Yes. I literally just grabbed a wooden longsword I got at the Renn Faire one year, laid down on the ground to establish what 5'9" looks like and guesstimate 5' and 10', then tried swinging that far. I figured this was relevant because it demonstrates what 5-ft squares are approximating, and that concept of actually moving around roughly within that square is why it made sense to me to not need to move with the feat.
Characters aren't standing still when attacking. Like, people don't fill a 5' square when standing, that's how we can pass each other in corridors less than 10' across. If you've ever seen fencers there's a constant back and forth going on, that's what the 5' squares represent. You don't need a feat to physically lunge, (how else do you attack with a piercing weapon?) the feat represents the ability to move and attack someone who thought they were just outside the reach of your weapon without dropping your guard (admittedly probably using a lunge).
Only slightly off topic, does Riddleport make any sense at all? The city is run by factions that specialize in specific crimes including smuggling and selling drugs. But since the place is run by criminal gangs why is this stuff illegal there in the first place?
So people have to go through them to get them; if they weren't restricted, anybody could sell them. Also, I expect that they also specialise in transporting and distributing them in places where they are illegal.
I've haven't played an AP which involves them, but aside from their description of an Authoritarian Dictatorship which limits your free will, it sounds like a very safe place for individuals to live, providing good potential for personal growth.
Have you heard of an old British series called 'The Prisoner'?
It's less 'limits free will' and more 'surrender any and all personal autonomy and obey a eugenics obsessed near immortal in all things without question or be roasted by dragon fire'. *shudders* I'd take 'might be stabbed' over that any day.
Edit to avoid double posting: Thinking outside the Inner Sea, I suggest (from best to worst); Koaling, Wanshou and Shenmen. (YMMV but I'm not a spider fan.)
I don't see where RPing a sexual encounter enriches the gaming experience... It's something of the most intimate nature and unless everyone is on board it shouldn't be done. It often just becomes a puerile, childish snickering, giggling mess of crass remarks and crude jokes. If you're group act their ages (assuming they're adults)then this shouldn't be something brought to the table at all.
I defiantly agree that it shouldn't be done unless everyone is on board (basic rule for anything sexual in any context), but in this thread people recounted times it enriched the game for them. I think if everyone is up for it, it can add a lot to a game the same way sexual subject matter can be used in every other form of story telling. I mean, a bunch of the most important fantasy series of all time feature it to some extent. Hell, even if it is puerile and crude, there's a place for that in gaming too.
On the other hand, I think the idea of a grownass man getting mad at their friend for not wanting to write and perform erotica for them is ridiculous. That guy's lucky you invited him back.
Apparently a lot of Besmera's priestesses are just prostitutes with a 'Pirate Queen' costume and a holy symbol.
Makarion wrote:
Worth pointing out that, according to the lore, it's specifically the Chaotic Good branch of the church of Calistria that supports the temple prostitutes (or is supported by them, of course).
I'm sure I read that her evil temples sometimes used prostitutes to gather blackmail material ect.
Calistria's relationship with prostitutes is a really interesting element of Golorian; they can't be so marginalised when a major world religion is actively promoting the profession. Basically, Jack the Ripper wouldn't have got far when the church of vengeance was looking out for his preferred victims.
The reason I picked Monks and (anti)paladins is due to their disease immunity which would certainly come in handy (ok, the antipaladins are immune but still spread disease however being CE I doubt they care).
Given that temples are where you go for 'remove disease' spells, I wouldn't be too worried about that aspect.
Although, it does open up a nice business plan for Evil temples; one service creating demand for the other.
The Stabbing Beast does not believe that anything other than its master can kill it, despite mortal records that show it has been killed in the past; Norgorber wiped its memory of these failures when he resurrected his herald.
Interview with a Gorumite
Interview with Jinta Marius of The Iron Arms Company, a worshipper of Gorum and worker of divine magic, conducted by Ieina Genro of the Fellowship of Divine Truths.
Jinta Marius is a powerfully built human woman of Cheliaxian decent, originally from Molthune, although her height and stature, along with her clear blue eyes could be signs of some Kellid ancestry. When we met for the interview she was wearing the spiked plate mail associated with her faith and carried a plain but well crafted bastard sword on her hip. The symbol of Gorum, the sword and mountain, was depicted in a large hunk of wrought iron and hung from her neck on a heavy chain.
She had agreed to the interview in exchange for me recommending her Company to a former college of mine looking for experienced mercenaries, although she made it clear she would have preferred to spar for it. We began the interview after brief introductions and greetings.
Transcript as follows:
Could you start by explaining what you do?
I’m a front line healer for The Iron Arms. Its my job to keep those bastards standing and sword arms strong. Not that I only close wounds mind, I do plenty of causing them too.
So you can channel healing energy?
Wouldn’t be much of a healer if I didn’t.
I ask because most Gorumites I know prefer destructive energy.
