Too restrictive cleric alignments?


Creating a Character

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

For example Asmodeus went from 3 alignments (LE, LN, NE) to only LE. I can understand scrapping NE as Asmodeus his whole shtick was his lawfulness. But why no more LN?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because Asmodeus is about using lawful means to enslave, corrupt, and diminish others in order to enrich yourself which is decidedly not neutral. If you want someone who just believes in order and structure while not being a total malefactor Abadar is over that way.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Because Asmodeus is about using lawful means to enslave, corrupt, and diminish others in order to enrich yourself which is decidedly not neutral. If you want someone who just believes in order and structure while not being a total malefactor Abadar is over that way.

I am going to have to disagree. You could totally be someone who sees that the laws a place like Cheliax provides are better than anarchy without being an Abadar follower or being an evil person yourself.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rekijan wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Because Asmodeus is about using lawful means to enslave, corrupt, and diminish others in order to enrich yourself which is decidedly not neutral. If you want someone who just believes in order and structure while not being a total malefactor Abadar is over that way.
I am going to have to disagree. You could totally be someone who sees that the laws a place like Cheliax provides are better than anarchy without being an Abadar follower or being an evil person yourself.

But there is a big difference between respecting and revering Asmodeus as the bringer of order and actually accepting him as your patron. The lawful good Chelish noble I played in our last campaign paid very close attention to that distinction.


David knott 242 wrote:
Rekijan wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Because Asmodeus is about using lawful means to enslave, corrupt, and diminish others in order to enrich yourself which is decidedly not neutral. If you want someone who just believes in order and structure while not being a total malefactor Abadar is over that way.
I am going to have to disagree. You could totally be someone who sees that the laws a place like Cheliax provides are better than anarchy without being an Abadar follower or being an evil person yourself.

But there is a big difference between respecting and revering Asmodeus as the bringer of order and actually accepting him as your patron. The lawful good Chelish noble I played in our last campaign paid very close attention to that distinction.

This. Especially in PF2, you don't get to be a cleric of a god by scalpeling out parts of your patron deity that you like and ignore the ones you don't (outside of guys like Norgorber anyway). You're a cleric of Asmodeus, you're a full supporter and enabler of his ethoses and those ethoses are being ordred and a jerk to put it succinctly. Lay worshippers can toss a prayer to Asmo thanking him that Cheliax isn't Galt or whatever, but if you're getting divine powers, you're expected to be a corrupt bastard exploiting every loophole in the book to enrich yourself and by extension Asmodeus, aka be LE.

Silver Crusade

I find it a bit odd that clerics of Sarenrae can't be Neutral, which I think was previously the alignment of some (or most) clerics belonging to the Cult of the Dawnflower.


Guess that quote from JJ about "Oh, Sarenrae's really gonna put the hammer down on those Dawnflower types soon guys, totally" wasn't just hollow words after all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I also don't see why Asmodeus no longer allows LN characters.

Nothing in his Edicts/Anathema are inherently evil... Aside from not allowing you to free slaves; which is kinda iffy but also an anathema to LN Abadar if you're in a country where slaves are legal.

Abadar has a commerce slant that makes him feel different to Asmodeus. If you want to be a fairly unscrupulous lawyer type trying to rise in political power by twisting the law to your needs, then Asmodeus is the god for you. And that sort of ambition and ruthlessness isn't necessarily evil. Plus, since Asmodeus is all about corruption, you think he'd be completely fine with LN clerics because he assumes they'd eventually become LE anyway.

Pharasma's alignment restrictions also seem really strange.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Rekijan wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Because Asmodeus is about using lawful means to enslave, corrupt, and diminish others in order to enrich yourself which is decidedly not neutral. If you want someone who just believes in order and structure while not being a total malefactor Abadar is over that way.
I am going to have to disagree. You could totally be someone who sees that the laws a place like Cheliax provides are better than anarchy without being an Abadar follower or being an evil person yourself.

But there is a big difference between respecting and revering Asmodeus as the bringer of order and actually accepting him as your patron. The lawful good Chelish noble I played in our last campaign paid very close attention to that distinction.

This. Especially in PF2, you don't get to be a cleric of a god by scalpeling out parts of your patron deity that you like and ignore the ones you don't (outside of guys like Norgorber anyway). You're a cleric of Asmodeus, you're a full supporter and enabler of his ethoses and those ethoses are being ordred and a jerk to put it succinctly. Lay worshippers can toss a prayer to Asmo thanking him that Cheliax isn't Galt or whatever, but if you're getting divine powers, you're expected to be a corrupt bastard exploiting every loophole in the book to enrich yourself and by extension Asmodeus, aka be LE.

There isn't much in Asmodeus description that makes me feel like you definitely have to be LE though. A LN character would make sense. And as PCScipio pointed out the neutral dawnflower followers of Sarenrae also suddenly don't make sense anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PCScipio wrote:
I find it a bit odd that clerics of Sarenrae can't be Neutral, which I think was previously the alignment of some (or most) clerics belonging to the Cult of the Dawnflower.

Yeha they uh... Don't exist anymore. Paizo retconned them because it was too edgy I guess. I thought it was cool.


"A cleric's alignment must match their deity's exactly" is not an uncommon house rule.

Honestly, "empowered by the church and the god, with a wider range of alignments allowed" might be a good creative space for the Inquisitor to differentiate itself from the Cleric. Like Asmodeus can have LN Inquisitors to root out folks who are insufficiently lawful, and NE Inquisitors to root out folks who are insufficiently evil, but the Clerics are all LE.


I feel like I considerably prefer the new method to the traditional "one-step" approach. I suppose some of that however is because I have a pantheon of my own I'm itching to use, many of which make zero sense with one-step (e.g. a LN conflict inducing goddess who demands her followers pick a side, accepting LG, NG, LE, NE but not LN or N).

Is there any particular reason for a fair few N deities still effectively accepting only one-step, or is it more tradition by this point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind ditching the "one-step" approach if it's done correctly. The thing is, I think some gods' alignment restriction are weird or too restrictive from a narrative standpoint.


Elleth wrote:

I feel like I considerably prefer the new method to the traditional "one-step" approach. I suppose some of that however is because I have a pantheon of my own I'm itching to use, many of which make zero sense with one-step (e.g. a LN conflict inducing goddess who demands her followers pick a side, accepting LG, NG, LE, NE but not LN or N).

Is there any particular reason for a fair few N deities still effectively accepting only one-step, or is it more tradition by this point?

I agree that the system is better than the one step but just think some gods went too restrictive. Asmodeus for example used to include NE which I think is odd because his main shtick seems to be about law. But now they made him LE only, whereas LN should also be an option in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rekijan wrote:
I agree that the system is better than the one step but just think some gods went too restrictive. Asmodeus for example used to include NE which I think is odd because his main shtick seems to be about law. But now they made him LE only, whereas LN should also be an option in my opinion.

I feel like Asmodeus sees LN worshipers as "suckers to be corrupted over time" not "individuals worthy of representing me", to be honest. LN worshippers of Asmodeus always seemed wrong to me, mostly as a "choosing diet evil because evil is off the menu" thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
"A cleric's alignment must match their deity's exactly" is not an uncommon house rule.

I can't say this has been my experience. I've never run into it in countless online pathfinder groups. For me, 'no paladins' is more often a houserule then 'match your god's alignment exactly'.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:

I also don't see why Asmodeus no longer allows LN characters.

Nothing in his Edicts/Anathema are inherently evil... Aside from not allowing you to free slaves; which is kinda iffy but also an anathema to LN Abadar if you're in a country where slaves are legal.

To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

Tell that to satanists ;)

I am sad that the (arguably) least evil of the evil Gods is being constrained to Evil worshipers only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do people think Asmodeus is "less evil" than anyone? Like other than like Rovagug and some of the especially icky demon lords, I would put Asmodeus on the very top of Evil Mountain. Definitely moreso than Norgorber, Urgathoa, Zon-Kuthon, and Lamashtu at the very least.

Is it because of all the people playing LN clerics of Asmodeus in PFS? Or just because some people mistakenly conflate "civility" with "good intentions"? I definitely read him as vastly less sympathetic than Satan in the Miltonic tradition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Why do people think Asmodeus is "less evil" than anyone? Like other than like Rovagug and some of the especially icky demon lords, I would put Asmodeus on the very top of Evil Mountain. Definitely moreso than Norgorber, Urgathoa, Zon-Kuthon, and Lamashtu at the very least.

Is it because of all the people playing LN clerics of Asmodeus in PFS? Or just because some people mistakenly conflate "civility" with "good intentions"?

I don't really conflate "civility" with "good intentions". I just personally think if it's possible to have "civil" dealings with one God and impossible to do so with another, then the God that "civility" is even possible with is the lesser evil. Doesn't mean not evil, just less so.

Remember, Asmodeus helped with the imprisonment of Rovagug; he's willing to do what are technically "good" things, if they suit his ultimate goal. And he's mostly about contracts, ruling over the weak, and gaining power. Which aren't really inherently evil (besides the slavery thing which again, is totally cool with Abadar the LN God), he just takes them over the top. You can't really say that about any of the other evil Gods.

Urgathoa and Lamashtu basically want us to wipe out all life and replace it with Undead/Monsters, so they're pretty high on the evil scale.

Zon-Kuthon is about torture and self-mutilation, so maybe I could see the argument about him being less evil since his stuff has a lesser impact on the world? But you couldn't really get him to do any "good".

Didn't know too much about Norgorber (fitting). But he is the God of murder and poison (again, pretty inherently evil). Now that I've looked him up he does seem tolerably evil to interact with. Assassins vs Corrupt Politicians is a pretty close call on who is "more evil"; but since he's okay with just caring about secrets then I'd say he's probably slightly less evil than Asmodeus. However, since he's all about betrayal/trickery, I don't think you could really trust him the way you can Mr "I <3 Contracts".

I also want to complain that he is apparently the only God where it's okay to worship only part of his domain. I get that it's part of his "aspects", but that's still a bummer you can't do similar things with other Gods.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I definitely read him as vastly less sympathetic than Satan in the Miltonic tradition.

Oh yes, he is indeed vastly less sympathetic. I was just being cheeky about how being a main villain and ruler of hell doesn't make it impossible to be worshiped by non-evil people (hence the wink).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
Oh yes, he is indeed vastly less sympathetic. I was just being cheeky about how being a main villain and ruler of hell doesn't make it impossible to be worshiped by non-evil people (hence the wink).

Well, as far as I can tell there are precisely no restrictions on what alignments can worship what deities, there are merely restrictions on what alignments can serve as clerics (i.e. be endorsed as official representatives thereof via granting magical powers, contingent on correct behavior).

Like there might be some people in the Church of Asmodeus who are LN, they just don't get invited to the human sacrifices and don't get spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Zorae wrote:
Oh yes, he is indeed vastly less sympathetic. I was just being cheeky about how being a main villain and ruler of hell doesn't make it impossible to be worshiped by non-evil people (hence the wink).

Well, as far as I can tell there are precisely no restrictions on what alignments can worship what deities, there are merely restrictions on what alignments can serve as clerics (i.e. be endorsed as official representatives thereof via granting magical powers, contingent on correct behavior).

Like there might be some people in the Church of Asmodeus who are LN, they just don't get invited to the human sacrifices and don't get spells.

He said:

Quote:
as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

And I responded with a joke pertaining to the literal wording of his statement. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously; not sure why you're getting hung up on it.

