I've demonstrated nothing, because that scenario I presented above won't work for someone playing the game because the DM can always say it doesn't work as "the gods are more powerful than a legion of efreet simulacra granting a million wishes, sorry your plan doesn't work..."
Giving them stats can very well make them susceptible to things that were never meant to be like "wish machines". Can the DM disallow a rule? Most certainly so, but it's far better not to have to contend with a munchkin turned rule lawyer when doing this.
I've demonstrated nothing, because that scenario I presented above won't work for someone playing the game because the DM can always say it doesn't work as "the gods are more powerful than a legion of efreet simulacra granting a million wishes, sorry your plan doesn't work..."
Giving them stats can very well make them susceptible to things that were never meant to be like "wish machines". Can the DM disallow a rule? Most certainly so, but it's far better not to have to contend with a munchkin turned rule lawyer when doing this.
If we were talking my games the problem wouldn't exist. I don't allow wish machines (or even limited wish+geas) even if by RAW thay could be considered legal. And yes a muchkin player (an irredemable one to be sure) wouldn't last long with me as GM (happened in the past but not often, luckily).
That said what exactly do you think giving stats to the gods would add to the game? As a DM and a player I'm perfectly content with gods not being statted and I don't see the appeal of them having a stat block besides people starting "rumble boards" with PF gods as contenders.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've demonstrated nothing, because that scenario I presented above won't work for someone playing the game because the DM can always say it doesn't work as "the gods are more powerful than a legion of efreet simulacra granting a million wishes, sorry your plan doesn't work..."
Giving them stats can very well make them susceptible to things that were never meant to be like "wish machines". Can the DM disallow a rule? Most certainly so, but it's far better not to have to contend with a munchkin turned rule lawyer when doing this.
Or you could kick the munchkin out of the group if they make the game unfun for everyone else.
Just saying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could kick the munchkin out of the group if they make the game unfun for everyone else.
Just saying.
Sometimes you like people in contexts outside of the game and rather than unceremoniously dismissing them, you'd prefer to somehow convince them to reign it in.
Do a lot of people want stats for deities? I seem to see most sharing the sentiment that it's better that they remain un-statted.
If you really need deity stats, I think this works as a good enough facsimile:
ASMODEUS CR N/A
XP ∞
LE sizeless outsider (devil, extraplanar, evil, lawful, deity)
Init +∞; Senses blindsense 91 billion LY., detect good, true seeing, deific sight; Perception +∞
Aura deific (∞ ft.)
DEFENSE
AC ∞, touch ∞, flat-footed ∞
hp ∞ (∞d20+∞); regeneration ∞ (good deities)
Fort +∞, Ref +∞, Will +∞; +4 resistance vs. good
DR ∞/-; Immune: everything
OFFENSE
Speed ∞ ft., fly ∞ ft. (godly)
Melee godly heavy mace +∞/+∞/+∞/+∞/+∞... (1d8+∞/x2)
Space immeasurable ft.; Reach immeasurable ft.
Special Attacks: all
Spell-like Abilities (CL ∞)
at will–all non-good, non-chaotic spells
Asmodeus can activate his spell-like abilities as a free action.
STATISTICS
Str ∞, Dex ∞, Con ∞, Int ∞, Wis ∞, Cha ∞
Base Atk +∞; CMB +∞; CMD ∞
Feats: all of them
Skills all +∞
Languages Infernal, Celestial, all the rest; truespeech
SQ Deity
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Deity (Su): Asmodeus can cast greater miracle at will as a free action, even when not his turn. This spell functions as miracle, except it can do virtually anything, such as destroying an entire solar system, or creating a new level of Hell.
Deific Sight (Su): No one can hide from Asmodeus.
That statblock for Asmodeus is more or less what I expect a statblock for a deity to be, except that when you actually print something like that you're limiting creative space by making it hard for yourself in some future event in which Asmodeus is supposed to bite it. I'm not saying that Paizo is ever going to do something like that, but I don't know if you'd want to commit to never doing something like that ever.
...
Yes, I know that the answer is probably because Paizo doesn't want to encourage munchkin players to go on a god-stomping rampage and screw up Golarion or whatever the GM's world is.
...I believe that this is the exact reason Paizo has not, and will not, provide an answer to a question like yours.
I don't know how many times I've seen someone go down that munchkin route, and it's really annoying.
Once they publish the stats for a deity, that will open the box. I would prefer that the box remain sealed.
That box is already open. It's always been open.
.................