I imagine they weren’t healers in a mercenary company. But yeah, I’ve got a brother who does that. Makes sense, calling on Gorum to lay low the foes surrounding you, but that’s not what they pay me for. Gorum gives me the power to keep us in the fight and turn defeat into victory. Also, I can fight side by side with my comrades without worrying about withering them when I channel, which is more than I can say for him.
Your brother? Does your family also worship Gorum?
Brother in arms and brother in faith, not kin. And no, I came to Gorum after I joined the army.
Could you talk more about that? About how you found your faith?
Well like I say, it was once I joined the army. Signed up as soon as I was old enough, no story there, in Molthune they give you every reason to. Then I was a soldier, and no matter what they might say, every soldier is a little bit religious, at least every one I’ve met. There are times when the only thing you have in a battle is prayer. I just kept praying after the battle was over. And who should a soldier in the thick of it turn to but Our Lord in Iron?
There are several gods of battle. Seranrea obviously, but also Iomade and Torag. Even Cayden Cailean. Not to mention various Empyreal Lords and Archfiends. Why choose Gorum?
Didn’t feel like a choice at the time. Honestly none of the others even came to mind. Even if they had though, it wouldn’t have mattered. We weren't on some glorious crusade or anything, despite what the Imperial Governor says. We were just fighting. When you need the strength to kill the person in front of you, or need to charge through their opening volley to even reach the battle, it’s Gorum you need. He doesn’t fret over who or why.
About that, does it concern you at all that Gorum is indifferent to the reasons for conflict? That he doesn’t seem to care about good or evil?
Ha! No. Out there it might be easy, (she gestures vaguely up and out) the ones with animal heads are good and horns are bad, but it’s not so simple here. Here all sorts of people fight for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes even if your going to war for some ‘worthy cause’ it might still be decent people you’re having to fight, or the people you depend on might be pricks. I’ve been to the Worldwound; not all those crusaders are saints. Most soldiers on either side in any battle are fine people, they didn’t start the war but they enlist because they want to protect their family or they trust their ruler or they need a job. It’s easy for a general to point and say ‘they are the enemy’ simple as that, and that’s how those other gods act. They tell you who to fight and how. I lost my faith in generals a long time ago; orders come down to march into what any soldier can tell is an ambush, or to capture a ‘stronghold’ that’s nothing but a goat farm. Gorum is different, he trusts you to pick your own battles. He knows the person best qualified to make decisions on the battlefield is the soldier actually there, because he’s not just a general, he’s a soldier too. A warrior. He’s on the front lines with you.
And which battles do you pick? How do you feel about good and evil?
You do what you can. I lend a hand when I can and I don’t hurt people who don’t have it coming and aren’t in a position to fight back. If I do have a problem with you, you’ll know and we can fight about it. So far as I care that’s the end of it, win lose or draw. Hells, I might even heal you up after. Professionally, I don’t really pick. I go with the Company and I don’t see any ‘good’ in abandoning my brothers and sisters. The Captain chooses the jobs, but I trust him. He’s in the same boat as the rest of us, with the same information. I haven’t always agreed with him but I see why he makes the choices he does and he doesn’t take work from total bastards. We’d never work for, say, Hellknights or Nidal or the like. If any of that changes, we’ll fight about it and I’ll win, die or walk away.
Interesting. Putting aside good and evil, Gorum is known for not taking sides in mortal conflict. How do you feel knowing your god may well be supporting your enemy?
Glad. Some one needs to look out for those poor sods. (she laughs) Hardly equal otherwise. The only thing better than winning a fight is winning a fair fight. (she pauses) Honestly though, it’s not a problem. I’m a mercenary. I don’t hate the people I kill. My enemies today might be fighting beside me tomorrow. My cause isn’t more righteous than there’s and they’re as worthy of Gorum’s favour. Well, till we kill them.
And when you come across another Gorumite in combat?
We fight. (shrugs) The only difference is I’d say we fight harder. I do anyway. No one wants to back down then. Normally you retreat because you’re out numbered or out manoeuvred, never a good thing but it happens. In single combat with another Gorumite there’s more on the line. it’s not just my life at stake but my pride, even my faith almost. Mostly I fight for money or glory or the hell of it, but against them fighting is about proving my strength and the strength of my conviction. It’s about dominance. It’s holy. I’m not going to admit weakness readily.
Gorum asks his followers to be forever seeking battle. What do you do when there are no wars to join?
Its never come up and its not likely too. People are always fighting. The Iron Arms Company has never had to look far for employment, and when the job’s done we move on to the next. I can’t imagine I’ll ever have to stop.
You don’t ever want to stop? So you won’t know peace until death?
Not even then, Gorum willing. The faithful can look forward to war eternal on Gorum’s blessed battlefield.
It doesn’t bother you at all that your faith condemns you to conflict for eternity?
