|
Originally, atheists (as defined in the setting) once they where judged (meaning once Pharasma <or Zyphus> declaired they could not be raised again, ie the character was truely retired) where cursed to hang out, outside of Pharasma's graveyard and essentually be trapped there for all time. If they had a means to, they could travel to other places, but they where essentually not allowed any form of true rest.
After some people said it was a little harsh and braught up distinctions between Golarion atheism and real world atheism, some of the devs changed it, purposeully making it more vague and to allow individual DM's to do what they wanted. The key point they made was that (bad) atheists in Golarion, those that disbelieve in the existence of ther own souls as well as the divine, (or believe that the deities are lying about their divinity), are cursed with the above punishment, disallowed from entering any deity's realm, cursed with an immortality similar to a powerless ghost. The other atheists (those that simply do not have a deity, do not believe in them, or whatever), are stuck in the graveyard for a while until a deity with a similar outlook gets to them, where they then go on to that deity's afterlife, if they want to and the deity agrees.
You are right, it is presented as much more a belief (both from within and wthout) that the deities are punishing Rahadoum, than there is any indication that the deities have actually done anything directly against Rahadoum. But, as I have noted above they have effectively cut themselves off, even from their surrounding neighbors, in many ways that those people can help. Many people that could help either have a strong sense of faith or believe that Rahadoum's laws against it are evil or tyrranical.
The fact that the Eye of Abendego destroyed one of their closest allies for trade and a port they depended on (Lirgen), while twisting another (Yamasa) into unsuitible allies. The Eye also cut off a huge trade route, being far too dangerous for all but the pirates to use with ease, and shifted the way the weather paterns worked for the area. A special note, the Eye of Abendego is much more the cause of NOT having a deity than of showing the damage a deity can do.
To the east is Thuvia, which holds strongly to it's own faiths, and constantly has many types of outsiders (and their beliefs) coming into it. Directly north is Cheliax, and north east is Andoran. Even further east is Osirion, all three having a strong system of belief, (or in Andoran's case a strong belief against Rahadoums <anti> religious tyrrany and slavery).
The nearest port that would have much frendly trade with Rahadoum as a nation is Quadira, on the other sid of the northern centenent, who must travel by sea directly through the lands held by the pirates.
Rahadoum has alienated themself both physically and really created a large wall philisophically between themselves and many allies. Unlike many types of real world atheisms, Rahadoum is very active in their disbelief, holding to a code of laws disallowing faith in their lands.
|
|
I also want out point out that the religious wars that Rahadoum was so afraid of was due to some (good) missionaries of Sarenrae travelling to the area and meeting some insane native followers of Nethys (probably in the Mangi expanse and some cannibalistic-warmongering savages of Norgorber, (probably around Nex and Yamasa who where forced to return to their dark ways when the Eye devistated them).
This was not a few Good or Nuetral faiths fighting over trivial religious things, this was much more good trying to stamp out some very evil, destructive, and vile cults hidden in the area. It is also implied that the cults of Norgorber and Nethys attacked the followers of Sarenrae as they came to the area. That's what started Rahadoum's laws and persecution against religion.
I maintain that Rahadoum is supposed to be "good guys". Their decision to forsake the gods was motivated by a bunch of foreign missionaries showing up on their shores and starting a war. Also trying to stamp out sectarian violence is a perfectly good cause at its core.
RAhadoum is unambiguously a democracy. It has a representative assembly who elects a leader with strong term limits. This puts it ahead of other non-monarchies, such as Galt which is generally complete anarchy and possibly even Andoran which is implied to have increasingly corrupt politics with the rise of the Lumber Consortium and all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAhadoum is unambiguously a democracy. It has a representative assembly who elects a leader with strong term limits.
That's a republic, not a democracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rahadoum supports slavery. That's one of my main gripes with it. I'd otherwise agree with Saint Caleth, though.
The slavery on Rahadoum could be like the slavery in the Late Roman Empire where, for example, slaves could sue their masters, and killing a slave was murder. It is more likely to be like this than like chattel slavery on the South that Americans think of when thinking of slavery.
There is not really evidence wither way though.
I would also argue that Golarion is medieval enough and slavery is widespread enough in the setting that it is not a good barometer of who are "Good Guys" and who are "Bad Guys".
And more importantly, unlike Christianity, atheism is NOT a belief system. It doesn't have any dogma, gospel, prophets, or the like. It's not even a philosophy. It's an utterly generic term like pagan or polytheist. No one claims their religion to be "atheist," and if they do, they are using the word improperly.
My religion is not atheist, but I am an atheist, and I'm frankly rather irritated that Paizo takes to calling the Rahadoumi atheist. They're not - and an atheist is fairly unlikely to exist in Golarion. An atheist is a very different thing from someone who thinks the gods aren't worth following.
Pharasma's pettiness is kind of beside the point, here.
Rahadoum has alienated themself both physically and really created a large wall philisophically between themselves and many allies. Unlike many types of real world atheisms, Rahadoum is very active in their disbelief, holding to a code of laws disallowing faith in their lands.
Disbelieve, nothing. The Rahadoumi do not deny the divinity of gods. They just think that the worship of them is the incorrect thing for people to do.
In a society that worships the sun as a god - would you have to deny the existence of the sun in order to be an atheist? Or would you have to deny that the sun produces sunlight - and thus makes life possible - in order to be an atheist?
In a society that worships the sun as a god - would you have to deny the existence of the sun in order to be an atheist? Or would you have to deny that the sun produces sunlight - and thus makes life possible - in order to be an atheist?
Kind of beside the point. But you'd just have to deny the divinity of the sun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Checks the time*
This thread is right on schedule.
Will future posters please consider the context of their remarks before posting a heated rebuttal against someone you only barely disagree with?
That this thread recapitulates the most depressing aspects of the modern atheist movement isn't even what upsets me.
If we continue to squabble about Rahadoum, fatigue will set in and we'll never see more products dealing with this awesome concept nation. So please! Check your indignation at the door, read the reasons that Paizo used the word atheism, and if you disagree say so and be at peace!
But arguing with each other will only ruin the idea for everyone, and you should feel rightfully ashamed if that happens.
In a society that worships the sun as a god - would you have to deny the existence of the sun in order to be an atheist? Or would you have to deny that the sun produces sunlight - and thus makes life possible - in order to be an atheist?
