Malficus's page

Well, I'd like to point out, as I pointed out earlier, that without a catalyst to get them to see the error of their ways, eons of being left to your own devices wouldn't free you of your problems; it'd compound them. If you think a certain way, thinking that certain way for centuries will make it much, much harder to stop thinking that way. I've known some incredibly stubborn and curmudgeonly seniors who decided they knew best and never wanted to give that fact up. On top of this, it's human nature to, when you have evidence that you're wrong presented to you, to double down on your presumptions because you can't stand being wrong.

So, no, I think your argument is flawed here.

If a god holds and promotes bigoted and harmful beliefs, but is well meaning and wants to help others, I consider that god to be neutral. If they, with more information or a catalyst to change their opinion down the road, would correct their bigotry, they are neutral until that point. Their effect on the world is not good, and to say they are good is to say that people wanting to be good should emulate them, including that bigotry.

So if say, a god thinks tradition is more important than goodness, and their 'tradition' sacrifices good values to be attained, that is a (probably Lawful) Neutral god. Because they care more about tradition, or some other thing, than the well being of everyone. Even if that other thing is "Small town livin" or "Families" or "the well-being of Dwarvenkind"

You seem to be of the opinion that people can change their beliefs at will. That they can just stop thinking something.

If the gods have any connection at all to living mentality (Which they do, or they'd be c'thonian in their dealings), then they can't necessarily easily change how they think either.

I am not, but understand how I could seem that way.

I do think a person can be introspective, and examine their beliefs, and work to change them. Or that they can be changed by the beliefs of others around them, consciously or unconsciously.

But I also think like, things that live for centuries, millennia, or longer, have such a vastly different time scale than humans, that they DO have the time to grow and work through their mistakes. And they have the presence to see mistakes in action or thought.

The ones that don't, are like, neutral. They have the power, wisdom, and influence to make sure their actions promote goodness, and aren't. They aren't actively promoting self gain or harming others, so they aren't evil, those are Neutral Gods.

To be honest, non-ascended Good Gods, likely didn't need such introspection. They were formed knowing right from wrong, and doing what's right to the best of their knowledge and ability. Any change in belief would come from the same thing as it does for humans, increased power and responsibilities giving them a broader, more informed view of the world, and the planes that surround it.

Except that they aren't. Aroden was slain less than 100 years ago, Asmodeus claims to have killed his brother-god in the ancient times, and at least 4 humans have risen to the position of Deity in recorded Golarion history. So the idea that they are "ancient and undying" is wrong by objective evidence.

As best I can tell, the youngest god (Cayden Cailean) is nearly 2000 years old. I'm not sure how you define ancient, but when a guy is that old, I'm willing to give him the title. And gods being killed is such a huge deal that every time it happens the world and other gods freak out.

But ok. I might have worded things wrongly. My intention was: All of the gods have had enough time that they could have reasonably assesed any harmful beliefs of theirs, and either over come them, or be working to. None of them have a looming constant threat of death to worry about instead either.

Any god who is good, would have dealt with, and not be promoting bigoted beliefs. Any god who continued to promote bigotry, is, at minimum, Neutral.

Bigotry, on the level of gods, is such a pervasive, and harmful belief, that to call bigoted gods "good" is an aggressive act, directed at the target of that bigotry.

Malficus wrote:

If a good Ranger starts going "All the giants I see are evil, I will destory all giants!" that ranger is straying from good.

Is he straying from good if he says, "I don't like giants, so I leave them be and try to avoid dealing with them. There are some giants that are credits to their species, and I'm friends with them, but they are the exception." ?

Is he straying from good if he says, "I have great respect for the noble savages, the giants. They aren't as smart as humans, mind you, but we should treat them well and leave them alone." ?

Is he straying from good if he says, "I like giants, and willingly work alongside them, but I think they're inherently better-suited to the wilderness. I don't think it's a great idea for a giant to try to assimilate into smaller humanoid society, and would vocally express my disquiet if one made the attempt." ?

If these beliefs were translated into real-life minorities, we'd certainly regard them as prejudiced. They are prejudiced. But they can still be good. A dwarf paladin can make "offensive" elf jokes and try to avoid working with elves and still be Lawful Good as long as he still acts to help and save elves in times of trouble.

I am not trying to avoid this, I think they are all great questions to ask. Like, take the time to look into and question what boundaries an individual, well meaning person has. Explore the other side too, maybe with different characters.

