Will there be any official versions of aspects, incarnations, or avatars for the Pathfinder deities?
As an aside check this cool site Encylopedia Mythica
Edit: this is my very first linky!
Aside from the daemon deacons I'm also interested to know if any of the deities have outsider servants that are unique to them. For instance, is Lamashtu served by any new demon types. This was an aspect of the Demonomicon I really liked.
Well there are the heralds.
I think they are replacing the avatars...or at least I hope.
Also, I noticed no, least, lesser, vanilla, stepchild, and uber-daddy rankings on the gods. Others may feel differently, but I hope this stays this way.
I don't like the "little and big" gods. God, demi-god, and immortal...kind of the way I always liked it.
Also, I noticed no, least, lesser, vanilla, stepchild, and uber-daddy rankings on the gods. Others may feel differently, but I hope this stays this way.
I like this too - please don't change this Paizo!
Also, I noticed no, least, lesser, vanilla, stepchild, and uber-daddy rankings on the gods. Others may feel differently, but I hope this stays this way.I like this too - please don't change this Paizo!
Me too.
You have Heralds, the active hands of the Gods on Golarion, and can be fought.
You have Demi-Gods, the very powerful. Which can be fought.
Then you have Gods, which can't be fought. They have no stats. If one wishes to personally oppose the Gods, that is what the Heralds are for.
You don't need any more categories than that.
To make the system meaningful, you can assign consequences (temporary or otherwise) to a God should their Herald be defeated. That provides a meaningful outlet for those groups that crave that sort of storyline. That type of story is legitimate fantasy. By having there be consequences that come with the defeat of a Herald, you can have that sort of story without blowing the power scale of the game, or getting silly with PCs fighting Deities..
|
I don't know... The Demi/Lesser/Intermediate/Greater rankings do help figure relative power between the gods, or perhaps if not the gods themselves, then their respective churches. Stat blocks, though, seem absurdly unecessary for anything less than HIGH Epic gaming (Level 40+). The Heralds make a nice compromise, though, for 95% (99%?) of in-game interactions between the PCs and the gods.
Creative Director
|
I'm pretty sure that we aren't going to have aspects or avatars of the gods. At least, not any time soon. The role of "aspect" is pretty much covered by the heralds of the gods; each of them is a CR 15 creature, and you'll note that each of them has an infinite Advancement line; if a god needs his or her herald to be tougher, it's a simple thing to make a CR 20, 30, or 100 version of the herald for whatever task needs doing.
As for classifications, we're pretty much going with this setup:
Gods>Demigods>Epic Mortals>Mortals
|
Also, I noticed no, least, lesser, vanilla, stepchild, and uber-daddy rankings on the gods. Others may feel differently, but I hope this stays this way.
I like this too - please don't change this Paizo!
Sorry to drop in unannounced like this, but, isn't Desna Vanilla flavored?
She seems pretty "vanilla" to me, at least.
-W. E. Ray
Sorry to drop in unannounced like this, but, isn't Desna Vanilla flavored?
She seems pretty "vanilla" to me, at least.
-W. E. Ray
A different kind of vanilla, perhaps?
Actually, that quote shouldn't be attributed to me, not that I take any offense. I'm not sure what the poster meant by that.
Sorry to drop in unannounced like this, but, isn't Desna Vanilla flavored?
Why don't you lick her and find out? :P
Sorry to drop in unannounced like this, but, isn't Desna Vanilla flavored?Why don't you lick her and find out? :P
Ray,
You've been pwned. ;)
Had my fill of deific avatars wandering around thanks to Realms. Same goes for "Chosen" types of characters. I like my deities active but not bordering upon the omnipresent. Too much direct and second-hand activity from deities and you start wondering why they even bother with high priests. I am of the mind that a deity manifesting an avatar should be a wonderous and horrific thing not something that occurs regularly or even once a human generation. I hope Golarion skips this entirely. Direct messages from deities and occasional intervention through non-spell miracles? Sure. Regular manifestation of a portion of the deities' being? No thanks.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
So to the second part of my topic: outsider retinues. Angels, devils, whatever that are specific to the service of specific deities.