Well, exactly. My read is that the Rahadoumi *are* atheists. They deny that the gods are gods. They don't deny that random powerful extraplanar beings exist, but that doesn't make them a "god" any more than a powerful lich or a lillend or a phase spider is a god. It's a philosophy that constructs a Platonic definition of "what is a god; what entity would be worthy of worship" and all the current candidates come up short. It's pretty unclear if/what god created mankind, so even the "creator" argument doesn't work.
Yes, that's what I meant, Ernest Mueller.
Except, isn't it commonly accepted that the aboleth created mankind?
(Yes, I know. The official wording is a bit more vague. But what reason would our aboleth creators have to lie to us in this matter?)
Uhm, now I'm confused. Whose side are you on and whom are you angry at, LazarX?
Heck, whose side am I on again?
I happen to agree with your assertion, especially the bolded part.
But I also can't see a contradiction between your post what prosfilaes said.
I thought the question was "does the Rahadoumi's rejection of the authority of gods count as atheism?" - And I believe it does, following Ernest Mueller's argument.
Will future posters please consider the context of their remarks before posting a heated rebuttal against someone you only barely disagree with?Will future posters please avoid a smug attitude telling other people what they can and can't discuss and telling people what they can or can't be indignant at?
Fine. Have your meaningless squabble.
|
|
I wouldn't even say they reject their authority. They know full well that the deities are deities. They understand that when they die, they will go to Pharasma's graveyard, and will be judged, and very likely be judged in a very undesirable way.
They do not believe that the deities are powerful outsiders that just claim to be gods, or anything of that nature. They also do not believe that priests (divine spellcasters) are lying or misunderstanding where they draw their powers, or that those powers are real, (divine magic is not just a different type of arcane spellcasting).
"Since then, Rahadoum has charted a resolutely secular path. No one denies the existence or power of the gods, but their aegis comes at too high a price for the people of Rahadoum."
|
|
Heres a few quotes we may find helpful, though I still can not find the one I really want. :(
You can't be an athiest and cast divine magic, but you can be an agnostic and use it. Neither could be a cleric, though, since clerics have to worship specific deities. An agnostic could certainly be an oracle or a druid though.
I think I´m rusty on what Athiest means in Golarion,
but could you explain a bit better why a Golarion Athiest couldn`t be an Oracle, for example?
How does your attitude to Deities and Soul Cosmology affect what you decide to do with Powers you are born with / develop? Even if they are `seen` as coming from Deities, why couldn`t an Athiest just view them as being like Sorceror powers, and one is no more beholden to Deities than an Elder Dragon for somehow giving you a Bloodline...???
The weird thing about atheism is that while we can talk about things like Desna worshipers and followers of the Green Faith without riling folks up... the same isn't the case for atheism, since that philosophy is a real-world one. And as such, going into too much detail about how it works in the game, ironically, kind of runs into the same problems as would quantifying the effects of Christianity or Buddhism in the game.
As a result, I actually am not all that comfortable going into big full detail about what it means to be an atheist on Golarion, and would rather just leave a lot of those choices as to what it means in each game to individual GMs. Alas... we've already done a bit more than I'm comfortable on the topic in print, so to a certain extent, that ship has sailed.
In any case, it doesn't matter how an atheist would perceive divine powers, because they ARE divine in nature. Just perceiving them as arcane magic doesn't change things at all. Mortals do not have the ability to change reality just because of their perceptions or opinions or beliefs.
Since divine magic is the result of faith, that type of power is not available to atheist characters any more than arcane magic would be available to a theoretically magic-dead character who couldn't manipulate magic at all.
As a result... an atheist can't be an oracle, because the VERY DEFINITION of being able to cast divine magic is that you're not an atheist. If you can cast divine magic, you have faith in a higher power, be it a deity or a philosophy or a spirit or whatever, and as a result you're not an atheist.
Of course, you're free to adjust that as however you see fit in your version of Golarion, but that's how it works in canon for the world."
"James Sutter Wrote
Correct. Rahadoumis aren't anti-gods so much as they're anti-worship and anti-religion. They see offering your soul to a god as a sort of Faustian bargain regardless of who's doing the buying, and thus to them clerics are essentially indentured servants. "
<responding to this quote - Hmm...it's a bit of a stretch but perhaps an individual could consider the gods in Golarion to just be really powerful outsiders and reject the notion that they should be objects of worship. But yeah, I have a hard time someone being a true atheist in this setting.
That would be Rahadoum. "Let no man be beholden to a god." That's their first law, they don't deny the existence or power of the gods, but rather they refuse to pay the cost of worshiping them. The meaning of the word is slightly different, but atheism is so close to being right that it might as well be used here. Also, Rahadoum is not agnostic, they actively persecute religious practices within their borders, they don't turn a blind eye, they are actively opposed. >
|
|
James Jacobs(Creative Director)May 13, 2011, 04:58 PM
HappyDaze wrote:
"Thanks for adding those clarifications. They create a somewhat less interesting setting to my eyes - I'd prefer a land of enlightened atheism over one of frothing faith-hate, but since you're the source, so be it.
What about witches and their patrons, or diabolists? They too seem to go against the spirit of the Laws of Man even if their label is arcane rather than divine."
James Jacobs wrote:
"Witches and diabolists are arcane spellcasters—they'd probably weird out some Rahadoum citizens, but since a witch can do things on her own without fear of a higher power or philosophy snatching away her powers, she remains the ruler of her destiny and thus fits in with Rahadoum's creed. A diabolist isn't a divine spellcaster—it's a philosophy. Rahadoum would probably not get along well with them in any case simply because they truck with devils, but that's a different matter than their hangup with divine spellcasters.
Rahadoum isn't intended to be an "enlightened atheism" at all. It's intended to be the exact opposite—a close-minded group of prejudiced antagonists. If I were to make lists of "good guy nations" and "bad guy nations" of the Inner Sea, I wouldn't think twice about putting Rahadoum on the bad guy nation list.
There's not really a land of enlightened atheism at all in the Inner Sea Region."
All divine spellcastes are reviled in Rahadoum. Ones who openly worship deities are just the ones they hate the most. They'd hate druids plenty in Rahadoum—even if you're one of the druids who doesn't worship a deity (some do, remember, and the lawmakers of Rahadoum don't really make distinctions between those who do and those who don't), you STILL believe in something other than humanity's right to live without faith. And the Rahadoumi "police" will come after you if they find out you're a divine spellcaster anyway.
A divine spellcaster who's comfortable living openly in Rahadoum is either delusional or not really all that faithful to his religion or philosophy.
