How "Good" is "Good"? (spoilers of modules, adventure paths, and novels)

[Mavrickindigo]

So, I enjoy reading through the lore of Pathfinder, and I have come to wonder just how "Good" the alignment of "Good" really is. Throughout the history of Golarion, there are some points where the alignment doesn't seem as shiny as it should be, and this is mostly evident when it comes to Good outsiders.

1. Torag breaks a chip off of Rovagug's prison to punish people with it
2. Iomedae pretty much kills PCs if they don't do what she says
3. The Celestial host wants to kill the guy who wrote the Book of the Damned because he did what they told him to do.
4. Angels have stolen souls to create new angelic soldiers

I'm sure there are more examples of the "Goodest" of "Good" deciding to use not so good tactics to do what they think is right. In an objectively moral universe, it seems weird that they would dip into subjective gray areas.

[sylvansteel]

If you give specific examples please reference the source, so the rest of us can read what you mean. Otherwise its hard to follow your logic.

Anyway:

1. I assume you mean Clash of Kingslayer. This adventure was pre-3.5, meaning that there are gonna be inconsistencies with the current world setting (for example a dwarfen city thats never mentioned again).

2. I assume you mean Wrath of the Rightious, Herald of the ivory Labyrinth. Iomeda is testing the good in the heroes hearts, preparing them for the trials to come. It is also noted that she revives any heroes, that died without any level-loss.

3. Tabris realized that he could never finish the Book of the damned in a conventional way, as evil always evolves. But instead of admitting this, he corrupted a piece of his own essence, which became the Voice of the Damned, to keep the BotD always up to date (Hell Unleashed, for reference). This was his unforgivable sin.

Also, the celestial host gave him the chance to repent. He refused and was banished. It was never noted that the angels tried to kill him.

4. I assume you mean The Redemption Engine. It was noted that both angels were actually fallen, though no-one had realized it to that point. All other angels (who were not created by the machine), were appalled by their deeds, and the redeemed devil was released of another chain from his past as he executed them, meaning that heaven itself was rejecting them.

[Iomedae, The Inheritor]

There's nothing wrong with blasting epic f!~$ing jams, it's not my fault mortal ears can't handle it.

If it's such a problem, get a pair of Bose noise canceling head phones. Surely they can afford it.

[Aelryinth]

Mavrickindigo wrote:

So, I enjoy reading through the lore of Pathfinder, and I have come to wonder just how "Good" the alignment of "Good" really is. Throughout the history of Golarion, there are some points where the alignment doesn't seem as shiny as it should be, and this is mostly evident when it comes to Good outsiders.

1. Torag breaks a chip off of Rovagug's prison to punish people with it
2. Iomedae pretty much kills PCs if they don't do what she says
3. The Celestial host wants to kill the guy who wrote the Book of the Damned because he did what they told him to do.
4. Angels have stolen souls to create new angelic soldiers

I'm sure there are more examples of the "Goodest" of "Good" deciding to use not so good tactics to do what they think is right. In an objectively moral universe, it seems weird that they would dip into subjective gray areas.

1) I have no clue what you are talking about here, but I'd need more details. If it doesn't weaken the prison, what is the issue here? That a LG god will punish people?

2) This is probably the worst depiction EVER of a god of paladins, and the uproar over it basically soured James Jacobs on Mythic level stuff and deities appearing again ever. He admitted it was done poorly and should be entirely re-written. As someone noted, Captain America would fail every single test.

3) Explained above. Note the Host is anathemic to him because he let himself be corrupted, and is no longer one of them. Instead of ending his job before it could happen, his obsession made him carry it through to its end.

4) The angels in question were also corrupted by an evil tome, and the fact the other angels were opposed to what they were doing was indication enough of this.

Lastly, keep in mind that Good doesn't mean Nice. Tough Love is a definite thing, and 'war on evil without remittance or mercy' is also entirely permissible for a martial Good entity.

==Aelryinth

[Mavrickindigo]

Sylvansteel got all the references. The one about Tabris is great, because I never would have guessed that. They were just really super vague about it in the "Book of the Damned" line.

