", because that highlights that it is an exceptional thing.
Mortals can be plenty evil without needing Fiends to worship or convince them.
Mortals can do plenty good without Celestials egging them on.
The contrast wasn't optional Unholy vs. just/forced Unholy, as you're evaluating. It's rather why not just optional Unholy vs. optional Unholy + optional Holy. As in, why's Holy an option instead of Unholy being the only option (if wanting to be Sanctified).
Everybody's on board* with her followers being able to opt out of Sanctification all together, and some believe she shouldn't empower any at all.
It would be interesting, and realistic, if there were some minor dispute that the PCs took part in that escalated until full war so that they were involved every step along the way. Uncertain how much agency they would have over the war itself or side they given the extra labor involved, but I'd prefer watching it unfold around me (and grow with it) even w/o said agency over the war having already unfolded and low-level PCs somehow contributing during every step of their development (in the shadow of thousands of superior characters).
So maybe PCs help with a romantic entanglement in Book 1 involving warring houses (yeah, Romeo & Juliet unintentionally springs to mind) where the houses use either success or failure of the romance as an excuse to escalate tensions...right into book 2 where the houses fight more openly, yet have allies, or even mutual enemies that mean the houses have to reconcile to survive. Put said houses near a contentious border, give them diplomatic/marital links that pull in third parties (who as noted above might simply be waiting for a pseudo-righteous banner to fly for their cause).
"Could we have done anything to stop this?!" vs.
"Wow, we were sure lucky to have been in the right place at the right time so consecutively."
If divine magic works, that means religious paths deliver.
How?
The believers can be wrong about this, but you need to determine this. And to factor in for the other divine casters too. That answer (answers?) should inform most other questions.
So if it's because sticking to Edicts & Anathema provides a personal power to tap into it, cool. Or maybe they're illusory too, and simply help w/ the caster's self-confidence or connection to their community & cultural heritage. Then if personal, that might make being religious resemble how Monks have divine focus spells. If illusory, it might act more like Arcane magic, being about lore which one's Edicts & Anathema help keep organized in one's mind. Both lend themselves to philosophies also unlocking divine magic, but not if the magic comes from some cosmic karma/fortune wheel (or maybe deistic or capricious deity). Fate as an answer would make Clerics more like Oracles & Sorcerers, simply using a different mental (empathic, perceptive) path to tap/control it, which then implies even extreme faith & belief won't deliver magic to some (or most?)...though maybe that unlocks something else??
So yeah, answer that question for yourself, and its impact should follow with extrapolation.
Plus, what do the angels (etc) say, and why? And wouldn't they (and others one step down from gods in the hierarchy) simply become the targets of worship? Or two steps, etc. down to what highest peak?
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.
---
And yeah, converting creatures should be simple w/ PF2's charts, but be keen on how accurate PF2 levels/CRs are. Some Planescape stuff played loose w/ an already loose system (because one could).
I'd suspected you were applying an "angry atheist" template as your interpretive lens, and now you've now verified it. You've repeatedly asserted I have trauma even after I'd explicitly described my religious experiences as positive and gave an example of how as an atheist I'd hosted dozens of multi-belief discussions at a church. Can you imagine Hitchens doing such a thing? My atheism stunned more than a few believers there after I'd helped them hash out their beliefs and how to express them. To reiterate, no trauma. I feel lucky (especially when reflecting w/ others), some might even say blessed. :-P
SDJenn introduced the concept of trauma. In seclusion I would have inquired more before running with that ball, but that's invasive in a public forum much less as a stranger.
I found it awkward when you asserted I'd commented on science then provided quotes about epistemology. It's natural to mix the two, but to me science is a more rigorous subset of the other. And since we're dealing with personal matters, science itself does seem a bit off topic. Yet faith interacts with epistemology, so that did seem appropriate.
Judging by when and where you plucked your quotes, we may have been (almost certainly were) talking past each other, i.e. paths of life on Earth for ourselves vs. paths of PC life on Golarion for players dabbling. I have zero qualms about Golarion religions...as long as the baddies remain in Golarion-verse. :-) (Again, a majority of my own PCs have had religions ingrained into their personalities & powers.)
Let me clarify my positions a bit. There's been confusion, thanks:
-I do find life, spirit, mind, & matter to be useful concepts conversationally whether they're real or metaphorical. Chewy.
-I find arcane = mind+matter, or the other combinations that create traditions, to be useless even as metaphors, whether discussing philosophy or worldviews, in game or out. (And as other threads have pointed out, the soundness fades when analyzed.)
-PCs interact with the traditions far more than the essences, so I don't think PF magical metaphysics are useful in discussions.
