|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I know that I'm not commenting on players at all, just the metaphysics of the game world.
I think one of the things that clouds the issue is that many people conflate "worships" with "can be a cleric of" despite those being two fundamentally different things. Lip service isn't enough; you have to truly understand your deity and willingly execute their will to channel their divine power.
For example, you can be a lawful good worshiper of Asmodeus who was raised in a Chelish fishing village where everyone is taught that Asmodeus is the harsh but fair Lord of Law and his divine order protects all of Cheliax. But if you believe that, you don't actually understand Asmodeus's true nature and so you aren't able to channel his divine power. If you truly understand who Asmodeus is, pay homage to him, and channel his divine power through spells to make his will manifest upon the world, then you are a willing agent of evil and whatever excuses you might make regarding your personal motivations don't change the fact that you have sided with the forces of evil and welcomed them to set up shop in your soul; you are evil. Note that certain (1st edition) groups like the Order of the Godclaw already have "failsafes" built into their canon about how a goodly adherent of the Godclaw might pay homage to Asmodeus but one of the other deities is actually granting their spells; this idea of compatibility between mortal souls and the gods they worship has existed for some time.
This isn't even necessarily a retcon; the rules have always said that performing evil acts will shift your alignment towards evil, but those rules were left intentionally vague and up to GM adjudication. Now the powers that be are saying "Yeah,the kinds of things you have to do and believe that lead Asmodeus to grant you spells are evil, and it's not possible to participate in that kind of evil without being a part of it. Worshipping Asmodeus genuinely and with full understanding of who and what he is constitutes an evil act and doing it enough that he grants you spells means your alignment is evil."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have a list of these hedonist deities? Honest question. I can't think of any but MAYBE Thisamet.
Well, Calistria and Cayden Cailean both have quite hedonistic faiths, if a bit focused on particular pleasures. As do Arshea, Hathor, Bastet, and, as you mention, Thisamet. Sinashakti also looks plausible, as a deity of joy. Desna and Shelyn, while not exactly 'deities of hedonism' are also pretty solid choices for a hedonist (albeit one with some ethics), as are, quite frankly, most of the CG Gods.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if we can't lessen some of the conceptual pressure here once we bring the oracle back. While the oracle does in part serve to fill the role of like a divine caster from societies that worship their ancestors, for example, it also works if a deity is empowering oracles for plausible deniability reasons.
Since oracles are not (or at least should not be) bound by an Anathema, Asmodeus could curse an oracle with the legalistic curse and that person could be a silver-tongued master of contracts, but they could draw the line at torture, slavery, and human sacrifice. Since empowering an oracle isn't contingent on service, Asmodeus would just be betting that if we give this person a certain type of power and put a certain curse on them that whatever they did with it would serve Asmodeus's goals. An oracle is able to draw personal boundaries in a way a cleric isn't really.
I mean, having a high charisma kind of makes more sense for a dark hedonist or a silver-tongued devil* than having a high wisdom.
*metaphorical devil.
While we're at it...
Is Erastil the only "hearth" deity in the setting?
Does anyone cover cooking?
Any good-aligned fertility deities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While we're at it...
Is Erastil the only "hearth" deity in the setting?
Does anyone cover cooking?
Any good-aligned fertility deities?
Erestil (crops and farm animals specifically) he also has a thing for communities and families. Then there is Shelyn kinda but those 2 are even more of a stretch than Pharasma.
As far as hearth deities I think Erastil is it. Though I’ll admit that I’m not the most knowledgeable source on the PF deities, particularly the more obscure deities. If their versions of the ancient Egyptian deities follow the originals you can add some of them. Though that also depends on which deities of that pantheon they crossed over. There are a lot of them and their possible domains could change depending on the specific time and area in Egypt. It’s complicated...
I wonder if we can't lessen some of the conceptual pressure here once we bring the oracle back. While the oracle does in part serve to fill the role of like a divine caster from societies that worship their ancestors, for example, it also works if a deity is empowering oracles for plausible deniability reasons.
Since oracles are not (or at least should not be) bound by an Anathema, Asmodeus could curse an oracle with the legalistic curse and that person could be a silver-tongued master of contracts, but they could draw the line at torture, slavery, and human sacrifice. Since empowering an oracle isn't contingent on service, Asmodeus would just be betting that if we give this person a certain type of power and put a certain curse on them that whatever they did with it would serve Asmodeus's goals. An oracle is able to draw personal boundaries in a way a cleric isn't really.
I mean, having a high charisma kind of makes more sense for a dark hedonist or a silver-tongued devil* than having a high wisdom.
*metaphorical devil.