So to the second part of my topic: outsider retinues. Angels, devils, whatever that are specific to the service of specific deities.
Much prefer the retinue/vassals arrangment when it comes to celestial and fiends. Not such a fan of the divine wildcards most are presented as in generic setting or even some specific settings. I like the idea of deities having celestials or fiends as servitors and with those acting more as the intermediary than actual deific avatars wandering around.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Seeings as the last time a God tried to manifest directly in Golarion he, umm, died, and the world got messed up for a good long time, I can understand why the gods might want to stay out of mortal business for awhile.
|
|
See, I just don't think any of this should be official. It's something that is better left to homebrew. Sure, it's important to publish a handful of different ways to do it (and a published setting should have its own way) so groups can see what kind of methods are possible but let's face it, this kind of Cosmology play doesn't come up that often (for most groups, I'd say). And besides, most experienced DMs have their own cosmologies anyway. And yeah, those're in some ways similar to errata and in others quite different. I sure enjoy scanning new cosmology fluff when it comes out to see what I want to try to add to my own homebrew stuff. But I'd never even consider just using a published cosmology as is.
And, you know, all the cosmology fluff books out there say basically this. You like the CRs in FCI? Use 'em. If the ones in FCII are more accurate to what your group is doing then screw the stats in FCI. You like Avatars in your campaign cosmology? Fine. If you want the PCs to one day be strong enough to challenge a god, do it. If you want Zeus and Asmodeus to have the same CR, go for it.
The only time a DM makes a bad, nay, wrong decision in cosmology is when he or she allows the GH god Kord or the FR goddess Eilistrae(wtf) into the campaign. These two are just so stupid they shouldn't ever be allowed in any game.
Oh, and it's always wrong to have Demogorgon more powerful than Asmodeus. ALWAYS.
In fact, it's always wrong if any Chaotic Power is better than any Lawful Power. It's just wrong.
-W. E. Ray
The alignments should be evenly balanced in power (at least on a macro-level).
Obviously, nobody here has the Immortal: Ascension book, because becoming as god in there is pretty easy!
In fact, it's always wrong if any Chaotic Power is better than any Lawful Power. It's just wrong.I totally agree!!!
I totally disagree!!!
Entropy rules!
In fact, it's always wrong if any Chaotic Power is better than any Lawful Power. It's just wrong.I totally agree!!!
I totally disagree!!!
Entropy rules!
You young saplings do not understand that despite all your bluff and bravado neither good nor evil, nor law or chaos holds the key to the universe's mysteries. They are all part of the same grand scheme and would fall apart without the other.
Chaos will win out. It was there first, and it will be there after all order crumbles.
Chaos is the natural (get this) order of things. It's always there, and it's always there first. You have to establish order from chaos. It's always limited, both in time and space (which are really the same), and all "victories" of order over chaos won't last.
Plus, chaos is so much more fun. Can do what you want.
See? We win. On all fronts. Haha.
Chaos will win out. It was there first, and it will be there after all order crumbles.
Chaos is the natural (get this) order of things. It's always there, and it's always there first. You have to establish order from chaos. It's always limited, both in time and space (which are really the same), and all "victories" of order over chaos won't last.
My, that's a lot of things that Chaos always is and always does. Seems a bit predictable, a bit... ahem... Lawful to me.
Plus, chaos is so much more fun. Can do what you want.
So can we. The difference is that we sometimes choose not to. Which makes us better than you.
See? We win. On all fronts. Haha.
But the "win" of Chaos is always temporary, because Chaos -- being infinitely changeable and thus very, very temporary -- will have self-destructed and made room for glorious Order in less time than it takes to read this sentence.
You won? Congratulations. Now step aside.
;)
See, I just don't think any of this should be official. It's something that is better left to homebrew. Sure, it's important to publish a handful of different ways to do it (and a published setting should have its own way) so groups can see what kind of methods are possible but let's face it, this kind of Cosmology play doesn't come up that often (for most groups, I'd say). And besides, most experienced DMs have their own cosmologies anyway. And yeah, those're in some ways similar to errata and in others quite different. I sure enjoy scanning new cosmology fluff when it comes out to see what I want to try to add to my own homebrew stuff. But I'd never even consider just using a published cosmology as is.