The box is open. So if we're already unable to avoid this oft-cited downside, then let's at least acknowledge that so that we can get started enjoying the upside.
I was referring to the specific box that contains the actual stats for the PF RPG Deities. That's the unopened box that needs to remain so.
Wanting it opened so that some players can have access to it, would IMHO make the game less desirable to play for many more players than those it will appease.
There are several areas of of game play that could be added to the game, and might be used by a small minority of players. But these areas the game designers decided to not touch, because they generally detract from the game rather than add to the general enjoyment of the game.
The game does include allowing individual GM's to add whatever they want for their home games, and that's fine. But keep it in your home game, the majority of the gaming community are not interested in such, it detracts from the game.
Not every style of play should be allowed at every game table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've stopped caring for stats for Pathfinder/Golarion's deities once I realized that most top level PCs and high CR creatures could easily fill that role. There are plenty of creatures in this game already that are specifically called out on being god-like beings, like Anemos and Annunaki, both which are CR 18
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gods in Pathfinder are plot devices. They can do whatever they need. They don't really need stats for that, isn't it?
The way I see it true deities operate at a level so far above any mortal that there can be no comparison. Comparing a mortal to a deity is like comparing a two dimensional object to a three dimensional object. No matter how powerful the mortal they simply lack the ability to engage a deity in any meaningful way.
Wizards of the Coast put out a game supplement called Primal Order that used this idea. It was actually pretty well written and handled why some gods are stronger than others. What it came down to is that deities had access to a thing called Primal Energy. They could use it for a lot of different things and as long as they had any primal energy left they could not be killed. The only thing that could damage primal was primal. This meant that to actually kill a deity another deity had to be involved. You could kill of the physical body of a deity but that did not actually kill them. Also the only defense against primal was primal.
The way I see it true deities operate at a level so far above any mortal that there can be no comparison. Comparing a mortal to a deity is like comparing a two dimensional object to a three dimensional object. No matter how powerful the mortal they simply lack the ability to engage a deity in any meaningful way.
Wizards of the Coast put out a game supplement called Primal Order that used this idea. It was actually pretty well written and handled why some gods are stronger than others.
They got into so much trouble with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That statblock for Asmodeus is more or less what I expect a statblock for a deity to be, except that when you actually print something like that you're limiting creative space by making it hard for yourself in some future event in which Asmodeus is supposed to bite it. I'm not saying that Paizo is ever going to do something like that, but I don't know if you'd want to commit to never doing something like that ever.
That's what I was trying to get at with my previous post. From the point of view of somebody more than 1 Divine Rank below a deity, the deity has stats of Infinity. From the point of view of somebody 1 Divine Rank below a deity, their stats are very high, with extreme advantages such that you have to do something major to tilt the playing field in your favor just to break even, but it can be done (as with Lamashtu vs Curchanus). From the point of view of somebody of the same Divine Rank, their stats may be more or less, as when comparing mortals. This is explicitly made non-linear, so that no matter how much of a Zerg horde you manage to assemble of things 2 or more Divine Ranks below a deity, it has no chance to win (although it might be able to contribute to the victory of something just 1 Divine Rank below).
|
Speaking of Achaekek, anyone else kind of bummed that they didn't re-stat him when they published CoTCC 20th Anniversary? Would've been nice to see with Mythic Ratings and all that.
They didn't do that because Achaekek got changed into an actual god when pathfinder transferred from 3.5. He doesn't anymore have stats.
I guess you could use Achaekek's old stats as basis of what aspect of god would look like xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They got into so much trouble with that.
I'm interested in hearing about this instance.
If I remember correctly, Lamashtu got lucky. This is why she and Pazuzu still have a big rivalry going on; she knows he was more powerful than her and so does he, and considering she had to get lucky to kill a god, there's some caution there. Also, unless I'm misremembering Aroden curb stomps Tar Baphon and goes home for tea; it's just that that's what Tar Baphon wanted him to do so he could come back as a lich. He never fought him again for reasons unknown, but I have a feeling it's that he just didn't feel like it considering that he killed him once and he came back.
Gods reshape reality, they're so far beyond the ken of even mythic heroes unless you decide to have that not be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of Achaekek, anyone else kind of bummed that they didn't re-stat him when they published CoTCC 20th Anniversary? Would've been nice to see with Mythic Ratings and all that.They didn't do that because Achaekek got changed into an actual god when pathfinder transferred from 3.5. He doesn't anymore have stats.
