Least Favorite Gods


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

101 to 150 of 519 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've gotta say that in addition to particular gods, I dislike the pantheon as a whole. Pathfinder, and all D&D editions I'm aware of, suffer from the "there's a god for that" syndrome. Every stupidest thing gets a god; if not at release, then in a later splatbook.

I mean, seriously. Gods and Magic describes 61 gods for Golarion. How many gods does one really need?

A portfolio of "doors, transitions, years"??? Treachery, cheating? People sometimes betray or cheat each other, but a church based on these things is ridiculous. How many gods of slavery does one need? Venkelvore is the god of... graves? But Zyphus is the god of graveyards... Not to mention the god of dog killing? Suicide...? I mean, seriously. And obviously "disease" and "infection" are completely distinct things, so they need two different gods...

The divine bloat is absurd, and completely out of touch with the timeframe these settings base themselves out of. I don't hate large pantheons per say, but does every single published mythology need dozens and dozens of gods? And does every single possible portfolio element (and it's every declination) require a god?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
The only Golarion deity I actively hate is Cayden, for the same reasons others have mentioned. The number of relatives I have who have reached the age of majority and are not alcoholics can be counted on zero hands. I get that he's supposed to be goofy and fun, which is why I never rain on the parades of people playing his worshippers, but I'd just as soon never encounter the god again.

Ouch. That's...that's a really good reason to hate a god.


Sarenrae, by far, for the reasons already espoused by various people.

Ragathiel, because I don't really think he fits the definition of "Good" in any way shape or form.

There's others I don't quite dislike, I'm just puzzled by their positions on the grid (Calistria, Nethys, Gorum, Urgathoa, to name a few)

Oh and Pharasma, because she's horrible.


TheFinish wrote:
There's others I don't quite dislike, I'm just puzzled by their positions on the grid (Calistria, Nethys, Gorum, Urgathoa, to name a few)

Where do you think they should be than?

Honestly curious.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Goblin_Priest wrote:

I've gotta say that in addition to particular gods, I dislike the pantheon as a whole. Pathfinder, and all D&D editions I'm aware of, suffer from the "there's a god for that" syndrome. Every stupidest thing gets a god; if not at release, then in a later splatbook.

I mean, seriously. Gods and Magic describes 61 gods for Golarion. How many gods does one really need?

A portfolio of "doors, transitions, years"??? Treachery, cheating? People sometimes betray or cheat each other, but a church based on these things is ridiculous. How many gods of slavery does one need? Venkelvore is the god of... graves? But Zyphus is the god of graveyards... Not to mention the god of dog killing? Suicide...? I mean, seriously. And obviously "disease" and "infection" are completely distinct things, so they need two different gods...

The divine bloat is absurd, and completely out of touch with the timeframe these settings base themselves out of. I don't hate large pantheons per say, but does every single published mythology need dozens and dozens of gods? And does every single possible portfolio element (and it's every declination) require a god?

IRL mythology has the same thing, though. The Romans had a god of mildew with his own festival, and Janus actually has a portfolio of "doors, transitions, years." At least for the Golarion pantheon, there is a reason why more divine entities would be preferable above less (differing alignments/favoured weapons for a given domain).

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Goblin_Priest wrote:

I've gotta say that in addition to particular gods, I dislike the pantheon as a whole. Pathfinder, and all D&D editions I'm aware of, suffer from the "there's a god for that" syndrome. Every stupidest thing gets a god; if not at release, then in a later splatbook.

I mean, seriously. Gods and Magic describes 61 gods for Golarion. How many gods does one really need?

A portfolio of "doors, transitions, years"??? Treachery, cheating? People sometimes betray or cheat each other, but a church based on these things is ridiculous. How many gods of slavery does one need? Venkelvore is the god of... graves? But Zyphus is the god of graveyards... Not to mention the god of dog killing? Suicide...? I mean, seriously. And obviously "disease" and "infection" are completely distinct things, so they need two different gods...

The divine bloat is absurd, and completely out of touch with the timeframe these settings base themselves out of. I don't hate large pantheons per say, but does every single published mythology need dozens and dozens of gods? And does every single possible portfolio element (and it's every declination) require a god?