[Tuvarkz]

Must agree with Aelryinth on this one. Although I wonder what's the situation on paladins and other followers of Damerrich, with the skull-theme being quite grim if not borderline fear-inspiring.

[sylvansteel]

Okay I looked again, and I realize I made a mistake. The dwarfen city of Clash of Kingslayers is canon.

About the prison realm thing: Torag uses giants infused by Rovagugs influence to give his dead priestess a tool of revenge. They were not in imprisoned with the Mad Beast, but in an own prison realm called Myrkos.

Is that Lawful good? Not really.

But... the dwarfen king the priestess wants to destroy has betrayed ancient tradition in heinous ways, rules like a tyrant, and has basically given control of his realm to a cult of Lamashtu-Worshippers. Basically all the excuses a Lawful deity needs to smite and smite hard.

Again the adventure was published before certain things became canon, so inconsistencies are to be expected.

[Aelryinth]

MMM. It's grim and ruthless, but its also getting rid of two enemies with one stone by having them fight one another, and then the dwarves can pick up the pieces once they kill one another.

Did he MAKE the Rovagug-influenced giants, or simply use them? Making them degenerate is probably not what a LG god should do, I agree. It's cruel and giving the enemy of all creation tools it can use to get free. manipulating an annihilating force against a demon queen? Textbook military strategy.

==Aelryinth

[Deadmanwalking]

Aelryinth wrote:

Did he MAKE the Rovagug-influenced giants, or simply use them? Making them degenerate is probably not what a LG god should do, I agree. It's cruel and giving the enemy of all creation tools it can use to get free. manipulating an annihilating force against a demon queen? Textbook military strategy.

Actually...looking over the module, what he did was take a bit of Rovagug's blood (and power) and use it to empower one of his own Clerics to aid her in her revenge against the aforementioned Lamashtu worshipers.

So...debatably Evil if you think using power from a tainted source is Evil, but that assumes he doesn't have some way to purify it and, well, God of Craftsmanship, so I'm betting he does.

And certainly not unleashing anything Evil (the follower in question is LN, for the record). The Giants are 'shackled to a slab of their creator's blood' and are not released, nor does he weaken the chains, just takes a tiny piece of the blood. Which might make escape a tiny bit easier...but, well, God of Craftsmanship, so it seems likely he knows how much of that he can do risk free.

[DominusMegadeus]

Just here to make sure you mention how Iomedae is a petty, Evil tyrant.

Mavrickindigo wrote:

Iomedae pretty much kills PCs if they don't do what she says

Good job.

[HWalsh]

In defense of Iomedae, she doesn't "kill the PCs" if they don't do what she says.

She appears before them in all of her divine glory, taking them to her realm, and she speaks with them.

She reacts badly to two things:

1. Mocking her
2. Attacking her

If a PC tries either of those things they suffer a consequence. Not only that, but she lets them off the hook for one breach if they truly decide to apologize.

So, Iomedae shows up, a moronic PC says something stupid to her...

Yes, stupid to her, you know how there is Lawful Stupid? Mocking a goddess to her face in her realm is Lawful Stupid, Neutral Stupid, and Chaotic Stupid all rolled into one.

Methinks the Poster may have taken offense because he angered a goddess.

Openly mocking her results in a trumpet blast that permanently deafens a character and strikes them permanently mute until they wish to apologize. That is not a big whoop. That is a warning for being an idiot.

Mocking her a second time, or attempting to attack her, results in permanent blindness that will not be removed. You totally should have learned your lesson the first time.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Just here to make sure you mention how Iomedae is a petty, Evil tyrant.

Mavrickindigo wrote:

Iomedae pretty much kills PCs if they don't do what she says

Good job.

Except that she doesn't. Over the last couple of years, people have taken ONE section of one AP, blown it all out of context, and continue to inflate things to satisfy a cynical urge to watch a Paladin of Paladins "fall". Even as it was written, if Iomedae actually kills the PC's, it's because they were begging for her to do so.

