|
I'm not saying that this is a major issue that has to be addressed or that it has to be done, but has there been any thought given to adding the "archdevil" type faiths from the back cover of Princes of Darkness?
While Asmodeus isn't thrilled with people worshiping his subordinates, thematically it still seems that it might open up some variety for Chelaxian characters regarding domains for divine characters, and I can't imagine that the various dukes and archdevils presented are more obscure than some of the deities that were allowed in play from the cover of Gods and Magic.
Its just something I was wondering about.
|
I'm not saying that this is a major issue that has to be addressed or that it has to be done, but has there been any thought given to adding the "archdevil" type faiths from the back cover of Princes of Darkness?
While Asmodeus isn't thrilled with people worshiping his subordinates, thematically it still seems that it might open up some variety for Chelaxian characters regarding domains for divine characters, and I can't imagine that the various dukes and archdevils presented are more obscure than some of the deities that were allowed in play from the cover of Gods and Magic.
Its just something I was wondering about.
In a perfect world I'd love to have both but I'd prefer they provide more support/info on the deities we already have.
I would like more info to base my druid's worship of Urazra on.
|
I'm not saying that this is a major issue that has to be addressed or that it has to be done, but has there been any thought given to adding the "archdevil" type faiths from the back cover of Princes of Darkness?
While Asmodeus isn't thrilled with people worshiping his subordinates, thematically it still seems that it might open up some variety for Chelaxian characters regarding domains for divine characters, and I can't imagine that the various dukes and archdevils presented are more obscure than some of the deities that were allowed in play from the cover of Gods and Magic.
Its just something I was wondering about.
In a perfect world I'd love to have both but I'd prefer they provide more support/info on the deities we already have.
I would like more info to base my druid's worship of Urazra on.
I think you may be missing KEJR's point.
To allow the use of the archdevils would simply require one line of additional text in the Organized Play Guide, making the deities on that page legal. (Paralleling the 'the deities listed on page 2 of Gods and Magic' inclusion already in the Guide).
To give more information on Urazra requires game design, game writer, and other acts of creation.
Sure, we'd all like more information, but that's not what KEJR is asking about.
|
|
Sure, if you just want them to open those beings as viable distributer of divine superpowers that's fine, but I don't think simply saying 'you can now worship Bob the devil' will help in opening up variety. I think if you really want to open up variety in providing characters multiple avenues of worship you need to have fully fleshed out divine/fiendish powers - not just a name and associated domains.
|
Sure, if you just want them to open those beings as viable distributer of divine superpowers that's fine, but I don't think simply saying 'you can now worship Bob the devil' will help in opening up variety. I think if you really want to open up variety in providing characters multiple avenues of worship you need to have fully fleshed out divine/fiendish powers - not just a name and associated domains.
I completely agree with this. I would love to see more of the deities fleshed out. Though, if there was a devil named Bob, I would certainly worship him. He's got to be totally tough to survive with a lame name like that.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I think the response someone got when this was asked about before was that those "deities" (and the ones in Lords of Chaos, now) were rife for "cult" status. Meaning that Society members would often be going against them during scenarios with the full intent of wiping them out. And there have been a few of those modules (I won't list them for fear of spoilers). There was even one module that wound up centering on a cult of the god that the poster was asking about (around a year ago). At any rate, Paizo said they didn't want to see situations where a player had to subvert who they worshiped in an effort to play the game successfully (possibly risking their status as a cleric in the eyes of the GM), or have situations where players actually wouldn't play because, well, it was their peeps they were fighting.
Besides, as someone who likes heroes actually being heroes, I'd be a little dismayed at opening up that many evil gods for play. Where are all the good gods?
|
|
I could almost understand that logic, except that by opening up Gods and Magic:
Ydersius is legal, and has been said to be barely remembered as the god of what most people assume are the extinct serpent folk.
Glaundar, an obscure deity directly opposed to Desna is legal.
Various racial deities that are racial deities for races that aren't legal in Pathfinder Society are legal.
Heck, most of those guys even look more obscure than the archdevils and such in Princes of Darkness.
Also, no offense, but Pathfinders aren't heroes. They are adventurers. Its not a heroic campaign, its an adventuring campaign. Some Pathfinders may be heroes, but its not intrinsic to doing the job, and at times is anethema to the job.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Yeah, agreed on the Gods and Magic thing. Some of those obscure evil gods are even more "culty" than any archdevil could possibly get.
As for the heroes thing, yes, you're right. Kind of makes me sad, however, when I'm constantly working against players who want to play a conflicted character. By conflicted, I mean willing to kill innocents and flaunt the law in major metropolitan cities. I'd punish my home groups so hard, and have so much fun doing it. In PFS, my only good response seems to be, "You're arrested, this scenario is over," or, "You're character is evil, you're no longer allowed to play it." That seems a little harsh. Instead, the workarounds all become my own efforts.
I guess what I was saying is, if we open up even more evil deities, this problem will grow. I realize they're not heroes, but if they're worshiping good gods, at least they'll have a code of ethics.
|
|
As for the heroes thing, yes, you're right. Kind of makes me sad, however, when I'm constantly working against players who want to play a conflicted character. By conflicted, I mean willing to kill innocents and flaunt the law in major metropolitan cities. I'd punish my home groups so hard, and have so much fun doing it. In PFS, my only good response seems to be, "You're arrested, this scenario is over," or, "You're character is evil, you're no longer allowed to play it." That seems a little harsh. Instead, the workarounds all become my own efforts.
I guess what I was saying is, if we open up even more evil deities, this problem will grow. I realize they're not heroes, but if they're worshiping good gods, at least they'll have a code of ethics.
We may disagree on this, but I really don't think that allowing evil deities causes this problem. I'd be willing to bet most of those guys would be worshiping Gorum or some other god like that if they didn't have evil gods.
|
Sure, if you just want them to open those beings as viable distributer of divine superpowers that's fine, but I don't think simply saying 'you can now worship Bob the devil' will help in opening up variety. I think if you really want to open up variety in providing characters multiple avenues of worship you need to have fully fleshed out divine/fiendish powers - not just a name and associated domains.I completely agree with this. I would love to see more of the deities fleshed out. Though, if there was a devil named Bob, I would certainly worship him. He's got to be totally tough to survive with a lame name like that.
Remember, Bob is a verb, as well as a noun