I guess you could use Achaekek's old stats as basis of what aspect of god would look like xD
He was just as much a god back in the 3.5 days as he is now, with domains and everything. Not to mention he isn't a "god" god, he's a lesser deity, and if we can stat Pazuzu and Hastur and Nocticula then by golly we can convert ol' Achy. Who's with me?!
The way I see it true deities operate at a level so far above any mortal that there can be no comparison. Comparing a mortal to a deity is like comparing a two dimensional object to a three dimensional object. No matter how powerful the mortal they simply lack the ability to engage a deity in any meaningful way.I don't think that should be universally true for all settings. There are after all a lot of stories of mortals fighting against and sometimes defeating or killing gods. It should be equally legitimate to make a setting where that's possible as it is to deny any possibility of that ever happening.
This is very true which is why I specified true deities. In the pathfinder campaign setting the deities are what I would consider true deities. Another poster used the example of Sidhe they would not be true deities. The Tuatha De Danann would probably be high level mythic characters rather than deities.
In Primal Order you could kill a god; it just took the intervention of another god. This did not have to mean another deity attacking the god. They had rules for primal artifacts that a mortal could be given. The artifacts were made for the most part made by other deities.
As far as red from blue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there's been no mention of the serpentfolk god Ydersius in this thread.
But one of the after-campaign plot threads is to wrangle his skull and his headless body into Pharasma's court, and deliberately revive him there.
Where if you can strike him down, Pharasma can immediately judge his soul and end the matter.
So yeah, there's actually a published Paizo adventure where you can kill a true god. He's in a greatly weakened state, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't immune to Greater Possession and have a miserable Will save. Challenge accepted. With some minor preparation SR 42 is a success on a 1 as well.
Bring. It. On.
Better to use magic jar with a set of Osirion spirit jars. That way, you never have to give the body back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it true deities operate at a level so far above any mortal that there can be no comparison. Comparing a mortal to a deity is like comparing a two dimensional object to a three dimensional object. No matter how powerful the mortal they simply lack the ability to engage a deity in any meaningful way.I don't think that should be universally true for all settings. There are after all a lot of stories of mortals fighting against and sometimes defeating or killing gods. It should be equally legitimate to make a setting where that's possible as it is to deny any possibility of that ever happening.This is very true which is why I specified true deities. In the pathfinder campaign setting the deities are what I would consider true deities. Another poster used the example of Sidhe they would not be true deities. The Tuatha De Danann would probably be high level mythic characters rather than deities.
In Primal Order you could kill a god; it just took the intervention of another god. This did not have to mean another deity attacking the god. They had rules for primal artifacts that a mortal could be given. The artifacts were made for the most part made by other deities.
There are a number of real world deities that already exist in pathfinder, actually.
Off the top of my head they are Anemos, Annunaki, Cernunnos, Jinishigami (Kami), and Tzitzimitl. I know there has to be more that I'm forgetting about. Interesting to me that all of them except Cernunnos don't even pass CR 20.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was just as much a god back in the 3.5 days as he is now, with domains and everything. Not to mention he isn't a "god" god, he's a lesser deity, and if we can stat Pazuzu and Hastur and Nocticula then by golly we can convert ol' Achy. Who's with me?!
He is a "god" god. All the gods are in Golarion. It doesn't have the split of different levels of gods. The next step down from gods are demigods and we have stats for those. There is an implication that the older the god, the more powerful, but even that's not true in all cases, especially where there is disagreement on how old a god is. We just know for sure gods don't get their power from worshipers like some campaigns.
I think the only rule that actually specifies different levels of gods is Contact Other Plane, and James Jacobs suggested using the intermediate level row of that chart for all Golarion gods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, weird idea for a setting:
What if all of the Major Gods were dead? The only beings who could grant divine characters power would have been called Demigods, at best. What would that setting be like?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I run a setting in which hardly anybody knows who any of the gods are, at least not for sure; divine casters are able to get their powers somehow, but "how exactly this works and what powers we need to appease" are generally left to speculation. You can get by just fine as a cleric of a philosophy, preaching to people a system of beliefs that will (supposedly) improve their lives and appealing to their sense of "how things ought to be" is effective and doesn't really need "if you don't, [deity] will smite you with his mighty flaming sword".
The game works just fine if clerics don't know where their powers are coming from, since it's not like druids or oracles do in the default setting.
So, weird idea for a setting:
What if all of the Major Gods were dead? The only beings who could grant divine characters power would have been called Demigods, at best. What would that setting be like?