Rahadoum is NOT a good place for a divine spellcaster to live. Any more so than Belkzen's a good place for a dwarf to live, or Geb is a good place for an undead-hating Paladin to live.
I am comfortable being a "source" for this information if that's what's needed, by the way. :-P"
Yes, that's what I meant, Ernest Mueller.
Except, isn't it commonly accepted that the aboleth created mankind?
(Yes, I know. The official wording is a bit more vague. But what reason would our aboleth creators have to lie to us in this matter?)
The aboleths elevated mankind and claim they created mankind. As I recall however I do not think it is a widely known or held theory.
I wouldn't even say they reject their authority. They know full well that the deities are deities. They understand that when they die, they will go to Pharasma's graveyard, and will be judged, and very likely be judged in a very undesirable way.
They do not believe that the deities are powerful outsiders that just claim to be gods, or anything of that nature. They also do not believe that priests (divine spellcasters) are lying or misunderstanding where they draw their powers, or that those powers are real, (divine magic is not just a different type of arcane spellcasting).
"Since then, Rahadoum has charted a resolutely secular path. No one denies the existence or power of the gods, but their aegis comes at too high a price for the people of Rahadoum."
And all this makes it clear that the Rahadoumi are not atheists.
"magic" in the game seems pretty distant from anything considered "magic" in the real world.
Which is exactly my point.
Good and evil, on the other hand, have caused more arguments in the game then just about anything else.
Which is also exactly my point.
Look I'm a strict real-world monotheist, in the sense that I believe it's truly wrong (intentional or not) to worship anything other than The One True God (though that doesn't necessarily reflect on a person's value as a person). This is something that is, to me, an absolute fact of the world I live in, Real Life (tm).
In Golarion, that's patently absurd. There's gods. Scores of them. Of all alignments. Multiple good gods, specifically. To take my real-world view and ascribe it as an absolute in the game-world, I'd also have to take my views on magic, and my specific religious views on sexuality, violence, and the like and place them there too. It makes no sense.
it's defined for us by virtue of the fact that the gods have alignments and they decree things from within their alignments.
I don't see that at all. As far as I can tell, good and evil predate the gods, and the ascension of various gods did nothing to affect the definition of good and evil in the world.
I'm going to have to ask how alignments predates the gods, but that's really neither here nor there, nor was it the argument I was making, though I can see how you took it that way.
First: you must accept that if a creature - any creature at all - has an alignment, that the majority of their actions and view, as a whole, must reflect that alignment (otherwise, they'd be a different alignment).
Second: deities have alignments (as evidenced by the notation of what, exactly, their alignments are, and the limitations on their clerics being different from that).
Thus: deities make their decrees from within their alignments, which means that their decrees, on the whole, reflect their alignments on a universal scale. Instant definitions of what alignment means in-game. It has nothing to do with deities being able to ascribe alignments to things, I mean simply that they can be used as a measuring stick of "does X fit with an alignment in the game", in the same way a spell can be used as a measuring stick of "does Y fit with magic in the game".
All decisions have consequences, and those of higher authority get to decide those consequences. If they are unpleasant for those who go through them of lower authority, doesn't make the higher authority wrong. In this case, there is no higher authority than gods, and thus they will make a decision that those of lower authority must abide by.
Who put them in charge? Power does not equal authority. It may be advisable to kneel to someone more powerful then you, but you have the right to stand on your own two feet if you're ready to accept the consequences.
Here, you're arguing over whether or not deities have any rights. Quite simply: the game writers. Is that meta-gamey? Oh, yeah. Very. But that's an entirely accurate answer.
More in-game: gods are, by their very nature, gods.
Dictionary time: God (recurrsive: goddess!) or deities.
Under "god", number 1 partially applies by virtue of being multiples (they are, by nature, <some of> the creators and are the rulers of <parts of> the universe), numbers 2 and 4 may or may not apply given their areas of concern (called a "portfolio" in 3rd edition - whether they are truly supreme or not is debatable), and number 3 does apply to their areas of concern (especially in cases like Pharasma)*.
*
Given that definition of a god, the "who came first" is irrelevant. In the cases of Iomedae, Norgberger, and Cayden, it was a super-powered magic space rock. So, you know, kind of a lousy origin story. But that's irrelevant: now they are creatures who, by their nature, preside over some portion of worldly affairs. That's the nature of a god.
Now, given that we're arguing over the definition of "atheist" (which is improperly used), how can we be sure that "god" and the like are properly used? Simple: that's how they're used in the game world. "Atheism" is not used in the game-world like it is in the real-world. "God" is - they have areas of concern that they cultivate, manipulate, alter, control, and are generally considered the "masters" (or personifications) of.
Democracy is defined by the fact that there is no particular ruling class.
That's not what the link you point to says. Even today, the average person elected to the US Congress is a lot more male, a lot more white and comes from a lot wealthier background then the average American. It's easy to imagine democracies where de facto the elected officials were from a certain class; de jure would be a more interesting case, but could still leave enough choice in the hands of the electorate to be considered a democracy.
As for slavery, until 1865, the United States was a government where slaves and women were denied the right to vote. Perhaps it was not a full democracy, but it is generally considered a democracy.
You're really fighting me on this. Fine. Let's go with it this way: you're describing (and we live in) a Repbulic, not a pure Democracy. To argue otherwise is false, despite the tendencies of our national rhetoric.
You even handily ignored my main point: a democracy is, by it's nature, a thing where people get to vote. Slavery means that some people don't vote. Andoran has no slavery, ergo, it's more democratic than Rahadoum. Which was my entire point: it allows more people to vote, thus is more democratic.
the fact that they are willingly screwing themselves over for eternity* in order to "stick it to the gods"
What's freedom worth? It's hardly a tradeoff that other nations haven't made; Hell is hardly a pleasant destination, either. And they don't know of their ultimate destination; all they know is their lot here in life.
prosfiaes, this is a terrible argument. "Hey, those guys are idiots, so these guys can be too." doesn't make any sense. I never said that Cheliax made a good decision. It doesn't stop Rahadoum from making a very different, but equally stupid decision. And yeah, Rahadoum might not know what the afterlife is... but they really suspect that they don't have it good, because it says so in their entry. It literally says that they choose temporary freedom for a cold welcome in eternity. That's incredibly unwise. It's like saying, "Yes, I'll take an unlimited credit limit for a year and, in exchange, choose to be a slave forever afterwords." That's a bad idea.