And, you know, all the cosmology fluff books out there say basically this. You like the CRs in FCI? Use 'em. If the ones in FCII are more accurate to what your group is doing then screw the stats in FCI. You like Avatars in your campaign cosmology? Fine. If you want the PCs to one day be strong enough to challenge a god, do it. If you want Zeus and Asmodeus to have the same CR, go for it.
The only time a DM makes a bad, nay, wrong decision in cosmology is when he or she allows the GH god Kord or the FR goddess Eilistrae(wtf) into the campaign. These two are just so stupid they shouldn't ever be allowed in any game.
Oh, and it's always wrong to have Demogorgon more powerful than Asmodeus. ALWAYS.
In fact, it's always wrong if any Chaotic Power is better than any Lawful Power. It's just wrong.
-W. E. Ray
Have to disagree with the basics myself. The level of interaction and method of interaction of deities with mortals is a major aspect of the general feel of a setting and has a heavy influence specifically on the cosmology, society, magic and through those the mechanics of the setting. So it should have an official ruling regarding such things. The difference in how deities interact made for a drastic difference between for example Faerun, Eberron and Krynn.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
PS KaeYoss, there is no such thing as chaos, only an order so unbelievably complex that it appears to be random from even the perspective of a deity. ;)
Chaos will win out. It was there first, and it will be there after all order crumbles.
Chaos is the natural (get this) order of things. It's always there, and it's always there first. You have to establish order from chaos. It's always limited, both in time and space (which are really the same), and all "victories" of order over chaos won't last.
Plus, chaos is so much more fun. Can do what you want.
See? We win. On all fronts. Haha.
Chaos is predictable and ordered. You know that a chaotic event or entity will be chaotic and therefore it is inherently lawful in its form and function. It is simply a facet of the great eternal order of the universe.
|
|
Outside of the gaming world all of this is golly-gosh neat, gee-wiz fun to discuss.
But inside game, just playing PCs or running NPCs, Chaotic is ALWAYS stupid.
Stupid Evil
Stupid Neutral
Stupid Good
So Lawful is better.
If a DM or PC is running a "Chaotic" character and not being stupid that means the character isn't really Chaotic despite its character sheet.
-W. E. Ray
The only time a DM makes a bad, nay, wrong decision in cosmology is when he or she allows the GH god Kord or the FR goddess Eilistrae(wtf) into the campaign. These two are just so stupid they shouldn't ever be allowed in any game.
What's your problem w/ Kord? There are so few Suel deities left in GH, he made perfect sense to me as being the one that the Suel "barbarians" would gravitate towards up in the Thillronian peninsula. Did you run a GH campaign where Kord stood out in some weird way? I don't get it...
I'm pretty sure that we aren't going to have aspects or avatars of the gods. At least, not any time soon. The role of "aspect" is pretty much covered by the heralds of the gods; each of them is a CR 15 creature, and you'll note that each of them has an infinite Advancement line; if a god needs his or her herald to be tougher, it's a simple thing to make a CR 20, 30, or 100 version of the herald for whatever task needs doing.
As for classifications, we're pretty much going with this setup:
Gods>Demigods>Epic Mortals>Mortals
James, you know that the deity writeups in PF refer to avatars, right? Does your statement contradict that, or did you really mean that, yes, they exist, it's just that we won't be statting them up anytime soon?
As for your streamlined classification, that's your call of course. But I always liked the rankings for the deities. Not b/c I wanted to have mortals square off against them, but so that when there were actual conflicts between the gods, I could have a sense of who could legitimately contend w/ whom.
And of course GH enamored me of quasi-deities :) But simply calling them epic mortals works fine (though I'd make them 30th level minimum, should Golarion ever use their equivalent).
Outside of the gaming world all of this is golly-gosh neat, gee-wiz fun to discuss.
But inside game, just playing PCs or running NPCs, Chaotic is ALWAYS stupid.
Stupid Evil
Stupid Neutral
Stupid GoodSo Lawful is better.
If a DM or PC is running a "Chaotic" character and not being stupid that means the character isn't really Chaotic despite its character sheet.