Reminds of Dark Souls. Obviously the setting wouldn't have to be that dark. But the gods of Dark Souls either may not exist or can be fought and defeated.
Reminds of Dark Souls. Obviously the setting wouldn't have to be that dark. But the gods of Dark Souls either may not exist or can be fought and defeated.So, weird idea for a setting:
What if all of the Major Gods were dead? The only beings who could grant divine characters power would have been called Demigods, at best. What would that setting be like?
It may end up more like Dark Souls than you think. Without Pharasma, it might not be possible for anyone to be born, or for anyone to die for that matter. Undead everywhere, lol.
I'm interested in hearing about this instance.
They got into so much trouble with that.
The appendix in the book listed instructions on how to link Primal Order with various game systems such as D+D and RIFTS. Richard Siembada who would sue at the drop of a hat, threathened WOTC that he would do just that for their inclusion. For it's part, TSR more quietly asked them to refrain from doing such in the future.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
because of munchkins
This is an incredibly sad, and frustrating thing to watch still active in our hobby.
"I don't like how some people play the game, therefore they are bad and should feel bad, and I will withhold stuff from others that like similar." feels like a really lousy attitude to base major decisions off of. Similarly, "I don't make things because someone, somewhere, will be a crappy person." also doesn't sound like a good reason to make decisions.
Then again, I recognize I'm the in minority, here, so... you may continue.
Gods in Pathfinder are plot devices. They can do whatever they need. They don't really need stats for that, isn't it?
If a god is merely a plot device that can do whatever it needs, there is no reason for more than one, and the only purpose of allowing evil is as the result of granting (effective) free will for mortals.
Having a god that can literally do whatever it wants means that soon there would be no other gods.
So, the argument likely goes, "Okay, everything except instantly destroy another god."
*poof* there go all the other gods' worshipers, and yours are totally safe from all the other gods' actions.
"No, other gods can all do the same, and you can't stop them, even with godly powers."
Sure, fine: so all mortals are always instantly in the state of god-flip-flux as a god instantly turns them to their own worship/slaves/frees them/etc. instead.
"No, they can't take away free will."
So an 8th level conjurer is more powerful than a god?
Obviously not.
The problem, however, is that you are now establishing limits - i.e. "rules" and (such as they are) thus "stats" for them.
How these "stats" appear - whatever the limits you set on your god in any given situation - it is, in fact, a limit you've placed on divinity, and you limit how and what stories can be told by them.
Of course, the point of such arguments is always, "Whatever I happen to want for the story I want to tell." except, of course, if that's true, why bother playing a game with rules?
There are, of course, lots of reasons, ranging from, "I like them." to "Other people want to play them, and I like spending time with my friends that way." to all sorts of other reasons. But it bears a striking element within the current conversation... because there is no good reason for the rules to work as one person wants them and not another, except that "one person" be part of the group in charge of the the creation thereof.
But why do they make the decisions they do?
I dunno. Same reason as anyone else, I guess.
Tar-Baphon as a lich 20/10 killed a god.
If you mean Arazni she was a Herald, not even a Demigod.
Yeah, that was one of the more disappointing retcons.
"Yeah, this super-scary lich is so frightening he solo'd a... CR 15 OUTSIDER~!" is a lot less impressive than, "Lich so hardcore, he killed a minor goddess."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tar-Baphon as a lich 20/10 killed a god.If you mean Arazni she was a Herald, not even a Demigod.Yeah, that was one of the more disappointing retcons.
"Yeah, this super-scary lich is so frightening he solo'd a... CR 15 OUTSIDER~!" is a lot less impressive than, "Lich so hardcore, he killed a minor goddess."
I don't remember Herald-Arazni ever being called a minor goddess, where was that from?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arazni's page on PathfinderWiki has her as a former demigod and Herald of Aroden. I always took her to be a demigod in any case (and it makes TB's thrashing of her all the more enticing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She does have divine source in her stats in Mythic Realms. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assumed the divine source was from before she Liched. :-)
Tar-Baphon as a lich 20/10 killed a god.
If you mean Arazni she was a Herald, not even a Demigod.
Yeah, that was one of the more disappointing retcons.
"Yeah, this super-scary lich is so frightening he solo'd a... CR 15 OUTSIDER~!" is a lot less impressive than, "Lich so hardcore, he killed a minor goddess."
I don't remember Herald-Arazni ever being called a minor goddess, where was that from?