All of them are a drop in the ocean compared to all the gods from different belief systems in the real world.

So yeah, not really thinking of 61 as "divine bloat".


Out of the 20 core deities, I feel like Gozreh deserves the spot the least. I really don't see a point in having "nature" as a deity. I feel like the Druids can manage all that on their own and Erastil is already nature enough.

Calistria rubs be me wrong way... What I mean is, I don't want her to rub me at all. I also don't see where her place is in the lore: You could remove her and there wouldn't be anything missing, really.

Irori doesn't bring enough to the table by himself. He is just -what many others have already said here- a Monk God.

Nethys is a sticky one - He doesn't really bring a philosophy with him. What is to worship him, exactly? Do I need to wear a pointy hat and blue robes? Is he a "you should be a wizard"-god? "I worship Nethys because I'm an arcane spell caster"? How is he more magical than the rest of the gods? He's also cannibalized by Irori as the deity of knowledge.

Pharasma, just like Gozreh, I feel like shouldn't be a deity. The psychopomps should be able to run the business on their own. She also doesn't really do anything or contribute to anything, so what's the point of having her around?

Urgathoa is like a weird mix between Calistra, Gorum and Pharasma - Or like Nito but less cool. I also feel like her philosophy isn't unique enough for her to be venerated as a major deity for it.

Those are the 6 major deities that I've never considered building a character around. Gozreh and Pharasma should just be removed while Nethys is merged with Irori into a complete knowledge god and Calistria with Urgathoa - Queen and preacher of sins and self-indulgences.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My least favorite PF deities largely start with "I want to like..."

I want to like Desna for being a super powerful CG feminine force, but she's a naked butterfly woman who is the deification of the manic pixie dreamgirl.

I want to like Cayden Cailean for accidentally becoming a god, but he's the deification of the manchild.

I want to like Sarenrae for being the goddess of redemption and TRUE NG things, but as people have mentioned, her followers read more like they should be worshipping Abadar.

I want to like Iomedae for being the god of paladins, but she's just too militaristic for my tastes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delightful wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
There's others I don't quite dislike, I'm just puzzled by their positions on the grid (Calistria, Nethys, Gorum, Urgathoa, to name a few)

Where do you think they should be than?

Honestly curious.

Calistria: CE

Nethys: CN
Gorum: CE
Urgathoa: CE

Not that I can't see why they are as they are, it's just that to my eyes they don't quite seem what they claim to be (this is mostly based on their writeups in Inner Sea Gods).


Gulthor wrote:

I'm amazed I'll be the first to mention:

Aroden.

It's not that I have anything specifically against Aroden; no, my beef with Aroden is that his canonical story has been withheld from those that care about lore.

I can understand how mysterious leads can be enticing. Eberron did that well - the player material left a lot to the imagination. But if you wanted to look and find an official answer on something as a GM, it was there.

I'd be perfectly happy with an, "There is no official answer, and we're never going to reveal one, so do whatever works for your game and the story you want to tell." But we don't have that, either.

Instead, we've been told that there is a definitive canonical answer, and that they might reveal it someday.

It's my biggest gripe in all of PF, because as someone that actually cares really deeply about lore, it means that

A) I can't/won't touch Aroden with a 10' pole because I won't use him in our persistent gaming world only for a module to come out later that will force me to pull some stupid retcons, and

B) It means that any attempts by another GM in or group that tries to do an Aroden story will meet a vehement involuntary response on my end, because I *know* that there's an official answer, and see point A.

I don't believe everything needs to have a canonical answer - far from it; the gaps in the lore are the places that new stories can spring from. The unanswered and never-will-be-answered bits are some of my favorite bits.

But to be told that there is a canonical answer, but that we pissants just aren't allowed to know it absolutely infuriates me.

Part of making Golarion your own world is removing yourself from a dependency on "official answers". I have absolutely no compunction about ignoring an official decree if I've developed part of the world before Paizo ever got around to it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Gulthor wrote:

I'm amazed I'll be the first to mention:

Aroden.

