Bad Gorum


General Discussion

101 to 149 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I like this and I'm fully on board with it. I think it makes perfect sense that if a God is going to grant you some of their power then you'd darn well better be pretty closely on board with doing the things they do, want, or be willing to do those sorts of things to further their agenda.

At first I was in the potential houserule camp for Asmodeus for LN clerics but the more I think about it, the more it just makes sense that they'd be LE flat out. We've already been told that there will be ways for splinter groups eventually... and moreso, assuming (potentially bad word, I know) that some of the other classes get brought over, or made into archetypes, some of them would make for appropriate LN divine agents of Asmodeus as well. Additionally, I find it odd that there is a Demonic bloodline for Sorcerers but not a Fiendish one, probably something to eventually come in either the final cut or future stuff... but that'd likely be an option too.

Ultimately, it makes the clerics more purposeful and less cookie-cutter and I'm all for that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:

For one, temples are not staffed entirely by non-clerics, but it is reasonable to assume that clerics head those temples and made the distinction.

Differing one step in alignment doesn't mean ignoring an aspect of you're Gods portfolio. In the case of an Asmodeun, being accepting of slavery in Glorian is shown to be compatible with neutrality (see Abadar and the city of Abselom. Also, slavery is absolutely evil and IRL I would consider anyone who tolerated it to be), so a LN cleric could accept that in an ordered hierarchy slavery has its place but it wouldn't be their focus, social order and contracts could be their focus. The restrictions on Asmodeus' worship seem especially strange to me, given the work done regarding Cheliaxians and Hellknights. I always got the impression that he was much more of a Law deity than an Evil one, at least that was how he was perceived on Glorian, and this was something he actively encouraged.

The part about non-clerical members of temples was just to point out that there's a difference between regular followers of a deity, and, well, clerics. Not everyone worshiping a god is equal, or treated equally by the god. And in any case, I still continued by explaining that even then, while some aspects of worship can be empathised, none can be ignored, and if a calistrian lets you go after a slight without at least some kind of revenge, no matter how petty, then yes, in Calistria's eyes, they're doing it wrong and don't deserve to be a cleric.

Pathfinder allows you to be lawful neutral and tolerate slavery. Abadar fears that chaos and wars would come from outright banning slavery - he values order over freedom, after all - and while Absalon hasn't outlawed slavery, they still don't really like it. Both are taking the lazy "not our problem, let's hope it just goes away" approach, which is bad enough, but can still be argued to be "neutral" (of the "not feeling strongly either way" kind that enables evil to do its thing).
But Pathfinder doesn't allow you to be lawful neutral and promote slavery. Asmodeus and his (true, clerical) followers don't think "slavery has its place", they think "slavery is the only true form of order, everything else is mad chaos". But even that isn't the core problem.

Asmodeus is not a fan of fair social contracts in any way, shape or form - if you aren't trying to entrap your opponent (and everyone is your opponent) in loopholes and fine print, Asmodeus is going to tell you that you're doing it wrong. Ceaseless strife for personal enrichment at the expense of everyone you deal with isn't a neutral position.
Someone who is merely a dispassionate, but fair enforcer of the rules, is "kinda okay with slavery, sometimes", and worships Asmodeus has misunderstood him on a level that bars such a person from being a cleric.

Compare Abadar, who literally has a spell ("Fairness") that forces people to trade fair, even if they could get a legal advantage. Abadar also hates bribes and corruption, which Asmodeus (or at least Cheliax) openly encourages. Meanwhile Asmodeus has ruthless exploitation under all circumstances as his core tenet, and I don't see promotion of such a morality as compatible with neutrality.

technarken wrote:
Wouldn't it make a lot of sense for Pharasma and Nethys to be Alignment: Any for clerics, considering their lack of concern for morality in most cases?

While it makes sense for them to grant lesser blessings to anyone independently of alignment, it also makes sense for them to reserve the position of cleric to only those who only care for [the advancement of magic/the circle of life, death, and fate] without the constraints of either morality or personal gain (read:true neutral).


Echoing someone else's post that they should just rebrand Gorum as CE and rename him not-Erythnul, considering that's what they seem to be going for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like Gorum works as Neutral, since he doesn't fight for any reason except to fight, and he'll fight anyone, any time, for any reason and the only thing that really bothers him is "someone prevents a fight before it happens." It's just not an ethos that Good people can really get behind because it's inherent opposition to diplomacy and general "Might Makes Right" bottom line. If we were going to expand Gorum's cleric pool I think (CN, N, CE) makes more sense than CG anywhere.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gorum blesses those who fight for any reason. Whether it be the conquering commander with a greatsword seeking to make his mark on the world or an abused wife with a kitchen knife who has decided enough is enough, any battle of any morality is honored by Gorum. This idea that he prefers evil is, quite frankly, slander perpetuated by those who favor more "civilized" gods. I see no reason why he would dismiss the valor of a wandering chevalier stamping out evil.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some Good yahoo tossing out a prayer to Gorum before the big fight isn't the issue. The issue is clerics who need to accept the ethos of being a literal warmonger. Diplomacy and peace are anathema to a Gorum cleric and frankly running around seeking and making war without end with no scruples as to who's on the receiving end should not be behavior a Good person strives for. People who don't have a problem with that sort of thing are evil or at least neutral.

The minute you start coming up with a list of acceptable targets (like what a Good person would do with stuff like only demons/evil stuff) is when Gorum throws a greatsword at your skull because anything wielding a sharpened stick is supposed to be an acceptable target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inner Sea Gods wrote:
If there's no convenient war, daily duels and other mock battles can satisfy this need for a time, but Gorumites living in a peaceful region tend to wander off in search of conflict - or start some of their own.

Gorum does not expect you to fight to the death everyone you meet. While the evil cleric is likely to start their own fights, the good one has plenty of acceptable conflict if they just go looking for it; Golarion is not a nice setting, there are plenty of areas in constant conflict with evil for a cleric of Gorum to use her sword without doing any evil.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing the change in clerics might bring about, which would be nice, is to highlight that other than clerics and paladins and other members of a church, being a worshipper of a single deity is kinda weird.

It shouldn't be strange for the same person to say a prayer to Gorum before a battle, say a prayer to Gozreh before an ocean voyage, say a prayer to Abadar when your cargo is to be inspected by possibly unscrupulous officials, say a prayer to Shelyn before making a grand romantic gesture, say a prayer to Pharasma that a birth goes well, etc.

Real polytheistic societies had clerics or equivalent devoted to one and only one god, but everybody else would simply pray/give thanks to whichever being is most relevant to their specific concern.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is though, you still need to, as a cleric, be perfectly okay with the premise that in the grim dark fantasy of Golarion there is only war and the kid with the notched kitchen knife is just as worthy of getting split in half as the local demon. It's for that reason I find the idea of CG clerics of Gorum incompatible. As a good person that philosophy should be utterly abhorrent.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Thing is though, you still need to, as a cleric, be perfectly okay with the premise that in the grim dark fantasy of Golarion there is only war and the kid with the notched kitchen knife is just as worthy of getting split in half as the local demon. It's for that reason I find the idea of CG clerics of Gorum incompatible. As a good person that philosophy should be utterly abhorrent.

Pretty much this.

It's possible to use war to fight evil, which is good, but to be a representative of Gorum, you need to fight wars just to fight wars. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting him in a way that bars you from being a cleric.

It's perfectly fine for a chaotic (or even lawful) good person to give a prayer to Gorum before a battle, but all in all, PF2 seems to step away from "Clerics are the gods tools to fulfill tasks, and it's fine as long as they do a job that kinda aligns with the god's agenda" and towards "these people live their mortal lives as the god would, they are the mortal personifications of their gods".

Which means clerics are now tied a lot closer to their gods than they were before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Thing is though, you still need to, as a cleric, be perfectly okay with the premise that in the grim dark fantasy of Golarion there is only war and the kid with the notched kitchen knife is just as worthy of getting split in half as the local demon. It's for that reason I find the idea of CG clerics of Gorum incompatible. As a good person that philosophy should be utterly abhorrent.

I don't know, I see Gorum as being someone that the stereotypical Viking (as opposed to what Vikings were actually like) would worship.

They celebrate war and battle, wish to die in battle fighting the good fight and then go to Valhalla where they will fight all day and feast at night.

They can still be good alignment, but that does not mean they will stop fighting. In fact, as a Chaotic Good warrior, they may pick fights with each other (Chaotic, remember) just to show who is the greater warrior. If they die they get their reward by going for endless fighting and feasting in Valhalla. Either way, they gain glory and a reward.

At the same time they will defend their villages and defend the helpless.

I don't see a conflict with this type of Chaotic Good character and what Gorum would desire.

In addition, having Chaotic Good is necessary if he wants his ideal. He needs the Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil in his Chaotic afterlife so that they can have constant wars and battles between them.

It's what they celebrate in life and what they celebrate in death, and glory could be found for all.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
In addition, having Chaotic Good is necessary if he wants his ideal. He needs the Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil in his Chaotic afterlife so that they can have constant wars and battles between them.

You don't need chaotic good for that. Chaotic evil is perfectly sufficient for constant battle. Evil isn't one big happy family.


I am a huge fan of this change.

K-Ray


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, right, also:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't know, I see Gorum as being someone that the stereotypical Viking (as opposed to what Vikings were actually like) would worship.

They celebrate war and battle, wish to die in battle fighting the good fight and then go to Valhalla where they will fight all day and feast at night.

They can still be good alignment, but that does not mean they will stop fighting. In fact, as a Chaotic Good warrior, they may pick fights with each other (Chaotic, remember) just to show who is the greater warrior. If they die they get their reward by going for endless fighting and feasting in Valhalla. Either way, they gain glory and a reward.

At the same time they will defend their villages and defend the helpless.

I don't see a conflict with this type of Chaotic Good character and what Gorum would desire.

Gorum would be annoyed that you want some kind of reward for your battle. Feasting? There's no feasting, there's only more battle. Also, stop wasting time trying to protect weaklings. They're not worthy to be fought, but neither are they worthy to be protected. They're just something you step on on the way to a true battle.

Gorum only cares for more battle, and if you're looking for anything besides more battle, you've lost him. He might still bless your battles, but he's not going to make you a cleric if you're that out of touch with him.

If you want to protect the weak and have a feast afterwards, go to Kurgess, that's right up his alley.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like Gorum works as Neutral, since he doesn't fight for any reason except to fight, and he'll fight anyone, any time, for any reason and the only thing that really bothers him is "someone prevents a fight before it happens." It's just not an ethos that Good people can really get behind because it's inherent opposition to diplomacy and general "Might Makes Right" bottom line. If we were going to expand Gorum's cleric pool I think (CN, N, CE) makes more sense than CG anywhere.

OTOH, the anathema only seems to be against preventing fights; not finding ways to limit them. So preventing a fight is bad, but turning a brutal struggle to the death into stupid macho fist fight seems fine.

Quote:


If you want to protect the weak and have a feast afterwards, go to Kurgess, that's right up his alley.

Not in the playtest document though.


Warmagon wrote:
Quote:
If you want to protect the weak and have a feast afterwards, go to Kurgess, that's right up his alley.
Not in the playtest document though.

Not everything is available yet, sure. But we aren't going to get the full breath of a decade of PF1 in a year, much less a playtest. Some things will have to wait.

Shadow Lodge

Chalk me up as being in favor of the alignment restrictions. It may be a bit heavy-handed in its approach, but outside of a long writeup, this gives players AND GMs a good idea of a deity's ethos as a shorthand. And it's simple enough to provide a good template for other settings.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Sorry for not posting earlier the follow-up on which domains are available for Clerics of a given alignment (provided they worship the proper deity of course) :

LG : 7 = Abadar, Erastil, Iomedae, Irori, Sarenrae, Shelyn, Torag
18 = Cities, confidence, creation, earth, family, fire, healing, knowledge, light, might, nature, passion, perfection, protection, travel, truth, wealth, zeal

NG : 9 = Cayden Cailean, Desna, Erastil, Gozreh, Iomedae, Nethys, Pharasma, Sarenrae, Shelyn
28 = Air, cities, confidence, creation, death, destruction, dreams, earth, family, fate, fire, freedom, healing, indulgence, knowledge, light, luck, magic, might, moon, nature, passion, protection, travel, truth, water, wealth, zeal

