| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bet someone will complain about this change, even though it was called for.Challenge Accepted.
I actually liked the fact that all the LG deities were not squeaky clean. I guess we can just keep ironing out all of the wrinkles until they are all the same...
Nothing bland about that.
Except this isn't making them all the same.
It's making Torag actually Good.
This goes a long way towards explaining why there's a new "Paladin Fall" thread every week. Apparently there is only one correct way to Good. And anyone, whether it's a commoner or a deity, must fit all the way entirely into that box, or they're not allowed to call themselves LG!
"I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families."
To me, this reads as, "I will bring war to those who attack me. I will not stop until their capacity to make war is utterly destroyed. I will never leave an enemy stronghold intact."
If you read it as "Must Genocide...!" maybe the problem isn't the oath.
Why shouldn't there be aspects of a deity that you don't like? Why shouldn't there be aspects you downright hate? Why shouldn't two LG deities have very different views on things like warfare and community, tradition and outsiders?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sanitised... Squeaky clean... Disneyfied and about as edgy as a beach ball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, you didn't remove "some derail", you removed all the posts of everyone who replied to it, regardless if they had anything to do with real world religion or not.
Yes, that is our general policy when removing posts. If you have further comments, you may want to utilize the Website Feedback forum or send an email to community@paizo.com, rather than posting in this one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bet someone will complain about this change, even though it was called for.Challenge Accepted.
I actually liked the fact that all the LG deities were not squeaky clean. I guess we can just keep ironing out all of the wrinkles until they are all the same...
Nothing bland about that.
Except this isn't making them all the same.
It's making Torag actually Good.
There is nothing bland about that unless one buys into the wrongheaded conceit that the only way things can be interesting or have depth is to grimdark them up.
I'm sorry to disagree with you here. I have no problem with Torag being more than a bit of a jerk to his enemies, and I read "scatter" to mean something other and considerably less than "genocide".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the Paladin Fall threads are a result of the details of the default paladin code(which is what most people use).
Except there is no "Default Paladin Code". The rules in the CRB are the rules for the Paladin's Code. Not the Code itself.
Torag's portfolio is Forge, Protection, and Strategy. His Paladins' Code, the original unaltered code, falls very much right into line with that. Toragdans don't leave a hammer half forged, or a war half won.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry to disagree with you here. I have no problem with Torag being more than a bit of a jerk to his enemies, and I read "scatter" to mean something other and considerably less than "genocide".I bet someone will complain about this change, even though it was called for.Challenge Accepted.
I actually liked the fact that all the LG deities were not squeaky clean. I guess we can just keep ironing out all of the wrinkles until they are all the same...
Nothing bland about that.
Except this isn't making them all the same.
It's making Torag actually Good.
There is nothing bland about that unless one buys into the wrongheaded conceit that the only way things can be interesting or have depth is to grimdark them up.
I have to agree with Freehold here. I don't read scatter their enemies as total genocide and salting the fields. More just a mass exile. I wouldn't call that good, but I certainly wouldn't call that evil.
Neutral change for me to be honest. I don't use Golarion so if people prefer this, then I can dig it. Mikaze will at least be happy to hear the NG God of undead in my setting. :p
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I don't remember my post having anything to do with real world religion, but since I don't remember it, it might have been all about real world religion!
Anywho, 'scatter your enemies' doesn't seem to equal 'genocide' to me, so I'm not a fan of the write up being changed because of a faulty assumption / straw man.
Huh, I don't remember my post having anything to do with real world religion, but since I don't remember it, it might have been all about real world religion!
Anywho, 'scatter your enemies' doesn't seem to equal 'genocide' to me, so I'm not a fan of the write up being changed because of a faulty assumption / straw man.
I can see how a problem player could read it like genocide and cause issues. Still feel that's an issue with the player, not the God.
Torag is still a better good deity than Iomedae in my book.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go on record as saying that given fantasy races being "inherently" (I'll get to that in a second) evil doesn't equate to real-world racism.
I'm going to go on record as saying that given fantasy races "always" (again, I'll get back to that) being evil doesn't equate to real-world racism.
Do we follow my position so far? Good.
Here's what it's like in this case: a wookie's right to rage-murder storm troopers.
How's that again?