You're arguing "freedom". What are they "free" from? Nothing in particular: they lose internal religious wars (go them!) but in exchange get persecution, hatred, lose contacts and allies, alienate would-be-friends, lose out on powerful healing and enhancing resources, and (to their way of thinking) harm themselves for eternity afterwords. That's a bad trade.
I'm not arguing that atheism is evil in game: it's not. It's simply massively unwise. And Rahadoum isn't doing it right anyway: they're a lawful neutral group of fanatics who persecute innocent people for believing differently from them. That's not in any way "good".
They aren't "real-world definition" atheists, they're "game-world definition" atheists, which, much like the difference between real-world "magic" and game-world "magic" and real-world "good" and game-world "good", is a pretty different creature altogether.
Which was my point.
(Post rushed, I might retouch things later)
You're really fighting me on this. Fine. Let's go with it this way: you're describing (and we live in) a Repbulic, not a pure Democracy. To argue otherwise is false, despite the tendencies of our national rhetoric.
You even handily ignored my main point: a democracy is, by it's nature, a thing where people get to vote. Slavery means that some people don't vote. Andoran has no slavery, ergo, it's more democratic than Rahadoum. Which was my entire point: it allows more people to vote, thus is more democratic.
Greater enfranchisement is not the sole criteria for judging the quality of a republic. Andoran (also a republic) is supposed to be increasingly corrupt with the influence of the Lumber Consortium and a slowly growing "new aristocracy" in power. In fact I just recently played a PFS scenario featuring a corrupt Andoren politician. Rahadoum has more of a tribal assembly feel to it's representative body, which means that you are not going to have the problems caused by the existence of career politicians like in Andoran.
So while it does not have universal enfranchisement, by some measures, Rahadoum is the more democratic place.
prosfiaes, this is a terrible argument. "Hey, those guys are idiots, so these guys can be too." doesn't make any sense. I never said that Cheliax made a good decision. It doesn't stop Rahadoum from making a very different, but equally stupid decision. And yeah, Rahadoum might not know what the afterlife is... but they really suspect that they don't have it good, because it says so in their entry. It literally says that they choose temporary freedom for a cold welcome in eternity. That's incredibly unwise. It's like saying, "Yes, I'll take an unlimited credit limit for a year and, in exchange, choose to be a slave forever afterwords." That's a bad idea.
You're arguing "freedom". What are they "free" from? Nothing in particular: they lose internal religious wars (go them!) but in exchange get persecution, hatred, lose contacts and allies, alienate would-be-friends, lose out on powerful healing and enhancing resources, and (to their way of thinking) harm themselves for eternity afterwords. That's a bad trade.
Religious wars, both on Golarion and IRL are I would say the single largest source of conflict and violence. Trying to get rid of that is a GREAT thing. Remember that on Golarion, you can look around and see nations like Cheliax which has literally signed its collective soul over to the Devil(s). I think that the fact that Golarion has gods which are objectively Evil who are in intrinsic conflict with gods who are Good would be a powerful motivator to reject the entire premise completely as they have done in Rahadoum. It's not like real life, where religion and religious conflict specifically usually boil down to really petty things. It is fundamental forces of the universe clashing a mortals getting caught in the middle and used as pawns.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say Rahadoum is at all free from the deities. It's more along the lines of them holing up and trying to pretend that the zombie apocalypse outside is going to go away one day. :) I would even venture that they are even more bound by deities and religion than others, trying so hard to have no part of it and rebel against it. My understanding is that that is the whole point of the Death's Heretic novel.
As for Rahadoum having a religious-freedom, they don't. At all. They actively dictate their belief (on pain of death or exile) on the populace. They just created their own "religious belief".
It's been known for individuals that find faith to leave, and the Pure Legion to threaten their families in Rahadoum, trying to get the person to reveal themselves so they can be assassinated, even though they are in a different country.
So, fair warning, I talk/type a lot. I do that in real life too (ask my wife!) so, you know. Walls of text below.
Also, Beckett is more eloquent than I.
Greater enfranchisement is not the sole criteria for judging the quality of a republic. Andoran (also a republic) is supposed to be increasingly corrupt with the influence of the Lumber Consortium and a slowly growing "new aristocracy" in power. In fact I just recently played a PFS scenario featuring a corrupt Andoren politician. Rahadoum has more of a tribal assembly feel to it's representative body, which means that you are not going to have the problems caused by the existence of career politicians like in Andoran.
So while it does not have universal enfranchisement, by some measures, Rahadoum is the more democratic place.
This is handily false. Because part of one country has corruption the entire basis is less democratic than an entire country that has built-in inequality? That's absurd. It's like saying that the U.S.S.R. was more free than U.S.A. because, in the USSR, it supposedly had enforced equality. The argument makes no sense. I've lived in both the USSR and USA. The USA had (and has) corruption. It is and was more democratic than the USSR.
There isn't a measure by which Rahadoum is more democratic. There may be measures by which Rahadoum is less corrupt, but that doesn't equate to being democratic (or free, for a later argument, below).
Claiming that Rahadoum has less corruption just because you haven't played a game in which anyone there is corrupt is equally false.
Rahadoum's central tenet: "Say no to gods." (and if you don't, they'll kill you). Corollary: screw the afterlife.
Andoran's central tenet: "Everyone deserves to live free." (and if you don't, they'll free you). Corollary: screw tyrannical cruelty.
Which, by it's nature, is better? Both are inherently opposed to diabolic Cheliax. But one of those is a genuinely good nation (with some groups and people who are corrupt), full of freedom (religious and otherwise) who seeks the best for its citizens, as a whole. The other is a group of anti-religious zealots (with some groups of people who are corrupt) who will destroy you for attempting to show people how to live in eternal peace just as much as if you were attempting to send them to eternal slavery.
Now, this doesn't necessarily reflect on the real world, where the truth is often unknowable, because we don't have super-magic that literally color-codes the truth for our convenience. But in a world like Golarion, they know there's an afterlife, they know that there is good and evil (and can automatically detect it), and they know there are consequences for their choices.
It's incredibly foolish, then, to stick your head in the sand and say, "I choose to live in the here and now, free (in a slowly-dying land of desiccation without many of the comforts the rest of the world takes for granted), but without any hope for an ultimate reward, just because of something that happened generations ago."