CG : 5 = Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Desna, Sarenrae, Shelyn
19 = Cities, creation, dreams, family, fire, freedom, healing, indulgence, light, luck, might, moon, pain, passion, protection, secrecy, travel, trickery, truth

LN : 8 = Abadar, Erastil, Gozreh, Irori, Nethys, Pharasma, Torag, Zon-kuthon
22 = Air, ambition, cities, creation, darkness, death, destruction, earth, family, fate, healing, knowledge, magic, might, nature, pain, perfection, protection, travel, truth, water, wealth

TN : 4 = Gozreh, Nethys, Norgorber (Reaper of Reputation), Pharasma
14 = Air, death, destruction, fate, healing, knowledge, magic, nature, protection, secrecy, travel, trickery, water, wealth

CN : 6 = Calistria, Cayden Cailean, Desna, Gorum, Gozreh, Nethys
21 = Air, cities, confidence, destruction, dreams, freedom, indulgence, knowledge, luck, magic, might, moon, nature, pain, passion, protection, secrecy, travel, trickery, water, zeal

LE : 6 = Abadar, Asmodeus, Irori, Norgorber, Urgathoa, Zon-Kuthon
21 = Ambition, cities, confidence, darkness, death, destruction, earth, fire, indulgence, knowledge, magic, might, pain, perfection, secrecy, travel, trickery, truth, tyranny, undeath, wealth

NE : 6 = Gozreh, Nethys, Norgorber, Rovagug, Urgathoa, Zon-Kuthon
20 = Air, ambition, darkness, death, destruction, earth, indulgence, knowledge, magic, might, nature, pain, protection, secrecy, travel, trickery, undeath, water, wealth, zeal

CE : 6 = Calistria, Gorum, Lamashtu, Norgorber, Rovagug, Urgathoa
17 = Air, confidence, death, destruction, earth, family, indulgence, magic, might, nightmares, pain, passion, secrecy, trickery, undeath, wealth, zeal

So the magic square for Domains is :

18 28 19
22 14 21
21 20 17

while the magic square for Clerics is :

7 9 5
8 4 6
6 6 6

and that of deities is :

3 2 2
2 3 2
2 2 2

But the most useful info might be what Domains you cannot get (at least in the playtest CRB) if you play a Cleric of a given alignement. And some are definitely weird in their exclusion IMO :

LG = No air, ambition, darkness, death, destruction, dreams, fate, freedom, indulgence, luck, magic, moon, nightmares, pain, secrecy, trickery, tyranny, undeath, water

NG = No ambition, darkness, nightmares, pain, perfection, secrecy, trickery, tyranny, undeath

CG = No air, ambition, confidence, darkness, death, destruction, earth, fate, knowledge, magic, nature, nightmares, perfection, tyranny, undeath, water, wealth, zeal

LN = No confidence, dreams, fire, freedom, indulgence, light, luck, moon, nightmares, passion, secrecy, trickery, tyranny, undeath, zeal

TN = No ambition, cities, confidence, creation, darkness, dreams, earth, family, fire, freedom, indulgence, light, luck, might, moon, nightmares, pain, passion, perfection, truth, tyranny, undeath, zeal

CN = No ambition, creation, darkness, death, earth, family, fate, fire, healing, light, nightmares, perfection, truth, tyranny, undeath, water

LE = No air, creation, dreams, family, fate, freedom, healing, light, luck, moon, nature, nightmares, passion, protection, water, zeal

NE = No cities, confidence, creation, dreams, family, fate, fire, freedom, healing, light, luck, moon, nightmares, passion, perfection, truth, tyranny,

CE = No ambition, cities, creation, darkness, dreams, family, fate, fire, freedom, healing, light, luck, moon, nature, perfection, protection, travel, truth, tyranny, water

Note that some domaines being exclusive to one deity in the CRB strongly skews these repartitions based on the alignmetns said deity allows. I expect non-Core deities to fill those holes like they did in PF1, but them already having PF1 domains might complicate things here.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Asmodeus not taking LN clerics is far too counter to Golarion lore to stand. There's even a trait for people from Holomog that lets you treat HIM as LN for your cleric. The Wily Linguist has too strong a role in the world.

