I think this is the list of Golarion Gods in PFO.
I think Calistra and Torag should be included for the Elves and Dwarves. I know a lot of people also wanted Sarenrae, Pharasma, and Cayden Cailean.
I consider myself a chaotic person in RL, not evil. I bristle at authority figures. I obey laws mostly out of fear of all the s+~* that comes at you if you don't. Have a hard time working at places that are too uptight with stupid rules. I've move around a lot. I am a total liberal. There is probably more. Not sure if that makes me chaotic but my life certainly feels chaotic a good deal of the time. (This is probably a little TMI)
As for role-playing I honestly have a hard time playing anything but a Chaotic-something. I find lawful characters boring. I actually was toying with the idea of a lawful PFO character, but have already kinda killed that idea.
Pax JayBrand wrote:
Question 1: One of the official ones ended up being locked but they don't generally sticky much.
Basically my most favorite character I ever played in tabletop was a Chaotic Evil wizard for all intents and purposes. Even though she was officially Chaotic Neutral, I crossed over into the Evil camp on many occasions.
I was not some homicidal, face-stabbing, manically laughing stereotype. I was charming, urbane, manipulative, witty. I was the party leader, who held together the party together through strength of will and manipulation, but I always put myself first in almost all occasions. I nearly betrayed the party, often made deals behind their backs that only benefited me. Most of the time they never knew. Occasionally I got caught but I was good at talking my way out of things. This character ran for a campaign that lasted 3 real years of consistent playing. So she was no one shot throw away.
Chaotic Evil can be that. A "rules don't apply to me" and a "I put my self first" attitude is what makes chaotic evil. You don't have to be a stupid boor. Bearing in mind evil has degrees like anything else. Evils who want to destroy the world are not evil they are just insane.
Of course I could still play that way in PFO but there will be no purpose in setting your alignment at what your character really is. Just game it and give yourself the highest score on both the axis (7500, 7500) that way you have the farthest to fall. Alignment choice is meaningless. That is what we are lamenting. The alignment system is not really an alignment system, it's a bad player punishment. Unfortunately however it screws anyone who wants to RP a proper villain, treating them as nothing more than the equivalent of someone they don't want playing their game.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Some portion of people will want to play a Role with an alignment limit, mostly Paladins but maybe Monks. Some of them will not know there are alignment restrictions for those Roles and they'll either have to grind alignment changes to get to where they need to be, or they'll start over
Will clerics be expected to stay within the accepted alignment restrictions of the deities as per the tabletop rules?
Mmmmm, all those sound delightful.
My main, my DT and the chartered company myself and my friends will form will be LE. This seems as good a place as any to state that more and more I'm coming around to the view of Proxima Sin: If I choose a character and my core alignment is Chaotic Evil, why does the mechanical anvil fall on my head when I haven't done anything? I presume I would start with a 1000 reputation like anyone else-why is it assumed I will immediately start RPKing and following around people making real world insults? If I'm a CE Barbarian raider-a role which should be completely supported and would generate a lot of fun content-I don't expect to stroll into Fort Riverwatch and buy a Cinnabun but why would the training at my warcamp be any worse? I don't expect the barbarian horde to have a settlement with high DI structures-that makes sense-but I am saying that training for low rep evil characters shouldn't be less powerful or harder to get, it should be different. So, yes, it should be difficult or impossible for our CE raider to go get Fighter or Wizard training based on his low rep, but rage powers? Fiendish sorcerous bloodline powers? Negative energy channeling? Sneak attack training at Thornkeep? I gotta raise my reputation to get those? A CE player expects to travel to dangerous places to learn dark secrets, and understands he/she will never be welcome at Brighthaven. I realize a CE character will engage in unsanctioned pvp; probably hoping for some nice loot; and I understand that by their very nature griefers will probably end up CE with reputations of -5500 or worse, but that someone who roles a CE character is automatically a griefer who will commit actions that will cut them off from npc settlements at -2500, who made that rule? Heck, you could just worship Rovagug, declare a feud against a good chartered company and start the killin'. Completely under the rules.
Yes, and another example that came to my mind lately was Drow. A completely Chaotic Evil society but I doubt anyone would call them uncivilized with inferior training. The lack of training in Chaotic settlements does not make sense.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
So Lawful Evil can only maintain being Lawful Evil by whacking Chaotic Evils? If that is the case they need to rethink the whole system as that is so frustratingly limiting, and nothing like Pathfinder p&p.
This tells me there are not going to be any evil schemers/manipulators in the game because since they are not actively killing people they drift towards good. Even though they may me causing all kinds of damage in other ways.
Does it not seem dumb that the current way is no one who doesn't participate in active killing can be evil?
Maybe they should not let you change your core alignment freely when you pick it (but maybe a cost of some sort will change it) , and instead of calling it "Active" alignment, call it "Perceived" alignment. As in that is how you seem to others though you may be rotten to the core and are a good actor? Classes with alignment restrictions like Paladins need to keep up appearances and keep their Perceived and Core alignment equal.
Hopefully there is more to than what Ryan just said because that seems a bit limited.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Well, they do. In the River Kingdoms, the Hell Knights basically ignore the River Freedoms and all the problems it causes with the locals. Their rules are more important than the local kingdoms' rules, and the people who don't like it kinda just have to deal.
Doesn't that just bring a smile to your face? No? Is that just me?
Pax Deacon wrote:
However it is Heinous and that is what bothers me in this argument. The Heinous flag is unnecessary as I see it. I have said this before, it serves no point other than to grief evil role-players. I can't role-play evil without doing some (many) evil acts. If those evil acts get me a Heinous flag everytime I do them then it puts me in a state of constant random ganking or it limits me from playing my character fully by making me limit how often I do certain things.
As far as I see it, if slavery or raising the undead are illegal in a certain land then yes you get a criminal flag. But if they are not then no foul. As I see it though I will be running around with a Heinous flag in my own evil city. It makes no sense.
How will I erect my temple to Asmodeus without slaves? The temple requires 9 slaves to be sacrificed during its construction. A virgin's blood is needed just for the groundbreaking!
I don't make up these rules people, so does that make me Heinous? No I think not. I am just a humble woman who seeks to bring order to a small corner of the world.
The heinous flag sucks. Sorry no other way to say it. It seems unnecessary to me. It breaks immersion, and role-playing for evil characters.
If a good person sees someone doing something evil why can't they just flag themselves Champion and have at it?
Does it make sense that I am in my house chastising my demonic butler for breaking my favorite gravy boat and then I leave my house (to buy a new gravy boat) and a magical flag appears over my head letting everyone know I have been naughty and can now killed with no penalty? No it makes no sense! No one even witnessed anything!
Still seems like that heinous flag is too harsh and unnecessary. Basically you still can't perform any heinous act in your own city, even though it may be perfectly legal to, without getting attacked by everyone around you. So no using slave labor in an Asmodeus worshiping lawful evil city.
Yes that makes total sense. /sarcasm
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Ok I can live with that as long as your last paragraph is implemented; then I don't see any problem.
Yes, I want limits on the heinous flag or even removing it as I feel it could be handled by individual territory laws. I just want the developers to know that those of us who want to play a more sophisticated evil above and beyond just a bandit are against a universal heinous flag that makes us a target for every player in the game.
Slavery can't be considered universally wrong if it's a major practice in Cheliax, one of the most powerful nations in Golarion. As GrumpyMel has stated, places like Fort Inevitable and territories allied with them should not see that as a crime.
Actually I found this in the Blog from Jason Bulmahn (emphasis mine)
Jason Bulmahn wrote: