| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't mind spoiling yourself thoroughly, there is a very long thread on this forum about this topic here.
As for your questions:
1.) Partially. You can be Chaotic Good or Lawful Good or True Neutral and are equally treated by her.
2.) James Jacobs. He rather regrets it by now. <casts Terrible Remorse on James> ^^
3.) It's not, at least to the minds of a lot of people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all depends in how you read it i guess, to me it didn't seem so severe, things get overblown on the internet:)
|
I disagree with the wide take on it being Iomedae being cruel or acting outside of Lawful Good. I think it's more complex than that. But, there has been a lot of controversy, and a lot of good points raised about this situation.
Wait and play it out, and make your own call on it, or check out the threads that will spoil the hell out of it for you and see what folks are saying.
Personally, as a player, I would wait and see how it works in my own game, as having spoilers on this bit might really change how it plays.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOTE: This entire post, including the stuff in not spoiler tags, likely contains varying levels of spoilers.
There's a lot of missing context here, and a lot of very strong terminology being used, but that is how some people have felt about the encounter. I disagree with the assessment, but certainly sympathize with it. Iomedae does transport the PCs to her celestial realm with no warning, though I wouldn't exactly call that a "kidnapping". It's important to note that the questions aren't just questions: they're affirmations of the beliefs and attitudes underlying the Crusade to which the characters have sworn themselves. A "wrong answer" means that everyone in the party has said something that is contrary to the motivations and demeanor that the goddess seeks in mortal representatives of her divinely-ordained war— representatives whom she wishes to send to another plane of existence in overt action against a deific power. If their actions betray Iomedae's cause, she may be seen as breaking the mandate of divine non-interference by having the PCs seek to do more than merely recover her herald; knowing that the PCs will behave in a way that she approves of means that they can be trusted to avoid implicating her in the breaking of one of the multiverse's biggest no-no's.
Here's my post on the encounter from an earlier thread, which goes into my thoughts on the implications of the "kidnapping" as an act of a LG deity. Note that my question is "How do we understand these actions as LG, knowing that Iomedae is of that alignment?" rather than "Is Iomedae Evil because of these actions?"; my first assumption is that her alignment is not in question, and that we should aim to comprehend rather than condemn.
Look at it this way: if gods can just abduct anyone in the world and harm them for not responding as they want, then they whole "don't directly interfere on Golarion" thing seems moot. So what might be an exception to appearing in the presence of mortals? Obviously, you would want it to be limited to those who follow the deity to prevent inter-faith conflicts. But the PCs aren't necessarily Iomedaen. So how do we reconcile?
Well, we know that (traditionally, at least) Mendevian Crusaders are required to swear an oath to Iomedae and fight under her banner; see the Low Templar prestige class for how that may not always be a firm oath. But we nonetheless have a formal oath to serve a goddess's interests in the mortal realm, in a crusade against Abyssal forces appropriating chunks of the Material Plane. As the PCs gain prominence in the crusade, eventually overshadowing the power and influence of Queen Galfrey herself and taking the fight back to the Abyss to undermine the opposition's war efforts, it seems reasonable that the goddess whom they claim to represent in their actions should be allowed to give them a test of faith in order to represent her on a scale beyond the limited military scope of a terrestrial conflict.
Of course, a test of faith where one meets a deity should not be straightforward and strictly positive event (although overcoming the ordeal should prove satisfactory to members of the faith); there must be danger for marked failings in the mortal's faith. The punishment for conflicting ideals within the party or between mortal and deity isn't just Iomedae lashing out in anger or frustration (although she is disappointed, I believe) but a metaphysical retruibution of the multiverse against the PCs for having failed to uphold their sworn faith or cause— notably, a faith or cause to a deity who emphasizes the sanctity of such things. While clearly a painful experience, it's not merely a slap on the wrist intended to reprimand but a necessary part of the rites of Trial By Ordeal which tests the faith to the cause and, notably, is one of the few ways that a deity may physically manifest before her followers (another reason why deities show favor with things like the presence of birds: it's subtle, can have a mundane explanation, and doesn't require putting their faithful at risk should they fail).
As for the abduction with no warning? Communicating divine intentions to mortals is generally handled by the herald, who is missing, or by the church (ie, giving someone higher up on the chain of command a vision instead and having them pass it along), which could allow enemies who infiltrated the faith to root out the deity's intentions and relay them to evil powers; better to call them to your side with no warning so that your graciousness cannot be used as a tool against the crusade's only hope for success. Besides, making it sudden and unheralded fits with the idea that you'll be testing the PCs' faith: to explain what would happen beforehand would allow them to mentally/psychologically/physically prepare themselves, which skews the field in their favor, something which won't happen when they're doing the deity's work in the real world.