That particular scene could have been written a good deal better. And it does put off the fact that in the rest of the AP she's pretty dam supportive. Enough perhaps to get herself in trouble in the long run for breaking the unwritten "non-intervention" rule. But Deskari was breaking it all ways from Sunday.

[HWalsh]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Just here to make sure you mention how Iomedae is a petty, Evil tyrant.

Mavrickindigo wrote:

Iomedae pretty much kills PCs if they don't do what she says

Good job.

Except that she doesn't. Over the last couple of years, people have taken ONE section of one AP, blown it all out of context, and continue to inflate things to satisfy a cynical urge to watch a Paladin of Paladins "fall". Even as it was written, if Iomedae actually kills the PC's, it's because they were begging for her to do so.

That particular scene could have been written a good deal better. And it does put off the fact that in the rest of the AP she's pretty dam supportive. Enough perhaps to get herself in trouble in the long run for breaking the unwritten "non-intervention" rule. But Deskari was breaking it all ways from Sunday.

She also in no way falls. She only does that if the players attack her. At which point it becomes an issue of self-defense.

So... Imagine the scene... 4 heroes stand before the Goddess... One of them is a jerk...

Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue (the Jerk)

Iomedae: "And Lo' welcome heroes. I am Iomedae and I ask thee to feel comfort here in my realm. There is much evil afoot and even my own herald has been imprisoned by our enemy. I would speak with thee to know if thee are prepared to do what you will be called on..."

Paladin: "Yes my Goddess."

Cleric: "We shall do what we can."

Wizard: "What questions would you ask for us?"

Rogue: "Feh, some kind of a wuss battle goddess you are, you let your own herald get grabbed. Get good scrublord! Hah! Look at me! The all powerful Iomedae and I..."

There is a loud trumpting of horns, the Rogue falls to his feet clutching the blood coming from his ears.

Iomedae: "You are guests in my home! I would silence thee lest you risk my wrath. I am a Goddess and deserve the respect such a title implies."

The rogue finds that he can't talk, and can't hear, he realizes that he seems to be the only hurt one. The others are listening to words that he can no longer understand. How dare she do such a thing to him!

The rogue draws from his hidden sheath a blade and with a flick of his wrist sends the instrument at the Goddess. There is a blinding flash of light and he screams wordlessly as his eyes boil in their sockets. He falls to the ground as Iomedae's followers drag him off to deposit him, blind, deaf, and dumb back onto Golarion.

Iomedae: "As I was saying, I have questions, but it seems you'll have to find another rogue. A less stupid one next time... Yes?"

Paladin: "Absolutely."

[captain yesterday]

If anything I want to run it so I can blast AC/DC in a game situation. :-)

[MMCJawa]

I always thought the Iomedae complaints were way way overblown, and are one of those cases where everyone takes the worst possible interpretation of a response that probably isn't needed in the majority of games this comes up in.

[captain yesterday]

One person, just show me one person that was killed or blinded or whatever by Iomedae.

[CorvusMask]

Just to ask, since when Lawful Good means "You can't smack a jerk"? <_<

Like, Paragon Shepard is pretty much Lawful Good. He can still pistol whip an idiot :P

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post using physical violence against a child as hyperbole and the responses to it. We understand that this comment wasn't specifically advocating, but we're not comfortable hosting that kind of commentary on our site.

[Serghar Cromwell]

Rebuke accepted. I apologize to anyone I made uncomfortable.

[HWalsh]

To summarize what was removed in a more PC way:

Poster 1 basically said that Iomedae's actions were disproportionate to the legitimate threat level of the PC's in question. Namely that they posed so little of an actual threat to her that any action aside from simply removing them is overkill.

Poster 2 (myself) rebuked that with the assertion that under the precepts of hospitality the PCs violated their right of hospitality when they attacked and mocked their host and that Iomedae, a Goddess in her own right, in her own home, had every right to react as she did especially since she was dealing with powerful PCs who should know better.

[Aelryinth]

Actually, failing her tests means taking the sonic damage. Acting like jerks generates MORE of it.

