Samaritha Beldusk

Seventh Seal's page

90 posts. Alias of Psiphyre.


RSS

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the paragraph below the Tempest Sun Mage picture:

Did you mean Prerequisite?

Because a Perquisite is "a benefit which one enjoys or is entitled to on account of one's job or position.", i.e. a perk.

It is not "something that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist." (Which is a prerequisite, i.e. a requirement before one can enjoy the perks - as the case may be.)


The Gold Sovereign wrote:
Ancient Red dragons are gargantuan in size, aren't they? I mean, ancient Gold and Silver are gargantuan, as well as Ancient Green... Red dragons are supposed to be the largest of their kind.

Yes. The size of the ancient Red Dragon has been acknowledged to be an error (in the Bestiary 1 thread iirc). I think the same for the ancient Blue Dragon, but I'm not so sure on that one.


^ I'm pretty sure that Rovagug has been confirmed as a top tier Qlippoth.

& Pharasma is pretty much the

Spoiler:
last survivor of a previous reality & first sentient being of the current reality (unless the Seal counts as sentient, in which case she would be tied for first with it...).

Your point (in that the two of them "Always were?") effectively still stands though!


No problem. :)

Thanks for your hard work in collating all of the prestige classes together!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice!

Two things:

*Thuvian Alchemist should be in the Golden Road region as they're from Thuvia (where the Elixir of Immortality is made);

*Ulfen Guard are probably more likely from the Shining Kingdoms region as they're the elite bodyguards of the Prince(ess) of Taldor.


...

Isn't the Eye of Dread region southwest of the Broken Lands region?

??


Unfortunately...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure!

Other galaxies name-dropped in People of the Stars (p.21) are:
the ruby-tinged Dragon Galaxy, the pincered Crab, & the two-armed Swirling Eye (as well as the aforementioned Milk Spiral).

Also, the same book confirms that "Golarion's own galaxy is observable with the naked eye as a dense band of bright stars slightly offset from the plane of the ecliptic" (p.21).
So, it's very unlikely that Golarion's galaxy is anything but a spiral galaxy (although, there are a number of varieties of such!), which the Magellanic Clouds are not...

That's about it regarding Golarion & galaxies.
(Opsylum has already listed the various names by which different cultures - not identified - refer to Golarion's galaxy.)

So, yeah.


Garretmander wrote:

Distant world mentioned a name for the milky way, but I don't know if they had a name for their own.

<snip>

Also in People of the Stars, reference is made to the Milk Spiral, i.e. the Milky Way, as one of the galaxies (among others named) that can be seen in Golarion's skies.

As for the name of Golarion's galaxy:
Opsylum's list is pretty comprehensive...

& That's about it.

It doesn't really help in mapping it to any RW galaxies, although the fact that our galaxy (as seen from Golarion's night sky) is clearly a spiral implies that the Milky Way is head-on to theirs, i.e. top/bottom facing rather than side-facing (or even possibly oblique, like Andromeda is to ours, although that doesn't necessarily mean that Golarion's galaxy is Andromeda - angles & such).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, both Nex & Geb were also originally provinces in Ancient Osirion (Alkenstar hadn't existed then), so it's not that big a stretch...


I'm not disagreeing with your original premise or with the fact that different regions do have their own naming conventions & so would have different names for the same deity.

Spoiler:
I actually agree! As a result, my groups' personal setting has something like 1,700 "deities"... (^。^')
(Only about 600 of those are actually different entities, of which only 500 or so are still "active".)

However, that is not how it was handled in Pathfinder 1E (for the most part).

Perhaps it'll be different in 2E?

<shrug>


Frogliacci wrote:
Gods can be interpreted differently depending on culture. In the Forgotten Realms, Lathander and Amanautor are respectively the Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral aspects of the same Lawful Good sun god, each with their own cults and followers. So in Golarion, I would expect something similar for the same god in different pantheons. Dwarves who worship Abadar for instance might give him a different name and consider him a member of the dwarven pantheon, tying many of his deeds with those of Torag, while those in Tian Xia might see Abadar as a member of the Heavenly Court and call him by his Tien name.

