RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
What do the gods gain from worshipers?
It would differ from god to god, but the most obvious answer is souls. When you die, you go to the Boneyard and your soul is sent to the abode of the god you worshiped, so long as you were somewhat faithful in your worship. Several types of planar beings are formed from the souls of the faithful, and some of the well known heralds, allies, and minions of the gods are known to have been mortals at one point.
What this means is that gods gain more and more faithful souls in their personal home in the planes. What they do with them differs between gods, but they could be servants, warriors, advisers, messengers, or anything else the gods desire.
No followers? No new souls will be coming to you.
There could also be some advantage to having influence in the mortal realm. For example, mortals are like the ultimate work force. Need an item found on the Material plane? Ask the mortals to do it. An age old enemy has emerged from hiding and threatens the lives of millions? Start a crusade with your followers. (A crusade also gives you some pretty amazing souls.)
As for why the gods care enough to give power to followers?
Once again, the reason is going to be different for each god. An evil god would do it so that he had powerful minions that could more easily spread whatever evil they desired. It also makes them more corrupting, as certain magics can be used to influence whole groups of people in evil ways.
For good gods, it could be simply to fight against evil. Or it could be to show their power to non-believers. Or it could be because they want to make the world a better place. Maybe they see humans as their children, literal or adopted, and want to give the obedient ones power.
Neutral gods could be all about just spreading their agendas, and having powerful followers who are able to cast spells certainly help them do that. Or they are just popular and decided to award their adoring followers with some power.
My question is: Does there have to be an overarching reason why the gods give power to mortals? No, there doesn't. If there was an overarching reason it will probably end up feeling forced to fit all the gods. In all likelihood, one god started doing it and many followed their example for their own reasons.
Angels/archons and devils might both appear in prayers, but they are not going to offer the same thing. And Angel will offer you what you need, not necessarily want. If you want power, wealth, influence, or just good old fashion revenge, a devil is more than happy to provide you with the means.
As far as why gods don't just smash everything if they don't draw power from mortals, well consider the following.
As mentioned above, mortal souls provide the troops and minions of the goods. Cut off the supply and you can not replenish your ranks in any sort of outer plane war, and you weaken your position.
Also many gods started off as mortals...they might maintain the status quo out of simple sentimentality.
Lawful evil understands that, so that is why they don't more actively smash worlds, preferring to orchestrate schemes that allow mortals to exist. And at least some lawful evil gods may actually be deluded enough to care about mortals in a strange sick fashion. Zon Kuthon wants to "improve" mortals, not wipe them out
Good doesn't intervene more directly...because Good is about helping people, not destroying/subjugating them.
Neutral gods probably don't care enough.
That really only leaves the neutral evil and chaotic evil gods. Some of those probably aren't powerful enough to challenge other dieties. Look what happened when Aolar ticked off Desna. Others have to worry about rivals in their own plane (see Lamashtu and Pazuzu, or demons and Qlippoth).
I mean, occasionally you get a destructive god hell bent on ruining everything. But those gods bring down the wrath of all the other gods, even those who are neutral or evil. Look at the cosmic throw down that happened when Rovagug tried to annihilate everything. No god wants to be imprisoned or killed if he/she/it can help it.
The passivity displayed by the good aligned gods has always bothered me. I don't feel there is any justification for them allowing mortals to suffer and die. The good gods talk about the value of mortal life and yet do nothing to protect it regardless of the number of lives at stake, as seen in several adventure paths. I would absolutely refuse to worship such hypocritical beings. At best they are simply lazy or inept. The least they could do is send down a few solars on occasion to take out some of the many uber evil creatures that infest Golarion. It seems to be fine for the demons to do whatever they want so one assumes it would be the same for celestials. Or instead of having your clerics build yet another opulent temple in which to praise your awesomeness you order them to do something about the people starving to death in the gutter outside the opulent temple they are currently praising you in. Oh right. Doing something about poverty requires more effort than holy smiting some demon. And we've already established even that is too much effort. I guess the good gods really are useless. I doubt the world would be much worse without them. They certainly haven't succeeded in improving it any. That is their message right? I will make things better. Well, maybe there will be some progress in the next couple thousand years. I just hope that random groups of adventurers continue to save the world while the good gods do nothing. Of course, I imagine that a few of the mortals who suffer and die during this period (and the previous period as well) would probably have preferred the gods actually put their awesome power to some practical use sooner. Too much to ask I guess. Personally, I'd go with the evil gods. They don't bother pretending your well-being means anything to them. Even being honest is something the good gods can't manage.
If you want to teach a child a lesson, do you do everything for them?
According to the gods of Golarion, you allow the child to die a horrible death rather than lift a finger to save it. The only lesson seems to be that the gods are unfeeling monsters whose fear of making things worse guarantees that nothing gets any better. I guess Golarion will always be plagued by the same problems no matter how much time passes and no matter the sacrifices made by the mortals living there. That is more than a little terrible. I'd suggest the mortals kill the gods. Then they could suffer and die solely because of their own stupidity rather than the indifference of sanctimonious overlords who expect everyone else to do all the work while they send visions and preach. The obvious question is, if the gods don't benefit the mortals who worship them, then what is the reason they are worshiped? If my prayers were useless, I wouldn't bother praying. I'd think and act on my own initiative and I'd appreciate it if the gods would shut up and go away. The good gods should stop promising improvement and then not delivering anything of the sort. If they don't care what happens to the mortals, then don't pretend otherwise. Is even that beyond them? Maybe being a god requires also being a lying, manipulative, corrupt, useless hypocrite? Reminds me of politicians. I hate them too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to the gods of Golarion, you allow the child to die a horrible death rather than lift a finger to save it.
The Clerics, Paladins, and multiple powerful institutions of faith acting on their behalf render this point of argument rather moot. Even the evil deities don't tend to act directly in the mortal world; the horrors inflicted on it in their name are generally the work of their followers. The Good aligned deities act likewise. In The Worldwound (which hasn't been hyper detailed as yet) we HAVE gotten hints of Celestial powers intervening to give aid to the heroes pushing back the darkness. If the Gods of Good aren't acting directly, their counterparts aren't exactly doing a lot either, and you can't exactly call their tremendous influence "not lifting a finger."
The only lesson seems to be that the gods are unfeeling monsters whose fear of making things worse guarantees that nothing gets any better. I guess Golarion will always be plagued by the same problems no matter how much time passes and no matter the sacrifices made by the mortals living there.