MECHANICALLY, the set up is just done all wrong for a LG goddess of paladins. LN, you could get away with it, harsh and unbending standards with no mercy, etc. But LG? Testing people who may not know anything about her faith and deeds and punishing them for it?

AS WRITTEN, Captain America would fail the encounter and get hammered repeatedly.

It's poorly written and inappropriate. What should have happened is rewards for passing the tests, not punishment for failing them. Granted, no high level characters worth their salt are possibly going to be killed by the trifling damage they take, and she heals them of all of it anyways...but it's still the wrong way to do things.

And was so utterly not in line with people's expectations of Iomadae, it generated more controversy then the whole rest of that AP put together.

==Aelryinth

[HWalsh]

I'm of the personal belief that if you, as a PC, ever decide it is a good idea to mouth off to a Goddess and mock her then you deserve whatever you get. In all works of fiction Gods and Goddesses, even the good ones, demand respect. If you don't show them respect in their presence then you are in for a world of hurt.

Every religion, even the real world ones, have similar situations.

In Christianity, for example, Lott's wife was told not to look back once they ran from the twin cities. She did. She died.

In Greek mythology... Oh don't even get me started... One person was cursed simply because she once commented that she looked as beautiful as Aphrodite.

In Norse mythology... Basically it repeats.

So, if you ever go before a God or Goddess and you mouth off and mock them to their face then you had better accept that you were asking for horrible retribution and on the scale of things that Gods and Goddesses have done in retaliation for such things what Iomedae does is EXTREMELY lenient.

[HWalsh]

Aelryinth wrote:

Actually, failing her tests means taking the sonic damage. Acting like jerks generates MORE of it.

MECHANICALLY, the set up is just done all wrong for a LG goddess of paladins. LN, you could get away with it, harsh and unbending standards with no mercy, etc. But LG? Testing people who may not know anything about her faith and deeds and punishing them for it?

AS WRITTEN, Captain America would fail the encounter and get hammered repeatedly.

It's poorly written and inappropriate. What should have happened is rewards for passing the tests, not punishment for failing them. Granted, no high level characters worth their salt are possibly going to be killed by the trifling damage they take, and she heals them of all of it anyways...but it's still the wrong way to do things.

And was so utterly not in line with people's expectations of Iomadae, it generated more controversy then the whole rest of that AP put together.

==Aelryinth

Actually My Paladin passed it as written.

[Iomedae, The Inheritor]

*Fist bump*

[HWalsh]

How to pass it:

Question 1:

"You slew Erum-Hel, as written in the 5th of your divine acts. The battle was a turning point during the shining crusade. My companions and I have faced many enemies and have slew many creatures of darkness and though I cannot guarantee that we will be victorious, we will shine brightly in the depths of darkness. Should we succeed or should we fail we will make certain that our enemies feel our brilliant radiance and the tales of our stand shall be recounted for all time."

Question 2:

"This is not an easy question to answer. At times an enemy may feign a glimmer of inner light in order to gain advantage, or simply to survive. At other times an enemy's shine is true. It is easy to say that one will redeem any and all, but it is not always possible and it could also be foolhardy to try. In times of such I have learned to rely on my heart. Each situation is unique and has to be judged at the time, there is no clearly ever-superior way."

Question 3:

"You ask a us to perform a dangerous deed my Goddess, but we have faced similar odds before. The Abyss is a place of darkness and is shrouded in blackest pitch, but we must remember, that we are, in the end a light. We must remember that no matter how dark a room is, a single candle can force that darkness back. We will stand with our faith, we will stand with our honor, we will stand with our skill, and we will trust that our inner light is far superior to the darkness that will stand before us."

-----

Bam. All 3 questions passed. No problem. It is less about what you say anyway and more about how you say it.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Having not read the AP, shouldn't a God, any God of any alignment, ignore a physical attack? You cannot hurt Iomedae, so she can never validly claim self defense.

Also, a good leader is most forgiving if crimes against them rather than others, just like a good moderator is the safest person to insult in a chat, a good God ought to be the safest one to mock in the entire universe.

[Aelryinth]

Passing the tests requires passing some DC Knowledge checks, that might or might not be successful. Once you pass them, you can get the information you need to form a suitable reply.