Don't we already have the P2E Oracle in the form of a Sorcerer using the Divine spell list? And following up that question, what's the point of the Oracle not having to put up with an Anathema if he has to contend with a Curse instead?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having more than just Lamashtu as a fertility deity would be good, and more realistic, but would that make the setting more interesting? This is kind of a balance in world building as adding a deity isn't just "and here is Bob the fertility deity who helps men & women become fertile, he's NG" and leave it at that is kinda lame. How did he become a deity? What else does he have perview over? What are his anethema? A good fertility deity would definitely be anti-abortion as that kind of defeats the purpose of becoming fertile in the first place, and seeing how PC paizo is in general, they probably won't do this. Also, being realistic, there would be deities that do what we consider horrible things, but their followers consider good. See Molech for a real world example of a god people worshipped that is evil by our standards (unless you are ok with burning children alive), but good and celebrated by their worshippers.
World building is hard, and while I don't agree with all of the decisions paizo has made they have a pretty decent pantheon. I would appreciate some more neutral options and some interesting good options, if less powerful. Also, restricting clerics to alignments makes sense in a world where good and evil are nearly tangible entities. Saying you are good while the god you worship calls for human sacrifice is saying that human sacrifice is good, or that you don't understand/believe all your deities tenants. By restricting this, it makes the starkness more real and understandable.
Ok, you can start the hate against me now.
While we're at it...
Is Erastil the only "hearth" deity in the setting?
Does anyone cover cooking?
Any good-aligned fertility deities?
The halflings have that covered as well as the dwarves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't we already have the P2E Oracle in the form of a Sorcerer using the Divine spell list? And following up that question, what's the point of the Oracle not having to put up with an Anathema if he has to contend with a Curse instead?
It's extremely likely the Oracle will come back (it was the 2nd most popular non-core class in PF1- after the alchemist) and a divine sorcerer wouldn't keep the oracle from existing any more than the occult sorcerer would keep the bard from existing; all of these things are sufficiently thematically different even if they are mechanically similar. Anyway in setting lore they use oracles and shamans to represent cultures where religion is different from the "listen to a priest about a god" model (which is why there are so many oracles in Tian Xia).
Plus an anathema is different from a curse in that an anathema is a set of restrictions where if you violate them then your powers are withheld until you make good. A curse is simply a problem you've got to deal with.
Like a Cleric of Asmodeus will lose their powers if they free a slave, break a contract, or insult Asmodeus; whereas an Oracle which was empowered by Asmodeus and cursed to be legalistic will become physically ill if they tell a lie, but can free every slave in Avistan and burn down temples of Asmodeus willy-nilly without fear of losing their powers.
I like to think of it as Oracles who are empowered by gods being hooked up to some fundamental truth of the universe mortals are not meant to know, which messes you up. A certain amount of tinkering can be done to adjust which fundamental truth and how it damages you, but whatever being empowers you is basically just hoping that what you do with it is going to be in their best interest (mysterious ways and all that.) If it turns out you don't do what they wanted at all, it's not like they can unhook you from said fundamental truth.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good fertility deity would definitely be anti-abortion as that kind of defeats the purpose of becoming fertile in the first place, and seeing how PC paizo is in general, they probably won't do this.
This doesn't actually follow at all. A fertility deity could be anti-abortion, but nothing remotely necessitates that. Fertility doesn't have to be strictly about unchecked and unrestricted growth, after all. It's very possible to have a LG fertility deity who is all about careful and planned cultivation, both of crops and of families, and that attitude in no way necessitates being anti-abortion (quite the opposite, if anything). And that's only one possible example.
Also, being realistic, there would be deities that do what we consider horrible things, but their followers consider good. See Molech for a real world example of a god people worshipped that is evil by our standards (unless you are ok with burning children alive), but good and celebrated by their worshippers.
Such deities absolutely exist in Golarion. They're Evil. Their followers don't always think that they're 'wrong' or 'Evil', mind you, but that's what they are. That's how living in a world with objective moral rules works.
Having more than just Lamashtu as a fertility deity would be good, and more realistic, but would that make the setting more interesting?
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fertility deity could be anti-abortion, but nothing remotely necessitates that. Fertility doesn't have to be strictly about unchecked and unrestricted growth, after all. It's very possible to have a LG fertility deity who is all about careful and planned cultivation, both of crops and of families, and that attitude in no way necessitates being anti-abortion (quite the opposite, if anything). And that's only one possible example.