Abadar is still called Abadar in Tian Xia. The only thing that's changed is his epithet/title: in Tian Xia, he is the God of Walls & Ditches. The same is true for Desna (the Resplendent Goddess of Fortune, the Goddess of the North Star), Pharasma (Mother of Souls), Lamashtu (Grandmother Nightmare), Irori (Iro-Shu*, the Enlightened One), and Shelyn (The Lady of Chrysanthemums). Also, all evidence (at least, in PF1) seems to indicate that this is the case in other regions of Golarion (deity names & symbols don't change, but epithets do, & their areas of concerns may be tweaked).

Not particularly realistic nor something that works for everyone, but that is how it has been handled in Pathfinder.

It is possible that things could change in 2E!
However, it's also very unlikely...

*:
Irori is one of two deities (not counting semi-canon composites like Shimye-Magalla = Desna+Gozreh) that I could find that does have a different name in another culture, albeit just a variant spelling.
The other is Shelyn, who is known as Syriss among storm giants.

If I 've missed any other deity that is known by a different name (not just a variant spelling) in PF1, let me know!

<edit> Oh! I forgot about Zon-Kuthon, who was known as Dou-Bral before his change. But really, the two names practically represent two different deities (& there are also curious hints scattered about that seem to imply that they may not even be the same deity!).


^ Isn't Belkzen more or less where ancient Gastash used to be (or most of it)? That could give Zutha orc armies (perhaps) but also mean that he may have to face off against the Iomedaen crusaders in Lastwall...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Awahoon wrote:
Seventh Seal wrote:
Zum-Graat wrote:
Awahoon wrote:

Respect for the Gods of other cultures, I can see why people respect that, I would never use or touch the Rainbow serpent for example or other good-natured spiritual monsters

This seems to be Paizo's position as well. I've been rereading Bestiary 1 recently and noticed that all Empyreal Lords listed there (in archon and azata sections) are real mythological figures, including some culture heroes like Atonga or deities from still existing religions (like some Orisha and Buddhist entities). But then you have more modern sources that list a lot of Empyreal Lords, like "Chronicles of the Righteous" and almost all of them are made-up from scratch.

I wonder if all those "real" Empyreal Lords were retconned out of existence due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Well... I wouldn't say all of them. Cernunnos is a notable example of a real-world mythological figure - with an entry in one of the Bestiaries, too!

As for the rest... <shrug>

Cernunnos however, isn't a God people still worship. Kali and others are.

...

<sigh>

There really are people that still DO worship him as a deity-figure in their belief system -- and sincerely at that!
(I know a few personally, and they're part of a much more widespread group than you may realise.)

Just because the worship of Cernunnos (or that of other deities) is neither as "organised" nor as prominent as those of the Abrahamic religions, the main Eastern spiritual philosophies, and the complex & variable faiths of the Indian subcontinent (not to mention the more animist beliefs of various cultures that continue to retain much of their ancient traditions) does not invalidate it.

. . . . .

Also, by your logic (that Cernunnos "isn't a god people still worship" --> it's fine to include him as a Bestiary entry), there is no reason for Paizo to move away from the real-world mythological figures as empyreal lords since they're in the same 'category' as Cernunnos, i.e. "aren't gods people still worship" (which isn't necessarily true!).

. . . . .

Now, to be clear, while your statement may not be seen by some as particularly sensitive to the beliefs of others, I don't believe you meant any harm by it.
(My mention of Cernunnos being used as an Empyreal Lord in Pathfinder was not meant as a reproach, but I apologise if it was seen in that way.)
However, as religion & the belief (or lack thereof) in deity is a sensitive topic for many people, perhaps we should leave this line of discussion here?
Although, if you really want to put in a last word on it, go ahead. I think I'll bow out.

. . . . .

Back on topic:
I really love the care to detail on the wings of the sphinx!
Are there any pieces of art in the Bestiary that you feel are really well-done (even if they aren't necessarily what you may've envisioned for the particular creature)?


Zum-Graat wrote:
Awahoon wrote:

Respect for the Gods of other cultures, I can see why people respect that, I would never use or touch the Rainbow serpent for example or other good-natured spiritual monsters

This seems to be Paizo's position as well. I've been rereading Bestiary 1 recently and noticed that all Empyreal Lords listed there (in archon and azata sections) are real mythological figures, including some culture heroes like Atonga or deities from still existing religions (like some Orisha and Buddhist entities). But then you have more modern sources that list a lot of Empyreal Lords, like "Chronicles of the Righteous" and almost all of them are made-up from scratch.