Or you can deviate from the mechanics, wing it, and get a satisfactory reply.

I didn't say the encounter couldn't be PASSED. Surely, if you've a paladin of Iomadae in the party, or any cleric with Knowledge Religion, you should be fine.

But, mechanically, as written, it basically punishes people who don't know much about the goddess or her beliefs.

Oh, and Good does not mean 'nice'. Tough love is a thing. Ants should be respectful even to nice people, lest they be stepped on.

==Aelryinth

[sylvansteel]

Aelryinth wrote:

Passing the tests requires passing some DC Knowledge checks, that might or might not be successful. Once you pass them, you can get the information you need to form a suitable reply.

Or you can deviate from the mechanics, wing it, and get a satisfactory reply.

I didn't say the encounter couldn't be PASSED. Surely, if you've a paladin of Iomadae in the party, or any cleric with Knowledge Religion, you should be fine.

But, mechanically, as written, it basically punishes people who don't know much about the goddess or her beliefs.

Oh, and Good does not mean 'nice'. Tough love is a thing. Ants should be respectful even to nice people, lest they be stepped on.

==Aelryinth

Actually you are only punished when no one knows the answer AND no one appears humble or confident.

The reward for this question is the Chalice of Ozem, which is pretty much as important for Iomedans as the Cross Christ died on or Thor's hammer. Iomeda is testing the heroes worthiness for such an artefact.

Plus the question about the morgh lord is directly linked to the Chalice. Maybe Iomeda wants the heroes to understand the significance of the artefact she is about to bestow upon them.

Personally I say: Knowledge check, by sucess Major artefact, by failure sonic damage you can easily survive at your level.

Seems like a fair deal to me.

[HWalsh]

Aelryinth wrote:

Passing the tests requires passing some DC Knowledge checks, that might or might not be successful. Once you pass them, you can get the information you need to form a suitable reply.

Or you can deviate from the mechanics, wing it, and get a satisfactory reply.

I didn't say the encounter couldn't be PASSED. Surely, if you've a paladin of Iomadae in the party, or any cleric with Knowledge Religion, you should be fine.

But, mechanically, as written, it basically punishes people who don't know much about the goddess or her beliefs.

Oh, and Good does not mean 'nice'. Tough love is a thing. Ants should be respectful even to nice people, lest they be stepped on.

==Aelryinth

Incorrect, actually.

You don't have to pass a single knowledge check:

Form the AP:

Wrath of the Righteous wrote:

Note: The skill check DCs for

these questions are not intended to be particularly difficult for
the PCs, provided they have the appropriate skills in question.
Nonetheless, you should give the players a few moments to try
to answer each question with their own knowledge before asking them to roll skill checks.

If you don't know the answer then you only have to make a Skill Roll (for the first question only) at DC 35 History, or DC 25 Religion. A Cleric or Paladin *should* have knowledge religion, unless they have, for some reason, tried to tank their Int down to a 7 in order to power optimize. These are level 15 PCs, a Paladin or Cleric who has put 1 skill point each level into knowledge Religion only needs to roll a freaking 7.

[Deadmanwalking]

Actually, to quote:

Wrath of the Righteous Question #1 wrote:

If the question is not answered correctly and at least one PC doesn't present himself as humble or confident, Iomedae frowns and shakes her head. She nods to the unseen choir, saying "We must wake them up, these sleeping children. Where are my bold heroes of the Fifth Crusade?" A moment later, the sound of the choir blasts out from all directions, causing each PC to shudder and shake in divinely inspired awe, and dealing 5d6 points of sonic damage to each PC (Fortitude DC 25 half). Iomedae does, however, allow the PCs to use healing magic to recover from this damage before the next question.

So...you can fail to answer that, and as long as a single party member presents themself as either humble or confident, you're still fine.

And Questions #2 and #3 are actually entirely subjective. The only way you can fail Question #2 is by saying you should always kill all enemies or always show all enemies mercy, without any doubt, dispute within the party, or acknowledgement that circumstances matter. The only way you can fail Question #3 is by the entire party being complete cowards.