While I can agree on your other point, as it's kind of semantics, this one I don't. Chopping down a tree just because you didn't plan on having it grow there isn't really the same as planting a tree and then later deciding it's not where you want it. Preventing a child being born is really easy: don't have sex. Planting a tree in a spot or having sex both have natural consequences. I'm not equating children to trees, but if you don't want to grow anything in the field, don't plant anything there. A deity of fertility and growth - unchecked or not - would be against abortion. Imo a deity against unchecked growth would have spells to prevent a seed from taking root in the first place, instead of burning the field down.
(Edit: killing people is always an evil act, imo, even if that person doesn't have a choice to say as much (in fact, doubly so for the voiceless))
Having more than just Lamashtu as a fertility deity would be good, and more realistic, but would that make the setting more interesting?Yes.
I agree it can, it's just the meat of my post was meant to be taken as "it's hard to do right" not "it shouldn't be done". Would I like to see it? Yes!!!! Would it be easy? Probably not...
It feels like it is is keeping with "good" for a hypothetical good deity which wants to promote growth would only want people to grow the crops, keep the livestock, and have the children that they are capable of nuturing appropriately. Viewing that it is preferable to have fewer children than allow even one to be mistreated seems consistent with "good" and "fertility god."
A fertility deity could be anti-abortion, but nothing remotely necessitates that. Fertility doesn't have to be strictly about unchecked and unrestricted growth, after all. It's very possible to have a LG fertility deity who is all about careful and planned cultivation, both of crops and of families, and that attitude in no way necessitates being anti-abortion (quite the opposite, if anything). And that's only one possible example.
While I can agree on your other point, as it's kind of semantics, this one I don't. Chopping down a tree just because you didn't plan on having it grow there isn't really the same as planting a tree and then later deciding it's not where you want it. Preventing a child being born is really easy: don't have sex. Planting a tree in a spot or having sex both have natural consequences. I'm not equating children to trees, but if you don't want to grow anything in the field, don't plant anything there. A deity of fertility and growth - unchecked or not - would be against abortion. Imo a deity against unchecked growth would have spells to prevent a seed from taking root in the first place, instead of burning the field down.
(Edit: killing people is always an evil act, imo, even if that person doesn't have a choice to say as much (in fact, doubly so for the voiceless))
Actually, things can wind up growing in fields regardless of whether you personally plant anything there. And there's plenty of ways to have sex without having children-- Golarion has herbal equivalents of both a male and female birth control pill.
I'm not really sure that these semantics are relevant to your point, but I'm not really sure what this to do with theoretical Pathfinder fertility deities. I am starting to suspect based on your edit that this is more of just you voicing your feelings on abortion than being relevant to fantasy role-playing games. Edit: If I'm right about that, I think it is worth pointing out that Golarion doesn't function on real world principles of how souls work, whatever your belief on that may be. And that while Paizo has never said precisely when someone gets their soul on Golarion and probably never will, there's at least one named NG NPC who performs abortions. So it doesn't seem likely that in the fantasy objective morality of Golarion that you are correct.
Sorry Deadmanwalking, Captain Morgan & anybody else, it's late and I'm posting without thinking how bad it will derail fun RPG discussions. While there are a few other arguments for my stance of "no good deity would allow abortions" it will take a lot more energy than I have to give. It basically boils down to when a person is imparted with a soul (which a careful reading of the beginning of this thread so will give a good answer). So I'm bowing out. We can have this discussion IRL if any of us meet.
Back on topic, I think a few more "deities for the people" would be good overall for the fun of the game, even if they were smaller. Fertility deities, weather deities, money deities, weather money can help me show my fertility deities... All that. There were gods that had temple prostitutes (both male and female) IRL that were all about giving into your pleasures (historically they went much further than the laws would allow one to go today, and for good reason, but why not have a deity that allows all 18+ relationships?)
Anyway, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night!!
I agree it can, it's just the meat of my post was meant to be taken as "it's hard to do right" not "it shouldn't be done". Would I like to see it? Yes!!!! Would it be easy? Probably not...
I kinda toss it up there with current lunar deities as "something for anyone passing the Test of the Starstone in your game to be"
Contributor
|
Do you have a list of these hedonist deities? Honest question. I can't think of any but MAYBE Thisamet.Well, Calistria and Cayden Cailean both have quite hedonistic faiths, if a bit focused on particular pleasures. As do Arshea, Hathor, Bastet, and, as you mention, Thisamet. Sinashakti also looks plausible, as a deity of joy. Desna and Shelyn, while not exactly 'deities of hedonism' are also pretty solid choices for a hedonist (albeit one with some ethics), as are, quite frankly, most of the CG Gods.
