Basically what the subject title says. With the new edition being a thing, it seems like a great opportunity to talk about changes that could be made to flavor of some the core deities.
So far it seems many of them more still pretty much exactly the same, but I think that some could use an update. Like Erastil not only caring about rural communities and being mad when adventurers go out to fight
baddies out in the world. There's also Cayden Cailean portfolio probably needing to focus more on being a god of adventure and freedom instead of just drinking. And making Irori just Neutral now that the Monk restrictions to only lawful have been removed. Oh and Torag not being so genocidal would be nice too.
Those are my pet peeves anyone else have any ideas or suggestions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very much looking forward to Risen Nocticula whenever that gets around to happening.
Me too. Althrough I think Calistria covers most of her possible portfolio. Making her Chaotic Good instead Chaotic Neutral would be a more interesting change I think.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Changing out the gods will invalidate a lot of material about Golarion, including source books, APs, modules, etc.
I do not believe that the gods need to updated. Nor do I wish to see an update on the gods.
Paizo's done if before. Remember when Erastil was a chauvinist?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure we've offed two demon lords since the last edition as well.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, the alignment requirements for clerics have become more stringent than in PF1. I would absolutely have gone the other way and made them less stringent.
Why does Nethys care about alignment at all? Magic has good and bad sides - and it also has lawful and chaotic sides. As well as all combinations.
Why does Asmodeus not accept LN hellknights?
Why does Gozreh care about alignment at all?
Why does Norgober's Grey Master not allow neutral or chaotic neutral alignments?
Why does Pharasma not allow good undead-fighters?
And so on.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure we've offed two demon lords since the last edition as well.
It's worth noting that (mythic complications aside) the text of Wrath of the Righteous doesn't necessarily assume that you permanently kill either.
Yeah, the gods could use an update. They need to change with the times too.
I wouldn't mind other mythological-based pantheons being developed also.
I am very much looking forward to Risen Nocticula whenever that gets around to happening.
Since this has happened in my world due to events in WoTR, I concur. My problem is I run a homebrew world, as does my Co Dm his own and having to make individual powers for a lot of gods is a pretty daunting task I really don't want to tackle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure we've offed two demon lords since the last edition as well.It's worth noting that (mythic complications aside) the text of Wrath of the Righteous doesn't necessarily assume that you permanently kill either.
** spoiler omitted **
Some groups, mine included, are going to go out of their ways to permakill Demon Lords whenever it's within their power to do so, however.
So I probably just to avoid "editorial overruling what happened on a specific group's table" it's probably for the best if we just never use either of those again. After all, there is no shortage of demons in the Abyss. I have to imagine they chose those two for WotR specifically because they were disposable.Also I'm willing to bet "hunt down Deskari for fun" was a popular option for "continuing the campaign" since you end up as literally the most powerful thing there are PC rules for.
Yeah No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some prior efforts in this vein...
I do really like the recontextualization of Vildeis from that thread, that the evil she blinded herself over was some serious high octane evil, the kind of which corrupted Dou-Bral, and "ripping her eyes out" was really the only thing she could think of that would help in the moment. I feel like that puts her in a better light than "I blinded myself because someone kicked a puppy and I didn't know that was a thing that could happen."
I would disagree with these impulses to push Deities away from idiosyncracies towards generic utility.
("city-dwellers too", "all monks"/non-Lawful too, "anybody anti-undead"/Good too, "god of adventurers" etc)
Being more than the lowest common denominator, sum of metagame categories is what gives world any value.
I am curious about Zyphus/abortion thing, is that something Paizo renounced or just stopped mentioning?
I never really thought about that before, but it seems perfectly in line with 'meaningless death' theme,
and exactly the sort of thing you'd expect his cultists to do, e.g. cause random abortions/miscarriages.
In a way seems the Evil version of Japanese tradition of figurines to help abortions be carried to heaven:
despite them not considered to have fully formed souls, there is demi-god which fulfills that journey.
In this case, Zyphus finds purpose in them failing to make that journey even though nobody would know.