Now...it's not a super well written encounter, and focuses on the wrong things, IMO, but saying Captain America would fail it is a load of crap. He'd ace it casually. As would every PC group I've ever seen, since the entire party has to fail a question for bad things to ensue.

No, really, I can't think of a PC group (including those that were entirely Chaotic and primarily mercenary) that wouldn't ace the second two questions and demonstrate confidence in the face of the first.

[HWalsh]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Actually, to quote:

Wrath of the Righteous Question #1 wrote:

If the question is not answered correctly and at least one PC doesn't present himself as humble or confident, Iomedae frowns and shakes her head. She nods to the unseen choir, saying "We must wake them up, these sleeping children. Where are my bold heroes of the Fifth Crusade?" A moment later, the sound of the choir blasts out from all directions, causing each PC to shudder and shake in divinely inspired awe, and dealing 5d6 points of sonic damage to each PC (Fortitude DC 25 half). Iomedae does, however, allow the PCs to use healing magic to recover from this damage before the next question.

So...you can fail to answer that, and as long as a single party member presents themself as either humble or confident, you're still fine.

And Questions #2 and #3 are actually entirely subjective. The only way you can fail Question #2 is by saying you should always kill all enemies or always show all enemies mercy, without any doubt, dispute within the party, or acknowledgement that circumstances matter. The only way you can fail Question #3 is by the entire party being complete cowards.

Now...it's not a super well written encounter, and focuses on the wrong things, IMO, but saying Captain America would fail it is a load of crap. He'd ace it casually. As would every PC group I've ever seen, since the entire party has to fail a question for bad things to ensue.

No, really, I can't think of a PC group (including those that were entirely Chaotic and primarily mercenary) that wouldn't ace the second two questions and demonstrate confidence in the face of the first.

Pretty much this.

The only question Captain America would fail would be #1, save for, wait... Cap is a huge fan of history, and as such has probably put 1 rank in it, he's also obviously a Brawler Archetype so its probably a class skill, and if he's level 15, and being that he's a tactician he's got at least a 14 in Int, so 3+15+2 = 20 for a DC 35.

Pretty good chance he could make the History check, if not the Religion check.

[CorvusMask]

Just to ask, why Captain America is used as example of "Test is bs!"? <_< Like, are all the LG the same and what does superhero that symbolizes American's "thing" with freedom have to do with that?

[Kevin Mack]

Well in my case if I had ran as written both my groups would have failed the 2nd question since both times they unanimously said yes right away with not a single hint of hesitation(Which is kind of easy to do when you have a whole bunch of redeemed bad guy back at your castle and a redeemed succubus as an ally)

Also as Ive said before the big disconect for me was the fact it's technically the second time you meet her and depending what you have done up to that point can net you a lvl's worth of abilities/bonuses with no pop quizz or trumpet blasting.

Lastly keep in mind till this point the party have been dealing with an orginisation who's entire schtick is infiltraiting undermining and corrupting the crusaders (Heck in book 2 you have a succubuss who pretends to be Iolomodae) so in a lot of ways the entire set up can come across as another set up on there part.

[CorvusMask]

Kevin Mack wrote:

Well in my case if I had ran as written both my groups would have failed the 2nd question since both times they unanimously said yes right away with not a single hint of hesitation(Which is kind of easy to do when you have a whole bunch of redeemed bad guy back at your castle and a redeemed succubus as an ally)

What about demons and mooks without names given? Like, I doubt you guys tried to spare every single enemy you ever met.

[wraithstrike]

CorvusMask wrote:

Just to ask, why Captain America is used as example of "Test is bs!"? <_< Like, are all the LG the same and what does superhero that symbolizes American's "thing" with freedom have to do with that?

It has nothing to do with America. Cap much like Superman is presented as having very high moral standards. That is why he was chosen for the example.

[Kevin Mack]

CorvusMask wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

Well in my case if I had ran as written both my groups would have failed the 2nd question since both times they unanimously said yes right away with not a single hint of hesitation(Which is kind of easy to do when you have a whole bunch of redeemed bad guy back at your castle and a redeemed succubus as an ally)

What about demons and mooks without names given? Like, I doubt you guys tried to spare every single enemy you ever met.