Meanwhile...
-The Edicts & Anathema provide lots of fodder to chew on, as might the deities, their histories, and their personalities. Coo beans.
-I do think RPGs can provide a safe space for exploring outside one's comfort zone, cultural bubble, and much, much more. Heck yea, therapists use RPing.
-From that, yes, Golarion/PF w/ its Edicts & Anathema (et al) can provide a proper venue for such exploration.
Yay!
-Except most tables won't bother with this stuff and at many it'd be counterproductive to try, so it's an iffy option.
-There's a limit to how much safety & distance RPing can provide, right? And when trauma or being triggered surfaces, it's time to step back from encouraging them forward. I read SDJenn's words as being in that league. IMO, such impact kinda washes away the earlier points. Time to subtract triggers from one's RPing and play on.
Spiders Everywhere!:
SDJenn's is not necessarily as severe as this, but for example: I had the misfortune of running a new player w/ crippling arachnophobia through a Drow-spider campaign. Did I say spiders? I meant poisonous beetles, as in Lolth, the Demon Queen of Poisonous Beetles. Working out her fears by killing spiders seems like a good-faith suggestion, but she would shut down at any thought of spiders (much less spider tokens on the board). Subtract and play on.
-So yeah, I've been dissuading the attempt to understand faith & faiths (her triggers) via RPing (her recreation). Not yet, maybe once it arises naturally or inspiration strikes.
-I also don't feel RPing can replicate how having faith feels, as opposed to "having a faith" which I believe it does well enough. If one doesn't understand the difference, I haven't the space to explain (worsened with the breadth of interpretations).
-My advice also covered personal faith, since SDJenn had expressed that she felt she might be missing out on something. I reassured her she wasn't, neither in life nor in game. I endorsed alternatives.
-Her negative views of faith are valid. A contentious position as most people have positive views of faith...which is valid for them (w/ caveats re: results & costs).
-Despite Teridax's assertions, I have felt zero religious trauma.
-I have aided people with their faith (belief system/community/culture) despite rejecting faith as a method of knowing or justification.
-My zeal comes from my familiarity with deconstruction and its rewards (et al), which perhaps has led me to overcompensate beyond SDJenn's desires. But maybe my shotgun approach will hit something useful, and maybe other somethings for other readers.
VERY sarcastic as Paizo is phasing out "chromatic" and "metallic" dragons.
I caught your vibe. :-)
The individuals with specific stats or names will remain in Golarion, but yeah, as generic stats & types, they'll be replaced by newer species. Of course all of it remains available for personal use, and it's a matter of no longer being published about more than being erased from the setting (like much of the non-Drow 3.x material, Drows having been specifically retconned out).
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.
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.
But I disparage not to elevate its alternatives. You're right, one mustn't go negative to promote the positive. The alternatives have to shine their own light. But IMO both topics needed addressing, and without trying to gauge when harm outweighs help if faith itself is optional. And again, it's an option that's hurt the target audience.
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.)
Decades ago in a Paizo magazine, I believe also on April Fool's, there was a "drawbacks for commoners" (or whatever that mechanic was where you get a free feat if you took a hindrance/penalty). One option was "you're dead" with the description that while being dead sucks, you at least got a free feat out of it.
I vaguely recall there might have been a second list, maybe feats?
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.
"BIG HUG"
"Ow, ow, ow!"
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.
(*hug, one that suits you*)
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...
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.
"If you let them hatch nearby they'll pick up the cutest little traits, like a squeak of a breath weapon or even nubby wings."
"How adorbs! I gotta get me a tribe. It'll help with the rodents too."
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.
Also, despite the philosophically rigorous** arguments trotted out by proselytizers, if you delve into their own journeys they're more often one akin to falling in love than deciding what's true with objectivity. The more successful ones focus on personal experience. (And it's often said apologists are addressing their own flock more than outsiders, giving their own people enough rigor to satiate doubt.) It'd be an odd RPG that addressed such nuances.
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!
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.
---
As for some of others' earlier comments, their contrast highlights my earlier point that RPing resonates much differently than what it feels like from the inside of belief (depending of course on if it's a dedication coloring how one navigates life vs. a cultural overlay vs. endless other variant ways to approach all this.)
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 that wasn't well worded...
But also maybe this was a mistake and kind of silly...
Thank you, everyone.
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).
Anyway, Cleric's a powerful class desired by most parties, your PC doesn't need to lose themself, and there's minimal to be learned about having faith by RPing even the most devout character. IMO it'd even be misleading as it's safe and from an objective POV rather than one that has to navigate with a limited perspective.