Condemns? No, you’ve got it backwards. I don’t fight because I worship Gorum, I follow Gorum because I’m a fighter. If I wanted to herd sheep or whatever, I’d have no use for Gorum and he none for me. I’d probably kowtow to Erastil or somebody and hope anything interesting passed me by. But after I’d been on the front lines there was no going back for me. You can pass the time however you want, drinking or screwing or whatever, but the only time that really matters to me is when you’re in it, with the steel ringing and blood in the air. To be besides my brothers and sisters in arms with the enemy in front of us, that is what is best in life.
You sound quite dismissive of the Stag Lord and his followers. Do you have any thoughts on them, or the gods and followers of any of other religions?
None. I don’t even have anything particular against Old Deadeye’s people, least they look after their own. Doesn’t matter who you worship, if you’re on my side in battle I’d die with you, and if you’re against us I’d kill you.
Thank you for your answers. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Not really. Remember The Iron Arms Company is you ever need mercenaries, and remember me if ever you just want to fight. We’ll be happy to oblige in either case.
I was thinking about different characters interpretations of their Gods and religion, and thought I could use it as the basis for a writing exercise practising voice and character. I decided to come up a group interested in religion on Glorian as a format thing. They aren't really for anyone exactly, but I thought I'd share it here in case anyone is interested in reading it. Feel free to use any of the ideas in your game. I don't mind getting any writing feedback on these.
Let me know if there are any particular deities or philosophies you'd like me to try, but I'll write these when I have the time and an idea, so erratically and possibly never.
Hopefully someone'll get something out of this.
Details of the group and its members:
Fellowship of Divine Truths:
Fellowship of Divine Truths
An interfaith society dedicated to the cataloguing of the various forms faith takes, with particular attention paid to obscure faiths and practices though all perspectives on faith are valued. Based in Absolom, all three founding members are still the most active, though the society is slowly growing.
Members
Founders
Monk of Irori LN- Abram Qual
Male Human Cleric 2/Monk 2 of Iori
An Absolom native, he was inspired by his gods interest in history and knowledge. He also hopes that by better understanding the nature of divinity more might be learnt about his god’s ascension. Has a somewhat cold and detached demeanour and his writing style is plain but meticulous.
Cleric of Shelyn NG- Chamia Ontanic
Female Half Elf Cloistered Cleric 3
Spent the majority of her adult life secluded in a Taldan monastery and perfecting her art (Illustration). Since venturing out, and coming to Absolom, she has become fascinated with the array of faiths and rituals she has seen. Believing that faith itself is an inherently beautiful thing, she hopes to come to understand the appeal of, and beauty in, other forms of worship. She comes across as charitable but naive, and her writing style is descriptive, verging on florid. When not on assignment, she spends her time compiling the Fellowship’s notes into illuminated manuscripts for archival.
Cleric of Sarenrea NG- Ieina Genro
Middle Aged Female Human Rogue 4/Cleric 3
She converted later in life than most. Believes strongly in redemption and cooperation, and that understanding is essential for both. Independently wealthy from her previous life as a merchant, she provides the funds for the organisation. Her genuine interest and charming demeanour comes across in discussion, but in her writing she tries just to provide appropriate context with out colouring her readers’ interpretation.
Others
Pantheist CN- Heuaxit Ancauldian
Male Gnome Expert 5
A former leather worker who’s colour was fading. A friend suggested religion as a solution, and while looking for a faith to join he became fascinated by the variety and intricacies of religion in the inner sea and so far the search itself seems to be keeping the Bleaching away. Non-judgemental with a knack for odd questions.
Inquisitor of Geryon LE- Leric Theed
Male Human Inquisitor 2
Although neither liked nor trusted by the rest of the Fellowship, he is nevertheless keen to uncover and document heresies, seeing them as the holy works of his masters. He is also interested in muddied or uncertain aspects of various faiths, where heresy may be easily introduced. He is under a mark of justice to not introduce falsehood to the archive, or to deceive subjects of interview. Both smug and sycophantic and in writing, his tone is snide.
First up, Gorum. I'm thinking Groetus or Zon-Kuthon next.
Edit: I should clarify, I'm not saying that the views expressed represent the only, or even typical attitudes of followers. I might even include multiple different interpretations or overtly heretical ones.
The closest I know of in fictional mediums of this was in a DC vs Marvel Comics crossover where Batman fought Captain America and it took Batman 2 minutes of sparring to find out that Captain America was a better hand to hand combatant that he was.
Note: That was BATMAN and it took him 2 minutes.
Yeah, I'll be that guy. Batman actually determined that they were reasonably equal in close combat, and that determining a victor would leave them fighting all day so they decided to find an alternative. No official ruling exist as to which is better.
Nerdy pedantry aside, I have no issues with your argument, though I can also comfortably cite many example of fiction where people can judge peoples' skill in combat just from a stance, or the callouses on their hands without even getting in to combat (pretty much anything with a katana in it). I'm fine letting my players find a middle ground between the too extremes.
Perhaps PF2 could keep the more restrictive alignments for the deities, as well as add more alignment options (probably best within one-step), but in parentheses?