I just don't see why they wouldn't get spells. LN guy wants to makes a contract with Asmodeus to get his blessings and in exchange will uphold his edicts, avoid his anathemas, and even spread the word of him to others (again, none of which is inherently evil so shouldn't result in an immediate alignment change), and Asmodeus is like, "Nope!" When his whole schtick is temptation/corruption through dubious contracts? That just seems really weird.

I mean, I know many GMs will probably be willing to make a house rule for it if you've got a unique character concept and can argue it well enough (or will just allow evil characters in general). I just feel bad for the PFS guys you know?


James Jacobs wrote:
Zorae wrote:

I also don't see why Asmodeus no longer allows LN characters.

Nothing in his Edicts/Anathema are inherently evil... Aside from not allowing you to free slaves; which is kinda iffy but also an anathema to LN Abadar if you're in a country where slaves are legal.

To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

I have to say I am ok with this. I always got a strictly L slightly E vibe with Asmodeus because he is willing to work with others etc. If you want to profile him more as evil than LE followers only makes more sense. Though indeed making clear that he is capital EVIL might help with that.

What about other causes though? Like the neutral dawnflower followers of Sarenrae?


It's been mentioned that they might do "heresy rules" later on, that give you lesser divine benefits for more freedom in the choice of deities.

I mean, there was the "Asmodeus as a Lawful Neutral Goddess" heresy in PF1, so it's not as if it hadn't been done before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Asmodeus is the least evil Evil god because, in God and Magic, it's explicitly stated that he is the god you can trust the most. He knows that, if he lies, he will never be able to make a contract with anyone. So, even if he only does thing that benefit him, you can still trust that he will accomplish his end of the bargain.

To me, "do good and bad things as long as it benefits you" sounds much like the textbook definition of Neutral alignment.

There's no denying Asmodeus is Evil, but when you break down his general phylosophy to its bare minimum, you end up with this. Clerics are supposed (in my opinion) to impersonate this general phylosophy.

A Neutral cleric of Asmodeus could still have slaves (maybe because it's a normal thing for him : the strongs dominate the weaks). The only difference is that the Evil cleric will enjoy whiping said slaves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with that last part. On the good/evil axis good is defined as having respect for life. Owning a slave as such is definitely evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So much for this character concept.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Ah, it's slavery thread time again. Whee.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
So much for this character concept.

Admittedly, that was a concept that required a specific mechanical option - something that very well could eventually appear in Pathfinder Second Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slavery is definitely evil. Unless it's a fringe/special case where you are actively trying to stop owning said slave, then it's evil. Such a fringe case may be owning someone as a slave in name only because if they were set free the Law would just capture them and enslave them somewhere else and you are actively working on a way to get them their permanent freedom (and that is a pretty contrived case).

Now, not owning any slaves but being complacent with the institution of slavery existing? I'd say that's neutral. Which is probably why Abadar is labeled as such (he is, in fact, a jerk). So it's just a question of whether Asmodeus is okay with you being complacent (and occasionally enforcing the local law) with it, without participating. Given that slaves are expensive and not necessarily helpful for adventuring - one would think he would be.

Of course, they may update his edicts to include "try to introduce slavery into other civilizations you visit" or "enslave people you defeat". In which case all of his Clerics would be unequivocally evil. (Until/Unless they release some sort of thing you can take to ignore that specific part of him)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

Tell that to satanists ;)

I am sad that the (arguably) least evil of the evil Gods is being constrained to Evil worshipers only.

Your mistake there is the assumption that fictional worshipers of Asmodeus in Golarion are the same thing as real-world worshipers of Satan. They are not, and drawing in real-world stuff like this is both not fair to the discussion and somewhat obnoxious.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rekijan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Zorae wrote:

I also don't see why Asmodeus no longer allows LN characters.

Nothing in his Edicts/Anathema are inherently evil... Aside from not allowing you to free slaves; which is kinda iffy but also an anathema to LN Abadar if you're in a country where slaves are legal.

