Why no CG Champion of Gorum?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

Champions must have one of the alignments of the followers of their deity. Makes sense. Then comes the rider under Deity and Cause that "Your cause must match your alignment exactly". The only alignment options listed are LG (Paladin), NG (Redeemer) and CG (Liberator).

So as a Champion of Gorum the listed alignments are CN and CE, which means they can't select a Cause.

This seems like an oversight to me. Why are there no CG followers of Gorum (but there are CE)? If one wants to be a Champion of Gorum you would miss out on many of the Champion class abilities (reactions and Lay on Hands).

Seems like this could be house-ruled in a home game but Organised play has to use rules as written.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Gorum's anathema includes "prevent conflict through negotiation". It's pretty hard (i.e. probably impossible) to stay on the "good" side of the line if you are prevented from finding a way to resolve conflict other than violence.

Like if you come across two people arguing in the market about the price of fruit, the Gorumite can't do anything except egg them on towards throwing down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno. I think a CG champion could fit into his ethos. "Don't use negotiation to prevent a conflict" just means you shouldn't be the one negotiating. You can push for a fight, and you can even intimidate people into a surrender, but if the rest of your group manage to use negotiation, you're still fine.

You're basically the SWAT team, nominally the good guys who get sent in to kick ass. You're not the hostage negotiator.

Now, you're probably more likely than champions of, say, Desna or Cayden Cailean to go too far and start hurting people for unrighteous reasons. But I say, in your home game, go for it.


Gorum is the god of battle. Philosophically, Gorum sees battle as the only activity of moral virtue. It is believed by some that if at any point, no two forces are in conflict, Gorum will die.

As I understand it, Gorum takes everything he wants to by force, by fair and proud means, and encourages his followers to do the same. To worship Gorum is to accept this behavior.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't think of the SWAT team as the good guys. I think of them as the guys with guns. The people who co-ordinate the SWAT team, who learn what's going on, determine the appropriate amount of force to cause the best possible outcome in a poor situation, and accept liability for their mistakes are the good guys.

Anyone who runs in with a gun, sword, whatever, relying on blind faith that what they do is right and hoping to find a rival to challenge them, is not so much good as a servant of good.

Of course, alignment raises a *lot* of questions and I don't have great answers, but I think that it's commonly accepted in our modern world that war is undesirable, and this translates into our games. Allowing pure war, for the sake of taking stuff, to be objectively Good is the kind of challenge to expectations Paizo may be unwilling to make.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Gorum's anathema includes "prevent conflict through negotiation". It's pretty hard (i.e. probably impossible) to stay on the "good" side of the line if you are prevented from finding a way to resolve conflict other than violence.

Like if you come across two people arguing in the market about the price of fruit, the Gorumite can't do anything except egg them on towards throwing down.

Other options available to a Gorum Champion could be:

. ignore the whole situation and walk away
. decide which cause you support and step in to champion it by force of arms
. intimidate the both of them into going away and stop bothering you.
...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Real world comparisons don't really work because the real world doesn't have the Whispering Tyrant (as much as our politicians may like to convince us otherwise). As with many fantasy settings, Golarion is a world where a follower of Gorum can constantly be wandering around looking for fights and be pretty sure they're combating a Great Evil.

You seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of Gorum's philosophy, Lord_B: he does not value war for the sake of taking people's stuff. He does not value war for the sake of anything. Gorum does not care why you fight, he only cares that you will. He's a neutral deity for a reason, crusaders and tyrants both receive his blessing in the same way that Nethys shows favor to the cleric researching a spell to cure a horrifying curse and the wizard that developed the curse in the first place.

Of course only the specific deity who's entire thing is living on both sides of the binary can be morally complex in the 2E version of the setting.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord_B wrote:

Anyone who runs in with a gun, sword, whatever, relying on blind faith that what they do is right ... is not so much good as a servant of good.

That pretty much describes the majority of Paladins, who are by definition LG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Quote from 1e Gods & Magic that summarizes what I was talking about: "Like the god himself, Gorum’s followers tend to be impulsive, violent, and prone to grabbing whatever they feel like owning; as a result, there are far more evil followers of Gorum than good."

I recognize there's more complexity than this, that Gorum is selfless and honorable in the pursuit of war, that he will not compromise his virtues out of self-interest, etc.

