Mr.u's page

Berselius wrote:

Nutcase Entertainment wrote:

More Half Outsider templates: Neutral (Good/Evil), Chaotic/Entropic, Neutral (Law/Chaos), Lawful/Axiomatic, more specific subtypes (Psychopomp, Axiomite, etc), and if possible, avoid putting "Smite [alignment]" in them.

Wannabe Demon Lord wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

I also wouldn't mind a new good outsider group focused on the "Good is not pretty trope" Some wierd ancient eldritch entities that are good, but completely inexplicable would be sort of awesome.

This. This exactly. Evil is still okay, but it has to be unique, way more neutrals needed, and some good groups that don't look beautiful.

I agree with the "We need more Outsiders that don't look like Human in costumes"

Yeah, I don't see a being of one of the celestial upper planes being ugly and repulsive dude. Fearsome and intimidating is perfectly fine. If you want a pus spewing, vomit inducing angel though, your probably out of luck. Not only does that go against established core material for Pathfinder it also doesn't make much sense.

'Angels' as described in the Bible (and other such Holy Texts)? Those are far from the Winged Humanoid cliché/trope... and they aren't pus spewing, vomit inducing either.

Angels as beautiful Winged Humanoids is common in the Bible and religious art. and are the most common type of Angels described.

-'Ordinary' Angels

Have a humanoid body, Sometimes have no wings and Sometimes do have wings(maybe more)

They are describe as beautiful winged humanoids

Daniel 10:5-6(Book of Daniel) gives a vivid description of an angel that he saw: “I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold around his waist. His body was like topaz, his face that shined like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.” So Daniel describes an angel with a face like a lightning bolt, eyes like flaming torches of fire, arms and legs that gleam like polished chrome, and a voice like that of thunder.

There is also the angel the described at Jesus’ tomb Had a humanoid body and obviously was not human “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow” (Matt. 28:4).

the Seraphim or Seraphs

The word Seraphim (one seraph, two or more seraphim) means “burning ones” or nobles. They are also sometimes called the 'ones of love' because their name might come from the Hebrew root for 'love'. Seraphim are only fully described in the Bible on one occasion

They are describe as beautiful winged humanoids.

So these types of heavenly beings have six wings, but they only use two of them for flying. the other four are used to cover the your face and feet. In Jewish folklore, and some later Christian works, the Seraphim are said to be the highest rank of angel second to the archangels. This is probably because of their very close proximity to God.

In art, Seraphim are often red (because of their names 'burning ones') and are shown holding a flaming sword with the words 'holy, holy, holy' on the blade

The Dominions or Lordships(type of angels)

The "Dominions" (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16) (lat. dominatio, plural dominationes, also translated from the Greek term kyriotētes, pl. of kyriotēs, as "Lordships") or "Dominations" are presented as the hierarchy of celestial beings "Lordships" in some English translations of the De Coelesti Hierarchia.

The Dominions regulate the duties of lower angels. It is only with extreme rarity that the angelic lords make themselves physically known to humans.

The Dominions look like divinely beautiful humans with a pair of feathered wings, much like the common representation of angels, but they may be distinguished from other groups by wielding orbs of light fastened to the heads of their scepters or on the pommel of their sword.

I, for one, would very much like a Puginal. Especially as a familiar.

Speaking of dogs, I'd LOVE to see variations on breeds for animals, though I'm not sure what form that'd take in a PF bestiary.

Not all good things are pretty and being too close to paragons should be bad for your health.

How is there not a Cupid yet? A CG celestial anti-succubus/incubus spreading love indiscriminately all over the place.

I'd like a Absolute Law "Elder Gods" subtype to counter-balance the Lovecraftian Great Old Ones. They should NOT be pleasant to encounter either.

More horrific monsters. Like the mosquito monster above (which I believe was featured in a Necronomicon-related film, two cops get sacrificed to them or somesuch, the baby stealing made it stick in my mind). Or monsters like the Lurker-in-Light and Shining Child that attack in broad daylight, when someone has every right to otherwise feel safe.

Occult Dragons if they don't already exist.