Older sources called her a demigod and the patron deity of the Knights of Ozem, as I recall (though she was totally a Herald of Aroden). It made Tar a terrifying force to destroy such a creature.
It's possible that she was supposed to be a very powerful creature - above CR 15 - but we're given nothing to really go off of other than, "She's not a goddess" and "she was a herald" - sooooooo... it's a vague guess, at best.
Ah! Got it.
In 3890, Geb took as his Harlot Queen the former warrior-goddess Arazni, Herald of Aroden, who was slain by the Whispering Tyrant Tar-Baphon during the Shining Crusade.
And again,
3818
The Knights of Ozem summon Arazni, the warrior goddess Herald of Aroden.3823
Tar-Baphon humiliates and kills Arazni.
... so that makes him look... horrifying.
I was even wrong - in these early entries, she's not even called a "minor" or "demigod" - just a warrior-goddess who was also a herald of Aroden.
=========================================================
Arazni's page on PathfinderWiki has her as a former demigod and Herald of Aroden. I always took her to be a demigod in any case (and it makes TB's thrashing of her all the more enticing).
She does have divine source in her stats in Mythic Realms. :-)
I know Lich-Arazni has Divine Source, I was just wondering about her status as a demigod before that.
I assumed the divine source was from before she Liched. :-)
It's quite possible.
As stated, if she was a demigod, that'd be pretty awesome and make sense.
As it stands... eh. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't?
It's certainly is possible that Aroden somehow had a goddess as his herald... but Arazni is explicitly no longer a goddess, soooo... I'unno.
EDIT: separating quotes for clarity, and adding a "====" line for a break in conversation/different conversation train.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! Found this while looking up something for another thread. CR 15 isn't a hard-fast rule - Rovagug breaks it, and it's implied that Aroden did as well with Iomedae... it says nothing hard about Arazni, but does leave the possibility open that she was "more" than a CR 15 outsider.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe "warrior goddess" was a moniker, and not actually what she was? You know, kind of like how Xena was called the "warrior princess" even though she wasn't a royal, but rather a warlord.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bunch of informative stuff
Thanks for the information. Very interesting stuff.
As far as Rifts and Siembieda; garbage. Rifts is a game I played all of once when I came into P&P gaming. Power creep making old books obsolete, no rhyme or reason to book layout (and no table giving page numbers about the contents), and his rants about how we should all be playing the game turned me off from the system.
On top of that the system was overly complicated and not too good itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a more condensed tale
Thanks as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe "warrior goddess" was a moniker, and not actually what she was? You know, kind of like how Xena was called the "warrior princess" even though she wasn't a royal, but rather a warlord.
Which, again, sucks the interesting right out of Tar's defeat of her.
"Behold this warrior goddess~! She's a CR 15!"
*Any fairly competent full caster ~15th level or higher (lower with better optimization) yawns slowly and summons more powerful entities for a nice, casual breakfast; others to brush his/her teeth; and more to scratch that itch on their back and massage their neck; then dismisses them and summons a horde of even more powerful entities to do what Tar did to Arazni without ever bothering to take the field themselves, and gets more servants to give them a nice lunch in a bath of their choosing.*
The thing is, there really isn't anything impressive about Tar defeating something like a CR 15 herald. It's prestigious at that point only because she's a herald.
He goes from, "Horrifyingly powerful." to "Oh, so he's a full caster." in no time flat.
The other thing, though, is that there are all sorts of great rationalizations for why things "were never changed" or whatever. Those are pretty cool in terms of their thoughtfulness and cleverness.
But at some point, either things were fundamentally retconned, or information was distributed poorly, such that the wrong information was given, and thus any correction... is still a retcon.
There was nothing in that to indicate it's a title instead of a descriptive phrase. Unlike anything you might expect of a special title, it wasn't even capitalized (I went back to check that it wasn't just lost in my rewrite above) - it's just there to describe her to us. The only thing we had was that she was "the warrior-goddess Herald of Aroden" - hence letting us know that she was a warrior-goddess who held the title-position "Herald of Aroden" (whatever that was).
It's a cool way of rationalizing things, but it's definitely not how our game portrayed her when we had a character who was alive (ever so briefly) during that time frame and actually met her, face-to-face.
EDIT: Oh, how I hate a bad internet connection. I started this post when RD had, like, ~32 seconds. It finished posting after ~32 minutes. And now I have to edit it, 'cause I got ninja'd twice, and it's taking forever to add a simple quotes box. Dangit, Century Link. >:I