It would be like me saying, "You know, my ancestors (the Cherokee) were persecuted, so I should hate the Police, the Military, and everything to do with the United States of America. Sure, I know they have power over my ultimate fate, here, but I'm going to live like a king, max out all my credit cards, refuse to pay taxes, and waste everything, and completely ignore the consequences that will haunt me for the rest of my life. Because my ancestors had it bad, once." That's a very bad decision, fraught with lots of peril, and will haunt me. I have the "right" to complain about the consequences, but I will face the consequences of my actions, and to presume it's a good trade for what is comparatively a brief moment of freedom is a fool's trade, and a bad decision. It's the exact same decision that Rahadoum is making.
prosfiaes, this is a terrible argument. "Hey, those guys are idiots, so these guys can be too." doesn't make any sense. I never said that Cheliax made a good decision. It doesn't stop Rahadoum from making a very different, but equally stupid decision. And yeah, Rahadoum might not know what the afterlife is... but they really suspect that they don't have it good, because it says so in their entry. It literally says that they choose temporary freedom for a cold welcome in eternity. That's incredibly unwise. It's like saying, "Yes, I'll take an unlimited credit limit for a year and, in exchange, choose to be a slave forever afterwords." That's a bad idea.
You're arguing "freedom". What are they "free" from? Nothing in particular: they lose internal religious wars (go them!) but in exchange get persecution, hatred, lose contacts, alienate would-be-friends, lose out on powerful healing and enhancing resources, and (to their way of thinking) harm themselves for eternity afterwords. That's a bad trade.
Religious wars, both on Golarion and IRL are I would say the single largest source of conflict and violence. Trying to get rid of that is a GREAT thing. Remember that on Golarion, you can look around and see nations like Cheliax which has literally signed its collective soul over to the Devil(s). I think that the fact that Golarion has gods which are objectively Evil who are in intrinsic conflict with gods who are Good would be a powerful motivator to reject the entire premise completely as they have done in Rahadoum. It's not like real life, where religion and religious conflict specifically usually boil down to really petty things. It is fundamental forces of the universe clashing a mortals getting caught in the middle and used as pawns.
That's a flawed, and false argument, for the exact reason I mentioned above.
As far as religious conflicts go, they are "free" of (internal) religious conflicts, but as a direct result, they suffer from: disease, famine, lack of allies, lack of resources, and other difficulties. And they aren't free from external religious conflict - they've traded one kind of religious conflict for another. They are not better off, in any sense, than they were with religion. They've traded one set of problems for another set of problems, and lost their eternal rest in the bargain. That's really unwise.
I'm not saying they're evil. They're not evil. They're lawful neutral, as a whole. That does not equate to wisdom nor does it mean they made anything resembling a good decision.
Further, the fact that it's real, it's knowable, and it's part of reality means that, it's important. What you're arguing is that, "Because it's know-ably (), provably a real thing, they should avoid it entirely." which is kind of like saying that because they know that something evil happens both abroad and locally, they shouldn't take any stand whatsoever and make sure that people who are against evil are harmed just as much as people who are for evil. And should flush their souls down with it. That's completely untenable and silly.
Now: they do have a right to their own beliefs. But that doesn't mean their beliefs make sense or are wise in any regard.
deities make their decrees from within their alignments, which means that their decrees, on the whole, reflect their alignments on a universal scale.
No more than any other creature in the game world. It is as accurate to define LG by the typical behavior of gold dragons as it is to define it by the actions of Iomaedea.
... you're not actually arguing against my point here, so much as pointing out other things that also exist, but I'll work with you here anyway.
Yes, the "typical" behavior for a Gold Dragon defaults to Lawful Good. However, here's the thing, a <generic> Gold Dragon (as described in the Bestiary) doesn't stand for a particular philosophy, ethos, morality, or the like, it just upholds it's own view of good and acts the way it does (also worth noting, to forestall arguments: any given Gold Dragon likely does uphold a particular philosophy, ethos, morality, and the like, but the <generic> Gold Dragon entry does not give us one that all Gold Dragons use). As a result, it's very difficult to draw any kind of game-world conclusions for what the game-world defines as lawful and good from said creatures.
Gods, on the other hand, have specific areas of concern, and it's made quite clear their stances on those areas of concern. How does one know that one's view of Love aligns with the Neutral Good view in the game world? You can argue real-life all you want, but Shelyn is, by definition, neutral good, and thus all of her decrees can be presumed to sum up to neutral good. If you imitate Shelyn's views, you will, by game definition, be neutral good. Lather, rinse, repeat with each of the gods.
Further worth noting, if you find any unique creature, with an alignment, and a specified view of things, unless the text indicates otherwise, their view of a given topic, on the whole, will reflect their alignment.
However, in a game world, it's easiest to point directly to the
Here, you're arguing over whether or not deities have any rights. Quite simply: the game writers. Is that meta-gamey? Oh, yeah. Very.
Deities certainly have rights, like all other people. I was talking about authority. Authority does not really exist; it's a social convention. The game writers don't say anywhere I've read that the deities have authority. They have power in the game world, and that lets them claim authority, an authority that's acknowledged at certain levels by most of the people of Golarion.
Hey, wow, way to sidestep the argument and completely miss the point.
But let's go with that logic train.
If authority is a result social convention, than social convention generates authority by default. Social convention across the world (and outer planes) as a whole, then, indicates that gods are the rulers of their areas of concern. Which means that denying that denies the power of social convention, meaning that in doing so one is being anti-social.
Being anti-social is (generally considered to be) a bad thing.
But perhaps they (or you) don't care about that! That's fine, that's their right. However, that doesn't mean that they are wise, or clever for doing so. They can choose to believe whatever they want, and do whatever they want, but there is still consequences for their decisions. Given that gods have authority (by social convention), power (by nature), and alignments (by writing) than what they say goes.
Anyone can deny that all they want, but it doesn't make it less true.
I could refuse to ever step out of my house and convince myself that the world literally revolves around me and dismiss all evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't make it less true. I could deny that a given president was elected by the people, but that doesn't make it less true. I could claim that the law is nothing more than a social convention that I reject, and thus it doesn't apply to me, but (though I have the "right" to believe that) if I act outside of it, I'm still going to face consequences.
Simply saying, "they don't have authority because authority is nothing more than a social convention I reject" is foolish, has consequences, and if they wish to deny authority, they'll face the consequences, just I would.
Let's go with it this way: you're describing (and we live in) a Repbulic, not a pure Democracy. To argue otherwise is false, despite the tendencies of our national rhetoric.
