I don't kno if it can be adapted for the Beginner Box, but this is an amazing document adapting Norse mythology for Pathfinder: here
|
Since you've already got three good gods with Thor, Tyr and Freya, Odin might be made true Neutral, to round out the pantheon a little bit.
For Freya, patron of the seithr witches, and 'boss' of the Valkyries, Magic and Repose might be better choices. (Perhaps Charm as well, but since you are using two domains for each, Charm could be saved for her brother Frey or Baldar or something.)
A few more options might include Frey (Animal and Plant?), Baldar (Charm and Protection?), Sif (Community and War?), Idunn (Healing and ?), Heimdall, Skadi, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This looks great but I would give Thor the warhammer.
He picked light hammer because it can be used as a ranged weapons. Warhammer would still be a good choice though. Mjolnir is obviously something very different - and an artifact.
|
Mjolnir probably has a Sun Blade thing going on where it deals damage like a warhammer, can be thrown like a light hammer (with the returning property) and counts as either for the purposes of feats and proficiency.
I think the reason why I'm having difficulties put deities on the neutral axis is because there is a pretty clear good guy bad gut line in norse mythology based on who fights for which side at Ragnarok.
I have heard that in previous editions of the game your alignment was very much about which team you were on in the cosmic fight, but in PF alignment is more closely linked to morality. Good characters are those that are compassionate and will take risks to help others, even strangers. Many Norse gods, even the "good guys," are not really concerned with others on this level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might well want to invest in some of the deity sourcebooks from previous editions of D&D. Good stuff.
I'd also be the first to say Loki ought to be considered CN rather than CE - it is a point of contention, but there's quite a bit of reason to believe that stories of His more villainous behaviors are due to Christian missionaries making him over to fit their concept of the Satan. Bear in mind that the Ragnarok storyline is a product of Snorri Sturluson's Eddas, which I happen to know modern mythology scholars and practicing heathens are actually pretty leery of. In addition to living in the period when Christianity was gaining ground over traditional Nordic religion and trying to make it over for its own ends, Sturluson made the mistake of trying too hard to cohesively organize the mythology, which isn't as good an idea as it sounds.
Add me as another voice encouraging you to add quite a few more deities into your pantheon, too.
Loki helped the Aesir quite a bit too. I'd say CN is appropriate. I could color Odin as LN too. The myths we have are not cohesive enough to make choosing the alignments simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an item called the Dwarven Thrower. This could just be altered to work with whatever would be fitting for Thor :P
Mjolnir probably has a Sun Blade thing going on where it deals damage like a warhammer, can be thrown like a light hammer (with the returning property) and counts as either for the purposes of feats and proficiency.
I think the reason why I'm having difficulties put deities on the neutral axis is because there is a pretty clear good guy bad gut line in norse mythology based on who fights for which side at Ragnarok.I have heard that in previous editions of the game your alignment was very much about which team you were on in the cosmic fight, but in PF alignment is more closely linked to morality. Good characters are those that are compassionate and will take risks to help others, even strangers. Many Norse gods, even the "good guys," are not really concerned with others on this level.
Might I suggest the Net as Loki's weapon? He's credited with inventing it, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odin could legitimately be chaotic (trickster), lawful (Allfather, war leader, shaper of the world), or neutral (elements of both). There are lots of contradictory ways to portray gods. So don't worry about getting them to match the real way norse gods were, focus on how you want them in your game.
There will be stories that contradict any portrayal you put down as the source myths are multiple and contradictory, so don't sweat that issue. You want evil Loki? Go for it. You want helpful trickster blood-brother to Odin and travel companion to Thor ally Loki? Go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminded me of my need to get back to work on a Finnish Pantheon.
|
|
If you're looking for a few more gods:
Idunn is a good one given that she has an important role. NG, Healing and Plant domains, sickle or dagger as a weapon.
Frigg is not well-known in pop culture but as Queen of the Aesir really deserves a spot. She'll have Community (which you're moving away from Freya) as well as either Knowledge or Artifice (prophecy and weaving). Weapon a staff of some sort, alignment probably LN or LG.
I would rethink Protection vs Destruction for Thor. While his role is as a protector he seems to live by the principle that the best defense is a god offense.
Are you sure you only want two domains per deity? Usually major deities have 4-5 domains - so Odin would have Knowledge, Magic, Rune, and Travel, and Thor could have Strength, Protection, Destruction, and Weather. I'm not sure if Beginner Box has changed this for simplicity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hel's holy weapon should be a dagger.