In real life, flipping out and rage-murdering people is bad. Straight up. There are situations where violence is and must be called for, but murdering folk is a bad thing.
In Star Wars, a Wookie would, in pretty much any situation, be justified in tearing Storm Troopers apart (at least in the Rebellion era). Despite the fact that hate/rage/etc. leads to the dark side, we, as an audience, don't care, because a wookie doing this means that the bad guys - we know they are bad guys because they are all wearing the same thing - are getting what they deserve.
I'm a big proponent of fiction as a means of self-enlightenment. It's one of fiction's primary purposes: explore those things we can't or won't explore ourselves.
In the case of Wookies and Star Wars, we justify the fury rage-killing because we're learning that racism is evil. This is the lesson we are learning.
In a setting where races are always evil, we're learning a different, equally important (but not as currently-relevant in modern culture) lesson: that sometimes the best option - the only option - is violence. And we're coding the acceptable targets like they are in Star Wars. In Star Wars, we know they're fine to kill because of their armor. In D&D we know they are fine to kill because they are drow (or because of their armor). This is not wrong. It's something that we use to steel ourselves (mentally) and to understand that violence is sometimes necessary, and its a method of containing that to specific "safe" places and environments.
The problems that arise often enough - justifiable and comprehensible problems - is the apparent values dissonance that is generated when something that's important (for whatever reason) to one person is trampled over in the process of our quest for self-enlightenment via fiction.
In inherently evil fantasy races, the dissonance comes that, in the real world, we can't judge people based on what they look like. Unfortunately, it's just not that easy. Skin, hair, eyes, etc: these can belong to people of any alignment. On the other hand, you can (more often) judge a person based off of their uniform - after all, they took the job.
Thus we get values dissonance: many begin feeling uncomfortable at drow being always evil, even as they're fine with all Storm Troopers as Shoot-on-sight.
Still, there are times and places for always-evil in our fiction. I'm of the camp that you're justified in smiting a demon unless you have extraordinary evidence or circumstances otherwise. Similarly, I'm of the camp that shooting a rabid dog is (while terrible) generally a necessity.
In the case of gods like Torag commanding his people to annihilate all of their foes, there's plenty of good potential reasons for that, and only a few of them have to do with the evil of those races.
Ultimately, the scattering may well be from an ancient and no-longer-relevant era. Perhaps in those days it was slaughtering. Maybe that was important - even a good thing. In the case of orcs, certainly, it's clear that the orcs were tainted by the black blood of Orv... which seems related to Rovagug, somehow, or at least demonic entities. It's very possible that without this fantasy-racist undercurrent, the dwarves, as a whole, would become vulnerable to Rovagug's depredations and become tools that would destroy the surface world. It's quite possible that, had dwarves and orcs gotten along, all of them would have descended into evil together. And it's quite possible that Torag knew this.
Were some redeemable? Yes, certainly.
Would the dwarves maybe be able to redeem entire groups of them successfully without corrupting themselves?
It's quite possible that they could not. In this case, it's a weakness in the dwarves - a failing that would have led to greater destruction and death than if they did not.
But while Good is the "hard" way, it's also not foolish or naive. There are times when the good thing is to end lives. There are times when bad things need killing, and it needs to happen thoroughly.
His harsh calls and demands may well have been necessary for dwarves to survive. If he didn't follow this path, and call them down a road that - to us - seems barbaric, it may well be that the entire world would have suffered for that, and that evil would have won.
Another possibility is simply that, at one time, certain families were inherently susceptible to influence by evil. If that tendency toward influence was strong enough, it would be warranted.
Is this "ends justify the means"? Only to the same extent that everything is "the ends justify the means". Any time an adventurer kills another person, they're placing themselves and their desires over someone else's potential redemption.
Of course, if there is no subtle influence, let's look at another option: the dwarves' only chance not to fall to darker gods was to follow a darker path, because of the inherent darkness in themselves. Again, this goes back to a racial flaw... but one that can be managed. It's quite possible that if dwarves didn't scatter the families, and instead adopted them, that these other races would instead become slaves. The dwarves would begin - due to natural and understandable prejudice based on physical differences - begin to oppress the other races as a whole. They would become tyrants, cruel and monstrous, and wicked. In this scenario, it's the dwarves executing their enemies that staves off corruption, not from the enemies, but from the dwarves themselves.