The Gods of Good aren't omnipotent or all powerful. They're also not the only Gods. They're not acting in a vacuum with each-other. There are plenty of areas in the setting where good things are happening, or at least, where the horrors are not all pervasive. Every action the Gods of Light take is generally countered by, or in counter to, one of their evil counterparts. There's a lot of subtle stuff going on.
That is more than a little terrible.
A campaign setting without strife or problems for the heroes to solve is boring.
I'd suggest the mortals kill the gods. Then they could suffer and die solely because of their own stupidity rather than the indifference of sanctimonious overlords who expect everyone else to do all the work while they send visions and preach.
At this point I'm thinking you're basically just trolling. Miserable attempt at a Strawman.
The obvious question is, if the gods don't benefit the mortals who worship them, then what is the reason they are worshiped? If my prayers were useless, I wouldn't bother praying.
Nowhere in any of the text does it say that prayers are useless. Nowhere. There are, in fact, rules in a lot of the deity entries for how prayers might be answered, and what form those answers might take, as well as some mechanics.
I'd think and act on my own initiative and I'd appreciate it if the gods would shut up and go away. The good gods should stop promising improvement and then not delivering anything of the sort.
There's an entire nation for this sort of attitude. It's called Rahadoum. Enjoy.
If they don't care what happens to the mortals, then don't pretend otherwise.
Strawman. They do care. That's why they're continuously sending agents to give aid and influencing events as they are able while devoting a lot of their energies towards dealing with all the horrible horrible things going on in the outer planes. Nowhere does it say the Gods don't care about mortals.
Is even that beyond them? Maybe being a god requires also being a lying, manipulative, corrupt, useless hypocrite? Reminds me of politicians. I hate them too.
Pointless trolling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! But only to a point.
I quite agree.
Take that example further. From the point that a child is born until around one, they need someone to actually feed it. Put the food in it's mouth. From one to four, you make it, cut it up and then they can feed themselves. From six until ?, you just make it and put it front of them. (There are some comedy moments of when that stops!:) )
This is why I take the attitude that The Gods are, in fact, doing things. This is why they have agents in the world. This is why they DO send their servants to influence events. They just do it subtly, most of the time, because being too overt leads to escalation, and there are nastier things out there than evil men to which The Gods must devote their attention, and step carefully around. All the good in the world doesn't matter if a battle between deities crushes it in the process.
Even with an adult, there needs to be a starting point, right? If I take an artist and ask them to program a computer, that's ridiculous, right? No matter how smart they are, they wouldn't know where to begin. So, there has to be some instruction that is meaningful to them first. They have to learn how to do the basics and eventually get more complex in what they can do.
There seems to be this running theme in the setting that Aroden's Death serves the thematic purpose of demonstrating that the destiny of mortals is now in mortal hands. The Gods have all been shaken somewhat by the death of their own, and Prophecy doesn't work anymore. The Gods are still figuring out what all this means for them. Bear in mind, when Aroden died, he left all his followers at the mercy of Asmodeus in the long run. When Gods make gambles that might threaten their lives, they have to not only consider the risks inherent to their own deaths, but what happens to everything their power upholds, should they fall.
In the case of Golarion's gods, where do the people start? Did hunting create the hunting god or did hunting make the hunting god happy? And when the god was happy, what happened that they did it again? And maybe that's too concrete? What about ale? Happiness? Death? How did the followers know to bury them in the ground compared to a tomb to make a god happy?
Yeah, a lot of this isn't exactly clear at this point. All we know is that The Gods don't depend on worshippers for their existence or direct power. We emphatically DO NOT know, however, that they derive no benefit from them.
Again, from what I read in the ISG, there is NO reason for the gods to help mortals, directly or indirectly. The text as written seems to hint that they get the souls of mortals whether or not those souls believed in a god. The souls go to the "correct" plane based on their alignment? Or is that gone? Is it their beliefs instead? How they lived their lives? (And would someone who labors in a field all day really want to do that in the afterlife?) But the souls already go to the gods.
I may be the minority in this, but if the Gods don't derive direct benefit from mortal worship, it actually makes me like them a little more. I'm more comfortable with a paradigm where the Gods act because they care about mortals, than because they need them to sustain their Lotus Eater Machine.
Now that said, there is some argument to be made that The Gods - to one extent or another - also act because they are compelled to act a certain way by the portfolios they embody. There is also evidence to suggest that the worship of mortals can influence the gods themselves to one extent or another: Desna did not used to appear the way she does now, but does so because of who worships her.
I'm not as cynical as kumanekotan but I do wonder why the gods even bother to give power or make themselves known when they get the thing they want from mortals regardless of what the mortals do!
They obviously care about influence in the mortal world. They obviously care about their followers, and about the grander concepts they embody and defend, and there is much more to the universe than the material plane. It's been implied or stated several places that at any given time, the various good and evil planes are locked in strife between one another, and that this conflict consumes a certain degree of the time and energy of the Gods who reside in those various planes.
I think much of the problem in asking why the Gods aren't more direct in the mortal world is rooted in the assumption that The Material Plane is the be all, end all of what matters in the universe, rather than as one part of a vast and churning cosmos across which the Gods must divide their time and attention.
Good discussion! Thanks!
You're quite welcome. It's a good thought exercise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Late in the reply. Basically natural law and gods need not be exclusive from each other. Here are some possibilities:
-The god is the embodiment of said natural law.
-The god wrote the law.
-In continuance to the above. The god who wrote the law built the system based off the law and acts to maintain the system.
Natural Laws and Gods and be buddies hanging out keeping the world spinning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, most of what I would have replied was said - and probably said better - by pennywit and TheWarriorPoet519.
However, there's something pretty interesting that occurred to me recently that functions relatively well for how RPG game worlds and divinities work: TRON (and LEGACY).
Also, there will be spoilers. Too many to really put behind spoiler tags. I'll try to keep it light, though, because the movies themselves aren't the real thing, here, but some of the themes are.
Finally, while the comparison doesn't hold up infinitely in PF/Golarion's case, I'm not attempting to make an infinitely-accurate comparison. Instead, I'm pointing out a basic similitude and using a different world to point out some base similarities, where it applies. You could totally make a PF-or-other-RPG-world based on the idea of this, though.
One of the interesting things about TRON and LEGACY is the fact that, while both movies, in their own way, are pretty pro-evolution in terms of basic world-view of its principle protagonists (though with potentially theistic or at least spiritualistic undertones and overtones throughout the stories), the actual computer-world is, in truth, effectively a world divine creation... but a world created by beings who were only vaguely aware of the world they'd created.