(Not all good things are pretty and being too close to paragons should be bad for your health.)

Most biblical angels are described as beautiful and glorious humanoids.

biblical angels aren't all that weird and many angels that appear are winged humanoids. Also in the bible angels are spirits rather than physical beings, they don’t have to be visible at all but when they do manifest into physical forms or reveal there spiritual forms in a way that can be seen they usually have humanoid forms.

Some common traits among there appearances as described in the bible despite how weird some of them may seem are beauty, Glory, Light, awe, fire, fear, hope, lightning, a humanoid body(most of the time), Two arms, no to six wings, there are other things as well.

as for specific types

-the Seraphim or Seraphs

The word Seraphim (one seraph, two or more seraphim) means “burning ones” or nobles. They are also sometimes called the 'ones of love' because their name might come from the Hebrew root for 'love'. Seraphim are only fully described in the Bible on one occasion

They have a humanoid body

So these types of heavenly beings have six wings, but they only use two of them for flying. the other four are used to cover the your face and feet. In Jewish folklore, and some later Christian works, the Seraphim are said to be the highest rank of angel second to the archangels. This is probably because of their very close proximity to God.

In art, Seraphim are often red (because of their names 'burning ones') and are shown holding a flaming sword with the words 'holy, holy, holy' on the blade.

-the Cherubim

In Genesis they guard the Garden of Eden, following Adam and Eve's banishment from the Garden, and are described holding flaming swords

The prophet Ezekiel has a vivid vision of heaven where he sees many angelic beings. His description of the Cherubim is powerful – almost frightening.

They have a humanoid body and have 4 wings and there wings are some times covered with eyes

Also it is said they can see in all directions at once.

-'Ordinary' Angels

Have a humanoid body, Sometimes have no wings and Sometimes do have wings(maybe more)

Daniel 10:5-6(Book of Daniel) gives a vivid description of an angel that he saw: “I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold around his waist. His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.” So Daniel describes an angel with a face like a lightning bolt, eyes like flaming torches of fire, arms and legs that gleam like polished chrome, and a voice like that of thunder.

There is also the angel the described at Jesus’ tomb Had a humanoid body and obviously was not human “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow” (Matt. 28:4).

As for many headed chimeras(there not chimeras) or spinning fiery wheels those are just other forms of some angels or different types of angels.

For civil religious discussions(sometimes)

Mr.u wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Mr.u wrote:

Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history

Taking into account that many of the new testament is a later invention, that is probably not true.

The new testament is a collection of all jesus's teachings and known life and gospels of the disciples and paul the apostle letters.

98 percent of all historical scholars in academia agree that the new testament is a historically reliable source.

90% of people knows that 98% percent of statistic are invented.

And? The gospels of jesus's teachings and the gospels of the disciples existed before the new testament was collected but they are still historically reliable.

Oldest know Gospels have been found.

Link1

Link2

Link3

Mr.u wrote:

Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history

Taking into account that many of the new testament is a later invention, that is probably not true.

The new testament is a collection of all jesus's teachings and known life and gospels of the disciples and paul the apostle letters.

98 percent of all historical scholars in academia agree that the new testament is a historically reliable source.

Yeah the Christian religions aren't any more forward thinking than anyone else. The Puritans still hold sway in the U.S. with taboos dating back to the mid 16th century. Better watch those wardrobe malfunctions and don't say bad words on TV.

And look at the terrible things happening in India to women, cultural probably instead of religious, but Hinduism doesn't teach that attacking women in packs is right.

It's hard to tell sometimes if religion is a good thing or not, especially in our current world. So much hatred and death in the name of religion. With communication and transportation today, the world has never been smaller, and in my lifetime has doubled in population. We're way to close together not to have a better understanding of and compassion for each other, and to have these kinds of schisms is scary. When are we going to get over skin color, religion and nationality, and become citizens of the world?

Jesus was more forward thinking than anyone else in his time. The effect of Jesus on history

What are the new Spells called?

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Lord Snow wrote:

More seriously, your challenge to find any reason for objecting to same sex marriage that does not come from some bigoted view based on outdated morals had me pause to consider if there is, indeed, any such reason to be found.