This also goes into looking at things with a Long View - longer even than the elves or other long-lived races. I liken this to the "is it a weed or a flower?" question: when you're trying to make a garden, it solely depends on whether your chosen arrangement lives or dies if the other one is present. In this case, if there is an ultimate goal, some things do have to be removed, as they will, however good intentioned, destroy everything. You might not mind dandelions in your rose garden, personally, but they'll choke the roses right out of existence if you don't pull them up. It doesn't matter how much the two flowers would look good together - they will kill each other one way or the other, and the victor will be scraggly and broken. Similarly, kudzu is beautiful, but the forests of the Carolinas are suffering pretty badly from it (). Similarly, slashing and burning undergrowth is sometimes necessary for the whole forest not to burn.
This seems exceptionally harsh, I grant. Especially when you consider that we're talking about living and (presumably?) sentient beings. However, death, despite its tendency toward finality, is not the End in the Pathfinder setting. Instead, it's a transition state. You are judged based off of your alignment and deeds. If a soul gets reincarnated (which does happen for certain souls), it's quite possible that they come back as something other than one of the monstrous races, or, if they do, in regions not controlled by the dwarves. Hence, they live a life not as a slave, have their shot at redemption, and eventually get to follow their destiny.
All of this, all of the above, is definitely racist. But it's fantasy racist, as opposed to real world racist. Much like fantasy violence and real world violence, they're very different things, despite each being used to teach us real-world lessons.
The nature of the constraints used by different settings and ideas cause certain elements to become uncomfortably dissonant for different folks. But that's not inherently a bad thing, and neither is having those elements.
Though, personally, man, am I glad you can have non-evil anything. That's really cool. Except non-ghost undead. That's kind of lame. But that's just me*. :D
I like having any race be redeemable. But that doesn't make me think that evil people are just future-buddies. They're evil. To me, evil is having earned a response through action (and/or purposeful inaction) and has, by default, become evil. If they're not evil, then they're not evil.
That said, I can certainly understand that in war situations, given mortal weaknesses. Thus, I never had a problem with Torag's code: it was crafted during a time of total war. It was a lose/lose situation, and Torag turned it into a "here's how we'll manage to have a generally non-evil race be viable and survive"... no mean feat.
Now, in places where total war might not be appropriate, it's probably better to set that code aside, for another, better one...
* Okay, me and a number of others. :D
I enjoyed your reasoning. But...
In the case of gods like Torag commanding his people to annihilate all of their foes...
... at this point I think you deviated from the facts. The Oath does not call for the annihilation of all of anyone. It says "scatter their families."
"A paladin of Torag's duty is first to protect her people..."
All you have to do is NOT attack the Paladin's people. If you follow that simple rule, your family will not be scattered.
I think you did touch on one point worth following up on. This is a fantasy setting. How many people will your character kill in his lifetime? Even if he's not damage focused, there will probably be some.
Sorry, you are correct, but I wasn't claiming that the part you quoted was canon: only that even if you followed that "scattering" mean "slaughtering" that it could still follow that Torag was good, depending on the base presumptions of a given setting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep saying that, but drow look nothing like human ethnicities.
Originally? Yes, I grant, the oldest versions were terrible.
Now? Not even close.
There is no human skin tone that is obsidian-blue (or, depending on the artist, light gray, or obsidian-purple). The closest groups to that skin tone (which aren't very close at all) don't come with white hair. Neither of the groups that tend to come anywhere close to matching those descriptions are short, and willowy, and neither come with red eyes inherently (although albino humans can have red eyes and pale hair... but even those are different from drow red eyes and hair).
Old Man J'tambe is the coolest dude from the Inner Sea.
Aroden is not white.
Nex is one of the most powerful still-extant spellcasters of the Inner Sea.
Geb is the other.
The people who are in the throws of devil worship look like this, as do those that fell into worship of the torment itself.
The people who kept civilization alive look like this.
(Conversely: there are plenty of folk on both sides of the ethnic divide that have good and bad people in them of all stripes.)
I've never seen a man with green skin*^.
Fantasy races - especially in Pathfinder - don't look like real-world human ethnicities.
And that's something that I find important. If you actually read my post, there's an importance in separating things, and there's nothing wrong, inherently, with finding personal discomfort in something. But decrying people who don't feel the same way as you do as real-world racist (which your post heavily implies) is a harsh thing, sir. After all, this is real-life.
