Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Concordance of Rivals

Parhfinder has 20 core gods, 15 minor gods, and lots of other pantheons (elven, dwarven, orc, Azlant, Heavenly Court/asian, Osirian/egyptian, giant, Outer Gods, and so on...).

I sincerely hope the continue to work with this diversity of faiths, as this is my favorite themes of pathfinder (followed by planes and nations). And they have been handling it pretty well to me, being able to have lots of "nature gods" with completely different flavors.

That's said, I hope we do get more Protean Lords in the future.

Ah, that is the legacy of fire article were protean lords are from right?

But yeah, I agree it would have been nice to get protean equivalent to inevitable excerpt from concordance of rivals page. But only book of the damned got three full volumes before they got adapted into hardcover version, so that probably ain't gonna happen unless paizo decides to do chronicle and concordance hardcover in some far weird future where celestials and monitors are as popular and profitable as fiends

I really want to see a Chronicles of the Righteous Hardcover in the future, but now with the introduction of the 2E we will have to wait for their new take on obedience and see if people are interested...

Do we know for sure there ARE more than five of Protean Lords? (four described ones plus the one that disappeared into dimension of time along with primal inevitable who dragged them there)

Also, thing about Godmind is that doesn't it exist on only when axiomites are having a council?

The Maelstrom is infinite and in so one reading of the published content says that in theory there are innumerable more protean lords, it's just that only a portion of them will have any presence within the local cosmological shallows of the Great Beyond.

Only 5 are detailed in CoR, but I think you can safely assume that there are many, many more. Give it time and -ask Paizo for more protean lord details!- and you'll surely see more eventually. :)

You might also conceivably consider the Watching 7 of Galisemni either as seven nascent protean lords or collectively acting as one, though there isn't an answer here in print. They're a unique situation.

As for the Godmind, it is mentioned in print as godlike, and the wording could be read as possibly a full god formed collectively as an emergent consciousness from the axiomites as a whole, but at most times basically software running in the background on the entirety of the axiomite race, but with major sections of it present in the axiomite hierarchs (mentioned briefly in CoR).

In my headcanon, the Speakers, the Godmind and the Monad are as powerful as true gods, they just don't want to focus on trivial matters like granting spells and answering followers.

The Speakers of the Depths are full deities. It/They are given a divine stat block in Planar Adventures with a full set of domains. They just don't directly interact with mortals much, so there hasn't been much discussion of them outside of the Protean Ecology in LoF and the discussion of them in Planar Adventures.

That said I'd love to write a -lot- more about them given the opportunity in the future to do so.

The general rule for publication of gods and demigods is that the ones they publish are the ones known on Golarion. There are plenty more of every demigod category out there, they just don’t have followers or interests on Golarion. Pharasma, with a big church, has a lot of her ushers known. The proteins and inevitables seem to generally take less of an interest in the material plane in general and apparently Golarion in particular compared to fiends and celestials.

Creon Vizcarra wrote:

On a side note, in order to make the Monad a full deity according to established paradigms, which domain do you think is a good idea for his 5th option? I was thinking Protection.

Protection is solid, but I’d go for Community. The aeons are intrinsically connected to one another through the Monad, and while there might not be much sense of camaraderie, this unity in thought, knowledge, and purpose is readily represented through the Community domain.

Thank you, I hadn't thought of that, I will make use of it.

In case anyone is interested, under the spoiler are my full-god domains and for the Monad and the the axiomite Godmind from my homebrew alteration of the Pathfinder setting

Now I'm guessing, how was the Monad affected to go from Neutral to Lawful Neutral?

I mean, aeons are its creations, so why did it started creating LN aeons? Or are the aeons going against the Monad's "will"? Is there any hint to that in this book?

Now I'm guessing, how was the Monad affected to go from Neutral to Lawful Neutral?

I mean, aeons are its creations, so why did it started creating LN aeons? Or are the aeons going against the Monad's "will"? Is there any hint to that in this book?

There are hints in the book that are preparing the way from Aeons to become the primary LN outsider group in 2e, but it is not official in 1e. It is very nebulous whether Aeons are going to, in-universe, become LN, or if there will simply be a retcon saying that they were always LN. If it ends up being the former case, as far as I can tell from this book, The Monad hasn't started creating LN aeons yet and isn't LN itself yet.

I mean for all we know, Monad could remain N while Aeons became LN to balance L and C axis.

Either way, Starfinder already has neutral aeons so presumably retcon either affacts only 2e, or by time of starfinder inevitables became more prominent again

Concordance of Rivals can explain the Gap in Starfinder, so sure.

Concordance of Rivals can explain the Gap in Starfinder, so sure.

