Did Iomedae Summon Arazni?

[Aldizog]

The Knights of Ozem summoned Arazni to lead them in the Shining Crusade against the Whispering Tyrant, which she did for five years before being killed. Iomedae was the leader of the Knights of Ozem at the time of Arazni's death, and possibly at the time of her summoning (I am not certain of the timing of Iomedae's leadership of the Knights).
So did Iomedae herself decide to summon Arazni? It would be an interesting twist, and certainly feed Arazni's resentment of Iomedae, if the mortal who called her to her doom is the one who took her place and ultimately surpassed her. For her part, Iomedae would likely feel a great deal of guilt and grief for this role that is not generally discussed by the faithful... yet one could imagine her quietly championing a Tortured Crusader paladin, who likewise reflects on their own failings as motivation to do better.

[archmagi1]

I see it being possible. At that time, Iomedae was surely a demigod, as she was carrying about on her tasks toward becoming a Herald (and eventually Goddess), and was likely high enough level to pop a Greater Planar Ally to call a Herald. However, from how I've seen the depictions of Iomedae, I doubt she held any remorse for Aranzi. This is the LG'est of LG paladin stereotypes, the crusader goddess, the one who does sonic damage to parties who interrupt her. Her for the greater good style demands people sacrifice themselves to banish evil, and doing so is a glorious way to die. Aranzi's death, while tragic, was just a casualty in the long war to defeat the horrendous evil that Tar Baphon represents.

[Galnörag]

archmagi1 wrote:

I see it being possible. At that time, Iomedae was surely a demigod, as she was carrying about on her tasks toward becoming a Herald (and eventually Goddess), and was likely high enough level to pop a Greater Planar Ally to call a Herald. However, from how I've seen the depictions of Iomedae, I doubt she held any remorse for Aranzi. This is the LG'est of LG paladin stereotypes, the crusader goddess, the one who does sonic damage to parties who interrupt her. Her for the greater good style demands people sacrifice themselves to banish evil, and doing so is a glorious way to die. Aranzi's death, while tragic, was just a casualty in the long war to defeat the horrendous evil that Tar Baphon represents.

The whole "chat with Iomedae" has been stated as not being handled the way the campaign team would have preferred, but I agree, ordering a soldier to its duty, at the risk of its life, is not something she would be explicitly remorseful in, but would likely fall under the banner of general leadership duties she must bear, and expects her leaders to do likewise. It is what makes them all stoic, while tending towards starting off into the middle distance with expressions of determination.

[Aldizog]

Interesting perspectives. I can see where you both are coming from, though I tend to see remorse for three reasons:
1) The utter futility of the loss. Whatever tactics led to Arazni engaging Tar-Baphon were seriously in error. This was not a victory with some necessary casualties. It was a disaster, and Arazni died in vain as far as we know.
2) This was no mere soldier, but her god's herald, and the patron of her order. Not only their most powerful ally, but extremely important for morale. The person they could least afford to lose. Had Arazni survived, the war might have been won with less loss of life, and possibly even the final destruction of the lich.
3) After Iomedae ascended and was patron of the Knights, they once again failed Arazni -- in a big way. And again, to no positive outcome. Not her fault directly, but still in her area of influence.

Maybe not remorse for summoning Arazni in the first place, but for whatever role Iomedae had in the strategy leading to Arazni's death. It looks like there could be quite a story here, and a way to add some depth and complexity to Iomedae, at least in my opinion.

[Val'bryn2]

I would think she'd feel regret at just how badly the gambit failed, and at the further failure that resulted in her becoming a lich. She may have done what was necessary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't twinge her conscience.

[Erik Mona]

Basically yes.

[Dosgamer]

I hadn't even considered that it was Iomedae who summoned Arazni, but that is a very cool piece of information for a backstory in my games. Thanks for asking, OP, and for answering, Erik!

[Erik Mona]

No problem. I should note that this isn't "official" confirmation so much as confirmation of what I think is the case as Iomedae and Arazni's creator, and what happened in a flashback scene in Jason Bulmahn's Monday night Pathfinder campaign.

So call it "quasi-canonical," if you'd like. :)

[Coidzor]

Being involved with whatever mechanism brought Arazni into play seems likely.

Feeling remorse, regret, or really anything about Arazni's pointless, wasteful death seems like it would go against her established lore from what I've read. Despite having once been human and being LG, she seems to lack many of the humanizing characteristics of being good, instead tending towards being an imperious smitebot.

Always wondered just in what way she was supposed to be a true heir to Aroden, given her lack of nuance and lack of a suitable temperament to be the new patron for humanity.

[Leingod]

Coidzor wrote:

Being involved with whatever mechanism brought Arazni into play seems likely.

Feeling remorse, regret, or really anything about Arazni's pointless, wasteful death seems like it would go against her established lore from what I've read. Despite having once been human and being LG, she seems to lack many of the humanizing characteristics of being good, instead tending towards being an imperious smitebot.

Always wondered just in what way she was supposed to be a true heir to Aroden, given her lack of nuance and lack of a suitable temperament to be the new patron for humanity.

I disagree with you on that, but even if I didn't, I'd still disagree that she wouldn't at least regret the tactical mistakes that led to Arazni having to personally fight Tar-Baphon - a god's herald isn't a match for a top-level wizard, much less an epic level lich who needed a god to put him down back when he was still breathing, and Iomedae would know that.

And even if you assume absolutely no humanity or capacity for empathy or moral regret in Iomedae, there has to be some level of regret for tactical blunders or Iomedae isn't even a smitebot, just an incompetent moron. And if she were that, I can guarantee she wouldn't have been capable of half the things she's done, both as a mortal and a goddess.
Arazni's death robbed the knights of their champion, completely crippled their morale, and led to her eventually becoming the Harlot-Queen of Geb, an extremely powerful force for Evil. If Iomedae really doesn't regret that at all, then she fails even at being a smitebot.

[VarisianViscount]

Honestly, I'm actually more interested in Arazni's side of things. As far as I'm aware, Geb didn't outright mindr*pe her into NE, but rather applied regular doeses of More Than Mind Control over just a few years to such tremendous effect.

Certainly resentment towards Iomedae and by extension the Knights of Ozem would have helped, but it also shows Geb is either extremely skilled at manipulation, Arazni always had some vice in her, or a bit of both.

Also there's the question who's strategy or tactic actually was the one that so utterly failed - Iomedae's or Arazni's. After all, Arazni can't have been any worse at those than Iomedae.

[archmagi1]

Eh, when Geb forced her back alive as a Lich, her alignment insta evil'ed. As an acquired template, the "Any Evil" of the alignment is applied when gaining the template.

Though your other points are something to think about. I'm sure if her attention wasn't fully committed to running Geb in Geb's stead, that she would likely be plotting the annihilation of Lastwall as a statement piece.

[VarisianViscount]

The thing about alignments on templates, if I remember correctly, was that "always X" means that there can be like one in a millon that isn't of that alignment, "X" means one in a thousand isn't X and "usually X" means one in a hundred won't be of that alignment. Generally speaking.

In almost all cases of lichdom, in fact all except Arazni's as far as I'm aware, the lich sought out undeath of their own volition, turning Evil with a capital E in the process simply because the preparations and required rituals are so horrid.

As for the usually involuntary cases, Ghouls are only driven by their hunger, hence CE, ghosts and variations thereof can be any alignment, and vampires either are smart enough to restrain themselves from the start or eventually learn to, hence why older vampires are Neutral rather than Evil.

I think that Arazni is an exception, as I said, to the usual way of "I'm gonna be a lich, so I better prepare to be Evil. Hurhurhur."

[Coidzor]

It's a pretty weak argument, I agree with VarisianViscount.

On the other hand, it's also completely plausible that is exactly what whoever wrote that was thinking.

[Leingod]

VarisianViscount wrote:

The thing about alignments on templates, if I remember correctly, was that "always X" means that there can be like one in a millon that isn't of that alignment, "X" means one in a thousand isn't X and "usually X" means one in a hundred won't be of that alignment. Generally speaking.