Hmm. So there's no gray area here, it seems - if you're into pleasure you're either baby-eating evil, sugar-and-spice good, or I guess Calistrian/Bastet...an?, and therefore focused on sex. (As a minor quibble, I know Cayden specifically calls out "not indulging to excess" in one or more sources, so he's out.) Admittedly, though, we don't have the Concordance of Rivals yet... though one wonders how long it will take for that material to be updated to Pathfinder Second Edition.
I dunno. I feel like being restricted to chaotic good or maybe neutral good is... kinda not the same story at all? (Or a hedonist of only sex, I guess, but w/e.)
Oh, well. Nobody but me cares anyway. I'm glad everyone else will enjoy the new edition, at least. ^_^
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume 2e will eventually get "heretic", "appeaser" or "seperatist" mechanics eventually for the "non true believers who focus on god's specific aspect" like the Lamashtu's CN midwifes and such.
Maybe... though then what was the point of placing those restrictions in the first place?
Also, if 1e was anything to go by, they'll probably involve trading capability for access. I'm fine with that in and of myself, but having been bitterly criticized at supposedly "fun" events before for not being "good enough", I do have to hope the sacrifice of power won't be too great. :/
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be honest, 99% of time neutral followers of evil deities made as much sense as "I really wasn't aware of all the atrocities, I was just following orders and Making Prussia Great Again" German soldiers of WW2.
There were some exceptions (Norgorber in his deity of thieves aspect, CN loony servants of Lovecraftian mythos). But a Neutral "I'm in here for eating Oreos and sniffing dead glue" worshiper of Urgathoa or a "I just want law and order, I don't really mind the whole impale people on burning pikes for a petty theft part, it's reasonable" servants of Asmo sound just, you know, like an Evil person with crap roll on Bluff or a botched nondetection.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I can agree on your other point, as it's kind of semantics, this one I don't. Chopping down a tree just because you didn't plan on having it grow there isn't really the same as planting a tree and then later deciding it's not where you want it. Preventing a child being born is really easy: don't have sex. Planting a tree in a spot or having sex both have natural consequences. I'm not equating children to trees, but if you don't want to grow anything in the field, don't plant anything there. A deity of fertility and growth - unchecked or not - would be against abortion. Imo a deity against unchecked growth would have spells to prevent a seed from taking root in the first place, instead of burning the field down.A fertility deity could be anti-abortion, but nothing remotely necessitates that. Fertility doesn't have to be strictly about unchecked and unrestricted growth, after all. It's very possible to have a LG fertility deity who is all about careful and planned cultivation, both of crops and of families, and that attitude in no way necessitates being anti-abortion (quite the opposite, if anything). And that's only one possible example.
Weeding is an essential part of agriculture. It is essentially killing unwanted plants that grow in your fields. There is a very direct abortion analogy here, albeit one that some may find distasteful. But killing or removing certain plants from a system because they are problematic is an important part of farming, and saying it's not is simply untrue. The same is true of livestock, actually. Culling herds is common practice.
(Edit: killing people is always an evil act, imo, even if that person doesn't have a choice to say as much (in fact, doubly so for the voiceless))
This is a different argument entirely, and one based on a real world debate we should probably avoid. It's an argument (or, more accurately, assumption that fetuses are people) why Good deities in general would be anti-abortion, not fertility deities specifically. My argument was very specifically that nothing about fertility being their area of interest necessitated being anti-abortion.
The argument that abortion is always unacceptable to Good people is not a good argument to have here and, like you, I'll be bowing out of it after this post. That said, it is canonically specifically untrue in Golarion. We have canonical examples of Good characters on both sides of the abortion debate in Golarion (the midwife in Sandpoint is NG and also performs abortions, while several NG followers of Pharasma, like Imrijka, must be assumed to be anti-abortion).
So, whatever one's personal beliefs on abortion, it's well established that neither side of that argument is clearly and canonically correct in Golarion. Which is probably for the best.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. So there's no gray area here, it seems - if you're into pleasure you're either baby-eating evil, sugar-and-spice good, or I guess Calistrian/Bastet...an?, and therefore focused on sex.
Well, several of those deities accept CN worshipers (both Cayden Cailean and Desna do so in PF2).
(As a minor quibble, I know Cayden specifically calls out "not indulging to excess" in one or more sources, so he's out.)
Actually, this has come up before and that line is not in any actual book I was able to find. It's certainly not in either version of his deity article. It's from a wiki, and appears to be entirely the fruit of some random fan's misinterpretation. Cayden Cailean often got excessively drunk, and is not a hypocrite to ban his followers from doing so.
So it depends on what you mean by 'hedonism'. Cayden Cailean's clergy drink and party very regularly, are generally assumed to enjoy themselves, and explicitly have casual sex often enough that there's a whole structure set up to take care of the children resulting from their one night stands.