She owns a dagger called "Sult" ... meaning "starvation", which she bids newcomers use to cut their food with. The food is placed on a plate called "Hunger" (spelled the same way).
Also, Hel is -not- evil.
Hel is both a place and a goddess. Hel, the place, is not a nasty, unpleasant place to be after the death of Balder, unless you're have forfeited your honour, for instance by being an oathbreaker.
There are, in fact, no actual -evil- deities in the Norse pantheon. There are evil entities that do not qualify as deities, such as "Surt", the ruler of Muspelheim and greatest of the Fire Jotunns, but the gods and goddesses are, generally speaking, all fairly decent creatures. Hel would be true neutral. She treats -everyone- in her realm the same.
Loki is NOT EVIL!!
He is chaotic neutral. He doesn't give a damn who he ticks off, as long as he's having fun. He's irresponsible, he's extremely impulsive, he's got ZERO sense of afterthought, but he is NOT evil. His greatest task, and one the norse gods truly appreciate him for, (illustrated in Loki's story, the "Lokasenna"), is that he takes all the other gods down from their piedestals by belittling and ridiculing them, when they get too full of themselves.
Freja's holy weapon would be either a spear or a sword. Those are typically the weapons she is depicted with. Remember, she's the goddess of big emotions, not just love and lust, and she does actually have control of an entire wing of the army of Einherjar (the right flank, if I remember correctly, which is the flank of honour).
Eir (or Eyr depending on your spelling) would be the goddess of healing.
Thor's weapon should be warhammer, not light hammer. His hammer has a short haft but is impossible to lift unless you have his strength (and even he couldn't lift it early on, without his strength belt and strength gauntlets).
Frigg would be the goddess of Wisdom (just as Odin is a god of wisdom). They kinda tag-team that part. Frigg is also in charge of artifice.
Skadi would be the goddess of winter. She's actually a jotunn who married into the ranks of the gods. She's the best hunter out there, on the same level as the exiled deity Ull, and her weapon would be a longbow. She rules cold, frost, winter, the hunt and ... importantly ... a lot of women venerate her for her strength and unwillingness to bow to male dominance.
Njord is god of the seas. He's got a temper, just like the ocean, but he's generally benevolent if you remember to bring him a few sacrifices now and then. He's the father of Frej and Freja.
However, overall ... the most important thing here:
Forget what Marvel has tried to tell you for years.
-There- -are- -no- -evil- -deities- -in- -the- -norse- -pantheon-.
Not -one-. Their enemies are external, not internal, and this is actually an extremely important element in Norse paganism/heathenry. The only time Loki ever acted in a way that can be construed as downright evil, is in the leadup to Ragnarok, and that story was rewritten by an Icelandic, Christian priest in the 12th century, called Snorri Sturrluson, trying to placate the Bishop who had permitted him to write down the old heathen folk-tales of Scandinavia, but who didn't want a Catholic priest to spend time on perpetuating paganism. He therefore had to rewrite the story Ragnarok, to have decidedly Christian themes, like a devil (Loki), a fall (Balder's death and the end of innocence), a cataclysm and a rebirth (with two rather Adam-and-Eve like figures and one surviving God ... Balder, who had been resurrected).
No evil deities. Sorry, but -everyone- gets that part wrong and it totally defeats the idea of the Norse deities. The Jotunn of Jotunheim are (sometimes) evil. The denizens of Muspelheim are -always- evil. The Dark Elves (svartalfr) are -usually- evil, and by the way ... they look like dwarves, not elves.
I'm already taking up too much space here, but the norse deities are dreadfully misrepresented in so many places, it'd be a shame to see it happen here as well.
|
|
The problem is that Ragnarok is now part of the Norse Mythology, no matter how you wish to argue its place, so putting it aside I feel is foolish. As such, while Loki may have been CN he would later become CE... especially since he killed a god and betrayed the Æsir by siding with the giants.
I say Loki is CN or CE based on what the 'time period' of the campaign takes place is how I would rule it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that Ragnarok is now part of the Norse Mythology, no matter how you wish to argue its place, so putting it aside I feel is foolish. As such, while Loki may have been CN he would later become CE... especially since he killed a god and betrayed the Æsir by siding with the giants.