For example: Sarenrae - NG, LG, CG, (N)
So, the 'non-official' one-step alignments could be a character/ roleplaying hook for a player. The "bordering heresy" explanation above is just one idea - I'm sure many others could work, e.g. someone new to the faith's teachings, or a member of a "race" neither known for worshipping the particular deity nor of an alignment associated with the deity, etc.(I miss Eilistraee & Meriadar...)
This could also work as means of explaining in-world 'discrepancies' with a particular deity's faith/worshippers, e.g. Nocticula....
While I still prefer 'One Step' as the rule, and have some confusion as to why some of the restriction were made and others not, that does work as a compromise and fits neatly with the rarity system. If those additional alignments were marked as 'uncommon' then players and GM would know that it was both unusual and depends upon the GM's discretion to allow. If they did want to branch out with some gods, they could mark those further out 'rare'. It should also lessen the number of people being told that their character is wrong.
Actually the current Pathfinder comics Spiral of Bones story line has been showing the pychopomp bureaucracy as being ordered but with individuals able to make calls outside the rules when they feel is is just to do so. It is a lot less "absolute rules" and more "make sure its done right".
Sweet, hadn't seen that! Guess I've got some more reading to do! Thanks for mentioning it.
I believe that philosophically where CN conflicts with Pharasma is that Pharasma is about in-part about Fate and CN is in-part about self-determination, and moreover Pharasma is has arranged an orderly hierarchical system for the dissemination of souls according to "where everybody fits" in order to keep the universe running well, which is hard to reconcile with "maximally chaotic."
Desna also believes in Fate, both temper it with belief in free will. The fact that Desna favours one, while Pharasma balances the two is what makes Pharasma Neutral on the law/chaos axis. If Pharasma is all about orderly hierarchies where everyone fits to the degree of excluding worship, that sounds like a lawful deity to me. I still don't understand how permitting privileges to one group and denying them to another can be considered being neutral towards either group.
I've honestly wondered for a while why (other than deity by alignment number balance) Pharasma was neutral, rather than lawful neutral. The Psychopomp bureaucracy certainly sounds pretty lawful.
I think the argument (other than the one I listed) is that she presumably shows no favouritism, either to the cause of Law, nor to the individual souls of Lawful mortals, because if she does the entire why the multiverse works breaks down, both in a game setting sense, and probably literally from an in world perspective. Of course, you could argue that she does this despite her own personal preferences precisely because it is her duty and is very important (and the fact she gives souls to daemons and Urgathoa despite her hatred for them supports this.) That's my LN Dawrven Cleric's interpretation at least.
I do see the other side though, that the court less 'judges' souls and more sorts them, in the same way it isn't necessarily a lawful act to call a spade a spade, and they just keep the flow moving as best they can. When Pharasma is actually called upon to do judgement, she doesn't just pull out a copy of 'Da Rules', she looks at the soul individually, and is comfortable with making judgement calls on the fly and acknowledges that flexibility is often needed to best accomplish her task. In short, adopting a balanced approach to Law and Chaos in her actions.
I believe that philosophically where CN conflicts with Pharasma is that Pharasma is about in-part about Fate and CN is in-part about self-determination, and moreover Pharasma is has arranged an orderly hierarchical system for the dissemination of souls according to "where everybody fits" in order to keep the universe running well, which is hard to reconcile with "maximally chaotic."
Desna also believes in Fate, both temper it with belief in free will. The fact that Desna favours one, while Pharasma balances the two is what makes Pharasma Neutral on the law/chaos axis. If Pharasma is all about orderly hierarchies where everyone fits to the degree of excluding worship, that sounds like a lawful deity to me. I still don't understand how permitting privileges to one group and denying them to another can be considered being neutral towards either group.
Having a custom alignment spread for each deity is a big step up. +1
Now we can debate the specifics of whether a specific deity supports a certain kind of follower or not. Those are good debates to have: they get deep into the lore and themes of the world. How ecumenical!
Plus, it's very easy for a GM to house rule an exception if a player can come up with a fun and flavourful reason why their specific character might not fit the mould.
Well, I DO enjoy the debates! (clearly)
As I said before my problem is one of consistency more than anything. Well that and I'm against systems that restrict player agency when coming up with character concepts beyond the purely mechanical.
There just seems so little rhyme or reason to why certain deities preclude certain followers, when others allow it in similar situations. Especially when there are usually cannon examples in official material of concepts that don't fit the mould.
I guess one way of interpenetrating it is narrowing the scope of what the different alignments mean. As in, CN can now be defined as an alignment in which it is not possible to follow Pharasma's religion to her standards. But that raises the question as to why, nothing about the CN alignment seems to demand messing with the dead, or taking a particular stance on abortion. (although, admittedly, I'd rather not debate that topic; very loaded. So if you disagree, I'd rather accept that and move on) You could argue that Her prophecy domain implies predestination, which you could see a CN character objecting too, but then Desna is also a godess of prophecy.