I wonder if all those "real" Empyreal Lords were retconned out of existence due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Well... I wouldn't say all of them. Cernunnos is a notable example of a real-world mythological figure - with an entry in one of the Bestiaries, too!

As for the rest... <shrug>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Theriocephalus wrote:
Honestly, the nymph-as-its-own-distinct-species thing always seemed to me to be like saying that, well, you've got chromatic dragons, and then you've got red dragons, and that these are distinct and separate, if somewhat similar, species.
Elves are a distinct species that can reproduce with humans and have fertile offspring with them. It's probably best not to think too hard about such things in fantasy settings.

What you're describing really isn't the same thing that Theriocephalus is talking about...

(Elves were never just another type of human in mythology or folklore. Dryads are another type of nymph in mythology, just as red dragons are just another type of chromatic dragon in the game. 'Species' wasn't really the topic/focus of the post. However, it was perhaps not the best term to use -- as you yourself have pointed out.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Monitors" (for those asking) is the term for the Neutral outsiders (aeons/axiomites/inevitables, psychopomps, & proteans), as per Concordance of Rivals.
(It's like the terms "Fiend" & "Celestial" used for the Evil & Good outsiders, respectively.)

Admittedly, Concordance of Rivals is a 1st edition book & the term may've been repurposed (like the mess that's aeons/axiomites/inevitables), though...

<shrug>

<edit>Kinda ninja'ed?


Re_Kurgess:

Although he had been raised to demideity status by Desna & Cayden, he since may've become a full deity (mechanically, at least) in that he grants five domains.

(Full deities grant five domains; demideities grant four; quasi deities usually grant less than but potentially up to four. Of course, this only applies to PF1: No indications of how this pattern will be affected/changed in PF2...yet.)

So, yeah...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Seventh Seal wrote:

^ Hmm...

Evidence for the presence of an ancient civilisation in what came to be Sumer is more & more pushing back to at least 6,000 BC. The date you're using only represents the first written records from the region (although that date is being pushed closer to the 3,500 BC mark as a result of more recent discoveries/research...).

Also, if written records are the only basis you're using for human civilisation, I'm sure there are a few cultures that'd disagree.

While Golarion's earliest civilisations would still be older by at least a millennium, they were given a jump start by aboleth-intervention, so...

<shrug>

8,088 BC is when those civilizations fell, meaning their rise was much older than that, and they may not even be the first civilizations.

<sigh>

My apologies if it seemed like I was invalidating your post.

I wasn't contradicting your point on the antiquity of human civilisations on Golarion & how they most likely predate human civilisations on Earth (at least as revealed in canon, so far).

I was disputing your assertion that one of the earliest human civilisations on Earth (Sumer) only dates to 3,100 BC when it was considerably much earlier than that.

Spoiler:
I feel that perhaps this tangent has gone far enough. However, if you feel you have to have the last word on it, no problem. (Or you could PM me if you really want?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^ Hmm...

Evidence for the presence of an ancient civilisation in what came to be Sumer is more & more pushing back to at least 6,000 BC. The date you're using only represents the first written records from the region (although that date is being pushed closer to the 3,500 BC mark as a result of more recent discoveries/research...).

Also, if written records are the only basis you're using for human civilisation, I'm sure there are a few cultures that'd disagree.

While Golarion's earliest civilisations would still be older by at least a millennium, they were given a jump start by aboleth-intervention, so...

<shrug>


Hey. Don't feel bad about not reading on. It WAS an interesting bit of lore, so I completely understand getting fixed on it. ^^
It is one of my favourite sections of the book!

Also, the font used in those sections is particularly difficult to read this time round (especially when compared to those used in the Chronicles of the Righteous & the 3 Book of the Damned).

So, no worries. :)


Umm...Did you finish reading the whole entry?

It said that, with the destruction of Gualti, EVERYONE no longer knows what twamni is. Hence the unease at what may happen if another Primal Inevitable were to cease to exist...

(It's most likely just a made-up word that probably represented some sort of ancient sport - like the Mesoamerican ballgame. As such, it doesn't mean anything, thereby simulating how no one remembers what it means in-game.

But were a developer to weigh in on "What is twamni?", then of course go with their answer!


Thank you for all your hard work!

It looks great!

Two nitpicks:

  • I take it that Vrock being LE is meant to be CE...
  • Is the Nightmare/Greater Nightmare meant to be tagged with Fire or Fiend (or even both)? Or is having each with a different tag correct?