(yet exemplifying his conflict with Pharasma, his nemesis?)
|
I'm pretty sure we've offed two demon lords since the last edition as well.It's worth noting that (mythic complications aside) the text of Wrath of the Righteous doesn't necessarily assume that you permanently kill either.
** spoiler omitted **
No, but killing both permanently is pretty likely in context (especially Baphomet). PCs tend towards the vindictive and Mythic PCs are quite powerful.
Whether they choose to go that route is a somewhat different matter, though it'd be pretty neat if they did.
.
.
.
And Zyphus almost certainly still causes miscarriages, yes. Just like Pharasma is still anti-abortion. Of course, those aren't exactly controversial positions since Pharasma is Neutral and pretty much everyone agrees that miscarriages are generally a bad thing...
|
Wasn't Erastil thing essentially a communication error? So that is more of correction than retcon.
Like, same thing as Mythic Realms and Starstone article, non canon information got into the book because the dev over seeing that part of setting didn't get chance to read the thing that got published.
But yeah, I think only god that is outright retconned is Folca existing :p
One of PFS scenarios seems to assume Deskari is dead dead.
But yeah, I think 2e alignment restrictions and anathemas are cool. They do mean some characters couldn't exist in both editions(at least without having special separatist/heretic mechanics in 2e), but they are usually alignment god combos that didn't really make much sense anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't Erastil thing essentially a communication error? So that is more of correction than retcon.
That's always the impression I got, yeah.
But yeah, I think only god that is outright retconned is Folca existing :p
Actually, he still exists, just not with the Obedience or description in the first version of BotD. Those were...more than a bit off tonally.
But yeah, I think 2e alignment restrictions and anathemas are cool. They do mean some characters couldn't exist in both editions(at least without having special separatist/heretic mechanics in 2e), but they are usually alignment god combos that didn't really make much sense anyway.
Not very many from canonical sources. PCs in PFS and the like very possibly, but I'm actually having a hard time thinking of any actual published characters who'd violate them.
Actually, he still exists, just not with the Obedience or description in the first version of BotD. Those were...more than a bit off tonally.
I believe the official stance is that Folca will never be used in another Paizo product again, going forwards, but we can't unprint stuff. Since there is no end to awful stuff in the lower planes, but most of it doesn't need to be in official material.
So "the people who control the world will not reference or use this being in any future product" as essentially the same as "no longer exists."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, he still exists, just not with the Obedience or description in the first version of BotD. Those were...more than a bit off tonally.I believe the official stance is that Folca will never be used in another Paizo product again, going forwards, but we can't unprint stuff.
So "the people who control the world will not reference or use this being in any future product" as essentially the same as "no longer exists."
Not quite the same, IMO. Unlike the Erastil stuff or Asmodeus having Paladins it's not an error to say that 'a being named Folca exists in Golarion'...but it's true we won't be seeing any more about said being in future products.
Not quite the same, IMO. Unlike the Erastil stuff or Asmodeus having Paladins it's not an error to say that 'a being named Folca exists in Golarion'...but it's true we won't be seeing any more about said being in future products.
But I mean, there's an edition switch coming up. So PF2 will never have anything about Folca, period full stop. Sure a GM could say "well, this being exists in Golarion" and come up with some rules, but a GM could also say the same thing about, say, a WotR PC who ascended to godhood and those things would have equal weight IMO.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Nethys care about alignment at all? Magic has good and bad sides - and it also has lawful and chaotic sides. As well as all combinations.
I would posit that you are asking the wrong questions. It's not about the deity caring about alignment, it's about that particular character's suitability to channel that deity's divine power. The gods have legions of lay worshippers who never gain a single level of cleric and never cast a single divine spell. Nethys doesn't care about the worshiper's alignment, but worshipers without a neutral component simply aren't suitable to channel Nethys's power. That could be because law, good, chaos, and evil are all fundamental forces of the universe and having too many of them strongly manifesting in your soul blocks the flow of Nethys's divine energy, or it could be that living the kind of life that earns you that alignment isn't compatible with the focus and dedication to magic required to manifest Nethys's power.
Why does Asmodeus not accept LN hellknights?