So yes, the damage and "abduction" are not very nice, but it's part of the process— not merely Iomedae's, but the entire Multiverse's— when testing the fitness of mortal faithful who wish to serve the divine on a multiplanar scale, especially when their actions may call the attention of rival deities. Iomedae resorts to this kind of trial because it is simple to arrange, given the PCs' level of power and prominence in a crusade undertaken in her name, without violating divine mandate and she believes that they will be able to overcome it (though not necessarily unharmed). Being damaged by the angelic choir is a consequence of being imperfectly faithful to the cause, and is a standard part of this kind of deific meeting. The PCs aren't just four people answering questions; they're four sworn servants of a divinely sanctioned cause trying to properly elucidate the duties enshrined in their oath in order to placate the multiversal enforcers of divine non-interference, so that the deity to whom they are sworn may be permitted to give them aid and direction in a nigh-impossible task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Crusader's Oath begins with "I do so swear under the Light, by the Sword and Scales of Truth and all the fires of heaven, to undertake this holy Crusade."; most of the things being sworn by are capitalized in the oath which, combined with the fact that it is a "holy crusade", suggests that they are not just physical things, but divine concepts. Fittingly, Iomedae is a goddess of the sun (light), war (the fires of heaven), and honor/justice (scales of truth), whose favored weapon is the longsword (sword) and whose church has historically called and closed the various crusades.
Further, the Low Templar Prestige Class (where I grabbed the oath from) follows the text of the oath with "in too many cases, these words are hollow falsehoods, for many of those who take up the sword to crusade in Iomedae’s name do so for their own glory", which implies that the oath is directly related to crusading in Iomedae's name. The class's Path of Darkness/Light ability also mention that the character "must eventually decide how closely he wishes to hew to his oaths to Iomedae"; the only oath mentioned in the class is the Crusader's Oath, again implying that it is an oath to her divine cause.
Finally, the ISWG section on Mendev mentions that all crusaders fight under the banner of Iomedae and whatever regional/knightly order they are a member of. Taken together, I believe this is fairly strong evidence that the Crusader's Oath is an oath to Iomedae, even if it is given to secular authorities or by those who worship other deities.
I definitely agree that being in the goddess's presence should constitute a mythic trial by itself, and James Jacobs mentions it as one on page 5 of Herald of the Ivory Labyrinth even though the adventure's text doesn't say "this encounter counts as a mythic trial" in the story award section, as it does for other mythic trials.
It's possible that there might be some inconsistency with how the crusaders are portrayed. After all, Paizo has dozens of writers and not all of them are on the same wavelength.
I would imagine that yes, the crusade is a joint effort between the faiths of Iomedae, Sarenrae, Abadar, Shelyn, Torag, Erastil et cetera...but Iomedae is the "main" patron of crusade, and most of the crusaders worship her. Hence, the oath is commonly seen as one to Iomedae.
I'm certain Iomedae being portrayed as an overbearing twit of a deity is not intended to be a slight on women but rather was an extension of the "if you attack her you are harmed" theme. It may also be a description of the rigidity of her rule that she does not accept dissent or scorn. The problem is that characters who worship chaotic deities (such as a certain drunken god) will inevitably be struck down because they were true to themselves.
There is of course a way around it. If someone badmouths her? Level 9 Silence on that person. If they start making rude gestures? Level 9 darkness on that character so their gestures can't be seen. And then have her chide the character by pointing out that the drunken god has better manners (and they hear and see her (but just her) despite the Silence/Darkness). She could even call it "Time Out" like she's punishing an errant child.
The true problem, as I mentioned in the Other Thread, is that the entire scene was depicted as a "combat is conflict" where the threat of physical harm must exist in order for it to be a proper encounter. But a level 1 party could have an encounter with a Yeti in Reign of Winter... by coming across a dead deer and see huge bloody footprints and thus know something big and nasty is out there. Likewise, in Wrath we had the initial encounter with a vengeful demon lord which was the LAST Mythic trial for Book 4... where the only thing the PCs do is watch said Lord get nuked by the Lord of the Abyssal Realm they're currently in.
Why shouldn't seeing a Deity "in the flesh" be any different? There should have been no trumpets. No damage (except in the case of attacking her). Nor does there have to be in your version of this.