Again. Thank you.


Awahoon wrote:
...Seeing there are 400 creatures in a 300 page book, <snip>

The Bestiary is 360 pages, according to the information released at the banquet.


BrunoZhy wrote:


How many pages does the book have?

It's part of the Pathfinder Player Companion line, so 32 pages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
It does look like the "Old Cheliax" region is a bit too small. Andoran, Galt, and Isger are in other regions even though they all split off from Cheliax in the last century.

Umm... Isger is part of the "Old Cheliax" region...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^ Thanks for checking! I was not too sure...

I certainly intend to get it by the end of the month - I have heard great things about it!

:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^ Hmm... Pharasma is explicitly mentioned as taking part in the alliance of deities who opposed * Rovagug in Inner Sea Gods p.125 (Rovagug's entry).

Of course, canon may have been retconned since then... (I do not have Concordance of Rivals yet, if it does mention anything about it?)

<edit> * & imprisoned


2 people marked this as a favorite.

^ Re_Pharasma as the strongest deity:

Well... Rovagug may be stronger, considering it took a coalition of deities (which included Pharasma) to imprison him (not defeat, exactly...).

Then again, Pharasma may not have wanted to use more of her personal power than necessary (souls to judge - most likely including a few deities slain by Rovagug; maintaining the River of Souls; working within the limits placed by prophecies she may have been aware of; not wanting to diminish the relevance of other gods; etc.).

So, you're not necessarily wrong (& James did hedge on whether or not Pharasma was the most powerful, which is not a denial admittedly, so...)

(Of course, if you're referring to a more recent post than the one I saw, well... Never said you were wrong... <shrug>)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:

Well, if there's always say a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit a dragon, then if there are 100,000 archers firing, roughly 5,000 arrows will hit. That's a significant amount of damage. How many hit points does this dragon have? :-)

If there's *no* chance that an arrow fired by a level 1 character will hit, then it doesn't matter how many are firing, the dragon will just ignore it all.

???

Umm... That's not how percentages work according to your phrasing (in italics & bold above), is it?

What "...a 5% chance that a given arrow fired by a level one character will actually hit..." means is that each arrow will only have a 5% chance to hit (& would, thus, be of almost neglible concern to the dragon).

For your numbers to work (5,000 of 100,000), it would have to be "5% of total arrows fired" (in a given situation).

Right??

I know, I know... It seems like I'm being pedantic. But what you wrote could be very misleading, so...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warning: Wild speculation below!

So, considering the title of the adventure path & Cole Deschain's hint above & the draconic implications...

Could Dahak (& most likely Apsu, too) have a role to play?

Continues speculating...


Dotting for when can view on laptop/pc...


You forgot the Tian-Hwan (=Korean) & Tian-Dtang (?ambiguous, as they are the most 'fantastical' of the various Tian ethnicities; Dtang seems to be Indonesian, yet the general geography could imply a group from the 'Indochina' region, like 'Burmese' or Thai).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean Brinson wrote:

Uh. No. Not really. But if you REALLY wanted to stretch to reach for it, you might get Urgothua or Zon Kuthon. That's the closest I can think of.

Urgothua - CE deity, the first undead ever. She basically was super hedonistic in life, didn't want to give that up when she died, so she spontaneously became a deity of undeath. She likes her minions to indulge in excessive sex, violence and mayhem, as by the time she died she was well past the threshold of being able to get off from anything even remotely normal. Super self destructive, chaotic stupid/stupid evil crap.
...

...Umm, Urgathoa is NE, not CE. At least, in canon.

This doesn't necessarily invalidate the gist of what you were saying about her though.


I'll give you that.

:)


Yqatuba wrote:

hmm no good aligned ocean gods why?

anyway for Kelizandri- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw5lIdSYFDM
Dagon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pev0dINRaok

Lysianassa??


Dark Midian wrote:
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

That's surely a must have!

Again, what's a Monad?

Mentioned up above. New name for Aeons.

Err...

Isn't the Monad the god-like entity from which Aeons are derived &/or revere??


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ladydragona wrote:
I haven't even gotten last months issue let alone this months it is totally unfair that some people are getting Septembers issue when some people haven't even gotten August's issue yet. In july my copy of the armory was messed up they said they would fix it and send another copy and I haven't gotten that yet either. I seem to be lost somehow I have been paitent for 2 months now waiting for my return of the runelords subscription how much longer do I have to wait.