Gorum not having CG is a bit disappointing, but not that terrible to me.

The other big one to me though - Calistria! If you're limiting alignments, why are you still letting the b** still have CG followers? She's always leaned to the CE side, and her having CG makes no sense at all.

I also like CN followers of Lamashtu, as the lore is rife with desperate would-be parents beseeching her aid to conceive.

Pharasma being limited it just weird.

Lastly, Urgathoa. The goddess of Party till You Die (Then keep partying) needs to keep her N clerics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thistledown wrote:
Asmodeus not taking LN clerics is far too counter to Golarion lore to stand. There's even a trait for people from Holomog that lets you treat HIM as LN for your cleric. The Wily Linguist has too strong a role in the world.

Yes, a fringe trait from a fringe book about a fringe country outside the main campaign areas has a really strong role in the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, lots of things exist in the world of Golarion and we're just tolerating the fact that there aren't rules for these things yet.

I would say "Asmodeus's LN Clerics in Holomog" is perhaps less critical for the setting than "Witches in Irrisen" or "Psychics in Vudra" or "Aasimar in Tianjing".

Which is to say- we'll get there.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

...

Asmodeus, of all deities, should be enthusiastic about accepting lawful neutral worshipers.

...

Perhaps the seduction happens first, and then once the individual turns Evil, Asmodeus grants them worshiper status.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Worshiper is not the same as Cleric. Clerics are those who actually get spells from their deity.

But it sure sounds strange that some who were Clerics in PF1 cannot get it right from the start in PF2. How can we model them now ?

Does it mean that all PCs and NPCs not conforming to the new restrictions are heretics with different abilities from a normal PF2 Cleric ? And yet that should stay as close as possible to the abilities they displayed previously under PF1 rules ? Talk about complicated

And why should the answer be later in a splatbook rather than right away ?

Right now, all PF2 Clerics will conform to the CRB rules and alignment exclusions.

But what is the point if we can just reintroduce more variety later ? Except maybe to encourage retraining for something that could be available right away.

Or we just have to say goodbye to those "heretics", just as we do for Negative-channeling Clerics of Pharasma, and not expect to see them later.

But if that is really so, I would like Paizo to honestly state that this is what is happening and not just dance around the topic, no matter how artfully


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't had time to look over the playtest deity list in detail, and I can understand the impulse to restrain some of the more...creative...choices in creating clerics. But I think if in 1e clerics felt too "generic" and all like "mr. good guy" or "mr. bad guy," that's probably on the players of those clerics.

I'm a bit disappointed because I always was fascinated by the social implications of the more bizarre alignments for deities, and I like the ideas of deities being to some extent ineffable. That's why I like Pathfinder's refusal to write up their deities' statistics; I don't like my fantasy deities as "Big People in the Sky You Talk To," I like them as unknowable, primeval forces who might not always make sense to mortals. It's easy to houserule away the alignment restrictions, and I'm heartened to know that there are rules for heretics, schismatics, etc. coming, but...meh. I'm not thrilled by this.

On another note, and this may or may not be a bad thing depending on your perspective...the more restrictive the alignments are, the more clearly the values of Paizo's designers are going to shine through. That's always been true somewhat, but the more we're told "God of X = THESE ALIGNMENTS" the more it's going to be true.

(Someday I'll write up the thirty-page rant in my head about how Abadar is LN but Erastil is LG and the Tolkien-esque fantasy biases that are baked into what are essentially two different gods of community/civilization. But I was also really happy to see the Vault and Chain in War for the Crown!)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Khorne's never been my touch stone for Gorum - I've never been a big Warhammer fan - so I've never looked at Gorum as the "blood for the blood god" god. I see the parallels but I do tend to look at him more as indifferent in a way that he's not going to give you a lot of help, but he will challenge you to do for yourself and be your best, strongest self, and whether that strongest self is good or bad is up to you.