I've been looking for such reasons for a number of years now, and have failed to find any. Of course, this may be because I'm blinded by my own ideology, or it may simply indicate that I'm not as smart and creative as I think I am.

I can think of a number of reasons that would be compelling in other societies. For example, if a too-low birth rate is an issue, then any practices that would take potential breeders out of the group would arguably be a bad thing. My understanding is that this was the case for much of the Bronze Age both because society needed the soldiers to stave off other tribes, and because families needed the labor to support themselves.

Of course, I wouldn't like to live in a society where breeding and childrearing were an individual mandate, and I'm fortunate not to. I don't need children to support me in my old age as I have a retirement account, and the rivalry with the neighboring tribe rarely gets off the athletic field. There are some people whose view on tribalism differs from mine -- "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" is the same Bronze Age argument moved into 21st century neoNazis -- but those views are not only not mine, but they're also based in bigotry, so they don't really count as a counterexample.

On the original question, I'd say that "Because God said so", is not inherently a bigoted reason, though it often serves as cover for bigotry. It is also not a reason that should be allowed, in our system of government, to have any affect on the law.

What some religious people consider a marriage(a oath to god) and what the government consider a marriage(civil union) are not the same thing and i think issue is with the word "marriage"(at least to some religious people anyway).

As for the "God said homosexuality was wrong" stuff, the thing is God/Jesus himself in the bible never said homosexuality was wrong.
Some religious people try to use "sodom and gomorrah" as a case against homosexuality but after reading the story of "sodom and gomorrah" It is clear to me that the crimes of "sodom and gomorrah" were inhospitality, unjust violence/ violence against the innocent and outsiders, rape and gang rape and so on.

Some people try to use Paul against homosexuality but all that stuff comes from a mis-translation and a misuse of greek word "Arsenokoités"

It also seems nowadays some christians support polygamy and want polygamy legalized.

Here is chapter 1 of a audio book on the historical jesus and his effect on history.

Mr.u wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

xavier c wrote:

Are you saying he should eliminate free will for the sake of goodness? Or he should have created a would where creatures could not defied him?

An omni^3 deity could create a universe where free will existed, but evil did not. An omni^3 deity could create a universe where his creations defying him would not have been an evil act. Prove me wrong.

Defying him at all is an evil act. In the christian narrative Goodness in not independent from god, Goodness comes from god. Without god there is no truly Good or evil as he determines what is Good and evil.

In the christian narrative God created the earth with no evil in it, god then gave dominion of the earth to mortals. Then mortals committed the first sin, sin severed the world from god and at the same time gave dominion of the earth to satan(the adversary).

Well, let's bring this back into the pathfinder campaign setting. In that world, good and evil are metaphysical absolutes that exist independent of any deity. It would not be the case that any act of defiance against, say, Iomedae or Sarenrae would be automatically an evil act.

There are also christian narratives in which good exists apart from God, and good doesn't just mean slavishly doing whatever God tells you to do. Your assertion doesn't constitute proof of anything, it's just a restatement of the theology of a subset of christian believers, which is by no means the only theology we're considering in this thread.

If your definition of Good is Whatever God Ordains, then the problem of evil doesn't exist because whatever God causes to happen, happens, and is therefore good. Children suffering? Good! Disease? Good! Satan taking souls of sinners? Good!

We can get back into the pathfinder campaign setting. But

1.you made a comment about the christian god so i answered appropriately, I was not trying to prove anything.

2.There are no christian narratives where good exists apart from God

3.God does not cause Child suffering or Disease. mortals do in the case of child abuse or by nature which was separated from god by sin which was caused by mortals.

4.Satan does not take souls, He talks mortals into sinning which separates them from god

xavier c wrote:

Are you saying he should eliminate free will for the sake of goodness? Or he should have created a would where creatures could not defied him?

An omni^3 deity could create a universe where free will existed, but evil did not. An omni^3 deity could create a universe where his creations defying him would not have been an evil act. Prove me wrong.