It's not that I have anything specifically against Aroden; no, my beef with Aroden is that his canonical story has been withheld from those that care about lore.

I can understand how mysterious leads can be enticing. Eberron did that well - the player material left a lot to the imagination. But if you wanted to look and find an official answer on something as a GM, it was there.

I'd be perfectly happy with an, "There is no official answer, and we're never going to reveal one, so do whatever works for your game and the story you want to tell." But we don't have that, either.

Instead, we've been told that there is a definitive canonical answer, and that they might reveal it someday.

It's my biggest gripe in all of PF, because as someone that actually cares really deeply about lore, it means that

A) I can't/won't touch Aroden with a 10' pole because I won't use him in our persistent gaming world only for a module to come out later that will force me to pull some stupid retcons, and

B) It means that any attempts by another GM in or group that tries to do an Aroden story will meet a vehement involuntary response on my end, because I *know* that there's an official answer, and see point A.

I don't believe everything needs to have a canonical answer - far from it; the gaps in the lore are the places that new stories can spring from. The unanswered and never-will-be-answered bits are some of my favorite bits.

But to be told that there is a canonical answer, but that we pissants just aren't allowed to know it absolutely infuriates me.

Part of making Golarion your own world is removing yourself from a dependency on "official answers". I have absolutely no compunction about ignoring an official decree if I've developed part of the world before Paizo ever got around to it.

Actaully you don't have to worry about this at all Gulthor, as they've stated they will never reveal what happened to Aroden. Not some time eventually like what they have hinted for Zon-Kuthon. Never.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I want to like Iomedae for being the god of paladins, but she's just too militaristic for my tastes.

How can the god(dess) of Paladins be too militaristic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dysartes wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I want to like Iomedae for being the god of paladins, but she's just too militaristic for my tastes.
How can the god(dess) of Paladins be too militaristic?

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who believe paladins should behave like something out a My Little Pony cartoon and just fire redemption rainbows at people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Goblin_Priest wrote:

I've gotta say that in addition to particular gods, I dislike the pantheon as a whole. Pathfinder, and all D&D editions I'm aware of, suffer from the "there's a god for that" syndrome. Every stupidest thing gets a god; if not at release, then in a later splatbook.

I mean, seriously. Gods and Magic describes 61 gods for Golarion. How many gods does one really need?

A portfolio of "doors, transitions, years"??? Treachery, cheating? People sometimes betray or cheat each other, but a church based on these things is ridiculous. How many gods of slavery does one need? Venkelvore is the god of... graves? But Zyphus is the god of graveyards... Not to mention the god of dog killing? Suicide...? I mean, seriously. And obviously "disease" and "infection" are completely distinct things, so they need two different gods...

The divine bloat is absurd, and completely out of touch with the timeframe these settings base themselves out of. I don't hate large pantheons per say, but does every single published mythology need dozens and dozens of gods? And does every single possible portfolio element (and it's every declination) require a god?

Our world has the Pastafarians, people that religiously wear colanders on their heads and believe the afterlife is a bowling alley filled with beer and hookers.

Just saying, it could be worse. :-)


Rysky wrote:
Actaully you don't have to worry about this at all Gulthor, as they've stated they will never reveal what happened to Aroden. Not some time eventually like what they have hinted for Zon-Kuthon. Never.

They also said, repeatedly, for many years that they would never introduce "Iterative and incremental system change via errata".

I'd take any statements with a grain of salt.

captain yesterday wrote:

Our world has the Pastafarians, people that religiously wear colanders on their heads and believe the afterlife is a bowling alley filled with beer and hookers.

Just saying, it could be worse. :-)

You do know that's literally a parody of religions right?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Uh, where have they said that Sun?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Actaully you don't have to worry about this at all Gulthor, as they've stated they will never reveal what happened to Aroden. Not some time eventually like what they have hinted for Zon-Kuthon. Never.

They also said, repeatedly, for many years that they would never introduce "Iterative and incremental system change via errata".

I'd take any statements with a grain of salt.

captain yesterday wrote:

Our world has the Pastafarians, people that religiously wear colanders on their heads and believe the afterlife is a bowling alley filled with beer and hookers.