"I know good giants and am friends with them, and I know many bad ones. What is the norm for giants? Why is it that way?"

"Why is giant culture different from ours? Is it right to try and change giants to be more like us? Do giants want that?"

"I know a giant who likes working with us, and wants to join out society. What issues do we need to address to allow that, what compromises need to be made (Like how it'd be hard for him to enter buildings)? Why does he want to leave giant society?"

A lot of these question, and yours, come down to like, how much is a person willing to go out of their way to deal with and learn about these issues. And mortals, very often, especially in a setting where travel is long and dangerous, reasonably lack the time and resources to really look into those. They do need to try their best, and work hard. And sometimes, bigger issues come up and compromises are made.

A person, making racist jokes, who doesn't act on it, is still racist. Their words affect others, making the space hostile for the target of their jokes, and teaching others that this is an accepted way to think. Perhaps they never really reflected on their actions, or perhaps they just don't know better, like they honestly believe those things, and are otherwise working or succeeding at being good

Gods don't have those excuses. They're ancient and undying, they have the time and resources to know these things, or to have given their views the proper thought. When a Good God says "Giants belong in the wilds", "Goblins are wild and untame-able", "Women should know their place", "Marriage is between a man and a woman" these become written laws of goodness. Religions work to spread these beliefs, and people striving to become Good and godly people, will follow these beliefs and take action based on them. A person trying to work out how they feel about their own world views, or sacrificing morals for pragmatism does not define and set the mood of a setting. A Good God holding harmful opinions, or promoting bigoted views, does.

And especially, when those views reflect real world ones, they're given a lot more weight. Like you said, if the racism was say, some 'good god' of the Taldane people, preaching the savagery and ignorance of the Mwangi people, and how they need someone to educate and keep them in line, that would be horribly offensive. Why is this racist god accepted as good? And worse, how would this make real world black people feel? When they see that promoted as Good, when you have gamers arguing in forums about why it's proper that their paladin go about restraining and educating the primitive Mwangi, to follow the right path, as just a blanket setting-wide statement, it would be pretty obvious that this is not a place for them.

I'm not saying every god either looks at their actions and rejects the actively bad habits and beliefs, or embraces them. But if a god, for whatever reason, maintains a bigoted stance; then they aren't good, they're neutral at best. They might even focus on order or liberation or whatever, but their teachings promote inequality and prejudice as well. They're grey, they're neutral.

And I'm not saying good gods can't make errors, or fumble in a way that hurts the cause of good. But a good god shouldn't hold beliefs that actively encourage them, and should take action to amend their mistakes. If they don't, why should we call them good?

People aren't saying it's 'cool' for bigotry to be a flaw for someone to have, but that HAVING said flaw doesn't intrinsically make them Evil.

It doesn't have to be accepted in-world as a good thing, it just needs to be accepted that people aren't perfect, and morality isn't black and white.

And I am saying, leave such grayness for people, not gods (and beings made of goodness or evil). Though, when I said cool I meant like, acceptable or attractive or something. Like, it's not right to have a double standard, make good gods not actively do and promote bad things. Because by doing so, and labeling that god as good, you are saying those bad things are good things. Or at least are accepted as such within the setting. Because gods aren't mortals, they are the measure by which alignment is defined. They are the cornerstones of the setting.

If a 'good' god thinks women should stay in the kitchen, and men should be the breadwinners, that makes this a 'good' stance, that people trying to be 'good' will persue.

So don't allow those stances in your good gods. Leave them for your gray gods and your evil gods.

If a person, even through inaction, allows oppression and injustice to thrive or persist, they aren't being very good. They're being neutral. A god actively holding and spreading beliefs that promote or preserve oppression and injustice, such as those from bigotry, is actively spreading evil. Not making a little mistake, not having a tiny character flaw, but inherently and intrinsically pushing ungood agendas. If you are the embodiment of an aspect of goodness, this is not an acceptable state.

Malficus wrote:

Is it ok? Is there a Good god who promotes hatred or oppression of certain races for being that race?

Yes. As was discussed earlier, Torag supports the hatred of goblins, orcs, and other classical enemies of dwarfkind.

Dang. I feel like that should be addressed more than like, trying to say "Being a bigot is compatible with being good".