This maps fairly well with those PF gods originally creating the Material Plane (as it's hinted that they did), slowly and methodically crafting bits and pieces. They directly created the framework (the physical elements by which the over-all operating system functions) the operating system (the rules that all things generally agree on), and individual suite of associated programs that interacts with themselves on a broad and individual level. They used pre-existing rules that they didn't create that are part of the over-all omniverse they exist in to do so (see: Outer Spheres), again similarly to the world of TRON and the programmers therein.
TRON's programmers were effectively 'gods' (called 'Users' by the anthropomorphized 'Programs' they'd created in that franchise) were extremely active, but often they didn't use their power directly, but instead required their 'servants' and 'worshipers' (their creations) to do their work for them. A User is, in fact, effectively a godlike entity, capable of literally rewriting the rules of reality. Most of them don't. Again, this is similar, in certain regards, to PF.
But why? Couldn't the Users do the things on their own that they built their servants for? Well... sure (at least most of them can). They could. But they built their servants (the programs) specifically to do those things for them because the Users wanted them to do the thing they were built to do so that the User didn't have to. It's the Programs' reason for existence: to serve their User.
There are good Users and wicked Users, but either way both seem to treat their Programs almost callously and carelessly.
Partially, at least, this is explained by the Users not knowing of or understanding the nature of a Program's existence, I admit.
But it's very telling that Flynn, the protagonist of the first film and pretty important character continues to treat programs as programs, despite the fact that he understands their true nature, and despite the fact that he actually cares about them. Flynn genuinely has compassion and empathy with Programs, and yet, ultimately, he cares about Users more, and ultimately continues to see Programs as tools for the betterment of User-Kind. Even the ISOs, the most beloved of his 'programs' (though they fit that definition only loosely).
And here's an important thing about this: this isn't seen as, over-all, a bad thing in the films.
Flynn treats the programs like they are what they are, even as he has empathy and compassion for them. He creates plans for them, guides them, orders them, and compels them. He re-purposes and reprograms them. He occasionally takes away their free will. These don't seem like benevolent actions of a caring creator deity, but Flynn, in fact, loves his creations and is doing what he believes is best for them, as individuals where he can, and as a collective whole above all. And he still depends on them performing tasks for him that he could, technically, do himself, but for various real-world reasons lacks the time or interest in doing himself.
This can lead to values-dissonance because, in the real world, we (are supposed to) value sentience (and, dependent upon your view, life) equally.
But human life is generally seen as 'more valuable' than that of animals (I'm not arguing that this is true, but rather that this is the generally accepted wisdom across most of the world), and with good reason (most, but not all, of which boils down to Sentience). Similarly, a machine is treated as inferior to living creatures (in most cases) because it's neither 'alive' nor sentient... but also because machines have a singular purpose: to serve. Their function, drive, and reason for existence is only to serve those who created them (us).
This is an oft-discussed question among science-fiction: what happens when a machine gains sentience? Usually, the answer is "treat it like a human", but this is not always the case and, looking at things objectively, isn't necessarily the best idea, especially if the machine's sentience isn't compatible with human sentience (as is potentially the case for humans and alien life interacting, one reason to be cautious about such things, even if you hope or believe in the possibility).
But presuming the sentience is similar in scope and scale, would treating a sentient machine like, well, a machine, be incorrect? Possibly, possibly not. It's hard to guess, and arguments abound. But in the world of TRON, the answer is "no". It's perfectly fine morally and intellectually to treat a program like a program, and, in fact, when a program demands something different, bad things happen.
This is shown in both films in the fact that the primary antagonist is a Program who has become ambitious decided they don't need Users anymore, and have abandoned the will of their makers. In both cases the Program pulls a User into the Program's world; this is accomplished via a MacGuffin* that equates fairly easily enough to the ability of Mortals and Gods to interact with each other, even though they live on separate planes of reality. And frankly, the argument holds a lot of water. If our computers just revolted 'because it doesn't feel like it anymore', we'd all be in a great deal of trouble, politically, socially, scientifically, culturally, and technologically. We would have to continue to treat computers and programs like the computers and programs they are because, in the end, we need them to be what they are in order to for them to continue functioning. There's an entire infrastructure at work that functions because of their defined roles, and they really have no ability to ascend beyond them, and are entirely reliant on us in order to continue, and we are, in that way, reliant on them. Do we need them to exist? No. To function as a society? Not really. But we do need them to have as comfortable a life as we do. And because we enjoy the life that we do, they exist. Without them fulfilling a function as our servitors, they simply could not exist, because there would be nothing to maintain.
Now PF and Golarion differ, though, in that the planes are relatively easily reachable by tools that are available to mortals, and there are such things as 'ascended' mortals who literally become something OTHER than what they were before by becoming deities, not just because they "changed planes" which a TRON-like world holds (which, again, you could easily make a world based off of that idea).
But one of the flaws with the "gods are awful" argument is the relatively easy-to-point-to question: why don't they just go ahead and bring all mortals to the heavenly paradise? I mean, if gods care about mortals and want them to do good things, why not just poof them all to heaven, right?
Really, until they see how a given mortal "susses out" more or less, on the material plane interacting with others, how can they risk giving them instant access to everything that allows them to run everything? It would be immoral and unconscionable, in its own way. Imagine how terrible things would be if Tar-Baphon took over portions of heaven.
This is why (combined with the "they need an infrastructure to continue to exist" I noted above) Flynn didn't just upload all the programs into Reality .
But then you get to the question of why mortals don't just poof mortals to heaven? Or, if rules aren't your thing, than Nirvana? Or Hell, for that matter? This question (or these questions, depending on how you look at it) has a lot of different answers. And no doubt some have tried. Currently, looking at the great beyond and seeing no current major populations of mortals I'm guessing it didn't work out so well. We can only speculate on the reasons, so any arguments based on it are only opinion. Ultimately, however, they're not there, they're on the material plane, and it seems to be due to a combination of choice and practicality.
Then there's also the fact that the gods are, in fact, GODS, the bearers of divinity - a kind of supernatural and super-potent OTHER. This naturally sets them apart from their Creations, or (in the case of ascended deities) their Servitors. This, then, is part of what sets their role as worthy of worship and reverence - their very nature.
Also, as to the baby analogy... what do you think the gods are doing? The fact that Shelyn redefined love, and thus taught mortals how to expand their definition is pretty phenomenally important. Or how Erastil gave the earliest mortals the bow. Or how Aroden ended the Age of Darkness. Or really anything you'd care to point out that gods have done for mortals, personally and by action, than anyone else.
The TRON comparison doesn't hold up in all respects, and I've pointed out a few reasons why. But there are definite similarities, too, and possibly some insights from it.