Just saying, it could be worse. :-)

You do know that's literally a parody of religions right?

As with all statements in life, it shouldn't be considered absolute. People, and companies change and evolve.

Do I think Paizo will ever reveal what exactly happened to Aroden that dark and stormy night.

Yes. But only if it's profitable, they want to, and they have something else lined up that's even more mysterious.

So, not likely, but certainly possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Actaully you don't have to worry about this at all Gulthor, as they've stated they will never reveal what happened to Aroden. Not some time eventually like what they have hinted for Zon-Kuthon. Never.

They also said, repeatedly, for many years that they would never introduce "Iterative and incremental system change via errata".

I'd take any statements with a grain of salt.

captain yesterday wrote:

Our world has the Pastafarians, people that religiously wear colanders on their heads and believe the afterlife is a bowling alley filled with beer and hookers.

Just saying, it could be worse. :-)

You do know that's literally a parody of religions right?

Isn't all religion a parody of each other. :-)


Rysky wrote:
Uh, where have they said that Sun?

I didn't exactly save the quotes (and they'd all be on my other account anyway). That was just the most common reason for things like "We won't change problem spells like Simulacrum or rewrite abilities that are too weak because errata aren't meant to change the game that much".

It is the entire reason that Pathfinder Unchained even exists, they wanted to make a book that acted as an "errata" without actually changing the game.

Search back through Jason Buhlman and (especially) Sean K Reynolds' old posts if you like. At least from 2011 through early 2015 that was the party line. "Incremental change via errata" was a dirty phrase to Paizo once upon a time.

Silver Crusade

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I want to like Iomedae for being the god of paladins, but she's just too militaristic for my tastes.
How can the god(dess) of Paladins be too militaristic?
You'd be surprised at the amount of people who believe paladins should behave like something out a My Little Pony cartoon and just fire redemption rainbows at people.

It's really more the organized war force thing. I guess I prefer knight errant paladins of NG deities. I'd also like to do an elven paladin of Alseta who guards elf gates. Basically, Iomedae is only one way to play a paladin, and it's not my fav.


Personally, I can't really stand almost all the gods that exist in just about every boxed fantasy setting.

While they might have interesting mechanical uses in playing the game, their existence as something to be worshiped often make no sense. Deities are created, apparently, to exist as either plot drivers or to fill a perceived niche in mechanics the designers have.

But often, there's no sense as to why a specific god with his/her spheres of influence ever has enough worshipers to count as a major deity...or even a minor deity, in some cases.

Also, because the designers hardly make any effort to figure out how newly created deities actually fit into the overall mythology, the pantheons of many boxed end up being completely sprawling webs, bloated with dozens of entities solely created for one specific splat book or adventure, but serving no actual purpose to the overall game world.

Golarion's list of possible deities, for example, is starting to get as ridiculous as the number of Saints in the Catholic Church (try making sense of all of them some time).

{FYI, there are at least 340 different entities in Paizo products that can be taken as a patron deity, with rules for domains and spheres of influence.}

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Uh, where have they said that Sun?

I didn't exactly save the quotes (and they'd all be on my other account anyway). That was just the most common reason for things like "We won't change problem spells like Simulacrum or rewrite abilities that are too weak because errata aren't meant to change the game that much".

It is the entire reason that Pathfinder Unchained even exists, they wanted to make a book that acted as an "errata" without actually changing the game.

Search back through Jason Buhlman and (especially) Sean K Reynolds' old posts if you like. At least from 2011 through early 2015 that was the party line. "Incremental change via errata" was a dirty phrase to Paizo once upon a time.

Hmmm.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Calistria is still top of my list of worst deities without having a deeper think about them all. Too much of a callous, spiteful 'mean girl' exaggerated into godhood.

One of her key features is 'Vengeance against perceived slights'.

It makes the whole of her all the more problematic.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I want to like Iomedae for being the god of paladins, but she's just too militaristic for my tastes.
How can the god(dess) of Paladins be too militaristic?
You'd be surprised at the amount of people who believe paladins should behave like something out a My Little Pony cartoon and just fire redemption rainbows at people.