Actually the paladin did indeed try to use none lethal force whenever possible and had a dungeon full of captured bad guys that she kept attempting to convince of the error of there ways.

[Franz Lunzer]

Sarenite?

[DM Lil" Eschie]

Captain America is morally way better than Superman!

Captain America is one of the few people Wolverine respect and trust!
Wolvie would make sushis of Superman!
Sure, there would be bad tasting sushis, but he's the best at what he does, and what he does isn't very nice (so i'ts not sushi, cause sushi are nice and yummy).

Hmmm, I guess I'm quite off topic.

[Deadmanwalking]

Kevin Mack wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

Well in my case if I had ran as written both my groups would have failed the 2nd question since both times they unanimously said yes right away with not a single hint of hesitation(Which is kind of easy to do when you have a whole bunch of redeemed bad guy back at your castle and a redeemed succubus as an ally)

What about demons and mooks without names given? Like, I doubt you guys tried to spare every single enemy you ever met.

Actually the paladin did indeed try to use none lethal force whenever possible and had a dungeon full of captured bad guys that she kept attempting to convince of the error of there ways.

I think this circumstance is where GM judgment needs to come in. This isn't a computer game that needs to account for every niche case (and that one's pretty niche), it's one run by an actual human person who can apply their judgment.

The whole section really does go out of its way to state repeatedly that the questions are intended as a test of character, not some sort of mechanistic process, after all.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Also as Ive said before the big disconect for me was the fact it's technically the second time you meet her and depending what you have done up to that point can net you a lvl's worth of abilities/bonuses with no pop quizz or trumpet blasting.

Yeah, but this isn't her blessing them for doing stuff, this is a job interview to see if they're qualified to go on an extremely important mission for her.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Lastly keep in mind till this point the party have been dealing with an orginisation who's entire schtick is infiltraiting undermining and corrupting the crusaders (Heck in book 2 you have a succubuss who pretends to be Iolomodae) so in a lot of ways the entire set up can come across as another set up on there part.

I'm not sure why this should make a difference. I mean, asking her to prove herself isn't on the list of things she objects to.

[CorvusMask]

Kevin Mack wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Kevin Mack wrote:

Well in my case if I had ran as written both my groups would have failed the 2nd question since both times they unanimously said yes right away with not a single hint of hesitation(Which is kind of easy to do when you have a whole bunch of redeemed bad guy back at your castle and a redeemed succubus as an ally)

What about demons and mooks without names given? Like, I doubt you guys tried to spare every single enemy you ever met.

Actually the paladin did indeed try to use none lethal force whenever possible and had a dungeon full of captured bad guys that she kept attempting to convince of the error of there ways.

...Okay, I'm pretty sure that even Sarenrae would tell them to calm down at that point.

That being said, in that case I'd imagine Iomedae would be like "...Well, I see that as really naive, but you certainly live by your words." and count it as success.

[Kevin Mack]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Sarenite?

Iolmodaes daughter actually (Aasimire Paladin with the campaign trait.

[Envall]

To me she was not alien enough or overpowering enough.
Even if at that point you are big bloody heroes, job from god should be more like an ultimatum, forced assignment.
You grow in power just to become another tool in the grand divine game.

But I guess cynical, cold gods are not wholly how paizo wants to write their gods.

[Aelryinth]

There's that 'LG' alignment for you, interfering with alien cynicism since the dawn of creation.

==Aelryinth

[Envall]

Aelryinth wrote:

There's that 'LG' alignment for you, interfering with alien cynicism since the dawn of creation.

==Aelryinth

Well Good does not have to be Nice.

And personifications of ideals can be hostile to mortal fickleness, but I digress.
FF13 had a nice concept with the godlike Fal'Cie and their servants L'Cie, who would gain immense power to complete a task, or be reduced to mindless beasts if they tried to forsake the task. And the prize for doing said task? Become just a rock for your hard work.

Even if you did something noble as save the world.