I say Loki is CN or CE based on what the 'time period' of the campaign takes place is how I would rule it.
I think it is silly to call it "foolish" to disregard stuff that was added at a time where the gods weren't being venerated anymore. One may choose to go with the Ragnarok mythos, which is fine, but disregarding it is equally valid, considering that it wasn't there in the time of the vikings. If you're going for the viking feel, why keep the stuff that is decidedly not viking?
In either case, unless the campaign takes place during or just before the end of the world, Loki should be CN.
|
|
Of note is for Loki in the link provided by Dustin Ashe, is that while he is put as CN there is also an asterix which leads to this note:
"*Loki begins as equally likely to do good as to do evil. As Raganarok approaches, he slips more into Chaotic Evil."
This I feel is the correct ruling on Loki, especially since at this point Ragnarok is very much a part of the Norse Mythology. There is no separating Ragnarok from the mythology at this point because of how strong bound it is too it.
Remember too the time when Loki was imprisoned, which I feel could be an interesting point of consideration for a campaign... especially if one has worshipers of Loki trying to break Loki out before his time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bear in mind that the Ragnarok storyline is a product of Snorri Sturluson's Eddas, which I happen to know modern mythology scholars and practicing heathens are actually pretty leery of.
I haven't studied it very in depth, but it was my understanding that the main point of contention is that he inserted some Christian concepts into the mythology, which actually included a softening of Ragnarok. From what I understand, it was him and his contemporaries that added in Baldar returning after Ragnarok (an obvious Jesus concept), as well as Líf and Lífþrasir surviving and restarting the human race in the post-Ragnarok world (Adam and Eve). Originally, Ragnarok was supposed to be everything dying, period. No humans, gods, monsters, or ANYTHING surviving it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bear in mind that the Ragnarok storyline is a product of Snorri Sturluson's Eddas, which I happen to know modern mythology scholars and practicing heathens are actually pretty leery of.
*raises hand* Practicing heathen for the past fifteen years over here. Yes ... we are -extremely- leery of that particular story.
The problem is that Ragnarok is now part of the Norse Mythology, no matter how you wish to argue its place, so putting it aside I feel is foolish.
No, it is in fact not part of the religion nowadays, for that very reason. I suppose there are a few heathens out there who take it at face value, but those who do generally haven't spent -any- time studying the texts in any depth.
It's called "critical thinking" ... it's generally taught as part of social and humane sciences, and we are extremely critical of the source material by and large.
However, I don't want this to degenerate into an argument over someone's personal faith, but simply point out that -as written-, it doesn't pass muster. You may think it is part of "norse mythology", but please bear in mind that this is a living religion that is still practiced by quite a lot of people to this day. There are plenty of stories in Christianity (just to take another example), that Christians today don't believe are true. There are over forty gospels, for example, yet only the Coptic church acknowledges them all, and almost all other denominations stick to Mark, Luke, John and Matthew. There is plenty of both old testament and new testament apocrypha as well.
The Ragnarok myth, in its "everything ends and then something new starts with two humans and a resurrected Balder"-form is apocryphal.
The "Everything ends, full stop"-version is generally acknowledged, as is the "everything ends, then starts over in the same form yet again because everything is cyclical"-version is too.
But because the story of Ragnarok has been so badly messed up, -by far- the majority of Heathens I've come into contact with over the last years, look at the end of the world and shrug, and go "oh well, we'll see when and if we get there".
Because that storyline that culminates with Ragnarok starts with Balder's death, which is the first time Loki exhibits truly "evil" tendencies, it is hard to consider him evil at all. The number of stories before that where he is instrumental to the Gods and their plans are many.
In fact, it is worth pointing out that even today, there is such a thing as "Lokeblót", rites carried out by ordinary heathens who need chance and good luck to be on their side. These rites are not carried out to a deity considered evil. They are carried out to a deity considered fickle and unpredictable.
I still maintain that Ragnarok should be left out. I can't tell people to do so, only strongly suggest that it is done.
If someone wants to make Odin CE, I can't stop them from doing so either, after all, but this -was- a thread in which the original poster asked for opinions and help, hence why I offered my suggestions.
Most heathens don't see the gods (many of us refer to them as "the Powers") as flesh-and-blood creatures either, but as ideas and ideals. Many of the stories include descriptions of one of the gods "taking human form" to walk amongst mankind for a while ... Odin does this rather routinely.