However, the willingness to be used against an evil force doesn't change that you're willing to accept the same virtues and mantras as tyrants. That you couldn't find a less deity out of dozens that would give you comparable tools with a philosophy that actually values humanoid life.

Lantern Lodge

Lord_B wrote:

Quote from 1e Gods & Magic that summarizes what I was talking about: "Like the god himself, Gorum’s followers tend to be impulsive, violent, and prone to grabbing whatever they feel like owning; as a result, there are far more evil followers of Gorum than good."

Well that says right there that CG should be an allowed alignment for followers of Gorum. They aren't in the majority, but they do exist.


They existed in 1e. They no longer exist. The religion is no longer required to be legal by the overreaching any alignment within 1 step of the deity system, and this has allowed the banning of oddities like clerics of Pharasma healing undead and followers of Torag that don't respect the virtues of Lawful rulership.

Sovereign Court

RangerWickett wrote:
... and you can even intimidate people into a surrender, ...

Intimidating people into surrender is just a different variety of conflict prevention. The Gorumite relishes the fight itself, not the outcome. If an enemy looked like it was going to surrender, a Gorumite would do whatever they could to prevent that so the fight could proceed.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Going to keep it simple, it's not a mistake and a lot of people who used to be within one step of their gods in 1e, are not anymore (for people trying to convert some older characters). The list would be too long to go through, almost all deities are affected (some npcs if you use 1e as reference might even need some tweaking).

Gorum doesn't accept CG anymore among his worshipers and that's pretty much it.

PFS is even more unlikely to change that, actually can fairly say, not going to happen unless the devs decide of a lore change in the future.


Doesn’t this literally only apply to clerics with regards to converting characters . Anyone other than clerics and champions can worship any deity they like

Paizo Employee Creative Director

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Thematically, Gorum is not appropriate for champions to worship. He's very strongly chaotic neutral, skewing toward evil. Chaotic good champions aren't really big army soldier types anyway...

...but in the expanded world pantheon I'm sure there's a few chaotic good deities that might work instead. We'll get to those eventually.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
Doesn’t this literally only apply to clerics with regards to converting characters . Anyone other than clerics and champions can worship any deity they like

Of course, just like usual. The within one step rule even in 1e never applied to anybody but people getting divine powers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shade2077 wrote:
Lord_B wrote:

Anyone who runs in with a gun, sword, whatever, relying on blind faith that what they do is right ... is not so much good as a servant of good.

That pretty much describes the majority of Paladins, who are by definition LG.

People enjoying stereotyping the class that way, as Lawful Stupid buffoons or holier-than-thou bullies, but most people I've seen who enjoy roleplaying the class tend to play pretty compassionate and philosophical characters. Usually something along the lines of "gal who stands up for what is right and prefers negotiations and fair rules to violence, but is willing to throw down if necessary." Usually the paladins in my parties are the ones arguing in favor of careful strategy and accepting liability.

Somewhere along the way, Lawful Good became synonymous with "self-righteous hypocrisy" to a lot of players and I'm not sure if its a cultural thing or built into the system in some way I'm not seeing. It's the alignment (and class) that seem to just earn unending scorn from people above and beyond all others.

In any case, Gorum doesn't strike me as someone particularly good. Anyone that conflict obsessed is eventually going to cross a line to get it. It might not be a line that makes you evil, but it's a line that prevents you from being good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Gorum's anathema includes "prevent conflict through negotiation". It's pretty hard (i.e. probably impossible) to stay on the "good" side of the line if you are prevented from finding a way to resolve conflict other than violence.

Like if you come across two people arguing in the market about the price of fruit, the Gorumite can't do anything except egg them on towards throwing down.

Korben Dallas - Champion of Gorum


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As said above, "but chaotic good in the past" doesn't work when it never fit the god well in the first place. It existed from a "one solution fits all problems" mechanic, that didn't thematically work and that has been changed to better suit the world and allow GMs to make diety systems without getting into arguments about god alignments "well the rules say".


Eltacolibre wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
Doesn’t this literally only apply to clerics with regards to converting characters . Anyone other than clerics and champions can worship any deity they like

Of course, just like usual. The within one step rule even in 1e never applied to anybody but people getting divine powers.