Like I said, the way I see it is that while Zon Kuthon is evil, he doesn't really care that his followers are lawful evil as long they are one of them(he wants them to either want to feel pain or want to inflict pain, if they want to do both then good)
Except he turned a nation of barbarians who had horses in to an oppressive totalitarian theocracy demanding absolute obedience, perpetually shrouded in secrecy and shadow, rather than just asking they 'occasionally hurt themselves or each other, either ways cool'. He has a vision of a world of darkness, suffering, bones, tears and blood filled with constant pain. If you say a cleric is only those who can participate in all the rituals and believe the entire doctrine whole heatedly, how can he have neutral followers. Why would attending his gatherings not force you to participate in the humiliation, degradation and suffering of an innocent any more than attending a feast of Urgathoa would force you into cannibalism. I feel the Lawful deity is the one more likely to demand that the full extent of their doctrine be enforced than the Neutral one.
now I can build a N god that accepts LG and CE clerics at the same time, without going against the rules, because a god can grant spells to any alignment he wants. Nothing bars a GM from allowing his player to be a cleric of a god because of their alignment, so you could always have a N cleric of Erastil or a LN cleric of Asmodeus, as this is just a cosmetic change to the setting flavor. There's nothing saying you can't make a cleric of an alignment that's two steps from a deities' alignment or something like this.
No, nothing stops a GM from house ruling for more freedom, but nothing stopped them from house ruling for restriction before, but there a big difference between a group saying 'We don't allow this option, because our specific group has more fun without it.' and a publisher saying 'We are taking these options away because... no.'
You could have always made your created god grant spells to who ever you wanted before anyway, but I assume we'd all rather follow the rules when they don't prevent fun, hence celebrating the fact the rules don't specifically prevent you from creating that god. I'm not opposed to lifting some restrictions on who can get spells if it makes sense (like for Nethys), but that has not been the case at all; every alignment is still within one step, but some have been taken away.
PFS isn't a reason to remove option from the general rules. It's not a PFS document; They include so many options unavailable to PFS character, for instance, every Evil God but ZK and the reaper of reputation. They can just state in the PFS rules 'you cannot be an evil PC, or a cleric of an evil deity (except, inexplicably, Zon-Kuthon or Norgorber)'. The rules still support Evil PC, they just support neutral PC less now.
Uh, that same logic for followers of Zonzon can be applied to Urgathoa, and vice-versa. You’ll have pushers in every group.
Also not sure how I feel about the statement that if you practice kink you’ll totes slide into horrendous Evil stuff.
Yeah, I know. I was demonstrating that point by swapping words from a post that was applying the logic the other way. And no, kink=evil is probably my least favourite thing about pathfinders deities. Also that recreational sex seems to be trending to a chaos thing, minus one NG Angel and one LE devil. Maybe that's why so many of the Law deities seem a little up tight.
But Zon-Kuthon? Yeah, this guy is the reasonable and open-minded one.
That said. If this is building to the redemption of Dou-Bral, I'm 100% sold. I doubt it is, since last I know, there's no intention of making that happen. But I'm on board.
Off topic I know, but yeah, I was so eager looking over the starfinder deities hoping to see Dou-Bral (and maybe Noctalia), but no sill Zon-Kuthon. I was also hoping 'the thing' that corrupted him might be a separate deity now, serving as the thematic link to all that 'space is big and cruel and scary and alien and I want to go home' sauce that they might want a little bit of.
"I guess what I think is that Urgathoa does not take an active role in her followers appetites in any way, so as long as people are eating lots and sometimes becoming undead, I think people who have clear and hard boundaries on their tastes (and respect the same in others) can manage there, even if they are not exactly common. It could be a sign she's self involved and respects the same in others.
But ZK? If you're just showing up for the kink orgy, you're eventually going to get pushed in the direction of kidnapping, burning ghettos, and torturing random people with needles so you're either going to become evil or you're going to get out of the cult (possibly as an art exhibit)"
Its the inconsistency that annoys me as much as anything. At this stage I'd rather all deities were 'Exact Alignment Match Only' or it went back to 'One Step'. Obviously I prefer the latter, as it gives people more interesting options and 'cleric of <blank>' isn't all you need to hear to understand what the character'll be like, but at least it seems based on solid logic.
Yeah, I can see that. I'd want Orc added as core, even if dripping with disclaimers saying 'not meant for good PCs' and 'attacked on sight in most places' to give half-orcs from orcish backgrounds a stronger base.
Also, certain species haven't previously been able to inter breed with each other (Dwarves and anyone not an outsider, for example), though I suppose that doesn't preclude it from being added in. Or they could add feats to each race saying "half your ancestry is of a different people, choose one of the following <list of compatible options>. Immediately choose one feat from that ancestry, and you can choose from it's feats at any time you gain another ancestry feat. You also gain it's trait."
I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process."
Clerics of Zon-Kuthon?