But if they take human form, it begs the question ... what form were they before?
The simple answer is, of course, that we don't know.
There are two legendary figures which could easily built as Empyreal Lords, and were sometimes worshiped as minor deities by the Norse & Saxons:
Alberich/Andvari the Duergar, and Wayland/Voelund the Smith.
Both would grant access to the Artifice Domain.
Ablerich/Andvari would have the Magic and Earth Domains, and the Curse and Catastrophe Subdomains
Wayland would have the Liberation and Knowledge Domains, as well as the Metal and Rage Subdomains
Both would be True Neutral Deities.
|
|
@The Alkenstarian
The point that bears mentioning though is that while the details of the Ragnarok myth can be looked at critically, it is more the end result that is brought into doubt. My question is this:
Does Loki betray the Æsir and kills Baldur, is he imprisoned and tortured by snake venom, does he join the Jötunn, and lastly does he help bring about the Ragnarok where everyone or pretty much everyone dies? Parts of these could merely be the version of the myth I have read, so I don't expect every detail mentioned to be a yes.
Of note is that I don't care as much about the Adam and Eve subplot with Baldur being reborn, that can be tossed, I care about the events leaving up to and during the Ragnarok.
|
As much as the debates about Norse mythology are entertaining...what about we focus on making it entertaining for a game? A lot of pantheons in roleplaying system are not meant to be essay or 100% representative of a religion.
Like in a pathfinder like system, how would you use the gods to make some interesting stories or maybe even retooling and linking some artifacts?
|
|
As much as the debates about Norse mythology are entertaining...what about we focus on making it entertaining for a game? A lot of pantheons in roleplaying system are not meant to be essay or 100% representative of a religion.
Whether Loki is CN or CE might have a lot of impact on the game, however.
For example, if OP wants to run a campaign involving a war among the gods, where the players will either encounter or be servants of Loki with the goal of freeing their master from torment and helping him take his revenge upon the rest of the pantheon... that suggests that Loki should be CE.
However if Ragnarok isn't a feature, it's not only more mythologically correct but IMO more narratively interesting to have Loki be CN. That encourages situations in which people who aren't completely nutbar will work with Loki. This includes some of the best-known and most entertaining myths, like the one where Thor dresses as Freya in order to get Mjolnir back from Thrym the giant. You could also have both worshippers of Thor and Loki in the party with entertaining rather than explosive levels of inter-party conflict.
Agreed with Weirdo, many tables have a different level of involvement with religion in their game. Perhaps for a default game, the gods are background color, reasons for some Earthly agendas and a source for divine spells, and little else. But that is definitely not always true on every table.
In my Kaidan setting, for example, it doesn't matter if you don't believe in Zaoism (Kaidan's version of Buddhism), everyone who dies in Kaidan are now trapped in the cursed reincarnation cycle. It doesn't matter if you're paladin from out the country who worships a non-Asian deity and destined for eternity in the 7 heavens, if you die in Kaidan, you're stuck there, and will never go to heaven (you might go to Jigoku, "hell").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Loki betray the Æsir and kills Baldur, is he imprisoned and tortured by snake venom, does he join the Jötunn, and lastly does he help bring about the Ragnarok where everyone or pretty much everyone dies? Parts of these could merely be the version of the myth I have read, so I don't expect every detail mentioned to be a yes.
As previously mentioned, I can't stop people from using that version of the story if they so wish. All I can say is that the Ragnarok story is contested in its entirety. Some of the reasons, though not all are:
1: During the events leading up to Balder's death, Loki exhibits traits he has never shown up until that point in any previous story. His betrayal is eerily akin to the snake in Paradise, whispering to Hødr, that nothing bad will come of him taking part in the archery contest which ends up killing his brother, Balder. There are elements of both the Fall of Man (Adam and Eve) and Cain and Able in this tale, and simply because it is so incredibly out of character for Loki to do this, it is contested.