Words in English have the meanings given to them by the speakers of English. The word "democracy", in English as she is spoken, includes the practices of the US and various other governments around the world.
Ah, the practices are democratic (i.e. by vote), but the government is not a democracy. That's the difference. Also, I'm dropping this, as it's a silly argument over semantics.
You're arguing "freedom". What are they "free" from?
The control of deities. That should be obvious. You can argue whether it's something worthwhile to be free from, and it has costs, but that doesn't mean it's not freedom.
Actually, they're not necessarily free from the control of deities. Depending entirely on the deity, a deity could still be controlling them, and they wouldn't have to know. They may be free from the control of deities, but they may not. They take that they are on faith.
For example: if I were a powerful bard, I could very likely control the entirety of the country by heavy use of magic and powerful people-skills. With the right spells and skill selection (and a high charisma) I could control and manipulate people to the point that they wouldn't even know that I was doing so. A simple hypnotism spell cast on tremendous amounts of people when they have few hit dice allows me tremendous influence, it never goes back, and I've effectively controlled them. No one ever need know, since they don't remember being hypnotized. Glibness, means that I can fool detection-magic. That's simply a low-level the power of one bard carefully applied. Sure, there might be ways to stop me, but you'd have to know what I was up to (which Glibness makes really hard), and I easily fit into Rahadoum's criteria for "not bound to the gods".
On the other hand, there are gods about - far more powerful than a simple bard with high charisma. While many gods respect free will, some don't, and those that don't will use any means within their disposal to manipulate and control, all the while glad to allow the illusion of "freedom".
Now, it does appear that Rahadoum is "free" from direct divine influence, but if I were "free" from government influence, I'd be lacking such things as roads, police protection, and other niceties that, oddly enough, help keep me free. That means that I'd not really be all that "free", over-all.
They trade a greater freedom for a lesser one, making them, ultimately, less free. And their ultimate fate isn't even in their hands anyway, since Pharasma controls where they go when they die.
Add that to the fact that they aren't free to choose to follow a god - those that choose to do so are persecuted by the Pure Legion. So, you know, they're less free, in that regard, than if they allowed religion in the first place.
they're a lawful neutral group of fanatics who persecute innocent people for believing differently from them. That's not in any way "good".
That's why they're lawful neutral. However, dealing with extremely wealthy, extremely powerful, extremely insidious outsiders and trying to maintain freedom of belief without yours getting steamrollered is hard. How long would Rahadoum exist as a religion-free nation if they let clerics come in and try and bribe people to join?
As long as the people of the country would resist conversions. Considering they regularly go on oppressive hunts to root out the religious (and continuously do so), I'd say they wouldn't last that way too long... which means the people probably don't want to be entirely "free" of all religion.
And to clarify: what do you mean, "bribe"?
You mean like Chelaxian devils? Because the devils aren't part of their anti-religious ban, and they don't go over well either.
Do you mean clerics simply throwing money around? Because that's kind of ludicrous to sway people by giving them money, and it's a false conversion besides (and churches rarely like those kinds of conversions, a few specific exceptions aside).
Do you mean "doing things for them", like, say, casting spells? Because, you know, if that's a problem, then they should ban wizards, alchemists, witches, and the like too.
Do you mean, "offering eternity in paradise?" Because denying people the right to accept that kind of offer (considering they know that the offer is a genuine one) is a pretty awful thing to do.
Also: nice use of loaded language, there.
So to sum up ("Too late!"): Rahadoum isn't evil, but it is foolish. It loses more than it gains (this is made explicit), they know they're trading temporary theoretical "freedom" for their ultimate long-term well-being, they hunt and persecute both good just as much as they do evil, and they are shallow enough not to care.
If Pharasma didn't care whether or not they believed anything, or if they weren't obviously suffering direct consequences for their actions, than, you know, it'd be fine, and entirely justifiable in the game-world.
Other countries making repeatedly, knowingly bad decisions: Cheliax, Galt, and Numeria (well, the Technic League). None of these have anything to do with atheism (or dystheism, or whatever you'd like to call it - it's certainly not Real-World atheism). I mention them, because I want to clarify: I'm not claiming Rahadoum is making stupid decisions because of anything in the real world. I'm claiming they're making stupid decisions, because, in the game world, they know they're giving up more than they're getting for something that's ephemeral and temporary anyway.
To use a real-world example, sometimes my toddler son wants things that aren't good for him. He fusses, cries, and tries to get his way - after all, to his way of thinking, it's perfectly valid. I, on the other hand, know that it's a bad idea and stop him, but I don't think him stupid or foolish... he's simply ignorant, something that can't and shouldn't be held against him.
If, on the other hand, he was thirty years old and behaved the same way over the same things, knowing that it's bad for him, but throwing a tantrum just because he wanted something: that's foolish, and can and should be held against him.
Rahadoum falls into the latter category: they know they're losing something important, but they're persecuting anyone within their borders who doesn't willingly sacrifice that same thing. That is a pretty awful thing to do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the the dragon idea is a terrble one to fall back on. :)
Dragons, by nature, regardless of alignment (or more correctly, before alignment) are exceptionally selfish, arrogant, and in many ways alien creatures, not immoortal, but far longer lived than even elves, and view things through a very different lens. The other point is that Golarion's only canon example of a Gold Dragon I'm aware of (minue Tian) is the one that dominate Hermea, and to this day is still contested if it's LG behavior and motives are actually LG outside of anything but itself.
I believe the developers have stated, in regard to the fate of atheists, it's really only pure atheism that grants you a permanent vacation home in the Boneyard. I.E. someone has to consciously belief that the gods are not real beings (which in Golarion would pretty be limited to the insane). If you acknowledge that Gods are real, but think they are unworthy of worship, or are just powerful outsiders, than not worshiping them will mean that your eventual award will be decided by your alignment. So the average person in Rahadoum isn't squandering eternity...they can still go onto Nirvana, Hell, etc.
Really, from the perspective of worshipers, worship of a god is pretty much just a way of hedging your bets. If you worship Abadar, and stay true to his teachings, you will get to go onto to that dieties realm in the afterlife, even if you lawful evil. If you don't worship Abadar, and have the same alignment, it's off to Hell for you (and you don't even get any of the benefits someone who worships Asmodeus might receive with the same alignment).
That's neat, MMCJawa, but Rahadoumi don't believe that... which was my point: they believe they are (as far as the flavor text is concerned), and they still foist that on others. Nasty.