I dislike that divine magic essay for two reasons:
1. It feels more for an NPC, as the main draw of playing an RPG is to have agency, both over the PC and through that PC over the narrative. There shouldn't be a class or magic style that requires deferring to another's agency. Even Edicts & Anathema are loose guidelines. And such loss of self is not even a norm of the genre (either fantasy or RPG) for protagonist divine agents. If anything they find themselves and their own agency (though yes, often flavored as giving it up in order to do so, which feels more like an epiphany re: their fulfillment more than groveling).
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.
The contests do not have to be totally about martial capabilities.
Every other year, there could be a martial (testing STR, DEX, and CON) tournament.
In the off-years, the contests could feature intellectual challenges testing INT, WIS, and CHA.
The winners get the same option...sit on the throne or not.
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.
So yeah, Strength, Intelligence, & Wisdom at minimum, with perhaps the other three stats too! Which of course means a high-level character that can use their level proficiency to achieve such breadth, and likely Untrained Improvisation (or a Rogue's volume of skills, though maybe they toss in monsters immune to Precision damage to weed out such scoundrels unbefitting of draconic glory).
Having a fly speed, your PC would not be subject to that limitation as you'd be using Fly rather than Dragon's Flight (or at least should! Technically the option remains and you might want to for tricky reasons.)
After your PC first flies, you will need to use a Fly action every turn or you'll fall to the ground at the end of your turn (not earlier, even if you want to). You might want Catfall or a similar ability because the option to fall at the end of your turn can be tactically advantageous (or at the end of your Dragon Flight action, like say if that flight will get you just over a wall and you want to descend too). That's a bit into shenanigans so I'd avoid exploiting that unless the situation's dire.
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.
---
As for others, he would struggle to appreciate Abadar who'd remind him of the temple merchants. Most of the other 20 would peg him as a quaint newbie from a backwater world known only for Baba Yaga, which might humble him some. No parties, nor parades, nor animosity either until he starts doing stuff. "Y'all don't do Divine Hiddenness?!"
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)).
---
This reminds me of one player's PFS healer-Cleric that he'd based on Santa Claus. I GMed him through the last parts of Reign of Winter where I had the Russians react as if Father Winter (among other Russian names for him) was helping a band of ruffians slaughter them. Lots of tragic bafflement. Fun times.
Keep that variant of bread "bread", unless that bread bestows telepathy, then coin a new word. -O.S. Card, maybe (and paraphrased)
So yeah, keeping English names is a speculative fiction guideline. It's not like they're talking in English either, so there's no clear delineation if one starts down this path, unless of course it doesn't exist in English.
Also note that Strike & hit are separate concepts. Strike is a specific game action that targets creatures*. You can still hit non-creatures with your weapon. The action simply becomes a lot less specific. Though for ease GMs can employ the Strike mechanics. At the higher levels, this difference becomes increasingly important, at least if one wants to maintain the integrity of having castles, fleets, & set dressing plus AoEs as mentioned above.
*And many Hazards, Traps, etc.
ETA: This spell really needs stats to be attacked via Strikes! If intentionally left out (because the default would be to carry over the old version, right?), then "what happens if hit?" should have been addressed.
One: No, paizo will never touch that, not only to not bring the ire of the bible-thumpers, but also because they're sensitive to those here who have religious trauma from the most odious and hateful among his followers.
Two: Jesus would have domains of healing, redemption, and indulgence (charity). His divine skill would be crafting. He would be an optional Holy. and his holy weapon would be fists (for flipping tables).
One is too true, though I think two highlights one of the difficulties: Which Jesus? Sure, Craft might be the most straightforward since craftsman is a better translation than carpenter I learned just this week. But a caster drawing on his power being able to opt out of Holy? Already dubious.
As for Domains, denominations disagree about which aspects to prioritize (or if he's even a deity?!). So instead of that mainstream Jesus, one might prefer Revelation's version w/ more devastating domains or parable Jesus (knowledge & secrecy) or prosperity-gospel Jesus (ambition & wealth) which would conflict with...and so on.
Plus Jesus didn't indulge in fisticuffs (at least as written!). He whipped and was whipped, so a whip symbolizes his history better (and if he faces an animated table, he can trip it). And calling charity indulgence is bold, though he did feed the multitudes so it's not complete heresy, though statting him out at all will be. To some.
If that's not enough reason not to touch Jesus with a 60' Detect Traps spell, my block of response raises a third issue: How much forum space would people spend discussing issues the real world has hardly settled? Some would be dispassionate about subjects sensitive for others, and for many if not most these are matters best divorced from one's escapist hobby. So yeah, not a safe issue for Paizo to highlight even if a natural extension of an AP's ramifications. Best left to the whimsy of each table (w/ full player consent & consideration).