2: AFTER Balder is dead, Frigg goes on a world-wide mission to make everything weep for her son, since Hel (who here exhibits a willingness to bend the rules that even the gods themselves are bound by, in that death is supposed to be final ... hardly an evil act in itself), has promised that if everything will mourn for Balder, she will allow him to return to life. Everything DOES weep, except for one old Jotunn-woman who says she will weep dry tears (still a Danish coloquialism today, by the way) for Balder. The Jotunn-woman is Loki in disguise. This too is an outright evil act that goes directly against everything in his nature up until that point, not to mention that he has had dozens of earlier opportunities to betray the gods, without doing so (for example: Thor would never have reclaimed Mjølner after it was stolen by the Jotunn, Thrym, if it hadn't been for Loki's assistance in retreiving it ... the idea of Thor and Loki doing a double drag-act is still considered one of the funniest and most popular tales by most heathens). This unwillingness to betray the gods when he could have left them wide open to attack and his previous role as the one presence in Asgaard who was always on hand to humble the gods and make them less obnoxiously self-righteous when they got a bit too full of themselves, goes completely against the idea that he'd suddenly turn on them for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except ... general spite, apparently.
3: The story of him being tortured with the snake is also hotly contested. It is said that his wife holds a bowl under the snake's fangs so that its venom can't drip onto his face, but every time she has to empty the bowl, and the venom does strike him, he shakes and shudders in his bonds and that creates earthquakes. For one thing, earthquakes are all but unknown in Scandinavia. We're pretty far from fault lines, and it always sounded very strange that he should make the earth shake in such a way. Even IF we assume this is correct, however, no one has ever heard of Loki being married before that story. Suddenly, a wife is invented for him? In fact, in several other stories, including the aforementioned tale of recovering Mjølner, he mocks the whole idea of marriage. He's the ultimate, eternal bachelor, yet suddenly he's got a devoted wife who will safeguard him from the snake's venom? Again, it is a very hotly contested part of the story.
4: Because all these elements are already contested, the idea of Loki breaking his bonds and joining the Jotunn in their attack on Asgaard is also contested by default. Again we are dealing with the idea of someone who has previously risked life and limb over and over again to safeguard Asgaard and to help the Gods ... while occasionally telling them to stop being so damn full of themselves ... who has competed against Jotunn in the past for the honour of Asgaard, and who has lied to, cheated and bamboozled the Jotunn at every turn since time began, and suddenly, they're going to welcome him in with open arms? And why would he go to them in the first place, if we are already working from the idea that all the above mentioned elements are in fact rewritten, later additions or corrections to an existing story, written in order to avoid the wrath of a rather temperamental bishop coming down on the head of the priest doing the writing?
5: Bottom line is ... the Ragnarok story, as it is presented now, bears so many hallmarks of corrections, additions and rewritings that most heathens today don't take it into consideration -at all-. This, however, also means we do not know what the original story said.
But that doesn't mean that the biblical rewrite of the endtimes that norse paganism was subjected to (for perfectly legitimate reasons, I will admit ... it could be decidedly unhealthy to be on bad terms with a bishop in 12th century Europe), should be accepted as, if you'll pardon the pun, gospel truth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two very different ways to look at this here.
If you are taking a authentic to history/religion approach, than I completely agree with Alkenstarian. I don't think there is much dispute within the history community that Snorri modified and reinterpreted the legends, bringing in both Christian elements as well perhaps elements of the greco-roman beliefs. If you want to run a game that is super authentic to the original Norse cultures and beliefs, than you are better off trying to figure out what elements are probably exaggerated and what are authentic.
If you and your players however are more interested in the legends as they have been passed down since Snorri's time, the so to speak "Pop Culture" version of Norse myth, than your group should go ahead and use those elements. Because sometimes you don't want to play in the real setting, you want to play in the Pulp/Popular interpretation of said setting.
Both are completely valid game choices, if your group is all on board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two very different ways to look at this here.
If you are taking a authentic to history/religion approach, than I completely agree with Alkenstarian. I don't think there is much dispute within the history community that Snorri modified and reinterpreted the legends, bringing in both Christian elements as well perhaps elements of the greco-roman beliefs. If you want to run a game that is super authentic to the original Norse cultures and beliefs, than you are better off trying to figure out what elements are probably exaggerated and what are authentic.
If you and your players however are more interested in the legends as they have been passed down since Snorri's time, the so to speak "Pop Culture" version of Norse myth, than your group should go ahead and use those elements. Because sometimes you don't want to play in the real setting, you want to play in the Pulp/Popular interpretation of said setting.
Both are completely valid game choices, if your group is all on board.
Absolutely!
If you want a fantasy version of the norse deities, then pretty much anything is fair game, really. I mean, look at what Marvel Comics did with the source material, for comparison.