Not so much. On page 437 of the 2E CRB, it says:

"Each deity below has their alignment listed in parentheses after their name, followed by a short description of their edicts, anathemas, and the alignments permitted for followers. Following that are benefits available to the most ardent devotees of the deities. You get these benefits only if you're a cleric of the deity or if some other rule specifically gives you a devotee benefit."

This says that the only characters of those alignments are followers of those deities.

The Player Basics – Pathfinder Society (2nd edition) document has the following section for Religion:

"Characters can worship any deity listed in the table of gods on page 437 of the Core Rulebook or any other source listed in Character Options , so long as their alignment matches one of the deity’s listed follower alignments. Champions and clerics must choose a valid deity, though other classes can worship one of the faiths and philosophies presented on page 440 of Core Rulebook or another legal source. Characters can also be agnostic or atheist.

Some characters may revere deities they do not worship. Revering a deity means that your character may do things like wearing the deity’s holy symbol, attending the deity’s religious services, or performing other acts of obeisance that aren’t rewarded with spells or divine powers. For example, many druids revere Gozreh a deity of nature, but their primal magic is granted by Nature itself and does not come from Gozreh. A character may revere as many deities as they wish, but can worship and receive power from only one."

Granted, this is for PFS, but we can infer a similar attitude for Golarion as a whole.

One way to get a similar character from 1E who was a neutral cleric of an evil deity no longer available to neutral characters is 2E, is to choose a Divine Sorcerer bloodline and simply revere said deity. Diabolic for Asmodeus, Demonic for Lamashtu, Undead for Urgathoa, etc. Admitedly, it becomes more difficult to select one for a diety like Gorum, since he's neither diabolic, demonic, nor undead. Angelic is the other divine bloodline, but...he's no angel. He may live in Elysium, but he certainly isn't of it.
The biggest problem I've found with this method, is that there're many divine spells that mention "your deity" and that you can't cast these spells if you don't worship a deity. And remember, revere does not equal worship.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a problem I've come across with this edition, I will say. I loved playing neutral clerics of evil deities. Only one or two allow it now. We'll just houserule it back in for the ones we feel strongly about, but I'll miss it being official. And some of the choices by Paizo strike me as odd.

Urgathoa was known for having gateway cults that mostly focused on non-evil decadence and debauchery (even if we're told most, but pointedly not all of them, did descend into darkness.) No non-evil worshipers of her allowed, though.

Zon-Kuthon? The guy with the giant cathedral that has the chandelier made out of innocent people? Yeah you can be lawful neutral about that. Just mind the weird scalpels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it makes little sense in those two cases, though. In Nidal, you have to worship Zon-Kuthon, it's the law. And they're very serious about the laws in Nidal. So a lot of people worship him even if they themselves aren't evil. It's the law afterall. As for Urgathoa, neutral worshippers are probably hard to find ever since the Whispering Tyrant reemerged. They were either scared off, or fully comitted.

As for Asmodeus...That one I don't get. The Hellknights were always a very lawful group who admired just how lawful Hell was run and tried to imitate it. They didn't care about good/evil/neutrality, they only cared about law and order. But now...


MadMars wrote:

That's a problem I've come across with this edition, I will say. I loved playing neutral clerics of evil deities. Only one or two allow it now. We'll just houserule it back in for the ones we feel strongly about, but I'll miss it being official. And some of the choices by Paizo strike me as odd.

Urgathoa was known for having gateway cults that mostly focused on non-evil decadence and debauchery (even if we're told most, but pointedly not all of them, did descend into darkness.) No non-evil worshipers of her allowed, though.

Zon-Kuthon? The guy with the giant cathedral that has the chandelier made out of innocent people? Yeah you can be lawful neutral about that. Just mind the weird scalpels.

Again though, you can worship just not receive power. So the cultists would likely be lead by true followers who then drag them down into the same evil behaviour, and then the god may end up granting them power.

Other evil gods may not care, but that is kinda up to Paizo to decide or the GMs to houserule. But it doesn't change anything regarding who can worship a god.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
K-kun the Insane wrote:
As for Asmodeus...That one I don't get. The Hellknights were always a very lawful group who admired just how lawful Hell was run and tried to imitate it. They didn't care about good/evil/neutrality, they only cared about law and order. But now...

They're still exactly the same. They model themselves over what they view as the efficiency of Hell.