Defying him at all is an evil act. In the christian narrative Goodness in not independent from god, Goodness comes from god. Without god there is no truly Good or evil as he determines what is Good and evil.

In the christian narrative God created the earth with no evil in it, god then gave dominion of the earth to mortals. Then mortals committed the first sin, sin severed the world from god and at the same time gave dominion of the earth to satan(the adversary).

Actually, the definition of omnipotence by noted theologists includes limitations on what can be done as some things are intrinsically impossible. A deity able to do anything that is possible (not saying that it would actually do this thing) is considered omnipotent, even though it cannot do what is impossible.

Alvin Plantinga is a champion of this definition

What are the new creatures? and what are the new planar templates?

Are there any new conjuring- and summoning-focused groups in the inner sea?

What is a Guardian Spirit?

what does the expanded summoning feat add to the summoning list?

What are the new planar templates?

Please do not do this. I would rather this thread stay unlocked.

He ask a question i was just trying answer it.

But very well. I will say no more.

xavier c wrote:

You do know that mormonism is not Christianity right?

That's what a lot of Protestants say about Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, because neither of them use the King James Bible. Heck that's quite quite a few Protestant cliques that say that about each other these days.

On what basis do you make that statement? You do know that it's proper name is the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints? Even Islam has an important place for Jesus Christ in the line of Prophets that ends with Mohammed. That the Mormons hold the standard Christian theology that of Christ's death as Redemption for the Human Race in total? So what exactly makes them non-Christians in your mind?

And those differences between Catholicism and the non-Catholic Christians? Important enough that the history of Europe was littered with centuries of bloody warfare over the difference, warfare which continued into my time. In fact it was with all that warfare in mine that the Founders very deliberately put in the establishment clause against a state religion in America's charter.

A Comparison Between Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine There are major theological core differences between Mormonism and Christian Doctrine.

There are no major theological core differences between Catholics and Protestants besides these
"Differences Between Catholics and Protestants"

As for the warfare in Europe was basically Catholic Church teaches that priest and the pope are infallible.(basically Catholics want control and Protestants want freedom). google Martin Luther for info on how that all got started.

differences between Christian and Islam Doctrine.

jesus in Christianity.

Lucifer is not second most powerful being in existence after God. The second most powerful being in existence after God would most likely be Michael the archangel and after Michael there are other archangels like Gabriel the archangel, raphael the archangel, Uriel the archangel, Ariel the archangel, Sariel the archangel, Sandalphon the archangel, Raguel the archangel and so on.

Lucifer is not that powerful compered to other angels as he is just a fallen Cherubim meaning he is weaker then the Seraphim and extremely weaker then a archangel. What make Lucifer dangerous is that he is extremely seductive and persuasive and enjoys leading mortals and other angels and spiritual beings into evil and sin which usually leads them to there own down fall. In many ways he is a prime example of the saying "misery loves company".

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Arguably, paladins should be some of the most reasonable people on the planet, since fear can never taint their decision-making.

I would argue the opposite. Fear plays an important role in human survival. Fear of failure, fear of death, fear of loss, all can be great motivators. Learning to control one's fear is a monumental step in personal development and path to accomplishment. A person who is flat immune to fear doesn't undergo that development or personal growth. A person in capable of experiencing fear will generally lack empathy towards those that do.

In D&D/Pathfinder, Paladins also fail the "reasonable" test because they are by definition, fanatics. That is why logic and paladins are rarely used in the same sentence. A paladin is a essentially a holy terrorist for their deity. A true paladin would not think twice about dying in service to its deity and if that death meant the death of his associates, so what? Paladins are not reasonable people, they are religious zealots whose only goal is serve to their deity (belief system) and nothing stops that...not even the fear of dying.

True zealotry is incompatible with the goals of an RPG based on team cooperation. No one would team with Paladins unless they had exactly the same outlook and end game as the Paladin. If the paladin believed killing NPC X was what her deity wanted or the right thing to do, she would most likely kill any who prevented her from doing just that. In a game we can just ignore or set aside any elements we don't like and focus on the ones we do.