Now, full-blown alcoholism is considered inappropriate, and Cayden's followers are expected to take responsibility for their actions (even the ones while drunk), but their actual lifestyle is generally assumed to be super hedonistic.
Admittedly, though, we don't have the Concordance of Rivals yet... though one wonders how long it will take for that material to be updated to Pathfinder Second Edition.
That would certainly be interesting. Neutral deities are admittedly underrepresented.
I dunno. I feel like being restricted to chaotic good or maybe neutral good is... kinda not the same story at all? (Or a hedonist of only sex, I guess, but w/e.)
Well, just being a general hedonist still fits fine with Calistria's followers, for example. The sex is the part with a religious focus, but there's a lot of evidence of general hedonism being culturally part of the faith.
Plus there's the possibility of CN followers of Good deities, as mentioned. Or there's always the N follower of Urgathoa who just isn't a Cleric.
Oh, well. Nobody but me cares anyway. I'm glad everyone else will enjoy the new edition, at least. ^_^
I actually do care about this issue, being a big fan of consistency. I just think it's an issue that can be worked around.
Do we know what Nocticula's portfolio is going to be? She seems like a logical choice for having "non-evil hedonism" be at least part of her thing.
If I remember the AP right, it was suggested to be artists, outcasts, and the glories of midnight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two groups of people that stereotypically trend towards hedonism plus a time of day naturally associated with hedonism, in other words? :P
Actually, this has come up before and that line is not in any actual book I was able to find. It's certainly not in either version of his deity article. It's from a wiki, and appears to be entirely the fruit of some random fan's misinterpretation. Cayden Cailean often got excessively drunk, and is not a hypocrite to ban his followers from doing so.
Speaking as someone who has no use for Cayden- I think it's a line in Inner Sea Gods that tries to walk back his endorsement of binge drinking- something like, "he advocates merry drinking, not drinking to excess" or something along those lines.
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.
"Deserve" is a false concept used by the evil to justify their selfish acts and lust for revenge and for the good to justify meddling and feeling good about making the world an objectively worse place in the long term in return for for short term feelz.
No one deserves anything.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, this has come up before and that line is not in any actual book I was able to find. It's certainly not in either version of his deity article. It's from a wiki, and appears to be entirely the fruit of some random fan's misinterpretation. Cayden Cailean often got excessively drunk, and is not a hypocrite to ban his followers from doing so.Speaking as someone who has no use for Cayden- I think it's a line in Inner Sea Gods that tries to walk back his endorsement of binge drinking- something like, "he advocates merry drinking, not drinking to excess" or something along those lines.
Nope. I actually checked the text. What Inner Sea Gods says is the following (and appears unchanged from his original deity article):
As the god of wine, Cayden's interest is in the merriment and socialization alcohol can facilitate rather than attempting to drown or forget sorrows, and he despises mean drunks or those who allow their drunkenness to hurt innocents.
It's all about him approving certain reasons for drinking (ie: to have fun, not escape problems), and behavior when drunk (ie: no being an a&+&*@$ while drunk). There's no mention of quantity, of how drunk you're allowed to get, whatsoever, and such a restriction really isn't even implied.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Deserve" is a false concept used by the evil to justify their selfish acts and lust for revenge and for the good to justify meddling and feeling good about making the world an objectively worse place in the long term in return for for short term feelz.
No one deserves anything.
Your words reveal your bias, my suspiciously masked friend.
You speak of good and evil as though these are the be-all, end-all, with not the slightest mention of Law.
Does not the criminal deserve punishment for their crime? Does not that which is chaos deserve to be given order? Make not the world black and white; good and evil both may be made tools of entropy, decay, and anarchy - these are the true enemies.
But Law, too, may be twisted to dark ends or abused by the short-sighted - if it is not properly preserved.
This world is too large to be encompassed by any one philosophy, and those trying to sell you a singular description of the way of the things are charlatans.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I missed this bit earlier. Abadar isn't quite this bad, actually. His church doesn't engage in charity, it's true, but he doesn't inherently disapprove of it in others (his deity articles mention priests directing those who can't pay their fees to the Church of Sarenrae, for example), and his clergy aren't actually mystically forbidden to provide charity or anything (ie: he doesn't strip Clerics or Paladins of their powers for such acts).
He's not the nicest deity ever (and being LN, shouldn't be), but he's also not actively against the poor receiving resources or anything like that, and would definitionally support any laws regarding the feeding or housing of the poor at the government's expense. He'd prefer that such help came in the form of jobs with decent wages so they could participate in the economy to the greatest degree possible, mind you, but he'd support other forms that strengthened the society in question as well.