They never worshiped Asmodeus, they still don't.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RangerWickett wrote:
I dunno. I think a CG champion could fit into his ethos. "Don't use negotiation to prevent a conflict" just means you shouldn't be the one negotiating. You can push for a fight, and you can even intimidate people into a surrender, but if the rest of your group manage to use negotiation, you're still fine.

That feels like too much a side-eye situation to be feasible.

In 1e Gorum had CG followers due to the 1step rule, but there was never anything good in his portfolio. He's not a god of violence for the right reasons or a last resort, he's a god of violence for the sake of violence. That's not good, and not something an actual good person would follow.

It's definitely not something a good person who would be divinely empowered be being devout would follow, or rather, they wouldn't stay Good for long.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, you can still have CG worshipper of Gorum, but they wouldn't be fanatical clerics who actually follow his faith and be more CG warriors casually following parts they like :P

I like the switch to more into "The clerics are true followers of gods and not fair weather worshippers" in 2e where you don't get stuff like CN cleric of Lamashtu outside of special archetypes. (I'm okay with CN appeaser cleric of Lamashtu, but regular non separatist/heretic/appeaser one?)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

In 1e Gorum had CG followers due to the 1step rule, but there was never anything good in his portfolio. He's not a god of violence for the right reasons or a last resort, he's a god of violence for the sake of violence. That's not good, and not something an actual good person would follow.

It's definitely not something a good person who would be divinely empowered be being devout would follow, or rather, they wouldn't stay Good for long.

Maybe it's all coming down to a difference of how we see characters who use divine magic.

You (and the PF2 designers) seem to see it as, "Hi, I'm Gorum. I only give power to people who are super devout."

I've always seen it more as, "Hi, I'm Joe. I know how to use divine magic, and I rather like the militant aspects of Gorum. I promise to uphold your virtues and avoid doing things that displease you. Grant me power so that I might defeat my enemies. You, Gorum, don't care who those enemies are, only that I battle them. Like all the gods, you're too busy and indifferent to pay attention to most of your worshipers. All you care is that we fight."

I always played my gods as saying, "Oh, are you going to do stuff that serves me, and doesn't mess with my plans. Sure, have some power. I don't mind if you adhere perfectly to my ideals. You're pretty close, so that's good for me."

I mean, say you're playing Wrath of the Righteous, and you're constantly fighting demons. Gorum would love that s@#!, even if you're CG.

Now, if you're in Hell's Rebels, and you're sneaking around ambushing Chelaxian folks? Gorum wouldn't approve of that, even if you're CN or CE.

If you're running through Iron Gods, fighting robots, getting cool power armor, pitting yourself against a bunch of namby pamby techno-wizards? Hell yeah, that's awesome. Gorum would applaud you for that fight, and he wouldn't care if you're doing it to try to liberate the people of Numeria from the yoke of the Technic League.

I really don't see how kicking ass for the sake of helping others makes Gorum not want you as a follower. If you want him to hate helping others, make him evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically, clerics have shifted from "open to essentially anyone not outright opposed to the god" to "actual exemplars of their faith".

The gods can (Probably? No rules for it yet, but the edition is new.) still hand out some blessings and help to anyone who seems cool in their eyes, but separating "the god thinks some stuff you do is kinda nice, have a gold star" from "you are a leader of the god's faith" is something I rather like about the new edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MadMars wrote:
I will say. I loved playing neutral clerics of evil deities.

I'm guessing when we expand the roster of deities we will get more of this sort of thing. I think in the CRB we wanted to correct some misconceptions that cropped up in the previous 10 years like "Asmodeus is fine with LN people" or "there's a good side to Gorum" or "Sarenrae doesn't care if you're true neutral."

I mean, Asmodeus is supposed to be a top 2 big bad, which is something we undermine with a bunch of non-evil Asmodeans. Presumably for your "LN, dabbling with Infernal forces" characters Mammon or Mephistopheles will have you covered. Of course, they see you as a sucker to be corrupted, but they have more time for you than Big A does.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it a misconception if a large chunk of the fanbase thought it was canon?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:
Is it a misconception if a large chunk of the fanbase thought it was canon?

Certainly if you are the person with editorial control of the setting, which is based on your homegame setting, then those are the misconceptions most in need of correction.