ZK has clerics who are serious masochists right? Like I could see a LN cleric of ZK who wants to endure tremendous pain to drown out the sorrow deep inside, and then heal themselves up so they can do it again (you channel negative but can still prepare heal, I think.)
If you're not hurting anybody but yourself (and you're hurting yourself *a lot*) I think you can be an LN Kuthite cleric, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Revelling in suffering and misery and loss is a big part of the creed. Paraphrasing the above 'No, I don't go in for the whole kidnap, torture, non-consent and purifying the weaknesses of fear and joy part. I'm just in it for the kink and body mods.'
It's all about the identity of the divine, and not the identity of the PC.
A god can grant spells to those who he wants to. If it wants to grant spells for LE characters and LE evil characters only, them it does so out of his own will. It's not like it wouldn't allow Neutral characters to worship it, but they are not worth enough to get spells, as a cleric is not a common worshiper...
Ok, I can see that argument, and will address it in a moment. First though, It really should be about the player. It is a game for the players; The deities aren't having a worst time because players are choosing to make a cleric of a different alignment. It's different if it is making players miserable, but with any gaming group if any aspect of any character is making other players uncomfortable it shouldn't be allowed at that table, but I find it hard to believe just knowing that other groups interpret a deity's religion differently within the rules affects someones enjoyment of the game to a significant degree.
I do understand that a rich and rules supported lore does make a game better, and this could be part of that. However;
A) This seems to contradict elements of the lore as I understand it, specifically with regards to (for example) LN Asmodean Cleric Hellknights, and any clerics (and I'd guess war priests, but the rules aren't in for them) in The Cult of the Dawnflower.
B) The argument you made (as I understand it) might work for edge (LG, CG, CE, LE) gods, but makes less sense for any with a Neutral component. You can't really claim to be neutral with regard to two groups if you offer resources/accept aid from one group but refuse the other.
c) It is just as easy to justify why a deity would choose to grant spells to a group one step removed on either axis as it is to explain why it wouldn't. With regards to Asmodeus (as that was the example used), he's the master of fine print, subtle corruption and deals that seem to work for you. Devils are only too eager to offer you all sorts of things easily. Once you're a cleric it's that much easier to align you to his 'correct' way of thinking, with the built in incentive/safety net that he can withdraw your powers the moment you are not furthering his agenda. Don't get corrupted? Well, being LN doesn't protect you, you're damned anyway and maybe as a cleric you indoctrinated or tainted other and he gets their souls too.
I've always felt like half-elf and half-orc work best as templates rather than races in their own right. Both are supposed to be devilishly rare in the setting lore anyway.
...
The rest are rootless drifters and outcasts doomed to watch everyone else age and die in front of them--and there's not many. The number of these elves that decide to settle down with a human who's rotting away to entropy in front of their eyes? And start a family? So they can have a child that they will just have to watch die? That feels like a rarity within a rarity within another rarity.
1) If you don't count the Growing communities in the Iron Archipelago and on the Isle of Kortos for Half orcs, plus the popularity of half-orc gladiators in just about any city with an arena.
and 2) I feel bad for breaking this to you, but you don't need to settle down or decide to start a family to create a child. Those drifters and outcasts need to do something on all those centuries of cold winter nights. How many half elves do you think a Calistrian could farther in 500 years of adulthood? Even one deciding that Bachelor's snuff was too expensive or they didn't like the side effects, and you couldn't exactly call half elves rare.
3) Both Cross bloods breed true, I'm sure I've read your as likely to have only one or two similarly 'half' parents than be the direct offspring of a human and a member of another ancestry.
Keep in mind this is a play test and paizo has given numerous disclaimers that this would not be final. They have mentioned that they still need help catching typos or how to better explain things... If you don't understand something, simply ask for clarity.
I thought that was exactly what this thread was for...
In PF1 the CRB section for Monks said "Lawful only" but this didn't mean there were only lawful monks since we subsequently printed several archetypes and an Aasimar trait which enable non-lawful monks.
I don't see how this is fundamentally different. I see "there aren't rules for this yet" to mean "this option is currently unavailable to players" not "this sort of thing doesn't exist in the world."
OK, last post I'm gonna make on this, as I'm sure no one wants to read me elaborating further. They currently do not exist, they may exist in future, I'm not clairvoyant, but not now. Non lawful monks did not exist in Glorian until those archetypes came out, and then they were retconed in to existing. Similarly, lightsabers do not exist IRL, they might in future but it is still correct to say that they do not exist. It does not seem useful to me to ignore complaints about the current rules or the rules implications for the setting, because they hypothetically might change. I don't know what changes may happen, so I can't comment on them, I can only comment on what is currently true.
I do not like the tightening restrictions on deities and alignment, as I prefer games to emphasise player choice and creativity. I'm not saying I'm abandoning the system or company, nor trying to fight about it. I just don't think the change will fix the problem of poor/disruptive roleplaying, but will make some players unable to play certain interesting characters using Rules As Written.
Implications of what is allowable under the current ruleset is in no way an indication of all the things that can exist in the world. Nowhere is this saying "Asmodeus has no LN or NE clerics" it's just there are no rules for them yet.