We've got three prominent... okay, two prominent demigods devoted to the evils of war in Szuriel and Moloch, plus the somewhat less prominent Nurgal, plus the entirety of the orc pantheon, a few members of the giant pantheon, Rovagug & Susumu, and several other archfiends representing the evil side of war.

You don't need to push Gorum in that direction. It's covered.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

TBH the idea that Gorum will not grant powers to someone who is just as eager for a fight as the next one just because one fights to protect while the other fights to destroy strikes me as odd

Obviously the first one could turn to Iomedae, except if they are CG of course

That leaves CG fighting Clerics with Cayden Cailean or Calistria but none of them are a war god

Seems that War is something you can worship if you are LG or NG or CN or CE but not if you are CG. Feels most arbitrary to me


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Norv wrote:
(Someday I'll write up the thirty-page rant in my head about how Abadar is LN but Erastil is LG and the Tolkien-esque fantasy biases that are baked into what are essentially two different gods of community/civilization. But I was also really happy to see the Vault and Chain in War for the Crown!)

If you do I'll stick it next to my "Abadar is LE - A Britsh perspective" rant.


I feel that Calistria being allowed CG clerics while Gorum isn't is part of James Jacobs' pro-elf agenda. Can't have the top elven god(even if Jacobs insists that Desna best represents the elves, she's still not part of that pantheon) not allow good worshipers.

Scarab Sages

Arachnofiend wrote:
Gorum blesses those who fight for any reason. Whether it be the conquering commander with a greatsword seeking to make his mark on the world or an abused wife with a kitchen knife who has decided enough is enough, any battle of any morality is honored by Gorum. This idea that he prefers evil is, quite frankly, slander perpetuated by those who favor more "civilized" gods. I see no reason why he would dismiss the valor of a wandering chevalier stamping out evil.

And then in a tavern someone talks about your mom because he don't like you face. Since Diplomacy is not an option you now have to break his nose. Then you fight his friends. Then anyone trying to stop you. When everyone is defeated you order and pay a new beer before you walk home.

I don't see any good character being able to pull that off and still sleep well.


FormerFiend wrote:
I feel that Calistria being allowed CG clerics while Gorum isn't is part of James Jacobs' pro-elf agenda. Can't have the top elven god(even if Jacobs insists that Desna best represents the elves, she's still not part of that pantheon) not allow good worshipers.

Calistria may be on the iffier end of the scale too but I'd sooner accept CG clerics of her ethos than Gorumite ones. There's nothing wrong (by default anyway) with rolls in the hay and at the very least the premise of "seek retribution over slights done to you" can be done with a degree of proportionality and doesn't de facto go around ruining the lives of bystanders.


So Gorum is basically Garagos from FR now?


The Raven Black wrote:

TBH the idea that Gorum will not grant powers to someone who is just as eager for a fight as the next one just because one fights to protect while the other fights to destroy strikes me as odd

Obviously the first one could turn to Iomedae, except if they are CG of course

That leaves CG fighting Clerics with Cayden Cailean or Calistria but none of them are a war god

Seems that War is something you can worship if you are LG or NG or CN or CE but not if you are CG. Feels most arbitrary to me

If you define war as a legal concept (which it is in the real world), then there is no actual need for any chaos-related god to have it as a domain. A battle domain on the other hand....but Cayden handles that pretty well, so no real problem.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Mechagamera wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

TBH the idea that Gorum will not grant powers to someone who is just as eager for a fight as the next one just because one fights to protect while the other fights to destroy strikes me as odd

Obviously the first one could turn to Iomedae, except if they are CG of course

That leaves CG fighting Clerics with Cayden Cailean or Calistria but none of them are a war god

Seems that War is something you can worship if you are LG or NG or CN or CE but not if you are CG. Feels most arbitrary to me

If you define war as a legal concept (which it is in the real world), then there is no actual need for any chaos-related god to have it as a domain. A battle domain on the other hand....but Cayden handles that pretty well, so no real problem.