Dark Archive

Neutral worshipers of evil gods just don't make much sense in most cases because uh, you are still helping evil goals of evil deity. "Oh, I'm not evil, I'm just getting power from evil source for my own goals! Its free power up you know"

Like, they gods aren't source of powers, they are individual powerful persons who have goals they are working toward.

Zon-Kuthon having LN worshipers makes sense because he literally only cares about pain being inflicted and given and not the details.

Asmodeus having LN worshipers makes less sense in terms that LN character wouldn't want to purposely further an evil goal which you do by furthering Asmodeus' goals :P

I don't think people realize one thing: You can have a priest of god that doesn't have cleric class or cleric spells. Also, gods don't hand out their powers to anyone who asks them unless they are Groetus(and his powers make people gravitate towards chaotic by making them mad)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RangerWickett wrote:

Maybe it's all coming down to a difference of how we see characters who use divine magic.

You (and the PF2 designers) seem to see it as, "Hi, I'm Gorum. I only give power to people who are super devout."

That's how gods work in Pathfinder, in both editions.
Quote:
I've always seen it more as, "Hi, I'm Joe. I know how to use divine magic, and I rather like the militant aspects of Gorum. I promise to uphold your virtues and avoid doing things that displease you. Grant me power so that I might defeat my enemies. You, Gorum, don't care who those enemies are, only that I battle them. Like all the gods, you're too busy and indifferent to pay attention to most of your worshipers. All you care is that we fight."

1) If your upholding Gorum's "virtues" then your not gonna stay CG for long. No, "conveniently" looking the other way when your party members try diplomacy isn't gonna fly.

2) The Gods are NOT "too busy and indifferent to attention", that's kinda one of the main things that sets them apart from other beings as gods.

Quote:
I always played my gods as saying, "Oh, are you going to do stuff that serves me, and doesn't mess with my plans. Sure, have some power. I don't mind if you adhere perfectly to my ideals. You're pretty close, so that's good for me."
This honestly depends on the god in question, I can see Nethys and Zun-Kuthon having this mindset, but not all gods.
Quote:
I mean, say you're playing Wrath of the Righteous, and you're constantly fighting demons. Gorum would love that s!#%, even if you're CG.
Yes, he'd love it even if you were LG. You can't devoutly worship him as a LG character though. Either there's something heretical going on in your worship, or you're not gonna stay LG for long.
Quote:
Now, if you're in Hell's Rebels, and you're sneaking around ambushing Chelaxian folks? Gorum wouldn't approve of that, even if you're CN or CE.
Actually he would, Gorum is a god of tactics. He doesn't care for things like poison though.
Quote:
If you're running through Iron Gods, fighting robots, getting cool power armor, pitting yourself against a bunch of namby pamby techno-wizards? Hell yeah, that's awesome. Gorum would applaud you for that fight, and he wouldn't care if you're doing it to try to liberate the people of Numeria from the yoke of the Technic League.
I don't think he has anything against wizards.
Quote:
I really don't see how kicking ass for the sake of helping others makes Gorum not want you as a follower.
Kicking ass for the sake of helping others makes you an outlier, and eventually your Goodness and Devoutness will come into conflict with each other. So you either stop being good, or you stop worshipping Gorum.
Quote:
If you want him to hate helping others, make him evil.

There's an Alignment inbetween Good and Evil. Gorum is indifferent to helping people. Gorum is violence for the sake of violence.

Violence for the sake of violence is not good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
RangerWickett wrote:
You (and the PF2 designers) seem to see it as, "Hi, I'm Gorum. I only give power to people who are super devout."
That's how gods work in Pathfinder, in both editions.

I suppose word of god says it is, but that never showed up in the rulebooks I read or the games I played or ran. Left with a need to fill in the gap of what, say, a CN worshiper of Lamashtu or a true neutral worshiper of Shelyn might look like, groups came up with interesting characters who adhered to the tenets of their faith, as we understood it.

That's why a lot of us are pushing back against this change. It's like we're being told that we were doing it wrong.

Rysky wrote:
Violence for the sake of violence is not good.

And that's not how we saw Gorum. He just wanted you to test yourself, to train, and to deal with your foes through fighting not peacemaking.

Peace isn't necessarily good if the peace is both through suffering.