Perhaps you could make a post about this in the Customer Service forum so that the good folks at Paizo can look into your problem and offer you some assistance in resolving it?

Just a thought.


There is probably an island (or two - or even a chain!) in Minata that fits the bill over in Tian Xia...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Souls At War wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Souls At War wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Well at least there is finally a term for all the neutral outsider groups.

Neutral on the Good-Evil axis, might still need one for the Law-Chaos axis.
We have Fiends for any-Evil, and (taking a guess) Celestials/Empyreals for any-Good. If you were talking about NE-N-NG groupings they don't really interact in the same way that CN-N-LN do.
Fiends/Fiendish/Unholy for Evil; Celestial/Empyreals/Holy for Good; we now have Monitor for Neutral on the Good-Evil axis; Anarchic/Entropic for Chaos; Axiomatic/Resolute for Law...

Umm...

Fiends cover Evil outsiders, i.e. LE, NE, & CE.

Celestials cover Good outsiders, i.e. LG, NG, & CG.

Monitors cover the remaining Neutral outsiders, i.e. LN, CN, & (T)N, which is the (neutral) Law-Chaos axis, right?

Or, at least, that's what I understood from what was written in the product description.

Am I mistaken here?


This isn't Mystara...


Erik Mona wrote:

The versions in the Playtest Rulebook are the "official" versions, at least at this moment. The changes were made VERY late in the game, and somehow we missed universalizing these changes during the edit of the Playtest Bestiary.

Kind of what I thought had happened, and I completely understand.

(I'm sure things are a little...hectic atm.)

Just calling attention to the descrepancies so that they can be addressed when the final version of the CRB & Bestiary are decided.

Thank you for your reply.


Posting this from another thread as it seems relevant to the topic? :/

There seems to be a bit of inconsistency regarding the names of the various languages in both the Playtest Rulebook & Playtest Bestiary.

E.g. Under the Dwarf Ancestry section in the Rulebook:
The names for many of the languages listed (incl. that of the Dwarf ancestry itself) are not the same as everywhere else in the book.

"Dwarf" should be Dwarven.
"Giant" should be Jotun.
"Orc" should be Orcish.
"Gnome" should be Gnomish.

Or the languages as listed in the entry are correct but those listed elsewhere are not?

In the Bestiary, this inconsistency is a little more widespread, e.g. Orcs speak "Orc" - which is fine. But then why have it as Orcish in the Playtest Rulebook? Also Ettin, Green Hag, Norn, Ogre, & Oni are all listed as speaking "Giant". Wouldn't it be Jotun, the language actual giants (in the book) speak?

Spoiler:
  • * I know, I know. It seems 'nitpicky'. And, fortunately, these are the playtest docs & not the final versions, so there will be some errors/typos/inconsistencies in them. And I'm fine with that.
  • * However, I feel that the 'language inconsistency' has the potential to creep into not only the finalised rulebook, but also into other products like the Bestiary itself - at least in the earlier years of the game.
  • * So, it may be a good idea to decide what are the languages for the ancestries/creatures & get everyone on the same page. Then, apply the decision(s) consistently.
  • * Also, will daemons be getting their own language in PF2?
  • * I appreciate that the team is currently focussed on gathering & processing feedback for the rules of the new game & how they play/work/not work. This isn't meant to be a 'naggy post' or a "Ha! Found an error! Paizo faaailed! <overly dramatic whine>" post.
  • * Rather, this is a "When you get to the finishing touches, be aware that there are some lore/rule inconsistencies spread about, so give it another look through - preferrably with the official list of languages/adjectives/etc. at hand ;) " kind of post.

TL;DR (the spoiler): Please pick which version of the language-name is official, & stick with it.

Thank you.


^ This also seems to be the case with many of the entries in the Playtest Bestiary, e.g. Orcs speak "Orc" - which is fine. But then why have it as Orcish in the Playtest Rulebook?