Twilight Sparkle does not approve of your comparison.


Rysky wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Uh, where have they said that Sun?

I didn't exactly save the quotes (and they'd all be on my other account anyway). That was just the most common reason for things like "We won't change problem spells like Simulacrum or rewrite abilities that are too weak because errata aren't meant to change the game that much".

It is the entire reason that Pathfinder Unchained even exists, they wanted to make a book that acted as an "errata" without actually changing the game.

Search back through Jason Buhlman and (especially) Sean K Reynolds' old posts if you like. At least from 2011 through early 2015 that was the party line. "Incremental change via errata" was a dirty phrase to Paizo once upon a time.

Hmmm.

I went back to try and see if I HAD saved them somewhere, but all I found in my List on the subject was part of another post I had made mentioning it from early 2014. So the phrase has stuck in my head at least that long.

I wish I had, it'd be a good quote, right up there with "Myth propagated by people with agendas" and "Water Balloons", both of which are easier to find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Uh, where have they said that Sun?

I didn't exactly save the quotes (and they'd all be on my other account anyway). That was just the most common reason for things like "We won't change problem spells like Simulacrum or rewrite abilities that are too weak because errata aren't meant to change the game that much".

It is the entire reason that Pathfinder Unchained even exists, they wanted to make a book that acted as an "errata" without actually changing the game.

Search back through Jason Buhlman and (especially) Sean K Reynolds' old posts if you like. At least from 2011 through early 2015 that was the party line. "Incremental change via errata" was a dirty phrase to Paizo once upon a time.

Hmmm.

I went back to try and see if I HAD saved them somewhere, but all I found in my List on the subject was part of another post I had made mentioning it from early 2014. So the phrase has stuck in my head at least that long.

I wish I had, it'd be a good quote, right up there with "Myth propagated by people with agendas" and "Water Balloons", both of which are easier to find.

I think you're thinking of this post by Sean K Reynolds (though there may be others).


That's the one.

...I kinda regret saying "Maybe you should just change the small things" now.


Quote:
Hard to make a choice here, since the Pathfinder Campaign Setting seems to have gotten their Lawful Evil down pretty well. It's easy to hate Asmodeus for his overarching Evil, but he's supposed to be Evil. Love to Hate.

The problem with Asmo isn't that he's too evil. It's that he's not very lawful. He's very much a NE villain who uses a veneer of society and order to insulate himself. Which is fine, but they shouldn't advertise that as the pinnacle of lawful evil.


Sundakan wrote:


Problem is, she comes off as just being really damn lazy rather than Neutral for any moral sake. She's explicitly stated to be the strongest deity in the game, by a wide margin.

She clearly wants to stop Groetus, because she keeps taking action against him.

Except instead of just destroying him, she feeds the souls of atheists to it, destroying them utterly for all time as a temporary measure.

Actually, yeah, f*$~ Pharasma. She's way worse than Iomedae. She's as bad as most Daemons.

I think how she comes off is a personal thing I've never seen her as Lazy. I see her as kinda bored and frustrated.

Bored by the petty battles of good and evil but understanding that she can't herself change the balance. Which is frustrating.

Also as for the groetus thing I again see her as stuck in a bind she can't kill him that would be her upsetting the balance and with the balance feeling like it's on a knife edge she can't do that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dammerich, for personal moral reasons. That's the only one that kinda sticks in my craw.

It probably helps that I view the deities as "personification of concepts" first and "characters" second. So I don't get so much hung up on "Mary Sue," which... well it's a god.


The Sideromancer wrote:
IRL mythology has the same thing, though. The Romans had a god of mildew with his own festival, and Janus actually has a portfolio of "doors, transitions, years." At least for the Golarion pantheon, there is a reason why more divine entities would be preferable above less (differing alignments/favoured weapons for a given domain).

*Some* IRL mythologies did. Not all of them. Does EVERY D&D mythology need to copy the model of SOME RL ones?

I don't think so.

Rysky wrote:

All of them are a drop in the ocean compared to all the gods from different belief systems in the real world.

So yeah, not really thinking of 61 as "divine bloat".

Sure, if you take the whole world combined, and multiple time periods on top.