-W. E. Ray
Now that is a rather strange viewpoint, but one I have run across before. That's like saying Chaotic Evil is more evil than Lawful Evil. Now that's just weird!
It's one of the few things I liked about 4e straight up. No chaotic or lawful to worry about.
So to the second part of my topic: outsider retinues. Angels, devils, whatever that are specific to the service of specific deities.Much prefer the retinue/vassals arrangment when it comes to celestial and fiends. Not such a fan of the divine wildcards most are presented as in generic setting or even some specific settings. I like the idea of deities having celestials or fiends as servitors and with those acting more as the intermediary than actual deific avatars wandering around.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
This is more what I'm referring to. For instance, it's always been pretty well spelled out that all devils more or less (mostly more) answer to Asmodeus. I would think this is particulary true in a setting where he is a well-known deity.
But it always irked me that angels (devas, planetars, and solars) are some sort of celestial free agents with no real hierarchy.
So what I really want to know: who do the archons kowtow to? The eladrins? The inevitables? The demodands (OGL thanks to ToH!)?
And who will be the Chaotic Neutral iconic outsiders? Jason? Mike? James? Bueller?
And who will be the Chaotic Neutral iconic outsiders? Jason? Mike? James?
Jason, Mike, and James are the CN iconic outsiders??? That explains a LOT!
Chaos isn't predictable. You can't say that it's predictable because it acts "chaotically". That's like saying that weather is predictable because there will always be a temperature.
Acting chaotically means that you won't know what they'll do. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone, maybe except themselves. They can do what they want. They don't have to kill someone just because the law says that he belongs dead (say, the law that prohibits speaking against the Queen). They don't have to let someone live just because the law says that his offense isn't punishable by death (say, the law that the King can kill who he wants).
And Chaos itself: it does follows some "rules", but they're so far beyond anyone's reckoning that you can't see it. Lawful types can't accept that, so they invent far simpler rules, like "don't smoke on tuesdays", who often make as little sense as anything chaos does, but they're easy to follow, so they do it.
And who will be the Chaotic Neutral iconic outsiders? Jason? Mike? James?Jason, Mike, and James are the CN iconic outsiders??? That explains a LOT!
Yes, they are. Collectively, the CN outsiders are called Anarchons.
|
Contributor
|
James, you know that the deity writeups in PF refer to avatars, right?
Where does it say that? I'm not challenging you, but as the hardcover guy I need to know where I can find information. Thanks.
Does your statement contradict that, or did you really mean that, yes, they exist, it's just that we won't be statting them up anytime soon?
It's also possible that since Golarion is less than a year old and being created at a feverish pace that we sometimes say something in one product and ret-con it later because we didn't like the idea. A throw-away reference (and I'm not saying "avatars" is a throw-away reference, although it probably is) is just that until it gets a full entry somewhere. And even then, some things that get full entries in some product get changed in later products. Such is the way of things.
|
|
I use the word "stupid" because it's negative, even if it's not the most accurate word. "Stupid" as Chaotic means typical actions, in-game, that seemingly have no point or purpose except to throw off everyone else's game and often enjoyment.
Acting chaotically means ... They can do what they want.
That is the biggest BS statement ever in D&D and it seems everyone that likes to run C characters uses it.
It illustrates my point on why, in-game, Chaotic is no good. Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil seem to be the worst culprits. I won't allow either unless a Player defines exactly what that means -- in gaming/playing terms, not philosophical terms that have no business at the table.
To the Player: tell me what actions, personality, goals, etc. your PC is all about and if it doesn't sound like it'll ruin the game (ruin the fun) then we can go with it. As DM it's my job to try to let the Player actualize his or her character concept. If you want to run a CE character I want you to be able to. But we're damn sure gonna make sure you know what you're gonna be like at the table.
In my experience Players that run CN characters are more likely to attempt actions in-game that ruin the fun of the game.
-W. E. Ray
Acting chaotically means ... They can do what they want.That is the biggest BS statement ever in D&D and it seems everyone that likes to run C characters uses it.
It's not BS. Chaos means you follow a set of taboos and mandates that you made yourself, or maybe you adopted from someone else because you liked it or they had persuasive arguments. They don't follow any restrictions or expectations because of authority.