Asmodeus loves Lawful Neutral hellknights. Every time a non-evil soul is willingly claimed by Hell it's like Asmodeus just won a free sandwich. Unfortunately his power is so fundamentally corrupt that it can't be drawn upon unless the worshiper is also corrupted by evil, so those Lawful Neutral folks don't get divine spells.
Why does Gozreh care about alignment at all?
They don't, but the worshiper has to have a neutral alignment component to channel the power. Whether that's because following two fundamental forces like law and good is too much to also hold nature at the appropriate priority or because the neutral alignment component is fundamentally required to channel that power, it's all the same result.
Why does Norgober's Grey Master not allow neutral or chaotic neutral alignments?
Because that aspect of Norgorber is a force of pure evil whose focus is victimizing other sentient creatures, and anyone who wants to worship him and channel that power has to be cognizant of it, meaning willingly participating in evil themselves. This isn't the god of starving street rats who only steal what they can't afford, it's the god of people who see other people only as victims and tools.
Why does Pharasma not allow good undead-fighters?
She does. She adores good-aligned smashers of undead and appreciates all the pro bono work they put in on her behalf. She's even chill with letting them crash at her place for all eternity if they ask. As long as good is all they are, she even hooks them up with spells. Unfortunately, if they are also trying to uphold the ideals of law, now they're trying to balance adherence to good and morality, adherence to law and order, and a fundamental compatibility with the divine manifestation of the cycle of death and the movement of souls. It's too much, and so they don't have the singularity of purpose necessary to embody Pharasma's divine power.
And so on.
I seem to recall some early things(Like Eristal's stay in the kitchen thing) quietly vanishing out of lore
Implied incest between Shelyn and Zon-Kuthon
Calistria's clergy opting at times to leave foundlings out in the wilderness to die
Cayden's followers being a little too carefree and leaving behind kids they don't want to be bothered with.
Asmodeus outright wanting Shelyn to be 'The greatist whorequeen' instead of 'corrupting the innocent.' Plus Rovangag wanting to jam her into his face for a front row seat to the destruction of the universe.
Calistria and Urgathoa competing over those who..'love the dead'
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to recall some early things(Like Eristal's stay in the kitchen thing) quietly vanishing out of lore
There've been a few things like this, yes.
Implied incest between Shelyn and Zon-Kuthon
I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify as a retcon...it sounds more like someone just read more into some description of the love Shelyn has for her brother than was intended (ie: I don't think hypothetical implications are canon).
Calistria's clergy opting at times to leave foundlings out in the wilderness to die
I'm not at all sure this was retconned. It didn't get an explicit mention in Inner Sea Gods...but neither did the whole sidebar it was from and Calistria canonically has Evil priests.
Cayden's followers being a little too carefree and leaving behind kids they don't want to be bothered with.
Uh, this is stated nowhere. There's mention that traveling priests often leave behind children...but in the context of 'got someone pregnant then left' and it's noted that such children are raised by the community and church. This is also almost unchanged between his original deity article and Inner Sea Gods (the wording is slightly different, the meaning basically identical)...so definitely no retcon there.
Asmodeus outright wanting Shelyn to be 'The greatist whorequeen' instead of 'corrupting the innocent.' Plus Rovangag wanting to jam her into his face for a front row seat to the destruction of the universe.
This hasn't been retconned to my knowledge. The Asmodeus bit got rephrased, but means more or less the same ('Whore Queen' had a very specific meaning not quite consistent with the actual words, which is why the title got shifted...the two statements share almost identical meaning), and the Rovagug bit is just straight up repeated in Inner Sea Gods.
Calistria and Urgathoa competing over those who..'love the dead'
'Love the undead' sure, but 'the dead' I don't recall seeing anywhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to recall some early things(Like Eristal's stay in the kitchen thing) quietly vanishing out of lore
I feel like there was a lot of "edgy" stuff that Pathfinder dipped into earlier in its lifespan which was eventually moved away from when it was realized that this stuff ages poorly and that it probably turns away more people than it attracts.
Like Rise of the Runelords involves heavy implications of sexual violence and having to secure a sex toy from a succubus... stuff we'd never see in a more recent AP.