Also, it's already been pointed out that the gods don't want Rovagug released from his eggshell prison, because then everyone dies. Again, I mean. That's reason enough to prevent them from coming down and making Golarion a battlefield with powers that could render the planet asunder. At least I'd tend to think so. And, you know, it's pretty well known that Rovagug can and does influence mortals.
I mean, it would seem to me that the easiest way to ensure that no one frees Rovagug would be to make the planet an inhospitable wasteland and populating the entire local area with a bajillion adamantine-loyal servants. Yet they don't, for some reason. Maybe it's because they care about the mortal souls on that planet? Or they're not infinite? Or there are those who are protective of the place? Or all of the above?
* ... okay, look, there's a lot to rant about said MacGuffin, but I'll not rant here or get into the nature of it, but rather I'll leave it as "a MacGuffin" because it's a whole side-track waiting to happen. If anyone wants to make a thread to talk about TRON and all the things right and wrong with it, I'll be happy to join in there. :)
Double-post, but alas. Also, just to note, the above was mostly me "thinking aloud for conversation" not arguing "this is the way it is", so I'm interested in hearing thoughts about the idea as opposed to going "no you're wrong". :)
However, again, if other things are happening and if the gods (all of them) must use their powers for their own ends at times, doesn't that mean that spells should fail from time to time? Or not be granted? (This gets into when the energy comes but for this discussion, I'm assuming the energy only arrives when the spell is cast, not prepared.) And then it could be interesting based on who is most reliable? But, again, this goes back to why share power with mortals? Again, if they get something from mortals, it makes sense. If not?
And then do we "balance" this against arcane casting? Do casters have to roll to cast a spell properly? Do divine spells get more power due to the failure chance? (so, d8s instead of d6s for Flame Strike, as an example. Or maybe higher base cap on damage dice pool?) Or, better yet, what if these were character options? Somehow (prestige class? feats?) they have chosen to take a chance that the gods will send more power against the chance that they get no power?
Actually, there's a pretty easy answer for this in the 3rd edition Deities and Demigods, which may or may not apply. The short version is that it's a function of being gods that they can do this with little to no real effort on their part.
Because there is a god, if someone worships it "properly" (i.e. are a cleric or other divine spell-casting class) and the deity wants them to, they receive spells. This costs no particular effort on the deity's part, nor does cutting someone off. Effectively the deity's will combined with the deity's nature responds to worship to grant spells, regardless of how busy the deity is.
This can, in some regards, again track to the TRON example I noted above, although it's also a weaker comparison for many reasons. In TRON, the programs did there thing, but communicated with their User for a purpose. The User didn't say the literal words the program heard them say (at least, I don't think they did), but the program heard the words in the way that would best apply to the experience of being a program based on the User's wants, desires, and personality. Only rarely did this require actual effort on the part of the User (although in the movie it did require effort because the programs in question were going up against a User-level empowered Program*).
In TRON, however, it did require effort on the User's part more-so than it would a god in our world (though, again, you could totally take inspiration for game worlds from this! This is such a nifty idea-generating comparison to make).
Although, if you're asking what happens when the god is "indisposed" in such a way as to utilize all of their power, somehow, including the part that isn't something for them to utilize** or otherwise have said power be unavailable, the answer is relatively easy as well. The cleric just doesn't get the power. For a simple example of this: Aroden. He's one of those that are "indisposed" (in this case, dead). However, there could be other situations in which a deity is indisposed, and thus cause clerics to fail, but such a situation would be strictly within the GM's control, and thus would not fall into the normal spectrum of events, because it would literally drive the story itself. It could even be interesting, besides. I'm pretty sure the "Lolth's Silence" story line from Forgotten Realms didn't make clerics of Lolth worthless (considering where they are now), even if they were without their spells for a while, because they're powers came back (though there were social consequences for a while - consequences that Lolth delighted in); instead, that event was the catalyst for a long and far-reaching suite of adventures and stories***.
And that's really the ultimate way to answer such questions, unless you want your game to have a different 'reason' - make it so that it's effectively an automatic response.
Note that this doesn't mean that a deity isn't conscious of the things that are happening. In all likelihood, they're very aware of what's happening with the divine power they're granting. Kind of a super-sense, as it were, that mortals simply don't have. This is what enables them to ultimately know whether or not they're pleased with a servant.
So, ultimately, their "core" self doesn't have to "do" anything to grant or withhold power, but it is still a function of will by plying the direct and conscious and subconscious mind**** of the deity in question, granting the deity the ability to choose whether or not it happens, without distracting or causing the deity any sort of difficulty.
Unless you want differently in your game, but I'm pretty sure that's how PF runs it.
* ... wow, that's kind of a weird statement to make, using jargon from two different non-related worlds, and translating it between the two.
** Before you go, "But they're gods! Shouldn't they have access to their own power?", a partial comparison could be made to Carbon Dioxide produced by us humans as a by-product of being human and alive and breathing. We, however, can't really use Carbon Dioxide, even though it's usable by other living things (plants, mostly) as a power source. This analogy breaks down quickly, I'm aware, but it's one example of what I'm talking about as a power source not being usable by the creatures that it's derived from.
*** You could argue that, as a series, it could have been handled better, and I'd have to agree. It's still an interesting premise and the over-all story was great, regardless of the specifics.
**** Which is, regardless of intelligence, "greater" than the mind of a mortal, precisely because it's a divine mind capable of handling these things. This is one of the things that sets divinity apart. It's fully capable of handling all these tasks at the same time regardless of intelligence. Thus making them slightly "alien" and "OTHER" from mortals.
Blarg, today is taking forever to upload, and my posts have disappeared for some reason in between posts. Urg, will rewrite later.
EDIT: Uh, nevermind. I don't know what happened, but they're back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When someone says "if god is so powerful, why does he let people suffer"... I can't help but think: what is the suffering of a weak and fragile mortal body to a god?
Imagine you are trying to teach a child to ride a bicycle. He will fall. Maybe he will badly scratch his knee. And he will cry a lot. If you are a good teacher you will give him strenght and courage and hope and give him help to try and learn once more. If you are a bad teacher you will toss away the bicycle and will never teach him again. And what you just did was eliminating the source of the pain.
Now, you are trying to teach a mortal the ways of the good. Sometimes he will fall. He will badly stain his soul and/or hurt his body. And he will suffer a lot. If you are a good god you will give him strenght and courage and hope and give him help to try and rise once more. If you are a bad god you will toss away the suffering source and will never let him make his choises again. And what you just did was eliminating the source of the pain.