It's important to note that many of the Paladin's in-game abilities are justified by the intensity of their belief. So much so that a Paladin that violates her code loses her powers. That's the trade off; lots of super cool abilities for strict adherence to a code/belief. Being "reasonable" is totally contrary to strict adherence. What's more, subscription to a belief/diety is an emotional choice not a rational one....

Why do you think belief in a deity is irrational? I think Paladins can and are reasonable and rational. Being religious does not make you irrational or stupid or unreasonable.

well as long as we are talking about pet Peeves with outsiders.

Kytons: I love the Kytons, but it feels like the last few we have gotten have been slight variances of the Ostiarus (The Lampadarus (sp?) from Inner Sea Gods and the Sacristan). I'd like some Kytons that are not simply dudes in S&M Gear. Lets get some Kytons that have decided to remove their bones, or have reduced their bodies to nothing but bundles of nerves, or have grafted themselves to other Kytons.

Weird Angels: to go with the above complaints, a lot of the biblical angels are really bizarre, things like many headed chimeras or spinning fiery wheels and other stuff out of an acid dream. It would be nice to see more good outsiders with this sort of descriptive sense, or a new good outsider that specifically avoid the humanoid appearance.

Greater variety of neutral outsiders. I like psychopomps, but the single handed focus on the death makes them sort of unsuitable for most petitioners to transition to.

Aeon's aren't bad, but are just also sort of weird to use. I think because they overlap in niche with inevitables. Personally I would like some outsider types focused on being neutral observers and acquirers of knowledge, or interplanar mercenaries, or manipulators of nature.

biblical angels aren't all that weird and many angels that appear are winged humanoids. Also in the bible angels are spirits rather than physical beings, they don’t have to be visible at all but when they do manifest into physical forms or reveal there spiritual forms in a way that can be seen they usually have humanoid forms.

Some common traits among there appearances as described in the bible despite how weird some of them may seem are beauty, Glory, Light, awe, fire, fear, hope, lightning, a humanoid body(most of the time), Two or more arms, no to six wings, there are other things as well.

as for specific types

-the Seraphim or Seraphs

The word Seraphim (one seraph, two or more seraphim) means “burning ones” or nobles. They are also sometimes called the 'ones of love' because their name might come from the Hebrew root for 'love'. Seraphim are only fully described in the Bible on one occasion

They have a humanoid body

So these types of heavenly beings have six wings, but they only use two of them for flying. the other four are used to cover the your face and feet. In Jewish folklore, and some later Christian works, the Seraphim are said to be the highest rank of angel second to the archangels. This is probably because of their very close proximity to God.

In art, Seraphim are often red (because of their names 'burning ones') and are shown holding a flaming sword with the words 'holy, holy, holy' on the blade.

-the Cherubim

In Genesis they guard the Garden of Eden, following Adam and Eve's banishment from the Garden, and are described holding flaming swords

The prophet Ezekiel has a vivid vision of heaven where he sees many angelic beings. His description of the Cherubim is powerful – almost frightening.

They have a humanoid body and have 4 wings and there wings are some times covered with eyes

Also it is said they can see in all directions at once.

-'Ordinary' Angels

Have a humanoid body, Sometimes have no wings and Sometimes do have wings(maybe more)

Daniel 10:5-6(Book of Daniel) gives a vivid description of an angel that he saw: “I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold around his waist. His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude.” So Daniel describes an angel with a face like a lightning bolt, eyes like flaming torches of fire, arms and legs that gleam like polished chrome, and a voice like that of thunder.

There is also the angel the described at Jesus’ tomb Had a humanoid body and obviously was not human “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow” (Matt. 28:4).

As for many headed chimeras(there not chimeras) or spinning fiery wheels those are just other forms of some angels or different types of angels.

What mythic Path works best with The Artisan class from Drop Dead Studios‎?

Well, it is canonical that cultures tend to vary their depictions to match their local culture, current era, and own race. It also isn't had to presume that the Elven word for 'Desna' might not be the same as the Taldane word. (Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah are all words for the same being, for instance, even if everything else seems to be up for debate.)