@Deadman. The original Calistria write-up had a blurb of her claiming influence over necrophiliacs who Urgathoa has an interest in.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lots of interesting thoughts about deities and worshipers' alignments
While this is all fascinating, it really is... I can't help but think about my time with clerics of deities of different alignments, and the whole "You can tell the same stories you could tell in PF1" thing we were allegedly told. If I can't play a neutral cleric of Urgathoa, then I flat-out can't tell the same story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the more restrictive allignments with regard to the divine. While at my table I might make special exceptions for a player with an interesting idea, but it will be certain that this is a special one off kind of thing, not a springboard for greater silliness or sleaze. I have run campaigns where any allignment mismatch was not allowed at all. They were well received, but, to be fair, I do not tend to draw players who are more concerned with power-sets than they are with mindsets.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadman. The original Calistria write-up had a blurb of her claiming influence over necrophiliacs who Urgathoa has an interest in.
Okay...where? I don't recall anything.
Not that this doesn't make sense, mind you. I mean, this is another thing that, even if never mentioned again, isn't necessarily a retcon per se given the deities listed portfolios.
lots of interesting thoughts about deities and worshipers' alignmentsWhile this is all fascinating, it really is... I can't help but think about my time with clerics of deities of different alignments, and the whole "You can tell the same stories you could tell in PF1" thing we were allegedly told. If I can't play a neutral cleric of Urgathoa, then I flat-out can't tell the same story.
Firstly, I believe they said 'the same kind of stories' rather than 'the same stories' which is an important difference. Secondly...does the story really require them to be a Neutral Cleric? A NE Cleric or, say, a N Divine Sorcerer (or Oracle, once those are out) in PF2 with a dedication to or relationship with Urgathoa might easily allow more or less the exact same story in every way but words on the character sheet (which were always gonna be different because, well, different Edition). Heck, the Demonic Bloodline even gives you a power named 'Glutton's Bite'...saying it represents being blessed by Urgathoa is not a stretch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Pathfinder has a huge number of evil deities, but gods whose second alignment component is neutral are fairly rare. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to recontextualize some of those "non-evil PF1 clerics of *really* evil deities" characters as instead followers of some neutral deity whose portfolio clings more closely to the theme of the character?
Like we can replace our "I'm not evil, really" Asmodeans with somebody who is a god of contracts without all the torture, slavery, and damnation baggage. Like Asmodeus clearly does not value fairness and transparency, but perhaps an LN god of contracts would.
Like there's room for a lot of *N gods who are focused on a specific area or task who simply want it to be done well and to promote more people doing it, and have no particular interest in twisting it for good or evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, Asmodeus really seems like the 'Jerk Genie' who would hide stuff like the whole skit in Hitchiker's Guide where the announcement that his house was being bulldozed was hidden in the basement and behind a door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'
Also it could be said that there don't need to be deities for everything.
Like having a deity of the sun and crops, but now we need one for sun and one for crops too.
Or if we have a good sun deity but we need a neutral one or whatever.
Sometimes it can get to be too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want is something like the neutral equivalent of Empyreal lords. If we can have one of those for "surviving in the cold"(Tolc) or "relaxing in the shade" (Lalaci) or "the idealism of youth" ( Lythertida) then we can have a neutral being of equivalent power whose province is hospitality, or keeping one's promises, or parties resolving their conflict through mutually agreeable diplomacy, or "mutually beneficial exchange."
Like Calistria and Shelyn being around don't mean that we shouldn't have Arshea, since they are all sufficiently different. I mean, we have an Empyreal lord of "sports" (Marishi) even though Kurgess would probably have been sufficient.
So give me my LN deity of contracts and my N deity of preparing and enjoying food. Like there's no reason there shouldn't be as many divine sources with 4 domains who live in Axis or the Malestrom as there are in Hell or Elysium. So let's hear about a few of them, particularly if this can help replace neutral characters engaging in apologia for truly evil beings, which honestly never really sat right with me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. So the answer from the forums is, apparently, that I'm a filthy power-gamer* for wanting to worship the deity that I'm interested in, and that I should just pick a different one - because they're all interchangeable, am I right? - or just suck it up and accept that my character preferences from the existing setting aren't as valid as everyone else's.