To a god a man tortured is not so much more than what a scratched knee is to a man... You can say that's sad, unfair, merciless... but, to gods, you are just a child making a tantrum because they force you to stop playing and go to school. You are just a child, you know nothing. That's what gods are... That's what makes them big. And they are big.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the various books imply that the outer planes are in a continual state of conflict. The Gods spend a fair amount of time seeing to the upkeep and defense of their domains, as well as planar politics.
This, in addition to James' remarks, explain quite a bit of it. I wanted to add a little more, though. Consider it educated guessing...
We know the deities are very powerful, powerful enough that currently the game rules have no direct way to portray them. However, we also know they aren't all-powerful and/or all-knowing. As other resources have established, they can be killed. As you (TheWarriorPoet519) mentioned, their planes can be attacked! Thus they have to devote some of their power and resources to ensuring various raids by opposing forces don't get very far, lest said forces destroy or steal several relevant souls or otherwise damage the realm.
Therefore, I think it's reasonable to infer that the deities avoid direct interaction with various world situations because it might leave their realm vulnerable to a well timed attack. Imagine if Desna steps out of her region to take care of something on Golarion. It takes only a few minutes, but she comes back and finds Asmodeus has used this time to cut a huge swath through her take on the afterlife. Essentially, by stepping outside to protect a few hundred mortals... perhaps she ends up dooming thousands or millions of Chaotic Good souls to destruction/'abduction' by the devil god.
Whoops. I'm sure the various deities are aware of this possibility, and it's probably why they don't do it. I imagine the Good gods regularly feel kind of bad about it, but they also probably feel giving a little bit of their power to relevant Clerics/Paladins/Celestial Sorcerers/etc. to deal with said problem in their stead is an acceptable compromise solution.
Suddenly, we see why the PCs are relevant! It's better for a deity to invest 0.00000000000000000000001% of their power in a nearby mortal to handle the problem, than to deprive their realm of 100% of the deity's power for even a few minutes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another quick thought on this: Even if the deities aren't powered by worship, they might have strategical interest in keeping worshipers safe by sending bits of their power to various wielders (again with the Clerics thing, I admit).
Consider this... clearly all sides involved are trying to influence Golarion to match their portfolio. Sarenrae wants a happy fun-time world of dancing and kindness backed by the strength to defend it. Asmodeus wants a world of dark hierarchy. What happens if either deity (or ANY deity, I'm just using those two as examples) succeeds? They now hold more territory that embodies their desires, giving them more resources to advance those goals in another area.
I suspect it's very possible the deities view Golarion as one strategically relevant location but also have other places they must devote resources to. This would suggest that outside of the Worldwound, they're keeping their actions relatively discrete and acting through agents they empower rather than directly showing up. They might win the Golarion front but lose another one as a result... and that's a best-case outcome. Given we know the gods can destroy an entire city in a single strike (Sarenrae does this to a city that openly worships Rovagug), it's possible the result might even be "Golarion destroyed, AND lost another front while I was out blowing up Golarion. Oops."
I think it's also worth noting in this conversation that Golarion isn't just any old world. It's established that the gods (some of them anyway) are known on many other worlds of the material plane, and maybe it's different on some of those other worlds.
BUT, perhaps Golarion's role as The Cage of Rovagug plays a part in what the gods can and can't (or will and won't) do when it comes to Golarion specifically. Maybe they act differently in other parts of the material plane, but Golarion is special/different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about you guys just google "Why didn't God/Allah/Jahwe stop WW2 and concentration camps?", and read that debate? I mean, there were tomes upon tomes of serious academic writing on the matter of divine intervention in contemporary religions and why it didn't happen. The only difference is that proofs of Golarion deities' existence is far more tangible, but apart from that the question on why didn't the Absolute step down and nuke Hitler from orbit is quite old.
How about you guys just google "Why didn't God/Allah/Jahwe stop WW2 and concentration camps?", and read that debate? I mean, there were tomes upon tomes of serious academic writing on the matter of divine intervention in contemporary religions and why it didn't happen. The only difference is that proofs of Golarion deities' existence is far more tangible, but apart from that the question on why didn't the Absolute step down and nuke Hitler from orbit is quite old.
While that's also a pretty great point, there's also the difference in PF of having a plethora of divinities all interacting with each other instead of only One (as the debate you hold above generally presumes*).
That's one of the reasons that the debate holds water here as well, because there are even more reasons for the deities to withold their direct intervention, even though they are more obviously active than most current accepted actions of divinity in our real world.
But yeah. Good point.
* Unless you count satanic-like figures, but really none of the primary religions such a figure is in treat it like a capitol-g "God" (like they do their own), though they might treat it like a little-g "god".
|
|
Well, we could throw in a Buddhist, a Neo-Pagan and a Shintoist in the debate as well, polytheism isn't quite dead yet after all.
But honestly, that's a question that theologies of various sorts have been trying to answer for ages, and you can mine them for seriously researched arguments as to why we're not having Buddha, Odin and Jesus tag-team North Korea next week.
Well, we could throw in a Buddhist, a Neo-Pagan and a Shintoist in the debate as well, polytheism isn't quite dead yet after all.
But honestly, that's a question that theologies of various sorts have been trying to answer for ages, and you can mine them for seriously researched arguments as to why we're not having Buddha, Odin and Jesus tag-team North Korea next week.
Oh, you're entirely right.
I just meant in regards to your originally mentioned search fields; polytheistic debates about the same topic are generally harder* to come by in the West, at least in reliable** discussions, because our culture is, as a whole, so highly monotheistic.
On the other hand, except for Hinduism (and Buddhism by extension), the gods of most*** of the currently-active polytheistic belief systems don't have the plenipotence that PF deities seem to hold.
But my point wasn't that "Polytheism, dudes!" or "Those discussions are worthless, here!" so much as "There are actually a much larger number of reasons in PF why the gods may not use more of their power despite being active and present in a way that differs from the divine in real life, such that it generates an interesting discussion nonetheless."
That's all. :)
* This is not the same as "impossible", just "harder".
** I.E. someone that actually seems to know what they're talking about, instead of just a bunch of people on a forum, like here.
*** But not all. It's worth noting, however, that very few universities - that is, none that I know of^ - have an active divinities study where they consider these more than myths, despite the vibrant and potent personal faith lives of those who hold them. Plus, there's no solid orthodoxy that I'm aware of, or unified (however decentralized) church system. That means relatively few dissertations and powerful discussions are held in those faiths beyond the rare individual because of the lack of people to discuss it, much less any sort of "common faith background" from which to build in the West, unlike the massive monotheistic faith background you point to above.