And if someone isn't your foe, you don't have to fight them, go look for other foes.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RangerWickett wrote:
That's why a lot of us are pushing back against this change. It's like we're being told that we were doing it wrong.
Not you, but Paizo finally being able to ditch a clunky inheritance from 3.5 (I believe some wanted to ditch it when making Pathfinder but it was overruled due to being too drastic at the time) that caused too many issues and negative situations that shouldn’t have existed in the first place, like being able to play a non-evil devout follower of the demon lord of rape. That should have never been an option.
Quote:
Rysky wrote:
Violence for the sake of violence is not good.

And that's not how we saw Gorum. He just wanted you to test yourself, to train, and to deal with your foes through fighting not peacemaking.

Peace isn't necessarily good if the peace is both through suffering.

And if someone isn't your foe, you don't have to fight them, go look for other foes.

If peace exists, Gorum hates it. He and followers try to extend conflicts when they can.

You can not be a devout follower of Gorum, someone who follows his tenets and is divinely empowered by him, and still be a Good person.


Training, bettering yourself and all that is more the purview of other gods.
Gorum is the personification of the act of combat, of War itself. You might be expected to keep getting better at it, but it's not even the most important thing. Actual combat is the only goal.
Even winning only matters insofar as it allows you to keep fighting at some later point.
Looking for ever better opponents is absolutely ok though.

On the other hand, and that's why he's not classified as evil and is not just a Szuriel Clone, he explicitely looks down on what often comes with war : pillaging, slaughtering non-combatants and all that bad stuff is a big no-no, as you are depriving the world of future generations of fighters. Plus, it's a waste of time you could spending fighting actual worthy opponents.

He just stops caring the moment you lay down your arms, until you pick them up again.

Still, I'm disappointed he can't have CG divine followers (while still having CE ones, that is).
With how little he cares what you do in between battles, I don't get why he's more tolerant of evil than good. He was a relevant enough deal in Lastwall after all.

Either hard Neutral only or uncaring enough to allow both good and evil would have suited me more, but I don't write the things.


Rysky, I preferred in 1E when it wasn't that clear cut. I never read Gorum hating peace. He just doesn't care about it.

That said, sure, I don't see many non-evil people praying to Zepar (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Zepar). He's pretty one-dimensional.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nyerkh wrote:
He just stops caring the moment you lay down your arms, until you pick them up again.

I think an orthodox Gorumite would say that you never lay down your arms, you go looking for a bigger fight.

Its the constant escalation of battle that keeps Gorum from being good. Good people have causes. They want to fight to stop fighting someday.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RangerWickett wrote:

Rysky, I preferred in 1E when it wasn't that clear cut. I never read Gorum hating peace. He just doesn't care about it.

That said, sure, I don't see many non-evil people praying to Zepar (https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Zepar). He's pretty one-dimensional.

Well peace would result in him ceasing to exist so he has a very good reason to hate it.

And ugh, I forgot about him. And while Paizo didn’t do official non-Evil characters that worshipped him (has there been CG worshippers of Gorum NPCs?) the option still existed strictly mechanically.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Weirdest one for me in PF1 was the ability to play a CG cleric of Yog-Sothoth. I mean if you wanted to be a cleric of an eldritch abomination who is not unfriendly, Desna is right there and is much friendlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
MadMars wrote:

That's a problem I've come across with this edition, I will say. I loved playing neutral clerics of evil deities. Only one or two allow it now. We'll just houserule it back in for the ones we feel strongly about, but I'll miss it being official. And some of the choices by Paizo strike me as odd.

Urgathoa was known for having gateway cults that mostly focused on non-evil decadence and debauchery (even if we're told most, but pointedly not all of them, did descend into darkness.) No non-evil worshipers of her allowed, though.

Zon-Kuthon? The guy with the giant cathedral that has the chandelier made out of innocent people? Yeah you can be lawful neutral about that. Just mind the weird scalpels.

Again though, you can worship just not receive power. So the cultists would likely be lead by true followers who then drag them down into the same evil behaviour, and then the god may end up granting them power.

Other evil gods may not care, but that is kinda up to Paizo to decide or the GMs to houserule. But it doesn't change anything regarding who can worship a god.