I have the book, but havn't read it.

Xenocrat wrote:

Concordance of Rivals can explain the Gap in Starfinder, so sure.

I have the book, but havn't read it.

What does it say about the Gap and where?

It doesn't, but but you can tie it into a plausible Gap theory. But of course you can tie lots of things into a Gap theory.

Another explanation is that Starfinder is set in an alternate future that branched off before whatever event changed the alignments of the Aeons. Of course, to make that theory canonical, an exact beginning date for the Gap would have to be set so that Starfinder GMs would know to ignore any PF2 events that might otherwise fall in the pre-Gap timeline.

I mean, we already know Starfinder is canonically AU so that developers for one doesn't need to follow developments in another. And because undead aren't inherently evil in starfinder :p

Great book, with some very lovely stuff in. The cosmological information gives me vague thoughts about how to do a well-beyond-Epic campaign in the PF multiverse, though it would likely not remain the recognisable PF multiverse for long; the mention of twamni felt reminiscent of the scale at which Nobilis works.

Was it just me, or did it seem implied that the ultimate truth Tabris realised and then lost is

Another explanation is that Starfinder is set in an alternate future that branched off before whatever event changed the alignments of the Aeons.

I'm not sure we have reason to think the alignment of the Aeons "changed" in-universe. If it's a ret-con, that isn't the case. I don't really see how the game falls apart by saying "this is Aeon's alignment, and this is how it always has been". And thus there is no alignment-changing event to branch off from. Now Starfinder could go with the old Alignment, or it start using the new one. But I don't think there is an 'event' it would need branch off from, it would be more fundamental different take on game, just as different take on Undead doesn't overtly "branch off" from "event".

Well, it would annoy inevitable fans if Paizo is now like "Inevitables, whats that?" :p

New multiverse. Who dis?

Did I miss it or is Concordance the only book of the trilogy without it's own Artifact statblock?

Did I miss it or is Concordance the only book of the trilogy without it's own Artifact statblock?

No, you are right, it is the only book without artifact statblock for some reason

How did you all react to the reveal that now (or rather, from August 1st) axiomites are going to be part of the Aeon family?

How did you all react to the reveal that now (or rather, from August 1st) axiomites are going to be part of the Aeon family?

I shall ignore it, like I do to everything Paizo related that isn't first edition Pathfinder.

The Gold Sovereign wrote:

How did you all react to the reveal that now (or rather, from August 1st) axiomites are going to be part of the Aeon family?

I shall ignore it, like I do to everything Paizo related that isn't first edition Pathfinder.

And ditto, except for art posts.

Geez, people are still bit spiteful this much time later?

I don't read these two responses as spiteful. You either like the change or not. It's merely a statement of opinion. Gold Sovereign is asking for a reaction and not the reasons behind it.

@Gold Sovereign: all my current games are set in PF1E so I still run everything with PF1E canon, i.e. up to Concordance of Rivals. I do not include the events of Tyrant's Grasp YET but I will once I am done running all the PF1E APs (we still have to finish HR Book 6, HV Books 3-6, SA Books 3-6, all of RUoAzl, all of RETotRNLDRS). Tyrant's Graps will be the last one I run, so I am saving it for the end. After that, my table will vote whether we switch to a new system or continue in PF1E in homebrew campaign fashion.

I don't read these two responses as spiteful. You either like the change or not. It's merely a statement of opinion. Gold Sovereign is asking for a reaction and not the reasons behind it.

Yeah, but was the "I shall ignore 2e existing" really necessary information to include? :p

Like only reason why people would say that constantly is to spite paizo as far as I can tell.

You're reading too much into this and IMO, generalizing from a very small sample size (this thread, on these boards). Paizo has moved on and did not request or require anyone's opinion before proceeding the way they did. 2E is out there, it exists, and it's happening; lots of folks are playing it. Everyone's entitled their opinion, so there's no point trying to infer intent one way or another.

I can say "I prefer the Spider-Man run from the 70's and 80's - anything from the Venom and Spider Clones saga going forward was not my forte" and still be a fan of Spider-Man. One does not need to like all Star Wars movies to enjoy watching Mandalorian. Etc.

We're all fans of the same thing. It's ok to discuss what our favorite pieces of it are. :)

I guess yeah, but it's as if anytime new spiderman comic came out, someone would enter comments to be like "I'm not reading any spiderman comics because I'm still boycotting one more day"

(granted that is actually semi good reason to not read spiderman anymore :p But I don't read marvel/dc comics in general because of the whole revolving door writer dealio. Like it just seems infuriating when one writer gets you to love character and then another one kills off or ruins character)