To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

I have to say I am ok with this. I always got a strictly L slightly E vibe with Asmodeus because he is willing to work with others etc. If you want to profile him more as evil than LE followers only makes more sense. Though indeed making clear that he is capital EVIL might help with that.

What about other causes though? Like the neutral dawnflower followers of Sarenrae?

The edition change is not only a place to try to clean up rules. It's a great chance for us to clean up some of the flavor that was never intended to be a part of the setting. I get it that some folks like having lawful neutral Asmodeus worshipers or neutral Sarenrae worshipers, but the core assumption is not that. By all means adjust as you will in your game, but we need to pick SOMETHING to serve as the in-world baseline, and in cases like this, choosing those baselines is a big part of my job. I have to make the choices and recommend them to the rest of the team, and to a certain extent I want those choices to be ones I'm comfortable with and want to have happen.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So what is the assumption about members of the Cult of the Dawnflower?


James Jacobs wrote:
Zorae wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.
Tell that to satanists ;)
Your mistake there is the assumption that fictional worshipers of Asmodeus in Golarion are the same thing as real-world worshipers of Satan. They are not, and drawing in real-world stuff like this is both not fair to the discussion and somewhat obnoxious.

It was a jest and not meant to be taken seriously. I apologise that it was not obviously so - that is a failure on my part.

I completely respect your desire to change Asmodeus into a God only LE people follow (there were some pretty sketchy characters in pfs that abused that rule).

I just hope you do either add some Evil Gods that you can be a non-evil Cleric of (besides Norgorber as 'secrets' is pretty limited) or introduce a mechanic where you follow only part of a Gods tenets and can be non-evil in that manner. Since there were also quite a few clever/fun character concepts in pfs that did so.


Okay, first I'm not trying to justify slavery, and second, yeah, my point was pretty much a fringe point I, as a MJ, might accept with a good background. I understand that it won't be the case in most tables.

Zorae resumed my point better than I did. Thanks Zora !

My final word for this subject : I don't like when mechanics (like Clerics) are tied to alignment because those are too subjectives and this kind of debates arises too often - and I'm partly responsible, sorry everyone. Couldn't stop myself from reacting to this when it was mentioned.

Now I will retract from this thread before I start ranting again. Once again, sorry for derailing the thread.


James Jacobs wrote:
Rekijan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Zorae wrote:

I also don't see why Asmodeus no longer allows LN characters.

Nothing in his Edicts/Anathema are inherently evil... Aside from not allowing you to free slaves; which is kinda iffy but also an anathema to LN Abadar if you're in a country where slaves are legal.

To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

I have to say I am ok with this. I always got a strictly L slightly E vibe with Asmodeus because he is willing to work with others etc. If you want to profile him more as evil than LE followers only makes more sense. Though indeed making clear that he is capital EVIL might help with that.

What about other causes though? Like the neutral dawnflower followers of Sarenrae?

The edition change is not only a place to try to clean up rules. It's a great chance for us to clean up some of the flavor that was never intended to be a part of the setting. I get it that some folks like having lawful neutral Asmodeus worshipers or neutral Sarenrae worshipers, but the core assumption is not that. By all means adjust as you will in your game, but we need to pick SOMETHING to serve as the in-world baseline, and in cases like this, choosing those baselines is a big part of my job. I have to make the choices and recommend them to the rest of the team, and to a certain extent I want those choices to be ones I'm comfortable with and want to have happen.

Oh I am totally fine with Asmodeus being for strictly LE baseline as a design choice. He just needs better PR then in his Edicts and Anathema sections to make that a bit more clear. But you already mentioned this so I will wait for the new iteration of that and keep in mind for now what the intent for Asmodeus is.

And as always thanks for your hard work, I really love Golarion as a setting and I know I have you (and your team) to thank for that. Maybe my tone got a bit to criticising? If so my apologies, just trying to help make PF2 the best edition :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PCScipio wrote:
So what is the assumption about members of the Cult of the Dawnflower?