Sweet.
For the record, this is not what I, at least, intended to say at all. I was just saying that you could make the same character thematically, with only a bit of a mechanical change.
|
Contributor
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, sorry about that. It's been a rough week.
I'm just really upset about losing some of my favorite character concepts, especially when the restrictions appear to be applied without internal logic or regard for existing canon. Like, Urgathoa explicitly had cults focused on less evil aspects like indulgence. Meanwhile, Abadar, the "poor people deserve to die in agony rather than receive resources that will just go to waste" deity, gets a complete pass and all the paladins he wants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh I kinda feel ya, as a person that has in the past played perfectly valid CE characters in a good group and playing well with the group (admittedly there were no paladins) the fact that my current GM won’t let me touch the evil deities, or even the alignments, with a 10ft pole rubs me the wrong way sometimes. All the possibilities and lore wasted for npc bad guys only...
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for concepts... the problem is that they're still not the same. A sorcerer's power is inborn, which is thematically very different from a cleric's power through prayer. In addition, ability scores and options do affect how a character's story is told. A sorcerer's focus on Charisma, the skills they can acquire or master, these are different from a cleric's wisdom and skill options. And Pathfinder Second Edition's math is too unforgiving (at least based on my experience with the playtest) to play one class with the skills and numbers of another.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's a thing-
I am uncomfortable with having Asmodeans or Urgathoans etc. who are true believers at my tables.
Since invariably that character is going to be called upon to defend something like slavery, or cannibalism, or torture, or spreading disease since those are things those deities are really big into. It's probably fine for an LN Cheliaxian who disapproves of human sacrifice be an Asmodean, but if you're the sort of person who is receiving divine power from him it feels like you should have had to at least attend the human sacrifices if not perform them, which means you shouldn't be neutral anymore.
So what I want most is for a way to play those sorts of characters like "I am legalistic to a pathological degree" or "I am an inveterate hedonist" without all the baggage.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh I kinda feel ya, as a person that has in the past played perfectly valid CE characters in a good group and playing well with the group (admittedly there were no paladins) the fact that my current GM won’t let me touch the evil deities with a 10ft pole rubs me the wrong way sometimes. All the possibilities and lore wasted for bad guys only...
Yeah. When the campaign has a rule of "no evil characters", you're cut off from options that you once could reasonably justify. (And I say this as someone who does get a little nervous about evil characters in the party.)
To say nothing of PFS (which has admittedly had its share of issues with both religious and secular evil-adjacent characters). As someone whose only opportunity to play for the past few years has been PFS (since I otherwise have to GM), it's a noticeable (if potentially necessary) loss.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's a thing-
I am uncomfortable with having Asmodeans or Urgathoans etc. who are true believers at my tables.
Since invariably that character is going to be called upon to defend something like slavery, or cannibalism, or torture, or spreading disease since those are things those deities are really big into. It's probably fine for an LN Cheliaxian who disapproves of human sacrifice be an Asmodean, but if you're the sort of person who is receiving divine power from him it feels like you should have had to at least attend the human sacrifices if not perform them, which means you shouldn't be neutral anymore.
So what I want most is for a way to play those sorts of characters like "I am legalistic to a pathological degree" or "I am an inveterate hedonist" without all the baggage.
I can dig that. Especially in Asmodeus's case. And my least favorite part of Urgathoan stuff is the hyperfocus on undead and plague. (Though I won't deny that it's a major part of her thing.)
Sadly, we don't really have a good secondary option for "dark deity of hedonistic excess". :/
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other issues I’ve had with PF deities include Abadar, who frankly often seems as bad or worse than many evil deities (though that could just be my personal morality shining through), and Lamashtu being the only real fertility deity bothers me a lot as well. Fertility deities are a very common thing in pantheons. You can argue that others share it a bit but the fact that she’s the only one where that’s the major deal is kinda horrible.
Pharasma has birth but it is both not the same as fertility and like the 3rd or 4th thing down on her list.