---
(As a tangent, years back I collected a set of Bible passages that I was going to make into a meme to demonstrate that Jesus (and Yahweh too w/ a separate list) could qualify for any of DnD's nine alignments depending on which passages one chooses to prioritize. I'd only lacked the design programs (and arguably wherewithal) to assemble that grenade.)
Funnily enough, I've had a campaign idea for decades with a similar space-rain causing similar effects (albeit via crystals) with the PCs among the few bequeathed, and fighting the rest for control of said resources. Hmm...
In the heavens, there's likely parity with a reshuffling of alliances and a dynamic paranoia. I'd say that her ascension hasn't impacted Golarion as much. Yet. Meanwhile Gorum's dropping body parts across the planet that empower peasants with divinity and alien metal which powers likely contend to own and experiment upon.
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.
"He's a ... guy," one might think because getting you to think that is exactly what he intended with is previous choices, all to put you in a position he wants you for who know what next end.
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)."
"You set me up!" cry his allies while they fall. And so on
Heck, one could run an Absalom utilities 1-20 AP if starting with water pipes full of rats and ending on the Plane of Water w/ Elemental Warlords. Add in factions, corruption, a watery Algolhithu invasion, climate crisis, and so forth. Like Agents of Edgewatch meets Second Darkness, but w/ utilities & water. Maybe add pirate mercenaries for a dash of Skull & Shackles.
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!).
Yeah, Besmara's too non-good to be Holy or sanctify such. That's absurd, even if many of her Golarion followers fight Cheliax. There's room for some followers to finesse a good lifestyle, but there's no active encouragement on the part of Besmara.
I also don't see her as pro-evil enough to sanctify Unholy, even if she has followers who are pro-evil. She does endorse evil acts, but more as byproducts of her (warped/callous) sense of freedom and adventure. She wants her people to flourish and helps protect others, actions the Unholy deities only do as part of a greater evil purpose. She's no role model, and perhaps unhinged, but she's not anti-angelic, anti-cosmos, anti-sapient beings.
Not sure how this balances mechanically, if that's a factor at all. And you get other weird middle-of-the-road deities like Irori who can sanctify either way and Gozreh who can do neither (despite the amount of "bad" destruction he does and being "good" by disliking undead). I see Besmara more on the Gozreh side, so focused on earthly/Golarionly issues that the cosmic conflicts mean little to her. (With Irori being more involved in such transcendent matters and the different paths available, as yucky as the ramifications are (and on top of the physical development).)
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.
I'm aware that the example has problems. The point isn't that it is perfect, the point is that it illustrates the problem with the ruling.
If you could trigger an action that is intended to be used during your turn and only lasts until the end of your turn, should you be allowed to somehow manage to get it active before your turn starts and have it last for the entire duration of your next turn?
There might not currently be a working example that would be a problem. That's not the point. A hypothetical problem only needs a new ability written in order for it to become a real problem. It becomes a land-mine for future content.
An impossible situation does not illustrate a problem with the ruling. For all we know Paizo explicitly wrote the rules so there's no instance of this exploit working anywhere in PF2. For example, one cannot Ready a Press attack, maybe because some apply this "until end of turn" effects. Or maybe Paizo has considered such a use of Ready and finds it fine, mechanically balanced for the action cost.
As for hypothetical future content, ALL rules could throw a wrench in the system if Paizo's negligent. There's no reason, yet, to single this one out. I'm shenanigan wary (notoriously so among some players), and I see zero issues running this as is, at least until some imbalancing exploit surfaces. One is not locked into a ruling after new evidence presents itself.
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.
Would the hours invested, both as GM and at the table, pay enough dividends? This is getting into "survive in the wild" territory where it can be a fresh challenge to count & scavenge arrows, hunt for food, and put often overlooked skills to use. But ultimately (I'd even guess quickly) players want a more heroic narrative that bothers as much with store hours & food sources as it does daily hygiene (not at all or barely in the abstract).
---
Maybe we're from different cultures? In the U.S. I've worked in stores that've sold hundreds of varieties of calendars and the like. Every version featured Sunday-Saturday weeks except some rare Mon-Fri planners for say teachers.
I'm unsure what rules issue could possibly arise from Earth days mismatching Golarion days, as like Mathmuse, I've seldom referenced them anyway (if at all), much less needed to correlate them with Earth days.
That said, a shift wouldn't matter to me. A one-day hiccup to align Monday/Moonday & Sunday w/ itself makes practical sense. And maybe Paizo's calendar creator agreed with you that Monday did (or should) start the week.