I mean taking it a step further, and saying that Nerull and Urgathoa are actually the same being. That Pelor and Sarenrae are the same. That Wee Jas is an aspect of Pharasma, as is Anubis. That Gorum is the Orc God Varg, interpreted in a human-friendly way (or vice versa.)

Basically saying that syncretism happens because they're looking at the same god from different directions. Mere mortals trying to understand Gods are like the figurative blind men describing an elephant.

Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah are all names humans gave that being . In the bible when someone asked god who he was or what was his name. He would say I Am or I Am that I Am. Yahweh is just another way of saying "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh""I Am What I Am""I am the BEING""He who is""the Self-Existent". the word Jehovah is more or less a mistranslation of the word Yahweh and Allah is just the arabic word for god.

If God is real and the creator of the universe it always seemed silly to judge him based on our morality to me anyway, seeing as our morality is mostly cultural and shifts with time anyway.

Not saying if he was real that would be an automatic reason to agree with him or worship him, just that unless he was simply somekind of mindless creative force he probably has a much better idea of what's in the universe then we do.

Also if God is really powerful but not omnipotent that might change things too. What if existence has some kind of universal laws that can't be superseded even by God?

In Mere Christianity Lewis argued that perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, if true I find that kinda sad, but who knows, it might change things a bit if God really did do the best for us he possible could given the laws of existence.

I'm pretty sure Lewis know that this world is also a fallen world and one would expect to see suffering in a world corrupted by sin and Lucifer.

Fun fact: Jesus is nothing more than a false prophet for Jewish folk.

They still believe in God and the words of the Old Testament, quite many rather fervently. Other fun fact is that Judaism usually focuses much less on Hell than Christianity. The omnipotent deity is harsher to the living (compare his actions in the Old Testament to the ones in the New Testament), but from what I have seen and heard from an aspiring rabbi as well as some actual ones, that Paradise called Heaven awaits all folks minus the evil ones. As for what happens to them, that's kinda hard to say. However, being non-Jewish does NOT make you automatically evil. So long as you are more or less a decent person, God has no reason to send you to Hell.

Fun fact: The first Christians were Jews

(that Paradise called Heaven awaits all folks minus the evil ones)
This sounds like a modern belief to me as The Torah, the most important Jewish text, has no clear reference to the afterlife at all.

The clam of Christianity is that Jesus ( who was god incarnate) come to this world to die for all the sins of all humanity throughout time(meaning the past and present and future). so anyone no matter who they are would have eternal life, infinite happiness, infinite pleasure and ultimate fulfillment simply by having the faith of a mustered seed in him.

hell is the absence of god

god and the problem of evil a christian perspective

Small confidence on Science and the God Question

Here are podcasts theological class on Christian doctrine Series 3.

theological class on Christian doctrine Series 2.

Even if Millennials are leaving the Christian faith. I don't think Christianity will die so easily and Christianity seems to be Growing rapidly in Africa and Latin/south America and Asia.

Depending on how sexually conservative an area is, it could be "anything goes" (a place where Calistria and/or Lamashtu are primarily worshiped) or "some things are fine but..." (where Arshea and/or Shelyn hold sway,) and lastly "Only under specific circumstances" (where Lymneris/Erastil/Asmodeus are the head honchos.)

I think Lymneris is very open to sexuality i don't know why you think he would be sexually conservative.Erastil can be open to sexuality and i don't think Asmodeus would care.

Mr.u wrote:

EntrerisShadow wrote:

Usual Suspect wrote:

As examples; the Catholic Church (and the Vatican) is clearly not lawful good but does have a lawful and just society as a goal that we would call lawful good. But as any large institution is inevitably prone to corruption the Catholic Church has problems with abuse of power and position as well as institutional attempts to whitewash current and past events that put the church in a bad light. Any political institution (which means any country and any large religious organization) can ascribe to lofty goals like being a just society.

I wouldn't call any city-state whose utopian ideals include the subjugation of women and non-believers "good".

Hence the problem with every Abrahamic religious organization. It's not that they're bad when they're corrupt; it's that they're bad when they're following their teachings to the letter.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ"- Paul the Apostle

As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people… Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --- Also Paul the Apostle. There's good and bad in all holy books, but the bad is REALLY bad. Morality isn't a zero sum game.