Spoiler:
  • I know, I know. It seems 'nitpicky'. And, fortunately, these are the playtest docs & not the final versions, so there will be some errors/typos/inconsistencies in them. And I'm fine with that, in general.
  • However, I feel that the 'language inconsistency' has the potential to creep into not only the finalised rulebook, but also into other products like the Bestiary itself - at least in the earlier years of the game (as was the case here & there in the earlier books of PF1 - it did get much better later on!).
  • So, it may be a good idea to get together & decide what are the languages for the ancestries/creatures (e.g. Will daemons be getting their own language in PF2?) & get everyone on the same page. Then, apply the decision(s) consistently.
  • I appreciate that the team is currently focussed on gathering & processing feedback for the rules of the new game & how they play/work or not. This isn't meant to be a 'naggy post' or a "Ha! Found an error! Paizo faaailed! <overly dramatic whine>" post.
  • Rather, this is a "When you get to the finishing touches, be aware that there are some lore/rule inconsistencies spread about, so give it another look through - preferrably with the official list of languages/adjectives/etc. at hand ;) " kind of post.

Still, enjoying what I'm seeing so far, so good work there!

TL;DR (the spoiler): Please pick which version of the language-name is official, & stick with it.

Thank you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Under Dwarf Ancestry section:
The names for many of the languages listed (incl. that of the Dwarf ancestry itself) are not the same as everywhere else in the book.

"Dwarf" should be Dwarven.
"Giant" should be Jotun.
"Orc" should be Orcish.
"Gnome" should be Gnomish.

Or the languages as listed in the entry are correct but those listed elsewhere are not. Please pick one & stick with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
elvnsword wrote:
...I do like the new Totem/Anathema setup for the Barbarian albeit it feels off when it comes to the chaotic alignment they adhere too...

Umm...

Barbarians are no longer restricted in alignment, i.e. Barbarians can be of ANY alignment, not just the chaotic (or non-lawful) ones.
So...

Not really "off"??

________________________________________

I've noticed that a number of names for things (esp. setting related) have been changed (e.g. aeon stone instead of ioun stone, Jotun instead of Giant, etc.) - presumably to distinguish Pathfinder more from D&D.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but it will take a little bit of adjustment.

Icons, while a little more abstract than expected, are (to me) clear, simple & easily distinguishable once you learn them. (There are only THREE, & they are at most only two colors - white & dark reddish brown.)

I can't really comment on the actual rules until I've played a bit, so that's it from me.


Quandary wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
If there's a very small thing which can increase my enjoyment about this subject are alternate religion models like "tight" pantheons, monotheism/dualism, philosophies, etc.
Golarion does have things like Shimye-Magalla (Desna-Gozreh amalgam), Godclaw, and the Eternal Emperor cult centered in Po Li (albeit seemingly more Oracle focused than Cleric). That, and Osironi Pantheon to name another, are definitely things to look forward to, although I would guess only Shimye-Magalla has any chance at getting Core treatment if Bonuwat are Core ethnicity).

Hmm... The last I heard, Shimye-Magalla was going the way of the Darklight Sisterhood: Something COOL! that was mentioned in older books but is now receiving a 'soft'-retcon of not actually being a thing in setting by no longer ever mentioning it again.

Unfortunately.

But there's always a possibility that it might be brought back... Slight.

<edit> ninja'ed!

:-p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
avatarless wrote:

That's Orcs as their flavor text is currently written. But this is Pathfinder 2 -- we can update the lore!

It'd be nice to have Orcs aren't 100% pure evil traditional tropes. Sure, have some Orcish tribes reminiscent of Tolkien's Uruk-hai, Games Workshop's Orks, and AD&D Chaotic-Evil experience point containers...

Umm... Orcs were LE in AD&D. They only became CE from 3rd Ed onwards.

Right?

Just saying...


Also relevant to Yaldabaoth is that not only is he the demiurge (=creator) of the material world (usually attributed to the Judeo-Christian god), but an alternate name of his is Samael, one of the many identities of Satan in Judeo-Christian beliefs. This link between Satan & the creator of the 'evil' world was part of Catharic belief in particular.

Also, in some sources Samael is equated with Azazel (perhaps mistakenly), as well as with Ashmedai (a variant of Asmodeus...).

So, it's really not that difficult to see why the Gnostics (& their 'spiritual inheritors', the Cathars) as a group were declared heretics and stamped out during the early days of Christianity...

DISCLAIMER:
The above is strictly in reference to the beliefs of some - not all - gnostics in the past. This post isn't meant to be an attack on anyone's beliefs.
But, as religion can be a little polarising: my apologies if it does bother you somehow.
Please flag the post so that the forum moderators can review it & decide whether or not it should be modified or removed.

<edit> Added the Disclaimer.


Thank you!

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>