Abadar has many problems (his willingness to abide by unjust laws and support things like slavery leaps to mind), but a particular distaste for the poor is not precisely one of his notable issues. Now, some of his worshipers probably do act like that, but none of the text on Abadar himself indicates anything of the kind.
"Deserve" is a false concept used by the evil to justify their selfish acts and lust for revenge and for the good to justify meddling and feeling good about making the world an objectively worse place in the long term in return for for short term feelz.
No one deserves anything.
I actually strongly disagree. People don't always, or even often, get what they deserve, but most people deserve things like being treated with basic respect, and some people definitely commit crimes deserving of punishment. The difficulty is in figuring out who deserves what...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I quite like that the Golarion gods, much like the Greek gods, are flawed characters. Even the Good gods do not perfectly represent their alignment all the time or in all ways, and that adds to their appeal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I quite like that the Golarion gods, much like the Greek gods, are flawed characters. Even the Good gods do not perfectly represent their alignment all the time or in all ways, and that adds to their appeal.
Definitely agreed, and all the Good Gods have at least one major flaw, to say nothing of the Neutral or Evil ones. I just think that sometimes a God gets an internet reputation for a flaw (or virtue) that the actual writing on that deity doesn't support.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you played the Kingmaker CRPG?
Some of Shelyn's followers have some major issues, and it's not entirely clear if that is from their goddess or misinterpretation of their goddess. "Beauty before reason" would seem to be her occasional flaw, if her followers do get that behavior from her.
EDIT to clarify: Shelyn seems to espouse that the preservation of beauty is more important than any other endeavor, to the extent that her followers seem to believe that beautiful people should preserve that beauty to the exclusion of doing what they actually want to do with their lives. That I would definitely call a flaw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Deserve" is a thing that a society creates via a social contract. Like the reason societies exist is that people decide that trading certain freedoms like "I can burn down whatever I want" in exchange for guarantees like "if my home catches on fire, people will come and put it out."
Which is to say that the reason rich people are able to remain rich without having to, say, employ private armies to protect their stuff, is that they are protected by laws. But when that same system of laws disproportionately protects the powerful and punishes the weak, then you risk a society collapsing into anarchy because not everyone is being served by the social contract. Nonetheless all thinking beings have hopes, thoughts, fears, and dreams and this commonality suggests they should all be accorded the same dignity.
Which is to say that Abadar's refusal to help people or condemn slavery (though he comes around by Starfinder times on *that* at least) does more to promote resentment, revolution, and chaos than anything else. Considering that he *does* come to condemn slavery post-gap I would thing a little bit of a a softening or new of Abadar would be appropriate. Like if Nocticula is cool with her cult of CN Bohemians, it feels like there should be a sect of Abadar's chuch that's into like "reform capitalism" or "social democracy" or something like that. Perhaps just a sect of Abadarans who recognize that "doing what successful people want you to do" is not, in fact, the way to create the most prosperous economy.
Since, as it currently stands, it feels every bit as inappropriate for Abadar to have good clerics as it does for Gorum to have the same. Both espouse hard-line philosophies that appear impossible for a person to follow and remain "good."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just for my curiosity I want to hear what you think Shelyn's big flaw is.
Last I recall, the only thing you can pin on her (that the setting certainly doesn't) is that she's responsible for however many thousand pinhead cultists flaying people alive in their basements for not shanking ZK when she had the chance.
Well, that is one issue, yes. Heck, Zon-kuthon tortured their own father and drove him insane. Shelyn's unwillingness to give up on her brother and actually do something about him even in the face of, well, everything that he's done is debatably a pretty big issue. Of course, maybe she knows more about the thing possessing him than we do and her behavior is driven by more than just love.
There is also, as mentioned, the Kingmaker CRPG thing, though I, too, am inclined to put that down to some people seriously misinterpreting the actual will of their Goddess.
I'd probably argue Shelyn's greatest flaw (aside from the Zon-Kuthon thing, above) as being overly focused on the aesthetic. Beautiful things certainly have value, but I'd argue not as much as she tends to place on them. All that said, she's definitely the deity in the core pantheon with the least severe flaws.
Shelyn may have very well kidnapped Urgathoa's child due to Urgathoa makes overtures to Nadri
I have not and even then I'd hesitate to call that a flaw with the goddess herself and not just a bunch of cultists mucking things up as they are wont to do. Sure you can say it's her fault for not immediately stripping cleric powers (like the various Dawnflower shenanigans from the old days of TN Sarenrae clerics) but that's not the same things as the other gods who either have one huge personal screw up (that is called out as such like Gormuz or the Abyss incident with Desna) or a fairly skeevy practice or two (*waves at Torag*)Have you played the Kingmaker CRPG?