I'll also have to retract my earlier statement about New Zealand in light of the additional information. Guess there's none. Wait . . . maybe Iceland?

Nobody ruin Iceland for me.

considering Catholics worship/Venerate mary.

And Anglicanism/Community of Christ/Mennonite Church Canada and other Christian denominations have Female priests/Pastors.

I don't think all Christians believe in the subjugation of women and jesus never taught subjugation non-believers.

And then you have things like Christian Egalitarianism and Christian Feminism.

Usual Suspect wrote:

As examples; the Catholic Church (and the Vatican) is clearly not lawful good but does have a lawful and just society as a goal that we would call lawful good. But as any large institution is inevitably prone to corruption the Catholic Church has problems with abuse of power and position as well as institutional attempts to whitewash current and past events that put the church in a bad light. Any political institution (which means any country and any large religious organization) can ascribe to lofty goals like being a just society.

I wouldn't call any city-state whose utopian ideals include the subjugation of women and non-believers "good".

Hence the problem with every Abrahamic religious organization. It's not that they're bad when they're corrupt; it's that they're bad when they're following their teachings to the letter.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ"- Paul the Apostle

"Champions of balance" can help give you guys a better understanding of law and Chaos

You can a Chaotic society.But I'm pretty sure there is a reason Abadar is Lawful neutral.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

But there are lots of other Classes you can use for that. I mean, Oracle leaps immediately to mind, and is used for that by the folks at Paizo several times.

I have two problems with this.

1. This is unnecessary because there is a class (cleric) in the core rulebook that can also fill this role but is being told arbitrarily that it cannot. If Cleric and Oracle had identical mechanics, then it might not be a problem as it's just a name change (and thus fluffy), but clerics and oracles play very differently and it is the destruction of options for both GMs and PCs for no apparent reason.

I don't really see the benefit of making core base classes less capable of filling character concepts. In fact it just seems dumb to me.

It also bars drawing on a pantheon, and requires there to be a printed deity that you like that will let you play a cleric you want to play. If you want to play a cleric of fire and life (which could be very appropriate for a faith that puts emphasis on the sun) you have to find a deity that has those two specific domains and also is a deity that you like.

I have also experienced first hand, players who because of their IRL religions feel uncomfortable assuming the rule of a character that worships a different god, even for pretend. They might want to play a cleric because it looks fun and such but their belief system and gray areas makes it uncomfortable to them. In the past I've simply responded that you don't actually have to have a deity in-game to play a cleric and that solved it for them (a much better idea for inclusion rather than telling them, "you you can't play this class unless you pretend to worship a false god" or "your religion is stupid, this is just a game, grow up").

2. Oracles have different mechanics. I also hate oracles because of their "forced fluff". Oracles can be fun to play, are quite strong, etc; yet at the end of the day your oracle is having a piece of unimportant fluff shoved down your throat to (again) limit your...

You know if you what to play a cleric that does not worship one god or a god at all on Golarion .there is the shaman

is there nothing?

I want to make a Binder that Binds Angels/azatas/archons/agathions are there any class Guides?

I was reading the Web Fiction "Thieves Vinegar" and there is a character named Zharmides the Godless and he seems to say things that are not to nice about the gods like calling Norgorber a two-bit snake-oil salesman and calling Pharasma a schoolmarm with an attendance fetish. And saying blasphemies about Asmodeus that where so bad that an
imp fainted.

So why do the gods let Atheist say bad things about them?

On Golarion is the act of a adult seducing teenagers evil or Neutral or
Chaotic?

Angels

(Type of Angels)

1)Amesha Spenta

2)Cherub

3)Mu'aqqibat

4)Principalities

5)Seraphim

6)Thrones

7)Virtues

(Specific angels)

1)Arariel

2)Cassiel

3)Daniel

4)Hadraniel

5)Zadkiel

6)Jegudiel

7)Kiraman Katibin

8)Michael

9)Netzach

10)Uriel

+1