Also, in general, questions of right and wrong and who's evil or not are much more readily answered in a fantasy setting. This can remove much moral uncertainty... if we want it to.
EDIT 3: All that said, and I still prefer to have sentients with the ability to make their own choices. My stance is that it's okay to have settings that have different presumptions, but that those presumptions are less relevant to most modern culture, stances, and political-social needs than the idea that anyone of any race can be good.
* Blue, yes, because he drank too much silver nitrate.
^ Woman, yes, but that was in Star Trek and Captain Kirk went for her. Also it was fake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is disappointing. I will still be running with the original.
I guess the real question is: After they blanded Erastil, after they watered down Torag, (and anticipating that they'll sand off any sharp edges that Abadar might have) what's left that separates one Paladin from another? It's not about aligning yourself with a deity, because you can only act one way. So, you're really just choosing domains, at this point (which only matters for Sacred Servants...).
I guess we're all just Sarenrae worshipers whether we want to be, or not...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(and anticipating that they'll sand off any sharp edges that Abadar might have)
Abadar isn't Lawful Good any more than Aroden was. They are & were both Lawful Neutral. There is less likelihood that they will feel the need to 'tone down' Abadar consequently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the real question is: After they blanded Erastil, after they watered down Torag, (and anticipating that they'll sand off any sharp edges that Abadar might have) what's left that separates one Paladin from another? It's not about aligning yourself with a deity, because you can only act one way. So, you're really just choosing domains, at this point (which only matters for Sacred Servants...).
I guess we're all just Sarenrae worshipers whether we want to be, or not...
This is a little hyperbolic. The Erastil one especially did have the higher chance of alienating female gamers and making them more uncomfortable. It'd be like having a LG deity that's okay with slavery, then wondering why all your black players don't want to play with you anymore. The Erastile change was needed in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Erastil one especially did have the higher chance of alienating female gamers and making them more uncomfortable. It'd be like having a LG deity that's okay with slavery, then wondering why all your black players don't want to play with you anymore. The Erastile change was needed in my opinion.
To an extent I agree with this, but to an extent I regret it.
That said, over-all, I really like the idea that Erastil has "traditional roles" that are created by certain genders... that vary in specified communities... and recently had fun with that in a campaign we finished.
Heh. "It is clear who would make the better homemaker." indeed. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Erastil one especially did have the higher chance of alienating female gamers and making them more uncomfortable. It'd be like having a LG deity that's okay with slavery, then wondering why all your black players don't want to play with you anymore. The Erastile change was needed in my opinion.To an extent I agree with this, but to an extent I regret it.
That said, over-all, I really like the idea that Erastil has "traditional roles" that are created by certain genders... that vary in specified communities... and recently had fun with that in a campaign we finished.
Heh. "It is clear who would make the better homemaker." indeed. :)
OCD man, OCD.
All I'm saying is that it was the succubus that was the bread winner.
EDIT 1&2: It was not the archon(s).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(and anticipating that they'll sand off any sharp edges that Abadar might have)Abadar isn't Lawful Good any more than Aroden was. They are & were both Lawful Neutral. There is less likelihood that they will feel the need to 'tone down' Abadar consequently.
And Sarenrae is Neutral Good, which is why redemption is part of her portfolio. But, apparently, is still the standard for Lawful Good.
This is a little hyperbolic. The Erastil one especially did have the higher chance of alienating female gamers and making them more uncomfortable. It'd be like having a LG deity that's okay with slavery, then wondering why all your black players don't want to play with you anymore. The Erastile change was needed in my opinion.I guess the real question is: After they blanded Erastil, after they watered down Torag, (and anticipating that they'll sand off any sharp edges that Abadar might have) what's left that separates one Paladin from another? It's not about aligning yourself with a deity, because you can only act one way. So, you're really just choosing domains, at this point (which only matters for Sacred Servants...).
I guess we're all just Sarenrae worshipers whether we want to be, or not...
I would say the sign of healthy equanimity in the game would be the existence of one mysoginist that didn't threaten every female gamer everywhere. Lolth, in 3.5 Forgotten Realms certainly didn't make me shy away from the Drow.
Heh.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. "It is clear who would make the better homemaker." indeed. :)OCD man, OCD.