Some of Shelyn's followers have some major issues, and it's not entirely clear if that is from their goddess or misinterpretation of their goddess. "Beauty before reason" would seem to be her occasional flaw, if her followers do get that behavior from her.
EDIT to clarify: Shelyn seems to espouse that the preservation of beauty is more important than any other endeavor, to the extent that her followers seem to believe that beautiful people should preserve that beauty to the exclusion of doing what they actually want to do with their lives. That I would definitely call a flaw.
Shelyn's flaws do seem to be pretty minor. I'm not sure I'd really fault Sarenrae for Gormuz. That was her followers being boneheads and not listening to her. Yeah, she did get cheesed off and whack them, but that seems pretty understandable to me given the circumstances and the repeated warning that they ignored. And Desna's Abyss incident is kind of a point in her favor in my mind. I mean invading the abyss and whacking a demon lord for being an epic jerk? Yeah, it could have caused an interplanar war, but you have to admit, it's pretty badass. She's universally positively portrayed in what I've seen, even her excesses are more awesome than bad like Torag's genocidal tendencies and Erastil being an old fashioned curmudgeon. Iomedae's biggest flaw seems to be that she's just a bit stiff (not counting the problems people had with her portrayal in Wrath of the Righteous as that mostly was the intent not matching the execution). I'm not really as well versed as others though, so it's entirely likely that I'm missing something big. Maybe I'm a bit biased by one of my favorite characters being a Iomedaean inquisitor in a more chaotic good eccentric party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I quite like that the Golarion gods, much like the Greek gods, are flawed characters. Even the Good gods do not perfectly represent their alignment all the time or in all ways, and that adds to their appeal.
Oh yeah. And I like the way that they don't all reside on the plane that matches their alignment. It makes the whole pantheon feel more organic and messy, and showing that there is some serious wiggle room inside of given alignments.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Desna's biggest flaw is probably her general sense of disconnectedness from the world. She's a very distant and aloof deity in many ways, which can be a definite issue. I'm actually a big fan of the (not proven, but well supported) interpretation that she's basically a friendly eldritch abomination. Something utterly alien that just happens to actually like humanoids.
Iomedae's flaws are that, firstly, she just isn't that nice. She's righteous, courageous, and a good person...but nice or interested in the redemption of others? Not so much. And secondly, that she's a bit inflexible about some things.
Sarenrae has a hell of a temper when pushed, and has an unfortunate tendency to give some people a few too many chances before putting her foot down.
Cayden Cailean is overly inclined to vice and recklessness to a pretty staggering degree.
Erastil is extremely inflexible and stuck in his ways, and very focused on the areas he has dominion over, not even attempting to influence or help citydwellers for the most part.
Torag is utterly uninterested in redemption, in a very 'the only good enemy is a dead enemy' way, and quite set in his ways and inclined to 'my way or the highway' stuff almost as much as Erastil.
Oh, and on the hedonism thing, while looking at this stuff, I found the following paragraph in Desna's deity entry:
Desna teaches her followers to indulge their desires, experience all they can, and trust instinct as a guide. Her faithful are often wide-eyed, exuberant people, embracing the world in all its strangeness, and willing to jump in with both feet. Desnans aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, their feet wet, or their knuckles (or faces) bloodied while living life to its fullest. Critics call them hedonists, but that's an exaggeration, as worldly experience, rather than pure sensation, is their true goal.
So perhaps not hedonists in the absolute strictest sense, but they'd mostly fit my own personal definitions of hedonism.
There are a few other evil gods that mention hedonism but I don't think they are relevant to the discussion at hand.
Desna's biggest flaw is probably her general sense of disconnectedness from the world. She's a very distant and aloof deity in many ways, which can be a definite issue. I'm actually a big fan of the (not proven, but well supported) interpretation that she's basically a friendly eldritch abomination. Something utterly alien that just happens to actually like humanoids.
Yeah, I agree with that theory. I'm not sure she's quite that alien in mindset. She's pretty human if a bit exaggerated. Maybe I need to read more, but I thought she was pretty interventionist compared to many other gods. But I do agree that she's a Dark Tapastry creature that just happens to be nice. Like Flumphs, who also worship her (and wear about the same amount of clothing). Also I suspect there is some Mothra inspiration there. Benevolent female space butterfly. Now if she was the main one to take down Rovagug, than that'd be an even more direct Kaiju connection.
Iomedae's flaws are that, firstly, she just isn't that nice. She's righteous, courageous, and a good person...but nice or interested in the redemption of others? Not so much. And secondly, that she's a bit inflexible about some things.