It sort of is, in the rules for clerics where it disallows them from existing. There is no equivalent table labelled 'weapons that exist on Glorian' with a big 'No' next to firearms, so that really isn't an equatable. Granted there may be a future archetype that lets them exist, but you can say that about just about any concern with the playtest. Additional rules may come later, but we can only express our feelings about what we have. Feedback based on assumptions as to what we hope happens can't be of much help to the devs. Also, a) why create that archetype in the first place if the reason for disallowing clerics of certain alignments was because you didn't want people of certain alignments getting spells from certain gods? ans b)why would you need an archetype to allow clerics to do it? just let them be within one alignment step in the first place.
The issue is so - if you don't want your players to abuse CLW wands, then don't make them available. It's not that difficult for the GM to say that there doesn't happen to be a CLW wand in ye olde magic item shoppe.
It's easy to not have it for sale, but I don't want to have to tell a player they can't take Wand/Staff creation feats because I want them to be more likely to die.
Still, resonance doesn't seem like a great system to me, especially how it affects alchemists. The party has to pay out double if they want any healing or buffs from them, and it reduces their attack options to do so.
Due to these factors, most groups put alternative versiins in place
Do they? I haven't really heard mention of anyone doing it. Honest question. It's also not something I've seen players struggle with, though I guess those who do might just be the people who pick spont casters, so maybe?
Why not ? Unless I missed something, I don't see anything preventing you from saying that you are a varisian half-elf. You don't need to take an ancestry feat to say "I am varisian".
Well yeah, you can say your character has traditional tats, but if you want that to actually mean anything (like being the basis of your spells) you'll be behind an actual human, who's character sheet reflects their background. I mean, I can play a half-orc and say I can see in the dark, but the game won't back me up on it till 5th lvl.
I do think you are overstating the problems with the totems, though I did notice a couple of things that stood out as very restrictive.
On animal totems, I agree they probably should say 'manufactured weapons' for clarity, but that is very much a nitpick. The bigger problem is that it prevents them from EVER making ranged attacks, which can lead to all sorts of situations where your PC is just sitting on their hands during a combat encounter. If it just prevented them from using them whilst raging that'd be one thing, but a blanket ban seems to restrictive for me. It's also a shame that Shoanti, who seem a logical choice for Animal, can't use their signature weapons with it. That is a minor concern over all though. Honestly, I'm not even sure what purpose that Anathema serves, seeing as using a weapon over the Natural you get means you are essentially ignoring your Totem's signature benefit.
The dragon Anathema also seems a little harsh, as flavour said you might be inspired by watching a dragon destroy your home but then you have to obey that type of dragon; I can see the psychological reasoning for this, but it basically makes chromatic dragons a non-option for PCs. If the Anathema was "Do not defy a dragon of your type if you share an alignment on the good/evil axis, or you must try and slay any dragon of your type (where you have any reasonable chance of success) if opposed on the good/evil axis" That facilitates awesome vengeance seeking dragon slayer backstories/character builds.
On Giant, so far my favourite Totem (and the only one that lets my Half-orc use an orcish weapon out the gate, but that's another point to be made elsewhere), but am I correct in thinking that the sluggish penalty from Giant Stature stacks with the oversized weapon I'm obviously using? Because if so that kind of sucks. I mean, I'm already unsure why 'has big axe=easier to hit', but understand there are balancing reasons, but -3 AC on top of other penalties seems steep to use my Totem's shiniest power.
Edit: Oh yeah, Barbarians should definitely get Unarmed proficiency, especially if they have Animal Totem.
I can see advantages but you could get the same effect from giving Half elves and Half orcs a feat allowing them to choose human and elf/orc feats.
I think the bigger problem is it makes them sort of fade in to the background. They aren't there, getting the full treatment other races are. If it feels like the CRB isn't treating them with respect, but rather as 'humans-with-a-dash', then you can't expect players to get as invested in them.
Even if losing an ancestry feat isn't particularly unbalancing, it still feels like you are having to sacrifice something that every other option has just to play them; It still decentivises playing them, even if they don't actually play any worst. It's something that annoyed me in Dungeon World (not a game I recommend, btw), and it annoys me here too.
Yeah, either it doesn't affect anything, so there's not really much to object to, or its more realistic and immersive and an improvement. I've not seen any convincing arguments against it.
I guess the reason this issue sets my teeth on edge is it feels a lot like when D&D said you couldn't have CG PCs anymore, so I left. I don't want the system I left them for to go down the same road. Obviously this isn't as egregious, but I hate that whole line of thinking.
I think the main line of the argument is that there are some players who act out and play disruptively, and this is somehow meant to stop that. It won't; they'll simply not play a cleric, or just play a legal combination of cleric and alignment and still be disruptive. It's fine for a GM to say I can't play an Evil PC or a PC who worships an Evil God, but it's different for a company to tell me my character concept is wrong, especially if they are a concept I've already been playing.