We're still in the process of making all the world decisions. Those aren't really part of the public facing playtest. We'll have more to say about it once next year, though.


James Jacobs wrote:
The edition change is not only a place to try to clean up rules. It's a great chance for us to clean up some of the flavor that was never intended to be a part of the setting.

I'd argue the "never intended" part. The existence of pact servant trait seems to put a LN worshiper as intended and even put a LG worshiper into the realm of possibility. This makes it look like a change of intent and not correcting a misrepresentation of the intent.

This is a different debate than should the intent change: I'm personally for more options and enjoyed my LN Asmodeus worshiper and will miss her.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The restrictiveness had some weird follow-ups. I played an evil character against my will (Cleric of Asmodeus). Sometimes I enjoyed playing neutral with evil tendencies, but now I really learned to hate being forced to evil deeds.

I only play divine characters, because I find religious depths interesting, especially in the corner cases (like Dispater, who is beyond doubt the least evil Archdevil ). In PFS1 I played some LN Diabolists, and so I wanted to play some Diabolists in the Playtest.
I really do not like to play evil characters, but now I am forced to write the E on my character sheet. Being forced to evil deeds - not by the deity, not by religious causes, but by the rules - felt very, very bad.
There is no reason why Asmodeus would disallow corruptable followers to worship him. Sure, maybe their alignment will drift towards evil over time, but there is no need for every worshipper of an evil deity to be evil theirselves.
And what is with the Order of the Godclaw, are they disallowed now, because their system of worship is not possible under the current rules?


I think much of the discussion (abstractly) boils down to two sides.

Those who want more flavor and that the game centers AROUND that flavor in regards to Clerics;

and those who want MORE freedom of choice in the design of those Clerics.

Those who want more freedom of game and design probably WANT less restrictive choices on alignments, at least that would be what I surmise from this and other threads on the topic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think much of the discussion (abstractly) boils down to two sides.

Those who want more flavor and that the game centers AROUND that flavor in regards to Clerics;

and those who want MORE freedom of choice in the design of those Clerics.

Those who want more freedom of game and design probably WANT less restrictive choices on alignments, at least that would be what I surmise from this and other threads on the topic.

Not really. Being part of the sect that worships Asmodeus as the Wily Linguist is super flavorful AND gives more freedom. It's NOT a one or the other argument: they are linked. In fact I see it as a lot of lost flavor to lose a LN cleric of Asmodeus that tries to walk the line to focus on the non-evil parts of his worship while fulfilling his responsibilities of an evil deity.


I mean, a lot of it comes down to how there are hundreds of deities that aren't in the core pantheon, and there are almost surely thematic holes that won't be filled until we start fleshing out the rest of them.

Like for LN people who want to be Clerics of "Someone who lives in Hell" Erecura (being LN herself) or Dispater (her spouse, who clearly tolerates her) are better choices than Asmodeus.

For CN people who want to worship a demon lord, well Nocticula is right there and canonically grants powers to CN worshipers (which was supposed to be weird in PF1, even though per the old rules all demon lords did that).

Sure Torag doesn't grand powers to non-Lawful clerics, other members of his family are going to (Bolka and Trudd for sure, Folgritt and Grudinnar are likely to have NG clerics too).

So while we may never get a replacement for the CG cleric of Azathoth, I am not sure that one ever made sense to begin with.


James Jacobs wrote:
Zorae wrote:

I also don't see why Asmodeus no longer allows LN characters.

Nothing in his Edicts/Anathema are inherently evil... Aside from not allowing you to free slaves; which is kinda iffy but also an anathema to LN Abadar if you're in a country where slaves are legal.

To me this just suggests we screwed up on presenting Asmodeus's Edicts and Anathema. Glancing over them now, yeah, we should make them pretty obviously more evil. Asmodeus is intended to be one of the game's primary villains, and as the ruler of Hell itself he should NOT be someone that you worship without being evil.

Well, you made him the ruler of literal Hell.