Oh yeah. The local comics/gaming store loves when I come in and browse, since I always end up organizing the gaming books on the shelves.
'Why are the adventures mixed in with the player's companions? And nothing's organized! It's like everything gets shoved into the first open shelf space or something...'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay here is a question. Is it possible to make Erastil LG but still have a 'Men hunt/work the fields while women take care of the kids/home' attitude?
'Your wife's labors are needed and proper, honor her station. No you may not punish her if she does not measure up to your standards. Lay your hand or rod upon her and I shall smite you.'
Yes it is. It's just very unpopular, and for understandable reason. If done poorly, it can be very, very dissonant and not-good, or even evil. It's a much harder line to walk, in other words.
EDIT: for clarity
It does make me wish there was a lawful neutral god that was similar to Erastil but maybe took the family values thing a bit far. Don't see it as all being very likely, given that neutral gods tend to be short-changed in demigod options, compared to good or evil gods.
Heh. "It is clear who would make the better homemaker." indeed. :)OCD man, OCD.Oh yeah. The local comics/gaming store loves when I come in and browse, since I always end up organizing the gaming books on the shelves.
'Why are the adventures mixed in with the player's companions? And nothing's organized! It's like everything gets shoved into the first open shelf space or something...'
I do the same thing in almost every bookstore I go to.
(At least in the comics, manga, and gaming stuff.)| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where the equivalence is. Lolth is SUPPOSED to be evil, and most people back in the day who wished to play drow, weren't looking to be nice guys.
I would say the sign of healthy equanimity in the game would be the existence of one mysoginist that didn't threaten every female gamer everywhere. Lolth, in 3.5 Forgotten Realms certainly didn't make me shy away from the Drow.
A female deity that actively and unashamedly despises males, and commands their oppression, measured against a male deity that has some more old-world, traditional views on family, community, and gender roles. You're right. There's not much of an equivalence.
The point was more that the viewpoint of a deity in a fantasy game shouldn't put you off of playing. And since I don't know many guys that refused to play Drow because of Lolth, it's a little silly to me that the original version of Erastil can't even be in the same sandbox as other options that you can pick from. Other options, by the way, that include three major female deities...
Okay here is a question. Is it possible to make Erastil LG but still have a 'Men hunt/work the fields while women take care of the kids/home' attitude?
That was more or less how he was originally written. It wasn't exactly "men hunt, women cook", but it was close enough.
Yes it is. It's just very unpopular, and for understandable reason. If done poorly, it can be very, very dissonant and not-good, or even evil. It's a much harder line to walk, in other words.
This line of justification has never really held water for me. The bottom line is, no amount of editing is going to stop a DBAG-DM or a crass, vulgar player from making someone feel uncomfortable at the table. Sacred Calistrian Prostitutes, you say???
I'm not trying to derail this discussion with a new debate about Erastil's views. I just feel like both he and Torag had a lot more character before they were edited down.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This line of justification has never really held water for me. The bottom line is, no amount of editing is going to stop a DBAG-DM or a crass, vulgar player from making someone feel uncomfortable at the table. Sacred Calistrian Prostitutes, you say???
Or the 'Whore Queens' or Arazni 'the Harlot Queen,' and the probably unintentional association between women-in-power and hookers. Or a drink named 'Whore's Breakfast' in Cities of the Inner Sea and a drug named 'Harlot Sweets' in Rivals Guide. Pretty selective woman-friendly language, there.
I'm all for an inclusive setting, but when 'inclusive' is being used to *subtract* options and make the world smaller, that's pretty much the opposite of 'inclusive,' as I understand it.
Then again, everyone draws the line in different places. For some, evil folk are robots, or the scorpion from the fable, incapable of making terribly short-sighted choices that eliminate any possibility that they could ever actually succeed at anything (making the good 'heroes' who defeat them kind of meaningless and unheroic, since all good has to do to triumph over evil is sit around and wait for them all to betray each other to death...).
I'd like both evil and good to be a bit less monolithic, and for it to be possible for two people of good conscience to disagree.
Save the inflexible codes of behavior punched onto cards and inserted into their brains for Android Paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for an inclusive setting, but when 'inclusive' is being used to *subtract* options and make the world smaller, that's pretty much the opposite of 'inclusive,' as I understand it.
