| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is focusing on only one of Gorums' anathema. What about the others? No killing prisoners or those surrendering and you can not use underhanded tactics. That seems anti-evil pro-good to me. What good worshiper wouldn't be ok with that. Most evil wouldn't be too happy, especially CE.
Add in the fact his edict is win through fair combat. He might be looking for a fight but he seems a lot more pleasant about it and in 1e you weren't allowed to harm innocents at all. That's super good.
But assuming he is just combat hungry for combats sake he should be true neutral like Nethys. Who is magic for magic sake.
That is missing some key context, though. He is a good of strength. He doesn't kill prisoners and the defenseless because there is no sport in it. Underhanded tactics or for the weak. There is no altruistic intentions. Just the valuing of strength and skill.
We all just ignored the part where someone said vegans were like an insane priest trying to bring about the end of the world, huh? :P
|
The thread was 2 months dead when you posted in it, that’s a necro.
And CE people wouldn’t worship him? What?
He’s violence for the sake of violence, he wants peace talks sabotaged. CE peeps love him. CE people can have rules and codes, they’re not mindless nor stupid.
CG people less so, they don’t do violence for the sake of violence, there’s a reason for the violence. They don’t start wars for giggles. Not for Gorum. To him, violence is the reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't disagree with you Rysky, I can see the point that a CE character that plays by Gorum's rules starts to feel a little less CE.
TBH I think you could make a better argument for NE gorumites than you could CG ones.
Hey a necro.
Those "pro-good" parts is why Gorum is CN, not CE.
Magic and Violence are two completely different things, you can do limitless things with magic. Violence for the sake of violence? Not so much.
hmmm, well I could see a follower of Gorum trying to enforce laws of war, which i think would be CG. idk, i'm with that guy earlier, if you can't have CG followers you probably shouldn't allow CE ones either.
|
|
Trying to enforce laws and the emphasis on that is a Lawful aspect.
Trying to only have "good" wars makes you a heretical follower of Gorum since he doesn't care why the war is happening or what's being fought for.
CG and CE are completely different things, it's not the Chaos part that's barred it's the morality. Violence for the sake of violence is not good.
A CG person would probably be wanting to stop wars more often than not while a CE person would revel in it.
Thinking about it, I feel like Gorum would work better as an N deity with LN, N, CN and NE followers.
Just as CG isn't really supportive of violence for its own sake, the emphasis on some modicum of honor in combat is kind of at odds with the basic tenants of unrestrained chaotic evil (not to say you couldn't make the concept work, but it's a borderline one). NE has more flexibility inside it and I can imagine an LN mercenary or gladiator type character venerating those aspects of Gorum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of more restriction in the name of "that's who Gorum is" setting-building. I understand it, but don't like it.
Flexibility and wiggle-room opens doors to enjoyable, playable, fun concepts at our tables and the moment the CRB says "these are the alignments allowed", the doors close. Sure, you can petition a GM for variance, but you've got to expect a "no" on the basis that the GM will look at the book and say "Paizo indicates this shouldn't happen".
I played a highly enjoyable CG cleric of Gorum for Mummy's Mask. He was argumentative, passive-aggressive, stubborn, and immensely fun at the table. The only real deviation was that he was moderately selective in the fights he'd start while Gorum is more indiscriminate. But by making that slight deviation, a whole spectrum of conflict-based roleplay opened up in a playable fashion.
I am deeply appreciative that I got to play him before he was retconned into impossibility.
I am deeply appreciative that I got to play him before he was retconned into impossibility.
You just saying that because am holding sister hostage. Her call it dating but you know same difference.
We all just ignored the part where someone said vegans were like an insane priest trying to bring about the end of the world, huh? :P
Yep... ;)
Flexibility and wiggle-room opens doors to enjoyable, playable, fun concepts at our tables and the moment the CRB says "these are the alignments allowed", the doors close. Sure, you can petition a GM for variance, but you've got to expect a "no" on the basis that the GM will look at the book and say "Paizo indicates this shouldn't happen".
Well, what if we just did heretical or idiosyncratic clerics who nonetheless get powers from the god as a class achetype?
It seems reasonable to do it this way since this says "the overwhelming number of clerics of [whomever] are [these alignments]" while allowing the possibility of some different ones to be rare or unusual.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flexibility and wiggle-room opens doors to enjoyable, playable, fun concepts at our tables and the moment the CRB says "these are the alignments allowed", the doors close. Sure, you can petition a GM for variance, but you've got to expect a "no" on the basis that the GM will look at the book and say "Paizo indicates this shouldn't happen".Well, what if we just did heretical or idiosyncratic clerics who nonetheless get powers from the god as a class achetype?
If it was in print and not supremely costly, I'd be totally okay with that.
The idea being that if a player has a concept which follows the spirit of a deity without necessarily adhering to a laser-focused intent Paizo has, they could use such an archetype. Disallow it for PFS and that'd be fine. Basically something that says to a DM "some deviation is okay". I'm not suggesting CG clerics of Asmodeus or something over-the-top like a even-tempered or rational paladin of Iomedae.
It seems reasonable to do it this way since this says "the overwhelming number of clerics of [whomever] are [these alignments]" while allowing the possibility of some different ones to be rare or unusual.
Sure. I just feel that it's important to put this in print, because there's been this shift with PF2 to default-deny. Moving to narrow the allowed cleric alignments suggests to DMs that they should deny the-way-it-was. If there was at least an archetype that shows that flexibility is rare but existent, that'd make petitioning a DM viable.
Frankly the more ways for a player to be inspired by the setting in a playable fashion, the better.