I see Cayden as a god of the tavern brawl, not of the battlefield so it is still a problem to me

On a purely mechanic point, if you are looking to get the Confidence or Zeal domains, both Gorum and Iomedae will provide. But not Cayden nor Calistria. In fact as CG you just cannot get those two domains


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

TBH the idea that Gorum will not grant powers to someone who is just as eager for a fight as the next one just because one fights to protect while the other fights to destroy strikes me as odd

Obviously the first one could turn to Iomedae, except if they are CG of course

That leaves CG fighting Clerics with Cayden Cailean or Calistria but none of them are a war god

Seems that War is something you can worship if you are LG or NG or CN or CE but not if you are CG. Feels most arbitrary to me

Looking through the list of PF1 deities, having the "War" domain available to a CG character was honestly pretty rare. Aside from Gorum, your options were Besmara; the ancient Osironion deities Neith,Sehkmet, and Sobek; and the Halfling Deity Chaldira. It's not like the War domain is especially rare since 60-some deities get it.

So this might be a deliberate choice. "War" as a concept exists with the purview of "collective effort to accomplish societal goals" (which is lawful) or "carnage for its own sake" (which is not good.)

So it might be that Chaotic Good battle-oriented clerics should consider first and foremost what they are fighting for and focus on that. So Kurgess or Milani or Cayden would be fine choices.


Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

I see Cayden as a god of the tavern brawl, not of the battlefield so it is still a problem to me

On a purely mechanic point, if you are looking to get the Confidence or Zeal domains, both Gorum and Iomedae will provide. But not Cayden nor Calistria. In fact as CG you just cannot get those two domains

What is wrong with some domains not being accessible to all Alignments?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

It's okay really. I am used to seeing CN used as CE-lite. Seeing it used as CG-lite will be a novelty but nothing unbearable ;-)

Sidenote : if PFS still enforces the no Evil PC rule, what will happen of the previously-LN PFS Clerics of Asmodeus ?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like it if we just dropped deity alignment and used anathemas to control which clerics can worship whom. I think anathemas are much more clear role-play hooks then alignment, especially since no two people can agree on what Chaos and Law are.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
j b 200 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I see Cayden as a god of the tavern brawl, not of the battlefield so it is still a problem to me

On a purely mechanic point, if you are looking to get the Confidence or Zeal domains, both Gorum and Iomedae will provide. But not Cayden nor Calistria. In fact as CG you just cannot get those two domains

What is wrong with some domains not being accessible to all Alignments?

It just strikes me that Gorum and Iomedae will gift their Clerics with very similar domains despite near-opposite alignment restrictions while those who meet the Goodness of Iomedae and the Chaos of Gorum cannot in any way get these domains

What makes Zeal and Confidence antithetical to CG but not to LG, NG, CN or CE ?


Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

It's okay really. I am used to seeing CN used as CE-lite. Seeing it used as CG-lite will be a novelty but nothing unbearable ;-)

Sidenote : if PFS still enforces the no Evil PC rule, what will happen of the previously-LN PFS Clerics of Asmodeus ?

Switch to LN for Abadar or Zon-Kuthon?

Looking at the Deity list, out of 6 Evil deities, only 2 allow non-evil alignments. Zon-Kuthon allows LN and Norgorber allows N, but only if you worship the Reaper of Reputation aspect. Seems like a concerted effort to reduce the number of "I worship evil, but I'm not evil" PCs. I would imagine once we get full anathema for each deity it would become more clear. As someone stated above, it's hard to be capital G Good if you insist on beating everyone to a bloody pulp that sneers in your general direction.

The Raven Black wrote:

It just strikes me that Gorum and Iomedae will gift their Clerics with very similar domains despite near-opposite alignment restrictions while those who meet the Goodness of Iomedae and the Chaos of Gorum cannot in any way get these domains

What makes Zeal and Confidence antithetical to CG but not to LG, NG, CN or CE ?

With the number of Demigods, lesser deities, "other" pantheons, and spell-granting empyrial/demon/etc lords, it is unlikely that any one alignment will be locked out of all but the most opposed domains. Just looking at CG gods, Marishi and Milani could have either or both of those domains. That's before going into CN or NG that allow CG clerics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone who has been playing the same CN Cleric of Lamashtu for years, I absolutely loathe the newer, more restrictive rules for Cleric alignment. The explanation as to why it was done has taken some sting off of it, but I'm still hoping those rules for Heretics and splinter faiths previously mentioned are among the earliest supplements released for PF2, or my group will be sticking to first edition.