In almost all cases of lichdom, in fact all except Arazni's as far as I'm aware, the lich sought out undeath of their own volition, turning Evil with a capital E in the process simply because the preparations and required rituals are so horrid.

As for the usually involuntary cases, Ghouls are only driven by their hunger, hence CE, ghosts and variations thereof can be any alignment, and vampires either are smart enough to restrain themselves from the start or eventually learn to, hence why older vampires are Neutral rather than Evil.

I think that Arazni is an exception, as I said, to the usual way of "I'm gonna be a lich, so I better prepare to be Evil. Hurhurhur."

1. The process of becoming a lich is typically profane and vile in itself, and requires a willingness to do evil for purely selfish reasons. Anyone who willingly becomes a lich is almost certainly Evil already, "Hurhurhur."

2. Intelligent ghouls are also CE, ghosts aren't noted as being always or mostly Evil anyway so I don't see the point of mentioning them, and I don't think I've seen a single non-Evil vampire in Golarion except for this one Knight of Ozem who got turned against his will. Which would be perfect support... except that he is Evil when you first meet him and you have to specifically jog his memories of his faith in Iomedae to get him back to Lawful Good, and even then it's stated he'll inevitably fall back to Evil anyway and he knows it, so he'll willingly walk into the sunrise.
3. There's an entire planet of people who turned to undeath purely for the sake of surviving a catastrophic event that wiped out all life on the planet. Despite doing it for nonevil reasons, the undead on the planet are pretty much all Evil, including every single one of the liches that rule it. So no, there's a pretty strong argument that certain kinds of undeath, including lichdom, give you an extremely powerful compulsion towards Evil.

[VarisianViscount]

1. Arazni became a lich against her will.
2. Even intelligent ghouls still suffer from incredible hunger. Yes, I missed that about ghosts. I can't find the link right now, but there's a LN (or was he just N?), old vampire with an entire harem of living creatures to dine on that are well provided for on the condition that they don't rat him out.
3. I'm not saying that undeath doesn't turn you evil - eventually. It says as much about the majority of ghosts that don't pass on within due time. The way I understood the Golarion take on undeath is that, while negative energy isn't inherently evil - just like positive energy isn't inherently good - it IS responsible for decay, entropy, destruction and such, and therefore being sustained by negative energy makes these urges pervade the undead's being/instincts. As I said, vampires eventually(!) learn to fight against/control these urges, because if not, they are going to be destroyed. Call it survival of the strongest mind, if you will.

[Leingod]

VarisianViscount wrote:

1. Arazni became a lich against her will.

2. Even intelligent ghouls still suffer from incredible hunger. Yes, I missed that about ghosts. I can't find the link right now, but there's a LN (or was he just N?), old vampire with an entire harem of living creatures to dine on that are well provided for on the condition that they don't rat him out.
3. I'm not saying that undeath doesn't turn you evil - eventually. It says as much about the majority of ghosts that don't pass on within due time. The way I understood the Golarion take on undeath is that, while negative energy isn't inherently evil - just like positive energy isn't inherently good - it IS responsible for decay, entropy, destruction and such, and therefore being sustained by negative energy makes these urges pervade the undead's being/instincts. As I said, vampires eventually(!) learn to fight against/control these urges, because if not, they are going to be destroyed. Call it survival of the strongest mind, if you will.

1. I know, I was pointing out that it's not a case of people becoming Evil in preparation of being a lich, but that it's mostly only people Evil from the start who are willing to make the attempt.

2. Fair enough, but can you at least recall where it was so that I can look it up? Not calling you a liar, but if it's true I'd like to see it.
3. Vampires learn self-control, but that doesn't mean all or even a significant number of them stop being Evil, they usually just become a lot smarter about it. Several of the vampires in Ustalav are old enough to have served the Whispering Tyrant - some while he was still alive, even - and just about all of them are Evil.

[VarisianViscount]

Victae Cobaru from Kaer Maga is a LN vampire. I think his harem was mentioned in one of the many 'are there non-evil undead' threads.
There's also a few on the wiki with as of yet undetermined alignment. Could be evil, could be not.