I mean. I dunno what else you could do. Maybe have him eat kittens for brunch every other thursday?


HWalsh wrote:
I mean. I dunno what else you could do.

Maybe not say that the lore isn't changing and have that lore EXPLICITLY allow LN/LG clerics of that god. Not implied but 100%, explicitly allowed.

Taking this forward into the playtest, whatever justification there was for those LN/LG clerics is still viable as the lore hasn't changed. If there IS a lore change and every hint of grey area is removed from the god, then is need an equally explicit call out in the rules.

Dark Archive

The Hell in Pathfinder is not exactly that what the Hell in our world is. I am just concerned that the restrictions on many deities could be based on real-world concepts, and not based on Golarion-based theological principles. I do not want the rules to contradict the lore.
If Dispater and Erecura could not have LN followers in PF2, that would just show this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I mean. I dunno what else you could do.

Maybe not say that the lore isn't changing and have that lore EXPLICITLY allow LN/LG clerics of that god. Not implied but 100%, explicitly allowed.

Taking this forward into the playtest, whatever justification there was for those LN/LG clerics is still viable as the lore hasn't changed. If there IS a lore change and every hint of grey area is removed from the god, then is need an equally explicit call out in the rules.

"The Wily Linguist" is a heresy that worships Asmodeus as a Lawful Neutral goddess. It is very much not the main faith, and most members of the main faith would take it as an insult to their god, because, again, heresy.

Also, you could only be a member of it by having a specific trait.

And they did mention that they might add heresy rules later on, which would open both the Wily Linguist and the Cult of the Dawnflower.


Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
"The Wily Linguist" is a heresy that worships Asmodeus as a Lawful Neutral goddess. It is very much not the main faith, and most members of the main faith would take it as an insult to their god, because, again, heresy.

I think you might have missed the point entirely. It DOESN'T matter is it's heresy: It's heresy that the god allows and endorses. It's heresy that shows 'but he's EVIL' isn't all there is to the lore.

Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Also, you could only be a member of it by having a specific trait.

Meaningless IMO. It shows that lorewise, he accepts LG and LN worshipers and that those worshipers are capable of following his rules enough to get spells and powers. IMO, he's the type of god that wouldn't care less if something was heretical: I think he'd be more concerned that what's done it technically correct and wouldn't care about the spirit of an agreement. I think nothing would please him more than a well used loophole to subvert what was intended while staying within the letter of the agreement.

It shows that lorewise, that a LG person is capable of following his anathema: As such, it's not heretical to the god himself, only the church organization.

PS: also lost in the new rules is the true neutral worshiper.

PPS: What is interesting is that Norgorber [Greed, murder,
poison, and secrets] is allowed to keep the N aspect of the Reaper of Reputation but other deities aspects, like The Wily Linguist, get the cut. If a Norgorber worshiper can be neutral it doesn't see so far fetched for a LN worshiper of Asmodeus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Rajnish Umbra, Shadow Caller wrote:
Also, you could only be a member of it by having a specific trait.
Meaningless IMO.

I think this is really our main disagreement.

To me, the fact that you needed a specific mechanic (a trait) to do this means that you needed "very special circumstances" for it to work, which even in PF1 needed mechanical representation.
In PF2, said mechanical representation simply hasn't made it into the playtest.

I'd be very disappointed if they never give us heresy rules, but I'm not worried just because very special gorumites/asmodeans/dawnflower cultists/what-have-you aren't playable yet.

I mean, my favorite class is summoner. There's not even a hint of an eidolon mechanic in this playtest, so I get it how annoying it is not being able to play your concept. (And I think the chances for eidolon rules - and then, shadow plane eidolon rules - to be added are worse than for heresy rules, and I really doubt they'd add the "spam summons" aspect back in as it was.)
But some stuff simply won't be there from the get-go. They can't cram decades of PF1 in one playtest, and I think some stuff that's limited right now is limited so that they can add specific rules for it later.

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Creating a Character / Too restrictive cleric alignments? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.