My main point, and I realize now I've not made that clear before in any way in my eagerness to reply (*Shame Module Overload* *Syntax Error* *Error In Cheese Distribution* *Error 40* *Analyzing* *Recommended Solution: Reboot from Cheese and Insert New Floppy Head*), is that my impression was that the idea was to play a viking campaign using Pathfinder rules and I was trying to go for authenticity.
I do apologize for being unclear on that. But I agree with MMCJawa on everything he said :)
Allow me to contribute with this result of an old discussion
|
|
Someone already posted it. Great work!
I don't kno if it can be adapted for the Beginner Box, but this is an amazing document adapting Norse mythology for Pathfinder: here
Oh, I didn't see it.
I suppose that a volva would be closer to a shaman than a druid now.
Can't remember if I made some other god's stats. Surely I updated them with new books' material. If I can I'll try to post the updated versions.
What's practised today has about as much to do with the ancient Norse faith as Wicca does to the druidic faiths practised at the time of Arthur, in other words, very little. It's a modern New Age construction that would embarrass most folk in Norway today.
See, this is where it degenerates into something nasty, and I have to say that's an unnecessary low blow, against several groups.
Flagged. As is this post.
|
|
What's practised today has about as much to do with the ancient Norse faith as Wicca does to the druidic faiths practised at the time of Arthur, in other words, very little. It's a modern New Age construction that would embarrass most folk in Norway today.See, this is where it degenerates into something nasty, and I have to say that's an unnecessary low blow, against several groups.
How is that a low blow? They make a fair point, at least that the religions created in modern times based on ancient faiths not being as they would all those year ago or exactly accurate.
|
|
How is that a low blow? They make a fair point, at least that the religions created in modern times based on ancient faiths not being as they would all those year ago or exactly accurate.
Agreed. It's also worth pointing out that the original poster didn't ask anyone to adhere to strictly historically accurate versions of the mythology, or anything along those lines.
In general, for something like this I assume they want something slightly more historically accurate than the Marvel Comics version of Norse mythology. (which is to say, approaching within a few light-years of historical accuracy)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Characterizing someone's religion as an embarrassment is unnecessarily aggressive.
It would be sufficient to point out that there's gaps in our understanding of the original Norse myths and it's hard to say exactly how the religion was practiced before Christian influence.
Indeed, The Alkenstarian seems to be plenty aware of the limits of our understanding of the original myths (eg "But if they take human form, it begs the question ... what form were they before? The simple answer is, of course, that we don't know." and "we do not know what the original [Ragnarok] story said.")
Those gaps don't mean that the current understanding of those who have made the effort to try and reconstruct the mythology is irrelevant and it certainly doesn't mean that they should be embarrassed for trying to reclaim Norse paganism.
Thank you, Weirdo, that was precisely my point.
Calling someone's beliefs an embarrasment is, by definition, insulting. In fact, there's no way you can portray such a statement as anything -but- insulting.
Besides, the very notion that no religion is "authentic" enough, or that it is an "embarrasment" if it is not precisely similar to how it was understood and practiced a thousand years ago, disqualifies every single religion in the world. Not one of them bears any similarity to how it was understood and debated even five centuries ago, let alone ten.
Religions and how they are practiced by those following them evolves constantly, even if some people don't like to admit that's the case.
Why shouldn't this one?
|
|
@Weirdo and The Alkenstarian
In this case though, it was the recreation of a dead religion based on few records and often second hand records at best. Also, they didn't say the religion was an embarrassment per say just that it would embarrass those in Norway.
Now I admit, unless they are from Norway or have spoken with those in Norway that isn't something they can really say with any strength behind it thus making it more of a fallacy to use... yet I would still say it wasn't a 'low blow' as you had said or overly aggressive, perhaps at best being a bit unwise in execution. My suggestion, let it go and move on.
Of any case, lets get pass this and focus on the conversion at hand of the Norse Pantheon into Pathfinder.
|
From Kobold's Press's Midgard Campaign Setting:
Baldur (staff or scimitar - I'd use longsword): Charm, Good, Healing, Protection, Sun
Thor (war hammer): Destruction, Protection, Strength, War, Weather
Freyr(sickle) and Freyja(bastard sword): Animal, Charm, Magic, Plants, Water
Loki (net): Chaos, Fire, Luck, Travel, Trickery (Madness)
Sif (bow): Community, Glory, Protection, Rune, Strength
Wotan (spear): Knowledge, Fate, Nobility, Runes, War