So yes, they do what they want, not what they're told.
It has nothing to do with good or evil. The moral and ethnical part of the alignment will blend to create a set of behaviour, not influence each other.
CG characters do what they want, because they're chaotic. They *want* to do good, because they're good. They will do good even if laws say that they should do evil.
CN characters do what they want. They neither want to do especially good or especially evil things. They won't be weighed down with altruistic inhibitions, or anything like that, but neither will they go out of their way to out of their way to hurt others.
CN characters do what they want. They are evil, selfish, sadistic, the whole hog. So when they hurt someone, they do it. Or if they don't, there has to be something real (for them) that stops them from doing it, not some made-up nonsense called "law".
While I agree that people use chaos as an excuse to be gamebreakers, that doesn't make chaos bad. It just makes those people jerks.
Oh, and calling things people say "the biggest bs statements in D&D" won't make you friends. It won't win arguments, either.
|
|
I could've said one of my biggest D&D pet peeves. I considered wording it that way and changed my mind.
My problem with it is that it's rarely well playable. I get the philosophical concept; I just don't think it has a place at the game. D&D is a social game; NO ONE can "do whatever they want" in-game just for the sake of doing whatever they want. It's contrary to the game.
Please, don't take it personally that I call it "Stupid" Neutral; I'm not that important. There are, afterall, groups that get enjoyment out of what I would call stupid-play.
-W. E. Ray
I won't fan the fires of unpleasant discussion, but I find KaeYoss' perspective on CN alignments to be the perfect ideal of what CN should be.
And sadly, it looks good on paper, but rarely works in my practical experience. CN player alignments usually translate to "I'm not responsible for my real world conduct, let alone my in character conduct."
That is not universal. I have had exceptions, and I'm always glad to see them. What I'm saying is a generalization. It's just one that plays out as more often in the wrong way then it plays out in the way KaeYoss describes.
These days, I just advise the player what I think a CN alignment is, and is not.. and the style of campaign I run, which is usually team oriented. Then I give them benefit of the doubt. If it doesn't work I just try to be pleasant but firm in that I don't want to GM that kind of character.
I could've said one of my biggest D&D pet peeves. I considered wording it that way and changed my mind.
Wow. Usually, people write the wrong stuff first and then reconsider.
My problem with it is that it's rarely well playable.
Well, either you play with the wrong people, or I'm a genius, and so are several of the people I play with, for I've seen chaotic characters played really well, without any disturbing the game or anything.
I get the philosophical concept; I just don't think it has a place at the game. D&D is a social game; NO ONE can "do whatever they want" in-game just for the sake of doing whatever they want. It's contrary to the game.
Are you playing with people who get into rows alot because of what their characters did? Because it sounds like you can't separate character from player.
The character's chaotic, but that doesn't mean that the player is the same. The character does what he wants, but that doesn't mean the player does what he wants. "Metarules" like "don't piss off other players members on purpose" can be followed without the character becoming lawful.
Plus, you exaggerate. So I will exaggerate now, too: Lawful characters have no place in roleplaying: After all, if you're going to follow all the rules all the time, why play? Let the DM do all the playing. Why play if you're not master of your actions at all?
And sadly, it looks good on paper, but rarely works in my practical experience. CN player alignments usually translate to "I'm not responsible for my real world conduct, let alone my in character conduct."That is not universal. I have had exceptions, and I'm always glad to see them. What I'm saying is a generalization. It's just one that plays out as more often in the wrong way then it plays out in the way KaeYoss describes.
I have different experiences. And, come to think of it: the problem cases were from problem players. They are always problem players, no matter what alignment they play.
On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disruptive lawful characters, who always started rows in the party because they had an overly law-abiding streak, which would go against the non-lawful, but all the more good-aligned, characters and their actions and believes.
Most of the time, any friction due to alignments is because of immature, disruptive or just plain bad players, who used alignments as an excuse to be a pest. Instead of banning alignments, I throw those guys out. Works like a charm, and seems the proper thing to do. I wouldn't stop eating flesh just because some people are cannibals, either.
|
|
Plus, you exaggerate. So I will exaggerate now, too: Lawful characters have no place in roleplaying: After all, if you're going to follow all the rules all the time, why play? Let the DM do all the playing. Why play if you're not master of your actions at all?
.
.
.Problem cases were from problem players.
Very good points, sir, perhaps I have become too jaded.
Distant-past problems with Players made me begin my current treatment of Chaotic alignments; I've only had wonderful gaming groups for the last several years. I should begin attributing some of that to growing older, gaining more experience as a gamer, and playing with folks a little more mature instead of just attributing it to pre-game discussions on "what kind of character are you bringing to our game."
I still feel Chaos (real life and gaming) is undesirable but that's just my personality. It's certainly no big deal that others feel differently... So, I guess Law and Chaos can get along... Just remember Law is better and Chaos sucks.
-W. E. Ray
I have different experiences. And, come to think of it: the problem cases were from problem players. They are always problem players, no matter what alignment they play.
On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disruptive lawful characters, who always started rows in the party because they had an overly law-abiding streak, which would go against the non-lawful, but all the more good-aligned, characters and their actions and believes.
Most of the time, any friction due to alignments is because of immature, disruptive or just plain bad players, who used alignments as an excuse to be a pest. Instead of banning alignments, I throw those guys out. Works like a charm, and seems the proper thing to do. I wouldn't stop eating flesh just because some people are cannibals, either.
I can agree with that.
If I can get away with it, I try to avoid asking after a character's alignment. I prefer that they just play the character for a few levels, and the real alignment will surface. Often a player will declare an alignment and any number of external things will change it, like overlap with another character, or style of the game.
James, you know that the deity writeups in PF refer to avatars, right?Where does it say that? I'm not challenging you, but as the hardcover guy I need to know where I can find information. Thanks.
Does your statement contradict that, or did you really mean that, yes, they exist, it's just that we won't be statting them up anytime soon?It's also possible that since Golarion is less than a year old and being created at a feverish pace that we sometimes say something in one product and ret-con it later because we didn't like the idea. A throw-away reference (and I'm not saying "avatars" is a throw-away reference, although it probably is) is just that until it gets a full entry somewhere. And even then, some things that get full entries in some product get changed in later products. Such is the way of things.
(Crap, boards ate my post)
Mike, a quick look through the deity articles shows me only 1 reference to avatars, and that's on p. 68 of PF 2 (Desna): "When Desna manifests an avatar in the mortal world,...". You could presumably do word-searches on the issues more easily than I could, but maybe that's all that I saw, and it stuck w/ me. If so, apologies to James for overgeneralizing.And your point about a setting in flux and retconning is well-taken.
|
Creative Director
|
Mike, a quick look through the deity articles shows me only 1 reference to avatars, and that's on p. 68 of PF 2 (Desna): "When Desna manifests an avatar in the mortal world,...". You could presumably do word-searches on the issues more easily than I could, but maybe that's all that I saw, and it stuck w/ me. If so, apologies to James for overgeneralizing.
And your point about a setting in flux and retconning is well-taken.
That's an error, basically. We were still feeling our way with things back in the days of Pathfinder #2, and hadn't really settled on the idea of having the Heralds fill the role of divine messenger 100%.
Of course, if in 1 or 2 or 10 years we decide we DO want avatars, then it's not an error after all!
That's an error, basically. We were still feeling our way with things back in the days of Pathfinder #2, and hadn't really settled on the idea of having the Heralds fill the role of divine messenger 100%.Mike, a quick look through the deity articles shows me only 1 reference to avatars, and that's on p. 68 of PF 2 (Desna): "When Desna manifests an avatar in the mortal world,...". You could presumably do word-searches on the issues more easily than I could, but maybe that's all that I saw, and it stuck w/ me. If so, apologies to James for overgeneralizing.
And your point about a setting in flux and retconning is well-taken.
Understood. Which explains why I didn't find any later references w/ a quick scan through the articles.
Of course, if in 1 or 2 or 10 years we decide we DO want avatars, then it's not an error after all!
Heh heh. Just in time for the epic-level rules, and then it will be a free-for-all :-)