^ This does not mean that none do. Simply none that I know of do. Big difference, but the point is to underline the vast difference of prevalence in the West.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion brings up an excellent point in his TRON analogy. (Thanks!) However, it's also depressing in that the conclusion he seems to get is that the gods (USERS) that created the universe and people (Programs) did it for themselves to make their lives easier. And even the most devoted god (USER) who loves his creations (Programs) dearly, still has no problem using them, removing their free will or getting rid of them to further his own plans. Wow. No wonder the Programs revolt! :) (If I put words into Tacticslion's mouth, I apologize.)
I don't think you really did, but you certainly took it a different direction and with a different attitude than I.
Here's the thing: despite being eternal servants, the programs always had it better under the users. Always. Things always went for the worse when the programs attempted to self-govern. There is the possible exception of the ISOs, but we don't know because [Tron Legacy Spoilers Go Here]. That's a pretty interesting parallel for Pathfinder.
Further, it's not just a matter of the Users using the programs and destroying them, and thus being evil.
Again, to compare, it would be similar to anthropomorphizing a bicycle I created - I love this bike, have given it Cars-like features, and named it Fred. I talk to it all the time. If I later ride my bike, get in a bad situation, but have the option of totaling my bike, or totally myself, I'm going to total my bike. After all I can always make (or buy) a new one. It's ultimately replaceable. It only seems "tragic" or "depressing" because I'm attached to it, but ultimately Fred's value is only as a means of comfort. Or, let's say a newer, better, safer, and more comfortable model comes out. Had I the means, I'd likely replace Fred, if it's getting old or uncomfortable. The most important thing is riding the bike, not the actual bike.
In this manner, the creation is never more important than the creator, regardless of the creator's creation or the creator themselves*. The purpose of a creation is always to serve the creator's desires or purposes.
The sticky element here is that, in the real world, we generally consider "sentience" as the highest marker of "worthy of respect" (more or less), thus if we ever manage to create something that equals or exceeds our sentience, we may treat it with respect and equality (or not - depends on the sci-fi/fantasy stories you follow). We generally consider it such because we are sentient, and are thus are worthy of respect (more or less).
However, in a fantasy world with a clearly non-universal set of morals and ethics (like within Pathfinder) that don't perfectly map to most beliefs in the real world, we've got options for looking for reasons to define things differently... otherwise, why are gods worthy of worship?
Some ideas below.
- They are worthy of worship because they are divine. Selection one includes the idea that gods are simply Superior or Worthy (not necessarily the same thing) because they hold Divinity, which, like sentience in the real world, is a metric of worth (only it surpasses sentience). That's all the reason needed, really. A similar option can be taken if they are the creators (which some are in PF). This seems to be at least partially PF's take on it - regardless of how super-sentient they are or are not, being "divine" makes them worthy of worship. This is also related to a lot of animus-type religions as well, like Rashemi spirit-worship in FR, worthy because they are spirits regardless of their alignment or whatever else is happening. This is often uncomfortable for us in the Western real world, because it smacks of subtle racism or elitism or something, but it doesn't really compare. In the same way that raw limestone sucks as a building material, whereas others are better for myriads of reasons, there might be certain "markers" of worth in general - this means nothing to race or wealth, however.
- They are worthy of worship because they are necessary. In Forgotten Realms, without deities, the elements of the universe that they represent cease to function properly (4E's weird ideas about magic aside). It seems that this may be at least somewhat similar in Pathfinder, though it doesn't actually map perfectly well: Aroden's death caused unmitigated disaster across the globe, and frankly, no one really knows why, as they aren't really related to his portfolio. One thing that's interesting is that this doesn't necessarily make gods irreplaceable. Kelemvor is at least the third god of the dead in Forgotten Realms, for example, and in 5E we're on at least Mystra 4.0, but that role is fundamentally necessary for death to continue to function at all (and really bad things happen when death and magic don't work).
- They are worthy of worship because they represent an ideal. This is the "idol" argument: a god effectively becomes an idol that represents something that is worthy of worship and thus, by association, is worthy itself. This makes gods more or less replaceable figureheads for a portfolio or concept. So long as a god has the portfolio, it doesn't matter which god has the portfolio. There is some amount of this in PF, but it's not a super-solid connection there. In PF it seems more like a give-take or feedback loop relationship - the god seems influenced by the portfolio which, in turn, influences the god; this can be seen in Shelyn becoming neutral good instead of chaotic good (her old alignment) or lawful good (her mother's alignment) when she absorbed the portfolio of love from her mother when the lady was murdered by Zon-Kuthon; "love", under Shelyn, gained a much broader definition than it previously had.
- They are worthy because they are so powerful. This is often used as a shining example of "might makes right", and is also just as often used against gods in various worlds, pointing out that "they're not really divine, just powerful." Whether or not the latter argument holds water, depends entirely on the GM's take and the world's setting itself. In this system, and equally potent wizard would be just as worthy, for example, as an actual god.
- They are worthy because they grant stuff. That stuff might vary - it might be power, health, wealth, intelligence, eternal life-after-death (pardisic or otherwise), or whatever, it's ultimately irrelevant; but their status as "granters of stuff" make them "worthy". This, incidentally, is one way that various minor cults of evil creatures pop up now and again, at least as far as PF goes: evil creatures grant stuff in exchange for action. In a way, this makes total sense - we honor patrons in real life, after all. But this doesn't always satisfy, for numerous reasons. This seems at least partially true in Pathfinder, though not entirely.
Anyway, that's just a few ideas. Based on the answers of those, that might change the answer of "why". Pathfinder's Golarionverse seems to take ideas from several of the above and blend them together from my reading of the setting. Based on that, it's interesting to think that the gods may not, strictly speaking, be necessary, but catastrophic results await everything should they all be destroyed.
* There is an argument against this in certain respects, but they all revolve around humanitarian elements and the creation isn't important on its own, it's entirely due to its value to others who are, themselves, of equal value to the creator. Thus, in a round-about way, while the creation may be of a greater value, it's value comes from its utility by others of equal or greater value to society at large.
EDITS 1 & 2: making tags work and noting edits.
Also, a weird thought occurred while I was thinking about that stuff. If Rovagug ever adopted most other god's philosophies (other than his own), everyone would breath easier.
Shelyn's an easy one: love, beauty, all that, obviously Rovagug'd be a swell thing.
Zon-Kuthon's a bit more difficult, but if Rovy'd just get into self mutilation, he'd not want to destroy stuff so much.
This holds true for Sarenrae, Asmodeus, Desna, Urgathoa, Aroden, Iomedae, and most others.