If you take western Europe in 1500, then you don't have thousands of widely recognized deities (thousands being a minimum, I would reckon, for 61 to be a drop in the ocean). Indeed, you'd have very, very few. You'd have Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, pretty much, which happen to all worship the same god.

Sure, it's fine to take a less specific time and area of reference, there's nothing unusual about having more deities the more you widen your frame of reference, but imitating the Greek/Egyptian/Roman system every single time... is not necessary.

And as another said, part of the problem is the assumption that most, if not all of those have an organized church, or at least clerics, and are the patron deities of some mortals. One would think that a Church of Suicide would be... rather... short-lived... These gods not only *can*, but *do* grant powers to their clerics...

There's also the fact that the existence of the gods is always known. We know where they are, people have chatted with them and told the tale, whether from planar travel or commune spells. I, for one, would welcome a published setting in which the players don't know if there are gods. That these gods work through proxies in a way that one can never really be sure if they are proxies at all. That accompanying the great doubt, there is great zeal. Sensible schisms in the churches, wars of heresy, and so on. Maybe it's a conscious decision to stay as far away as possible from modern religions, and I get the desire to avoid controversy. But the way things are, one can basically roll up a random pantheon assigning portfolios by the dice, and end up with pretty much the same depth.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Isn't that kind of like Eberron. :-)


captain yesterday wrote:
Isn't that kind of like Eberron. :-)

To be honest, for a variety of reasons (being 4th ed and high tech for example) I didn't delve much into Eberron. From memory the 4th ed manual of the plane was mostly the same as any other editions' though.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

"Sure, if you take the whole world combined, and multiple time periods on top."

Which Golarion has, and even more time periods than Earth even.

Also Eberron started in 3.5 if you wanted to look at that version of it :3


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Let's see...

LG - Ragathiel:
His backstory his actually pretty decent all things considered but most o the time he's just a walking justification for people who want to fully enjoy the murderhobo lifestyle while being paladins and feel good about it

LG - Torag:
Unfortunately people are right: his portrayal feels generic and bland


14 people marked this as a favorite.
some ppl who're about to step on some legos wrote:
lol zyphus lol lol

y'all can "accidentally" bite my bony ass


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of the answers to this thread are reinforcing to me how most of these gods are actually good. Just LOL at the Pharasma, Calistria, and Cayden Cailean hate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Speaking as one of the noisiest Cayden Cailean haters... he seems more polarizing than truly loathed, when taken at a distance- most people seem to like him a lot. Those of us who don't, however, really dislike him.

The Calistria and Pharasma divides seem a bit less pronounced... there's less of a difference in basic interpretation, and more disagreement over what that interpretation ultimately means.

EDIT: Of course, had I bothered to READ the Calistria debates on the other thread... DISREGARD.


More or less all evil gods except Asmo and Yaezhing. Of the rest...

Sarenrae too flashy, too overbearing, too annoying -may be affected by the fact that her followers I met were really pushy with the holier than thou attitude (this from a LG Erastilian village priest) and on the point of LG...

Iomedae cause she makes LG seem boring.

Gorum because he's just there to beat up people. Not interesting at all.

But mainly... the evil gods. What is it with their obediences anyway?

Edit: Oh, forgot Nethys. He's up there with Sarenrae. Patron deity of those special snowflakes they call arcane casters. The drama, the duality, the madness!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

TBF Sarenrae literally is holier than thou


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Zyphus I didn't like at first 'cause he just looked like he was all whiny and emo, but then I realized that there's actually some humor to that. A big cosmic fly that's raging at a bigger deity that probably barely even notices him.

Also his cult lends itself to some neat ideas for campaigns. Like I could imagine some sort of Final Destination meets Scream kind of scenario.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Most of the answers to this thread are reinforcing to me how most of these gods are actually good. Just LOL at the Pharasma, Calistria, and Cayden Cailean hate.

Yep, it shows Paizo must be doing something right with such strong opinions.

I do not understand the hate for Cayden. He's a laugh riot, but nice about it. And Calistira, also fun but nastier about it. I see some posters dislike Cayden for being naughty and drinking too much. I suspect it it because most posters are American.