Malficus wrote:

-rest of the post-

Well, I agree with the essence of your post, but I think you're missing the crucial bit that I addressed; this is a double-standard, and any feminist can tell you those are bad. I do feel that any Good god worth flying spit will help guide and deal with a 'monstrous' race that turns out to be not so monstrous, but in many cases the general mood is "it's okay to kill them because members of this race are generally evil". Otherwise many more priests would refuse service to adventurers due to their vocation of killing things indiscriminately for loot, glory, and the greater good.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to over look any double standard. I agree that it's not cool for "Mysogynist/transphobe" to be outside the domain of goodness, but not 'Racist". You seem to be taking this to mean "Let mysogyny/transphobia also be traits of good people" and I'm taking it to mean "Eradicate racism from good gods. Either make them not racist, or not good."

Promote the idea that good gods and their religions preach fighting evil, which is wholly different from fighting 'evil races'. Orcs, goblins, drow, etc are not things to be fought and killed, unless they're aggressors disrupting the peace and lives of innocents.

Treat adventurers who kill indiscriminately as NOT GOOD. Because being a racist indiscriminate mass murderer is NOT A GOOD THING. People who kill others purely for money and glory, who say they serve a greater good, without working to make sure they are actually fighting evil and harmful elements of the world are NOT GOOD PEOPLE.

Do not promote the idea that it's cool for "Is a bigot" to be a flaw of good gods, doing so only makes the setting hostile to people from those groups that might want to get into Pathfinder or even tabletop games in general.

It sounds like I might be missing some since I only get hardcover pathfinder books, and have at least one to look forward to, so that's neat.

The half wild elf 'bastard' in Bastards Of Golarion would suggested that might look more like our real world native americans than sub-saharan people.

Desert Half orc in the same book seems to be closer, but it is anyone's guess if the hair is a wig or naturally straight. Mountain halfbreed is a similar case.

I appreciate and am aware that half-breed characters do have like, individuals that represent different human races, though I haven't seen much of it in art. I am most interested though, in it happening with completely non-human characters though. Like Elves and Mwangi or Vudrani can have kids that look like their human parent is nice, but still in the domain of like "There aren't POC in non-human races."

Book 1 of Mummy's Mask features this lovely half-elven lady.

That's all I've got off the top of my head...

I especially hadn't seen this one. She looks pretty rad.

Are there any non-human races that aren't white? Is there art showing this?

Are there elves/halflings/dwarves/gnomes/orcs out there with hair that isn't straight or wavy? Are there kinky haired elves somewhere? Are there forest dwelling elves with dark brown skin? Gnomes are described as having skin with such wildly varying colors that people think that gnomes dye themselves. So why have I only seen Caucasian gnomes? Am I missing art?

Gnomes are really the race that most prompts me to think about this. Like their description goes on about how wildly varied they are, from facial proportions to coloration. But like, I've never seen a picture of one that isn't just "Tiny white person with troll doll hair and eyebrows".

What do the gods of Golarion actually do aside from giving clerics spells? Are they basically just super strong adventurers and monsters that give people spells?

What does Cayden Cailean being god of bravery, ale, freedom, and wine do for those things? What were those like before he became a god? Or Calistria and Lust, Revenge and Trickery?

How direct or indirect are the gods?

How directly or indirectly do they affect the world, aside from just being really strong guys and/or girls that give clerics spells?

If, for example, Calistria or Cayden Cailean died, what would happen other than a bunch of clerics losing their magic?

Do halflings have another name for their race that isn't just about how short they are?

If so what is it?

3) I LOVE pancakes, but I can't eat them while I'm on this diet. They will likely be the first thing I eat on the first day I'm off the diet though. My favorite topping for pancakes is maple syrup.

Is your diet like, based on not having ingredients found in pancakes, or just calorie restriction? Cause there's a really nice low calorie pancake recipe here: http://www.skinnytaste.com/2010/09/banana-nut-pancakes.html that goes really nice with just say, strawberries or blueberries on top. Or Agave syrup, which is a nice low calorie choice.

Anyone can wear any type of armor, the question is what penalties do you take for doing so?

Mithral heavy armor is counted as medium for all purposes except for armor proficiency. Lacking proficiency in heavy armor would mean you take the armor check penalty to attack rolls and any skill check that involves moving.

Rangers lose their combat style feats in heavy armor. I just wanted to make sure that mithral full plate didn't count for that

Does mithral full plate still count as heavy armor, particularly concerning whether or not rangers can still use their Combat Style Feats?

Or should I forget about taking heavy armor proficiency on my ranger.