Calistria, Pharasma, Zyphus, Gorum, or Groeteus, however, seem like the ultimate "no-no"s for Rovy - they more or less get summed up in his own philosophy, after a fashion.
Obviously this idea has flaws, I was just thinking and it came up. ANYway.
I don't buy the whole cold war approach, it assumes all the gods want to preserve the planet and they all agree and abide by rules for when and how many of their followers can level up.
The reason they don't do more is because just like everything else in pf, it is an exaggeration on our world. In our world people might claim a god found them a parking spot, judged their enemies, or saved a loved one from dying in a car wreck. In pf these types of things are exaggerated to include a quantitative change and a flashy display, but if they were to go full blown omnipotence we, the players, become insignificant. Furthermore, throw in some omniscience or omnibenevolence and you run into paradoxes. Suspension of disbelief is the order of the day.
I don't buy the whole cold war approach, it assumes all the gods want to preserve the planet and they all agree and abide by rules for when and how many of their followers can level up.
The reason they don't do more is because just like everything else in pf, it is an exaggeration on our world. In our world people might claim a god found them a parking spot, judged their enemies, or saved a loved one from dying in a car wreck. In pf these types of things are exaggerated to include a quantitative change and a flashy display, but if they were to go full blown omnipotence we, the players, become insignificant. Furthermore, throw in some omniscience or omnibenevolence and you run into paradoxes. Suspension of disbelief is the order of the day.
See, the problem in your post, Sitri, is that you presume omnipotence automatically yields omnibenevolence. If divinity brings omnipotence, than it clearly does not bring omnibenevolence, as Asmodeus and Lamashtu exist.
Suspension of disbelief is a thing, sure. But the nature of divinity, being undefined by Paizo as it is, is fluid and subject to debate.
The thing is, except for Rovagug, none of the gods want everything destroyed. And, outside of possibly Groteus or maybe Pharasma, none of them are truly suicidal (even the gods of suicide still wish to continue their existence as much as their followers' afterlives). Thus, whether they play by the rules or cheat is irrelevant, there are gods of every stripe, creed, and kind that more or less force the other gods into line, or else.
Because too much omnipotence yields, as you say, paradoxes. But so, in their own way, do multiple values for infinity, yet there are different infinities, and some are much bigger than others. In this way, a given deity might be "infinite", but ultimately they're still limited by the plethora of greater infinities that would be directly arrayed against them.
But that's just if you consider an infinite (or very large) array of omnipotent gods, which, in PF, the gods are noted as being "not infinite" - it's notable even amongst them that Nethys can actually see everywhere at once. But that doesn't negate the Cold War theory. If anything, it strengthens it. Because suddenly you've got extremely powerful, but non-infinite beings that face other extremely powerful, but non-infinite beings. This is exactly the kind of stage that is set for a Cold War scenario to activate. Especially especially, when you consider Rovagug is at the core of a very fragile planet.
Now, that said, the Cold War approach isn't the only way to go. Or even if there is a Cold War scenario, it's not necessarily our Cold War predicated on fear, inertia, and propaganda. It could just as easily be pragmatism, and a non-depressing, non-frightening way of life.
But yeah, there are also other options and, as always, your mileage may vary (which, you know, it obviously does). :)
I don't think I agree with your different degrees of infinite, but I am ok with gods not being infinite.
For your other arguments, it only takes one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because when I sit down to play, it's the PC's story, not the story of the gods. They can stay in the background but they don't get to barge in all the time.
Because when I sit down to play, it's the PC's story, not the story of the gods. They can stay in the background but they don't get to barge in all the time.
+1
This.
If the gods interfered more directly, then PCs opposing their machinations would likely get terminal visits before they became too much of a problem.
I like my players center stage - it's what they play for - they have to bend down to the tax man, the boss, and other demands on their normal life, so it is important that I allow them to vent in game and live outside of normality for a while.
I am not there to beat them down with the god sticks, their own dice do that for me :)
Seriously though, godly interventions should be rare - think about it. You, a lowly PC, are maybe following half a dozen plot threads, tasks and quest lines at a time. A god is following thousands if not more than that simultaneously. They simply can't intervene at regular intervals - most of the time, they are watching their own paranoid backs against the gods rallied against them and their designs.
That being said, a supplement that lets the players play their chosen gods in a political backstabbing campaign arc would be rather interesting.
|
While thats true, I think that also puts the deities too much into an impersonal, unbelievable position within a setting. In a world where nations might go to war over (or at least partly becaus of) religious beliefs or conflicting faiths, having ultra powerful and influential deities just sit back and not act is both kind of dumb and also hypocritical when they should be leading by example and actively progressingthe things they care about as a divine portfolio. In some settings, (Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind) it makes sense to a point, but in others it just doesn't except as an excuse.
That doesnt mean they need to come down (or up) to lay some smack down any time there is an issue, but it does mean they occasionally need to show face, to let their followers see what they are fighting for ajd that their patron does actually give a care.
While thats true, I think that also puts the deities too much into an impersonal, unbelievable position within a setting. In a world where nations might go to war over (or at least partly becaus of) religious beliefs or conflicting faiths, having ultra powerful and influential deities just sit back and not act is both kind of dumb and also hypocritical when they should be leading by example and actively progressingthe things they care about as a divine portfolio. In some settings, (Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind) it makes sense to a point, but in others it just doesn't except as an excuse.
That doesnt mean they need to come down (or up) to lay some smack down any time there is an issue, but it does mean they occasionally need to show face, to let their followers see what they are fighting for ajd that their patron does actually give a care.
Yeah people would never believe in gods like this >.>
Yeah people would never believe in gods like this >.>While thats true, I think that also puts the deities too much into an impersonal, unbelievable position within a setting. In a world where nations might go to war over (or at least partly becaus of) religious beliefs or conflicting faiths, having ultra powerful and influential deities just sit back and not act is both kind of dumb and also hypocritical when they should be leading by example and actively progressingthe things they care about as a divine portfolio. In some settings, (Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind) it makes sense to a point, but in others it just doesn't except as an excuse.
That doesnt mean they need to come down (or up) to lay some smack down any time there is an issue, but it does mean they occasionally need to show face, to let their followers see what they are fighting for ajd that their patron does actually give a care.
You're entirely wrong. They would. Otherwise cults of personality would never exist. People definitely believe in things they can see every once in a while, especially if those things may, in fact, have divine power. Take a look at the the beatification process or the process of becoming a saint. These processes aren't too dissimilar from the ideas of worship (though the Catholic church notes that these are not entities to be worshiped as God is, this is purely because Catholocism is a monotheistic belief system; if it was not, there are all the elements in place to consider ascension fully possible).