Also, if you want more enlightened in-game atheism, I believe Druma would be a much better example. I don't have Internet right now, beyond the iPad (sorry for auto-correct-induced errors), but when I can, if I remember, I'll drop links for you later. I could be wrong, but I thought Druma was atheistic - certainly their philosophy doesn't need gods, and they are prospering because of it. This certainly compares favorably to Rahadoum.
EDIT: agh, auto-correct, stop it! Also, MMCJawa, I love the name. Does it reference anything other than Star Wars?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got you on the links, my friend.
Not really atheistic or against religion at all, and there are both established religions, divine magc, and Clerics, though likely more uncommon than most other places. Seems kind of a blend of Scientology and modern Japanesse business ethics, minor Confucianism?
|
In the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, it sure seemed like Druma / the Kalistocracy didn't get along with other belief systems and the 'religion' of Druma was just 'the Prophecies' and nothing else.
Three years later, in the Inner Sea World Guide, the religion entry for Druma says both the Prophecies and Abadar, and there's no text at all indicating that those two are in any sort of conflict or competition within Druma, leaving it open for GM interpretation whether or not Prophets are kinda/sorta agnostic, or a Cleric of Abadar can in fact *be* a Prophet of the Kalistocracy, without any conflict of interest.
Over the years, Druma has gone from seeming very 'gold before gods' and irreligious, to possibly being a local branch of the First Bank of Abadar.
I skimmed through the Inner Sea hardback again...I think the Rahadoumi acknowledge that they allow more suffering into their life by their decision, but I didn't get an impression they thought they were going to suffer for all of an eternity because of it.
It's certainly not great to engage on religious persecution without warrant, so yeah that isn't nice. On the other hand, we have seen no sign that they are trying to import their philosophy elsewhere, which at least, in the grand scheme, put them ahead of Cheliax, etc.
Druma has always struck me as a less as Scientology, more libertarian economics in religious form.
Also, my user name is an old one I have used for years...just my initial + Star Wars Jawa. No deep reference there :P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I skimmed through the Inner Sea hardback again...I think the Rahadoumi acknowledge that they allow more suffering into their life by their decision, but I didn't get an impression they thought they were going to suffer for all of an eternity because of it.
For all that some religious folk are prone to point at the drought in Rahadoum and tut-tut about the gods punishing them for turning their backs on organized religion, the gods sure haven't been doing the fine religious people of Galt or Sarkoris or Lirgen or Yamasa or Azlant any special favors.
Sometimes the disaster that befalls your country is just a disaster befalling your country, and not a portent of anything other than the cosmic truism that 'sometimes, life sucks, and today, it's your turn.'
Quite a few more religious countries than irreligious countries have suffered far worse than Rahadoum without any sort of gods-defying shenanigans to 'justify' their 'punishment.'
Worship gods, don't worship gods, either way, when crap falls, it's gonna land where it lands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to pop in to say that I really love how the debates in this thread are pretty much just roleplaying the in-world debates actual Golarion residents would have about Rahadoum. :)
Also, for those who missed the plug before, Death's Heretic really does try to present a Rahadoumi's point of view, including a look at life in the Pure Legion.
I believe the developers have stated, in regard to the fate of atheists, it's really only pure atheism that grants you a permanent vacation home in the Boneyard. I.E. someone has to consciously belief that the gods are not real beings (which in Golarion would pretty be limited to the insane).
I think you're a bit 'not up to date' with what Paizo's stance on what happens in the Golarion afterlife: what you describe CAN happen to some 'GolAtheist' souls, but not all of them. James Jacobs originally made such a statement at one point, but it has been updated in several sources, as well as his own posts clarifying that issue further.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that THAT distinction isn't at all relevant to Rahadoum, their policy on how living people relate to deities doesn't really impact concerns of afterlife/soul cosmology... they just don't want Gods messing in their living lives, and policing that policy is more than enough to keep their plate full. The afterlife isn't really seen as part of the Rahadoumi nation AFAIK. I don't think they really have any functinal policy to distinguish citizens' 'soul orientation' re: issues of afterlife/soul cosmology, they just focus on Deity worship, with Divine Magic perhaps being lumped into the same. One's deep opinion about stuff that may or may not happen in a different plane after death occurs doesn't seem like something they can spend too much time worrying about... At least until their war against Pharasma enters it's active phase.
I feel that this discussion does stray too much from Golarion in that IMHO Rahadoumi policy isn't motivated by existential philosophy about the nature of the universe (as is 'atheism' in the real world): it's a strategy/tactic in response to specific historic events.
What I'd like to know: what does Rahadoum think of the Aboleths and the other ancient master race of Golarion?
So, after looking into the links,
Unlike followers of deistic faiths, practitioners of the Prophesies of Kalistrade seem to be unaffected by the death of Aroden, seeing this as proof that their way of life is superior. To them, Aroden's death is evidence that gods can die, while traditions and ways of thinking can not be killed. And in a way, they might be correct, as the continual economic expansion of Druma speaks to the successes of their way of life.
... seems like a watered-down version of what the Inner Sea World Guide wrote.
While it does note, "Related Religions: Abadar", it also notes...
Followers of the Prophecies of Kalistrade have weathered the recent change in ages quite well - they feel sheltered from the panic and turmoil surrounding Aroden's death, and point to this as proof of the inherent superiority of following this philosophy over blind allegiance to a god. Gods can die. Thought and tradition can not. Many followers of this philosophy have come to believe that a time of transformation is at hand, a transition into an age where gods become relics of the past, and the true followers of the Prophecies shall inherit the world. Certainly ongoing and relentless expansion and ever-growing financial holdings suggest Druma will continue to grow in the years to come.
Bold mine.
That seems pretty dismissive of divinity in general, regardless of their association. My guess is that it's something that Abadar, due to being a god of commerce and civilization, tacitly approves of (and thus allows his clerics to follow), but they're not really related. Perhaps even a cultural worship, but no real zeal behind it, like many "Christians" in modern countries who really only go to church because, "It's that thing you do." rather than from any actual belief in a bunch of ancient fairy-tales.
The way I got the impression that Rahadoum doesn't think much of it's chances in the afterlife, was from...
Centuries of facing their own destinies, without much hope of a favourable welcome from Pharasma after death, has left many in the Kingdom of Man darkly optimistic, possessing faith in themselves since they have no one else to depend on but each other, believing that they must make the most of their mortal lives despite all the hardships.
... and...
They expect no mercy from Pharasma after death, so they work very hard to make mortal life worthwhile, collectively and individually.
