Could the Gods use an update?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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?


Delightful wrote:
Paizo's done if before. Remember when Erastil was a chauvinist?

Don't forget Zyphus being the patron god of abortions.


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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the anathemas have become a lot more restrictive as well.

Erastil, Sarenrae, and Torag now have "Lie" as anathemas. Most GMs will hopefully let you get away with some if it ultimately helps some of their edicts, but it's going to be like playing a less strict vow of truth monk. (I'm kind of upset about this)

I'm also not sure how Paladins of Torag are even supposed to function now. Since Torag has "show mercy to the enemies of your people" as an anathema, which seems to be in direct contradiction to the Paladin code (as there must be "innocent" enemies of your people out there). I know the higher tenets take priority, but you're also supposed to lose your deity's favor if you commit their anathema too much.

Abadar now prohibits stealing and undermining a law-abiding court, and Pharasma prohibits tomb robbing. So lots of PFS scenarios are out for Clerics of those deities. As well as certain adventure paths

With Gozreh's "bring civilization to intrude on the wild" anathema, all of Kingmaker is out.

Gorum's "prevent conflict through negotiation" anethma will probably make his Clerics unwelcome/possibly banned in PFS.

Iomedae's "Refuse a challenge from an equal" and Calistra's "let a slight go unanswered" are going to make some PFS scenarios.... Interesting. (Lord help Clerics of Calistra when faced with Drendle Dreng or Grandmaster Torch).

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

Wrath of the Righteous:
If I recall, it's assumed that the PCs will flee from Baphomet's approach after dealing with the Herald. While you have to fight Deskari, the assumption is that he still has a "free life", and killing him simply sends him back to the Rasping Rifts to cower for a year.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.
Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

Spoiler:
I mean, we killed Baphomet every time he showed up until he stopped doing that because he didn't exist anymore, because we promised Alderpash we would, and secured a promise of "would seek redemption" in return, and who doesn't want to redeem a former runelord who is now a lich? We figured that scores super-high on the "degree of difficulty" for heroism.

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some prior efforts in this vein...


Yeah No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
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?)

Liberty's Edge

Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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...

Dark Archive

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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Wasn't Erastil thing essentially a communication error? So that is more of correction than retcon.

That's always the impression I got, yeah.

CorvusMask wrote:
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.

CorvusMask wrote:
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.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
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."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:


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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:


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'

Dark Archive

My own table's official stance on Folca is "He got offscreened by RotR party after they became mythic" xD

(but yeah, I can't think of any NPCs that became non canon upon 2e either)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phillip Gastone wrote:
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.

Phillip Gastone wrote:
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).

Phillip Gastone wrote:
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.

Phillip Gastone wrote:
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.

Phillip Gastone wrote:
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.

Phillip Gastone wrote:
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.
Phillip Gastone wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

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


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
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.

Can't you? I mean it might take awhile but did you do anything in your campaign that would disqualify you from having NE written on your sheet over N?


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.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phillip Gastone wrote:
@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.

Kalindlara wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
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.

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.

Dark Archive

I mean, I guess you could play as neutral cleric of Urgathoa who is purely into the hedonistic aspect, but Urgathoa IS illegal deity in majority of countries :P So neutral non heretic cleric is still kinda illogical


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.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

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.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

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...

Sovereign Court

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

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.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Raylyeh wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

Frankly at this point there's enough divine yahoos floating around with largely overlapping purview that the entire premise seems mostly solved to me. I mean, Abadar alone covers the whole "iron-clad belief in the law/Judge Dredd" schtick without the whole "is literally the devil" baggage weighing him down and I'm sure you there's a handful of non-d(a)emonic hedonist deities ready to party that won't be unleashing ghoul plagues or being a registered sex offender or the like.

Frankly I approve of deities tightening the leash on their clerics so there isn't as much total dissonance running around like say the CN Rovagug/Lamasthu priests of yore looking for edge points.

Sovereign Court

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

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". :/

Sovereign Court

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

Do you have a list of these hedonist deities? Honest question. I can't think of any but MAYBE Thisamet.


Hasn't been something I ever bothered to research since if I wanted to play a total hedonist I'd skip over to Black Crusade. It's more a calculated guess on my part since Golarion's cosmology in general is so bloated there's a fair bit of redundancy in overall purviews.

And even if there's not specifically a N/G hedonism god, I'll eat a hat if there isn't anything that checks off the close enough box kind of like how Abadar isn't explicitly a god of contracts but he covers basically enough to count as one.


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.

1 to 50 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Could the Gods use an update? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.