I don't think I agree with your different degrees of infinite, but I am ok with gods not being infinite.
For your other arguments, it only takes one.
And that's Rovagug. But, again, because there were so many others, he lost. Which, again, is what my arguments hinged on above. The proof, as the saying goes, is in the pudding.
Now, in Golarion's world, there was a very high cost. But that's completely expected, as noted above.
Besides, as I mentioned, Golarion's gods are all noted as not being infinite.
Now, I was a little unclear on what you disagree with. If you disagree with various values of infinity, may I introduce you to the concept of infinity, infinite sets, and, most importantly, the aleph number? Because those are exactly literally differing values for infinity, some of which are bigger than others. If you mean you disagree with something else, well, then, you're going to have to be more specific.
"All of my other arguments" also includes things like Asmodues and Lamashtu proving a lack of omnibenevolence in the face of (presumed by your previous argument as I understood it) omnipotence or "the nature of divinity in Paizo works is up for debate since they refuse to clarify it so far". Neither of these arguments can be either summed up or countered with "it only takes one". So...?
See, the gods in Golarion are fundamentally different than Western thinking. Their spiritual elements behave extremely differently than any way that we're used to thinking about divinity in Real Life. Which is okay, because magic doesn't work like it does in Real Life either.
()
Again, it's not the fact that "it just takes one", because there already is that "one" and everything is still running fine.
But back to your earlier point: Omnipotence, if literal, does, in fact, grant omniscience, I'll grant, if, and only if, the "omnipotent" creature uses said omnipotence to grant omniscience. But Omniscience, on the other hand, does not automatically grant Omnipotence (or any semblance thereof in an absolute statement, though it may grant some semblance thereof in a round-about sort of way, depending on the creature who holds omniscience). And neither Omniscience nor Omnipotence automatically grant Omnibenevolence (though the omnipotence, being omnipotent, again, can do so at the its own option; the former's element of granting omnibenevolence presupposes a number of things about the omniverse that, religious preferences aside, we simply can't say for sure).
Anyway, my point isn't that you must take the Cold War approach, but rather that is is, at the current time, a viable approach to take.
|
|
Yeah people would never believe in gods like this >.>
I'm really unsure what your response is supposed to mean, here?
That no one would believe in deities that:
A.) showed up and did things for themselves and their followers from time to time, (when they have Clerics and other followers for that).
B.) did not show up often and lay the smack down constantly
C.) <you are being sarcastic> too part in the world at all when they have their own things to do on other worlds and their own planes, ie stealing the spotlight from the players
D.) <you are being sarcastic again> the Dragonlance/Eberron approaches are stupid
E.) something else?
|
|
Yeah people would never believe in gods like this >.>I'm really unsure what your response is supposed to mean, here?
I thought it was kind of obvious, myself. In that the type of god described in that excerpt from Devil's Advocate's post EXACTLY described all the gods that people believe in here in the real world. You know, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh, etc.
I thought it was kind of obvious, myself. In that the type of god described in that excerpt from Devil's Advocate's post EXACTLY described all the gods that people believe in here in the real world. You know, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh, etc.Yeah people would never believe in gods like this >.>I'm really unsure what your response is supposed to mean, here?
Ah. See, I was taking it the opposite, more literal way. Heh, sorry, Sitir, the sarcasm direction reader failed on me. :)
|
|
Because when I sit down to play, it's the PC's story, not the story of the gods. They can stay in the background but they don't get to barge in all the time."The gods have taken interest in this battle Conan!"
"Are they going to help?"
"No!"
"Then tell them to stay out of the way!"
It's been a while, but didn't they send a divine gift (his dead girlfriend all shiney and angelic) to save him from dying and ending the movie not to much after that?
It's been a while, but didn't they send a divine gift (his dead girlfriend all shiney and angelic) to save him from dying and ending the movie not to much after that?
I got the impression it was her idea and action that brought her back, if only for a moment.
I've been traveling and it is either 6am local time or my home time, I am really not sure, so my response probably isn't as articulate as I would like it to be.
First off, kthulhu was correct in detecting my sarcasm earlier.
When I said it only takes one, I meant one one wanting to destroy everything to end a cold war or one that is supposed to embody unlimited power and benevolence to start creating paradoxes.
I do find the Aleph number very interesting, this is the first I have read of it. From what I can tell in my current state, it is language used to describe differences among things that will continue infinitely, but doesn't necessarily change the infinite value. I may be off here, as I previously explained. But it seems it is a description of the constituants that will create an limitless series. I don't really see the end results of any infinite being greater, just the relative values when examining pieces along the way.
That's fine. I certainly didn't always know of it myself.
But the thing about the aleph numbers is that they're based on cardinality.
Here's two points there:
"In mathematics, cardinal numbers, or cardinals for short, are a generalization of the natural numbers used to measure the cardinality (size) of sets."
"A fundamental theorem due to Georg Cantor shows that it is possible for infinite sets to have different cardinalities, and in particular the cardinality of the set of real numbers is greater than the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. It is also possible for a proper subset of an infinite set to have the same cardinality as the original set, something that cannot happen with proper subsets of finite sets."
In other words, one infinity has a larger cardinality (size) than another infinity.
Now, while that might seem a bit off, at first, it really gets into interesting territory when you start mixing your alephs. What happens, for example, when you subtract Aleph-one from Aleph-two? That sort of thing.
()
Irregular webcomic has a few interesting takes in the comic annotations. Though it doesn't directly deal with or answer this question, it still has a good point made:
In other words, the real numbers between 0 and 1 can be matched one-for-one with the real numbers between 0 and 2. In one sense, there are twice as many numbers between 0 and 2 as there are between 0 and 1 (because 0 to 2 is twice as "long" as 0 to 1); but in another sense there are exactly the same number of numbers between 0 and 2 as there are between 0 and 1.
()
So both can be true at the same time. Strange stuff. It's a little counter-intuitive, I know. But it's really nifty, too.
But if you have a plethora of infinite creatures, the general consensus weighs far more than an individual. Because if one ever decides to go against the others, than each can reduce themselves only a lesser amount while completely negating the other infinity.
So your counter that "it only takes one" is countered itself by "not if there are more than one" because, you know, infinity and aleph stuff is funny that way.
Or, alternatively, with omnipotence, it only takes one to use their omnipotence to require that all with omnipotence have to follow "the rules" (whatever those are), and thus all must do so. Again, omnipotence is funny that way.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying that PF divinities are omnipotent. They're not, as defined in canon. But being omnipotent and having a plurality of divinities isn't as impossible as it seems, even if it's extremely counter-intuitive.