Allow to me clarify in that case. I mean to say that I think evil deities should grant power to non-evil clerics, in the way that many good gods grant power to non-good clerics. There are a few edge cases where it shouldn't be possible, but most of the time it's honestly very believable and even reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Aaren_Gaulder

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Eldia_Vesan

Also, non-spellcaster, but: https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Keyron_Saiville

So nobody who was in an adventure path or anything.

But, well, I figure if Nocticula can go from CE to CN, then why not allow some wiggle room in morality for mortal who worship gods? And it makes it hard for, like, a follower of Desna to be tempted to serve Lamashtu, since they can't overlap as CN. Or for Sarenrae to draw a follower of Norgorber out of the shadows.

Just say, "In PFS games, you cannot worship an evil god or play an evil character." Boom, easy.

Most Gorum worshipers would still be CN.

Anyway, I guess both sides are set in their ways. I'll do it my way in my home games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Weirdest one for me in PF1 was the ability to play a CG cleric of Yog-Sothoth. I mean if you wanted to be a cleric of an eldritch abomination who is not unfriendly, Desna is right there and is much friendlier.

If any sort of entity is uncaring about its followers and merely cares about whether you are pursuing its goals, it'd be elder gods. I'd see a CG cleric of Yog-Sothoth as, y'know, crazy, thinking that he must prepare the world for a great transition that will make it better. He isn't doing it out of a desire for his own power, or to harm anyone.

Day to day, he would want to help alleviate suffering, but he believes that in the long run, the best way to alleviate suffering is to let Yog-Sothoth transmute us all, so that when the Great Old Ones awaken we will be squamous and non-Euclidean, better able to survive the cruelty of those evil gods. So he would seek out quests to open portals and to understand the infinity of time.

I mean, it's not much different than someone claiming everyone should become vegan, and working to end the meat industry.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MadMars wrote:
Zon-Kuthon? The guy with the giant cathedral that has the chandelier made out of innocent people? Yeah you can be lawful neutral about that. Just mind the weird scalpels.

Zon-Kuthon is explicitly almost LN in how he doles out power, if you perform the correct rituals and acknowledge his power, he will empower you, almost like the classic 'cosmic vending machine' concept. He'd willingly empower LG people if the rituals in question weren't so...well, Zon-Kuthon-y, and keeping to his anathema wasn't so difficult for anyone Good (ie: he doesn't object, the nature of his worship just keeps it from happening).


I'm sort of wondering why ZK won't empower CE people? Is it just the nature of the worship again, where people who have trouble coloring in the lines aren't going to be able to maintain the right rituals with appropriate regularity?


I envision ZK's followers as working together, teaching each other the extent of how far they can maim themselves safely, organizing and philosophizing about how to methodically bring about the change they need, to reveal the truth to the world. They accept the need for rules to control people, and they know what they do harms people, and people don't want it, but they just think it's the necessary thing to do.

Chaotic evil folks are out for themselves. Kuthonites are trying to change the world for everyone's sake.


I can definitely see LN aspect of ZK especially as it relates to defining Nidalese civilization as it confronted Age of Darkness.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm sort of wondering why ZK won't empower CE people? Is it just the nature of the worship again, where people who have trouble coloring in the lines aren't going to be able to maintain the right rituals with appropriate regularity?

You have to follow his rituals properly and acknowledge his authority completely. I think that doesn't quite work for Chaotic people.

Quandary wrote:
I can definitely see LN aspect of ZK especially as it relates to defining Nidalese civilization as it confronted Age of Darkness.

There's also his deal with Abadar, where he left the world alone for a very long time simply due to having given his word. That one was self serving, since he got a reward, but he still very much stuck to the deal. Zon-Kuthon is a creature of his word.

Per the Nightglass book, he and his church also value loyalty. To the point where they accept their minions keeping secrets from the church if they do so out of a sense of loyalty.

They're awful in a vast number of ways, but very Lawful in a way that's much less self serving than Asmodeus.


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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do admit, I did like the idea of a CG Gorumite, and imagined one of them doing a wedding:
"You! Will you fight!?"
"-And You! Will you fight!?"
"Will you both fight, together, on the same side, for as long as it is convenient!?"
"Great! You're married! Now let's go get wasted!!"

Then I realized that someone who encouraged self-improvement through constant struggle, even in a non-physical sense, would probably do better in the clergy of Kurgess.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Why no CG Champion of Gorum? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.