This is very well put.
I'm not sure where the equivalence is. Lolth is SUPPOSED to be evil, and most people back in the day who wished to play drow, weren't looking to be nice guys.
I would say the sign of healthy equanimity in the game would be the existence of one mysoginist that didn't threaten every female gamer everywhere. Lolth, in 3.5 Forgotten Realms certainly didn't make me shy away from the Drow.A female deity that actively and unashamedly despises males, and commands their oppression, measured against a male deity that has some more old-world, traditional views on family, community, and gender roles. You're right. There's not much of an equivalence.
The point was more that the viewpoint of a deity in a fantasy game shouldn't put you off of playing. And since I don't know many guys that refused to play Drow because of Lolth, it's a little silly to me that the original version of Erastil can't even be in the same sandbox as other options that you can pick from. Other options, by the way, that include three major female deities...
Saying that women should be 'married off' to 'defer to and support their husbands' because them being 'independent minded' is 'disruptive'? That is commanding oppression. Milder oppression than Lolth's, to be sure, and not quite a Men's Rights Activist either, but it is still misogynistic. Now, I'm all for Erastil being a crotchety, not-altogether friendly Lawful Good god, but left completely as written, Erastil is basically telling players that it is perfectly all right for someone to think that women belong pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. I'm fine with priests of Erastil (probably Lawful Neutral ones, or even Lawful Evil non-clerics) who interpret doctrine in a misogynistic way. But by saying that Erastil himself is explicitly *not* misogynist--that he believes in taking every practical step to protect the family unit and the community, without stating that men should inherently be in charge, Erastil is no less curmodgenly or traditional, but he's earned the 'G' in his alignment line. (To paraphrase from Heinlein, my Erastil believes no woman should *have* to fight, but certainly believes they should all be *capable* of it, because what should be isn't always what is.)
As to Torag, scatter may not mean genocide, but it certainly suggests it, or at least the Trail of Tears. And it very definitely tells Paladins that it is not just OK, but a righteous duty to actively go after non-combatants for crimes they did not commit and may not have had any say in. I imagine even Ragathiel, God of Righteously Murdering Evil in the Face would be put off by turning on the Big Bad's niece after dealing with the man himself, unless the niece was actively involved in evildoings herself. Torag, apparently, thinks 'If she didn't want to get killed (or 'get exiled from her home and separated from her family' if we're going to argue the semantics of 'scatter'), she should have known better than to be born related to this guy.'
I am mildly baffled at any attempts to compare Lolth to Erastil.
Lolth is supposed to be a horrible psychopath. She was a demon lord before 2E promoted her to actual goddesshood. In a drow-heavy campaign that I ran I summed up Lolth's relationship with the drow as similar to a parent-child relationship where Lolth is the worst abusive parent in existence.
Lolth didn't turn players off from drow because if the person was playing a drow they normally either wanted to play (a) a psychopath (in which case they'd be fine with Lolth or following a horrible equivalent like Lolth's son Vhaerun) or (b) a Drizz't style rebel/outcast (who wouldn't follow Lolth anyways).
I think the claims that "Torag condones genocide" and that "Erastil hates women" were results of misinterpreting the respective deity articles/codes, but the misconceptions were widespread enough that the developers had to address them. Both because of people going "here's these horrible things that these LG gods stand for! How are they possibly LG if they support this?" and because of a smaller subset of people going "since these horrible things are supported by LG gods, these things must be okay."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We went from Torag to Erastil dysfunction...
If you want, we can make this about how Iomedae is the epitome of Lawful Stupid now :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No she's A%@@$%& Good.. With an appreciation for TranceStep appearantly.We went from Torag to Erastil dysfunction...If you want, we can make this about how Iomedae is the epitome of Lawful Stupid now :)
Poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe
:p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No she's A+~~@#@ Good.. With an appreciation for TranceStep appearantly.We went from Torag to Erastil dysfunction...If you want, we can make this about how Iomedae is the epitome of Lawful Stupid now :)
slight leaning towards awful good in my opinion, but I am more concerned about beach ball good with respect to the deities mentioned above. The last thing golarion needs is to turn their good deities into laughably flawed time of troubles FR nonsense.
I have never heard of the term beach ball good, but I'm glad I've now heard about it.