I think I get this one. So one of Pharasma's main objectives is ensuring the orderly transition of souls through the River of Souls so the whole system of existence works, because we need to keep reinforcing the outer planes with more souls since otherwise the Maelstrom is liable to eventually consume them. A major part of Pharasma's objection to the Undead is that the circumvent her carefully planned, organized, and intricate system to keep the reality stable.
So people who are interested in breaking systems (any systems) "for the heck of it" are never going to be very close to Pharasma's heart.
Well, most of the people who are trying to break that system are NE (Daemons and Urgathoa. I guess also Qlippoth), not CN. And if she is so opposed to rule breaking beyond messing with unlife, why isn't she lawful?
A lot of the arguments I seen in favour seem to be mainly arguments for only exact alignment matches, but most deities still have some options. The one step rule was logical and consistent, but now it seems strange and arbitrary;like why does Phasmara favour law over chaos now, or why Ugathora won't grant spells to neutral followers anymore, but will to CE or LE.
I agree it seem to me they are telling people they were wrong about their characters; it's precisely this sort of restriction that puts me off systems. I'd rather they took alignments away and had more tougher Edicts and Anathema; It might be hard keeping to Lamashtu's teachings and staying neutral, but if a player is up to the role play challenge I say let them try. Even if it means they slip to evil in the end, or have to retrain/atone to a different class/religion, those are still great RP opportunities. It feels odd that Paizo would say that those stories are not allowed.
I think this mostly limits cherry-picking single parts of deities, which... I don't have a problem with.
Can you "worship" Calistria if you just want revenge, and don't care about sex (or the other way around)? Sure. But to be a cleric, you should value both.
Except that all the lore I have read indicates that Calistiran temples usually Do choose one of those elements over the other. So long as you don't actively deny another part of the portfolio (for example, A Calistrian advocating against vengeance or preaching abstinence) then I don't see why it would be a problem. Why would Sarenrea refuse a cleric who was more focused on healing people than hunting Rovagug cultists, or vis versa? Pharasman temples also explicitly divide aspects of their portfolio among its priests, with separate clerics for Midwifery, funerary rites and prophecy.
Actually, re-reading Gorum's entry, he seems more LG than CN; he's seem concerned with people doing battle honourably and fairly, and not mistreating the defeated. A paladin could follow his edicts and anathema! Maybe just adding something like 'seek battle' to edicts, or 'actively avoid a non-combat solution' to anathema would help a little.
I feel this is the rule that'll be most commonly house ruled out. With Anathema, I felt like they were creating a lot of opportunities for role play where there was a disconnect between your aliment and your deity's, but then to additionally also restrict alignment seems odd to me.
I agree that taking away Asmodeus ability to grant spells to LN/NE worshippers is odd. I thought his church was all about making itself useful to everyone, and offering people power as a way to indoctrinate them. Not to mention the fact that specifics of alignment matter less to them when they've got your name on paper.
I also worry that adding in these new restrictions could seem like Paizo is telling some 1e players that they were 'playing your character wrong'. It's one thing to make a mechanical build no longer playable under new rules, but deity/alignment is core character concept stuff.
This kinda restriction is one of my least favourite things in RPGs, where it hinders your ability to tell interesting stories with nuanced characters, rather than rewarding it.
Andoran keeps you relatively safe if you don't support slavery.** spoiler omitted **but most people cannot afford it.
THat's a good point actually, what would happen to a population of humans which migrate to another plane? Long term I mean. Do they turn into a kind of outsider native to that plane after a couple generations?
Yeah, and they're usually changed by it in some way; check Fechlings.
Humans who got stuck in Shadow and adapted after a couple of generations.
Witch: "I just asked my patron to move the fire from my torch into their hair and let nature take over."
I've never really thought of this being how a witch casts. It sounds more cleric-y to me. I always thought it was on the witch themselves to do 'heavy lifting' and the patrons merely taught them how, possibly provided a little power initially but not doing it for you. I agress that wizards do seem a little like physicists to me (which I know is only one interpretation).
I tend to think of witches casting in the same way a chef cooks; there's undeniable science there, but it's as much an art in their hands.
I've always thought of gems as trade goods, along with other items of similarly standardised pricing, like spices and precious metals. I know they're not listed on the table, but it's not extensive. The game treats certain things as having inherent worth, with spell components being an example of this. Rather than a wizard insisting they pay 5k for a tiny stone, I can see them bemoaning that market forces making it much more expensive to use high level spells.
As to whether you can use several dimonds as the component, I've always read it as one but that could just be a hold over. Honestly, I would probably still rule as much; if the designers had ment to open it up I'd have thought they'd change it to 'dimond(s)' rather than just remove the 'a', and being without components on hand is supposed to be a major disadvantage for casters, like a ranger losing their quiver. Still though, if they couldn't conveniently just retreat and return to town I might allow it just so I didn't have a player sitting out for most of a session or more.