(The last part of which is odd, considering...)
Routing the nascent cult <of Iomedae> amid the current famine would be a rough task for any government, but the council intends to try. The Pure Legion hopes to secure outside help to either damage the cult or to create a public spectacle it can heroically clean up.
That's a pretty awful thing to do. "Here are good people, who do good things, so let's get dirt on them or frame them, so we can be the heroes when we get rid of 'em (because all those religious types are awful forever)." Not enlightened, and certainly not good, in the slightest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify from my previous post, because it... came out differently than I meant:
1) I'm a very strong (and conservative) Christian, and I don't believe that "going to Church" is "that thing you do", nor that the beliefs of Christians are "ancient fairy tales", but rather that is how some I've known view such things, even when they attend church-services (and have their whole life). That is entirely within their purview, of course, but that's the "cultural" religion I mean: the religion itself means nothing beyond the fact that it's part of the culture.
2) Druma is not truly atheistic, but noting where and how I got the impression.
3) I was attempting (and apparently failing) to note that my posit that Rahadoum believes their doom in the afterlife was mistaken, but simultaneously show where I got that impression.
4) Rahadoum is still kind of a jerk nation (and still not terribly wise).
That said, positive elements of Rahadoum:
1) they are well-educated and philosophical
2) they care, are self-motivated, and demand precision of themselves and others
3) they are anti-diabolism (hey, it's something)
Reference thinking the gods punishing them...
Since then <the end of the Oath Wars>, Rahadoum has charted a resolutely secular path. No one denies the existence or power of the gods, but their aegis comes at too high a price. The lack of religion has brought the region the peace it so desperately desired, though it has also brought its own costs. Plague has ravaged Azir and Botosani three times in the past 500 years, and the prospect of famine hovers over the fragile land like a shroud. A century ago, Manaket was among the lushest ports of the Inner Sea. Today, it is chocked by encroaching desert sands, and its famous gardens are a memory of the distant past. While few dare speak it aloud, nervous whispers abound that the gods have finally decided to punish the people of Rahadoum for their insolence. Still, the Rahadoumi hold to their ancient laws and avoid any contact with religion.
So it looks like there's no solid evidence either way. The arguments above still hold (it could be all-natural, it could be a result of the Aroden-o-Cane off the coast, it could be the lack of divine presence, it could be the lack of divine resources, or it could be some of the more malicious gods - while good gods lack field-agents and aren't willing to run roughshod over free will to stop it).
Other problems not yet mentioned include the fact that sailors won't set foot on the docks (which means coin not flowing into the country), and that outsider servitors of gods use Azir (the capital) as a neutral ground:
The gods certainly watch their <outsider servants of other gods> dealings there, but without open followers on the ground, the gods lack agents to enact their agendas, leaving room for plain negotiations. Many unexplained supernatural effects that occur within the cities of Rahadoum are due to the invisible conflicts between celestials and fiends
... meaning, of course, that they're still not free of religious wars, they're just not privy to them and lack the resources to deal with them.
And Quandry, I'm not sure that they dismiss such philosophical musings at all, considering, "Most citizens are well-educated, and philosophy and politics are common pursuits."
EDIT: to clarify a bit more
|
|
Random thoughts on Rahadoum;
The three gods most affected by the initial Declaration of Man thing would have been Nethys, Norgorber and Sarenrae, whose churches were at the forefront of the oath wars and seemed to be the dominant local faiths.
If the drought were a magical punishment, it would most likely come from a god with weather, water, fire or sun among their domains. That leaves Sarenrae, of the three most affected (or Iomedae, Asmodeus, Rovagug, Gozreh (twice), Pharasma, etc., of the others). Nethys has already magically punished some peeps, and tends to be more fond of the Invoked Devastation model of divine freakout (as the inhabitants of Osirion might remember from their earliest days). Norgorber seems more likely to taint and poison water sources, than to make them dry up, being less of a sun god and more of a poison god.
So, really, I'm not seeing drought as making the most logical / thematic sense to be a punishment from the three gods with the biggest axes to grind. Nethys might be fickle, and prone to wild overreaction at times, but it hardly seems likely that a nation that has turned away from divine magic and is now 100% dependent on arcane magic, would find their biggest Nethys-related problem being a lack of rainfall...
(Sarenrae would be the one most likely to have the power, but as a NG goddess of stuff like redemption, seems the least likely to punish a nation in this manner.) Asmodeus and Rovagug, particularly, seem like the sort who would react this way, Asmodeus in an attempt to get yet another Inner Sea nation to turn to diabolism to survive a difficult time, and Rovagug just because he's a jerk like that (and the problems might be less that 'Rovagug is punishing them' and more that 'Rovagug is trying to punish everyone and Rahadoum happens to be a place where the protection of the other gods is lacking').
All that aside, Sarenrae is also the goddess of honesty, and has an entire Prestige Class (the Dawnflower Dissident) set aside to deceit, disguise, secrecy and internecine struggles between different sub-sects of her own religion, complete with bonuses to affect other followers of Sarenrae, so my notion of what is 'thematic' for a neutral good goddesss of honesty and redemption may not always jibe with canon. :)
Maybe like the various neutral nations of the Inner Sea, like Hermea or Rahadoum, Sarenrae is less good and more evil than her printed alignment would suggest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that Nethys, in his sane moments, is quietly applauding the folk of Rahadoum. I mean, it's not like he was all into this worship business when he was alive. Why should he consider it such great shakes now that he's ascended to godhood? In fact, it could be argued that his most devout servants are those who devote themselves to arcane study rather than kissing his divine tootsies and whinging at him every morning for spells that they're too lazy and/or incompetent to research themselves.
And I also bet there are heretics--who may not be wrong either--who contend that this whole thing is part of his ineffable plan. For certain values of "ineffable."
I mean, a whole nation that figures out how to prosper on arcane magic alone? Which god is that going to benefit most?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, a whole nation that figures out how to prosper on arcane magic alone? Which god is that going to benefit most?
As with most things, Nethys is probably of two minds on the subject.
He's all, "Brilliant! It's exactly what I planned when I instigated the Oath Wars in the first place!" [Warning, truthiness.]
And then he's, "Ingrateful wretches! Be smote!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not true. They both do persecute belief and even simple ownership of religious items, even those that are not used for conversion or evangical activities. Thats why Clerics have hidden personal practices and the Hidden Priest Archtype has the ability to use mundane items like a coin as a divine focus.