Oh yeah. She's got a job to do and she's focused on that. She doesn't have time for being nice, she's got a war to win. She's intense, which worked really well for my inquisitor. He is too.
Sarenrae has a hell of a temper when pushed, and has an unfortunate tendency to give some people a few too many chances before putting her foot down.
Cayden Cailean is overly inclined to vice and recklessness to a pretty staggering degree.
Erastil is extremely inflexible and stuck in his ways, and very focused on the areas he has dominion over, not even attempting to influence or help citydwellers for the most part.
Torag is utterly uninterested in redemption, in a very 'the only good enemy is a dead enemy' way, and quite set in his ways and inclined to 'my way or the highway' stuff almost as much as Erastil.
Agreed on all of these. Torag's "Kill 'em all!" attitude is the one that really sticks out to me as possibly needing some refinement. Like maybe make it clear that "Enemy of your people" specifically means those actively antagonistic, and isn't a racist "Murder all orcs, even the children!" thing as it often seems to be interpreted to be. The later gets well into Unfortunate Implications land for a good god.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I agree with that theory. I'm not sure she's quite that alien in mindset. She's pretty human if a bit exaggerated. Maybe I need to read more, but I thought she was pretty interventionist compared to many other gods. But I do agree that she's a Dark Tapastry creature that just happens to be nice. Like Flumphs, who also worship her (and wear about the same amount of clothing). Also I suspect there is some Mothra inspiration there. Benevolent female space butterfly. Now if she was the main one to take down Rovagug, than that'd be an even more direct Kaiju connection.
It's hard to tell how alien her mindset is, and it may have become less so over time (she's been hanging around humanoids and their Gods a long while now). And yes, she's decently interventionist...by 'disconnected and aloof' I'm more talking her emotional state/attitude. She's emotionally pretty disconnected from a lot of things...which actually makes, say, the Demon Lord murder incident make more sense, since it involved one of the few people she was actually emotionally invested in.
Oh yeah. She's got a job to do and she's focused on that. She doesn't have time for being nice, she's got a war to win. She's intense, which worked really well for my inquisitor. He is too.
Oh, yeah. Definitely. But it remains a way in which she is imperfectly Good, which is where the flaws were going for gthe most part.
Agreed on all of these. Torag's "Kill 'em all!" attitude is the one that really sticks out to me as possibly needing some refinement. Like maybe make it clear that "Enemy of your people" specifically means those actively antagonistic, and isn't a racist "Murder all orcs, even the children!" thing as it often seems to be interpreted to be. The later gets well into Unfortunate Implications land for a good god.
Definitely something that could use a bit of extra clarification so people's minds don't head down that particular path, yeah.
(his deity articles mention priests directing those who can't pay their fees to the Church of Sarenrae, for example),Here’s the issue with that when you look at it, if there was a Church of Sarenrae nearby wouldn’t people have gone there first?
Maybe, maybe not. I can think of several reasons to go to Abadar's place first (the most obvious being if it's notably larger and the Church of Sarenrae is already busy).
But my point wasn't really about the practicalities of the suggestion, it was the fact that Abadar clearly doesn't flatly object to charity, it's just something his church as a whole does not practice.
As for another updating, PF deities don't have the 'Must have worship thing that others like the Forgotten Realms deities do, so there is less reason for agents or little miracles to happen for non-clergy. The FR deities do on occasion do miracles for non clergy such as making crops grow and giving protection to encourage worship to continue. SO perhaps there being more incentive for non clergy in PR to start praying since most of them have no clue about the whole 'river of souls' or stuff like cosmic balance and getting ground down into cosmic bread flour.
|
|
As for another updating, PF deities don't have the 'Must have worship thing that others like the Forgotten Realms deities do, so there is less reason for agents or little miracles to happen for non-clergy. The FR deities do on occasion do miracles for non clergy such as making crops grow and giving protection to encourage worship to continue. SO perhaps there being more incentive for non clergy in PR to start praying since most of them have no clue about the whole 'river of souls' or stuff like cosmic balance and getting ground down into cosmic bread flour.
Uh...the deities in Golarion all explicitly do minor miracles for their faithful. Indeed, there's a specific entry in all the deity articles on what those miracles look like. Cayden Cailean makes kegs never empty, grants courage to the timid, and other similar things, for example.
But no, the deities of Golarion do not require worship to power them.
I'll also note that very rarely are people 'ground into cosmic bread flour'. That's a theoretical possibility in some ways, but mostly only if you utterly reject the cycle of the world as a concept and would prefer to be dissolved rather than going to another Plane as a petitioner.