What does surprise me is so little hate for Abadar.

I LOATHE Abadar, and so do the rest of my international online group (including Americans).

He's the god of arbitrary law. F that, I'm not worshipping that, worship law just because someone powerful said those are the rules. No thank you. Just as bad is that his own portfolio has a contradiction. He is the god of law, but also money and the market. The market is entirely about law made by the powerful and the market is not solvable, it is a chaotic system, hence the players in reality are high-stakes gamblers. He is the god of a game in which only the rich may play, by their own rules, and the rules don't always apply. Some god of law he is.

So no, I don't get it. Cayden and Calistira are bad because hedonism is bad, but the god of corporate lickspittles is okay? Not for me, thank you. At least Asmodeus tells you to your face that he's a corporate tyrant. He doesn't pretend any of that 'fair and balanced' pack of lies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The hate for Pharasma, Calistria and Cayden just bewilders me. To me, the only crime a god can commit is not being interesting.

That's why Asmodeus, Iomadae, Sarenwrap and Torag are the worst. At least Abadar has that funny "noble god of CAPITALISM" shtick to poke fun at. At least Cayden Cailean has that "has no idea what he's doing but DARN IT he's gonna do his best" attitude. The gods I just listed are miserably bland and unoriginal.


Sundakan wrote:
TBF Sarenrae literally is holier than thou

Meh! I'm redeemed already! Go away! :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Abadar's main tenant is, "Ignore the government and religion, just pull yerself up by yer bootstraps and try to get rich". He claims to be a god of law, but he's way too wedded to capitalism to actually work in that light. That makes him a fairly silly god, which makes him interesting.

Seriously, I do not get the "this god is flawed, so I don't like them" attitude. You'd rather have them all be blandly likable gods like Saurianrake? We do need a few of those, but Shelyn, Erastil and Desna manage to be both likable and interesting. Why do Torag, Iomadae and Certainray end up being so dull?

Maybe Paizo is just bad at making "paladin gods" distinctive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The hate for Pharasma, Calistria and Cayden just bewilders me. To me, the only crime a god can commit is not being interesting.

That's why Asmodeus, Iomadae, Sarenwrap and Torag are the worst. At least Abadar has that funny "noble god of CAPITALISM" shtick to poke fun at. At least Cayden Cailean has that "has no idea what he's doing but DARN IT he's gonna do his best" attitude. The gods I just listed are miserably bland and unoriginal.

Right, this is why Falayna is the best paladin god and should be fleshed out more. Her few paragraphs are more compelling than Iomadaes dozens of pages.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are already the hardest class to play originally. Paizo made it harder by giving new players incredibly bland gods to choose from. Sarenrae has some personality in being a "redeemer", but if I want to play a redemption-focused paladin, I'll be a Shelynite. And that's way more interesting than being a Sarenrite or whatever, because now I can call myself the Fashion Police and critique goblins' wardrobes.


Cole Deschain wrote:

Speaking as one of the noisiest Cayden Cailean haters... he seems more polarizing than truly loathed, when taken at a distance- most people seem to like him a lot. Those of us who don't, however, really dislike him.

The Calistria and Pharasma divides seem a bit less pronounced... there's less of a difference in basic interpretation, and more disagreement over what that interpretation ultimately means.

EDIT: Of course, had I bothered to READ the Calistria debates on the other thread... DISREGARD.

Polarising is probably a good word for Cayden

With Pharasma I think it basically boils down by being a completely neutral over god means you have to behave a certain and some people love that and some people find it boring.

Calistria seems more up for how people interpret or understand her

The gods with the most commonly agreed problems are Gozreh and Torag are boring, Iomadea for the whole blasting people for not doing what she wants and desna for being all over the shop.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Seriously, I do not get the "this god is flawed, so I don't like them" attitude.

My beef isn't with Cayden's hedonism, it's with how it's presented.

I suspect the Calistria-haters would say something similar.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Erastil, not for any harsh reason he is just the God that is hardest to mesh with an Adventurer's backstory.

101 to 150 of 519 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Least Favorite Gods All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.