Considering the desire to make the religions more themed however going into alignment discussions is going to never result in a consistent answer. We have as a society been inventing morality systems since the Greeks. As I think has been shown by this message board refining the same god into to several different alignments.

I would as a GM prefer a vow/commandment/tenant system.

Thou shall encourage free love,
Thou shall revere cats
Thou shall protect peoples home.

The above should make the clergy thematically consistent while avoiding the pitfall of alignment restrictions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At first I thought the more strict cleric alignment restrictions would be good, but now I am not so sure (for myself personally). If it irritates several gamers, I'd say don't do it, keep it as it was in PF1.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Knight Magenta wrote:
I would like it if we just dropped deity alignment and used anathemas to control which clerics can worship whom. I think anathemas are much more clear role-play hooks then alignment, especially since no two people can agree on what Chaos and Law are.

I second this idea. Concrete rules are better guides for behavior than alignments, which can be subjective. My characters who worship Gorum tend to act lawful good, despite being chaotic neutral on paper, and I’ve never been warned that I was close to violating Gorum’s tenets.


Y'know, I really like the idea upthread that a Deity could have Common and Uncommon alignments for Clerics. This would allow for mechanics that would allow you to be an Uncommon alignment as a cleric of that Deity.

Don't change the anathema at all. Just loosen the alignment a bit.

(As a side note, I am all for the idea that each character can, with GM approval, choose a single Uncommon thing--spell, item, choice, etc.--at character creation. This would slot RIGHT into that.)

Also, wouldn't it be interesting if multiclass Clerics would not be required to follow the alignment of the deity as closely? I mean, you're not getting as much power as a full Cleric, so the deity in question might let the alignment thing slide a bit...

Or... even more, to pull off the redemption/corruption thing, make the required alignment contingent on some (high-level spells) but not all (spellcasting in general) aspects of the class.

This would allow, for example, a Fighter/Cleric of Gorum to be CG, but not a Cleric of Gorum, because he's less affiliated with the hierarchy, NOT drawing as much power, and thus can be less focused?


As far as I know there have never been alignment restrictions on people who worship gods, but do not receive power from those gods or serve as an official representative of those gods.

Like you could have a Lawful Good fighter who worships Rovagug, by the rules; the reason not to play this sort of thing is "I can't make sense of who this person is and don't find it interesting" not "the rules prohibit it."

Like we've had multiple oracles in games whose power, it turned out, was granted by someone diametrically opposed along some axis to the alignment of the oracle who received the power (I mean, what good being is going to grant you access to the dark tapestry mystery exactly.)


PossibleCabbage wrote:

As far as I know there have never been alignment restrictions on people who worship gods, but do not receive power from those gods or serve as an official representative of those gods.

Mystara had follower alignment restrictions.


This isn't Mystara...


Darth Bass wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The tightening of the alignments is ABSOLUTELY story driven, and intended to curtail certain types of clerics who didn't make thematic sense with their deity. By abandoning general rules for allowed alignments and custom designing each deity's allowed alignments we have a lot more flexibility.

"Flexibility?" That word you use, I don't think it means what you think it means.

What I have read here, as many of my fellow players have already pointed it, is that the current alignments and restrictions put into place do the exact opposite of that.

You say it is not to stifle creativity but I am afraid that is exactly what it does, despite claims to the contrary.

People should really stop confusing creativity with playing against theme.

I'm sorry but the radically different from type backstory isn't creative, its just radically different from type. Moreover gorum's church is even in pf1 noted to lean CE. Removing CG is just removing the design philosophy of 1 step removed that was kept from 3rd edition.

Inner Sea Gods wrote:
. His followers tend to be impulsive, violent, and prone to grabbing whatever they feel like owning; as a result, there are far more evil followers of Gorum than good

This does not a CG friendly peer group make.


Seventh Seal wrote:
This isn't Mystara...

No but the point is that there is precedent and lots of good in-universe reasons why gods would have restrictions on follower alignments.

101 to 149 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Bad Gorum All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion