| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems pretty clear to me that Popper's argument is "a belief in tolerance does not require us to tolerate (for example) cannibal murderer cults". The reasons for not tolerating cannibal murderer cults being already self-evident.
It's important to differentiate "what a group says about itself" and "what it actually is". If the "widows knitting circle" turns out to be a cannibal murder cult despite not advertising itself as such, we shouldn't tolerate them either!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the clergy would certainly loss spell access, other faithful who don't communicate directly with their goddess, low level hitmen for example, that followed partly because of superstition and faith than tangible benefits wouldn't notice a difference immediately.
A side effect of not having an organized religion would be that changes in orthodoxy wouldn't be spread through the ranks rapidly or easily.Humbly,
Yawar
There could also be plenty of groups of worshippers whose 'priest' is an oracle or druid or adept or even a bard, and don't notice any loss of power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
edit: Also, on the subject on the subject of banning evil gods, yes, I would say it's evil unless their doctrine specifically incites people to commit crime,Which would be most of them, depending on how you define "crime". Evil gods aren't Evil because they're nice and get along with everyone.
So in your opinion it would be Evil to stop followers of the demon lord of rape? That's not a faith you can be devout to and not, ya'know, evil as all f%&!. Your suggestions only apply after the fact, which isn't much use to the victims. Try spinning "I know followers of Socothbenoth have a bad rap but he hasn't raped anyone yet so let's give him a chance".
Ever hear of the Tolerance of Intolerance paradox?
Well given that Paizo's approach to the other demon lord of rape was to paint her purple & call her the redeemer queen, I don't know that "lets give 'em a chance" wouldn't be the good option by those standards.
In seriousness I agree with you, I'm just still salty about that.
|
|
I'd like to point out that Nocticula was demon lord of assassins, prostitutes and drug orgies :p Socoth was out of two the more forceful one.
The only evil god that is directly god of rape is infernal duke Zepar who unlike Folca has never gotten banned being mentioned(still think they should have officially killed Folca)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well given that Paizo's approach to the other demon lord of rape was to paint her purple & call her the redeemer queen, I don't know that "lets give 'em a chance" wouldn't be the good option by those standards.
In seriousness I agree with you, I'm just still salty about that.
Er...this was never really Nocticula's area of power or of interest. Nocticula was the Demon Lord of assassination, shadows, and lust. She was a seducer, certainly, but she primarily seduced rather than forced herself on people. She did have and use mind control powers, but that does not seem to have been her primary schtick when it comes to seduction.
Now, she did many utterly reprehensible things every bit as bad as rape as a Demon Lord...but that's true of all Demon Lords, sort of definitionally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As per Lords of Chaos, Nocticula's worshipers are listed as "assassins, drow, rapists, shadow-using creatures, succubi, whores", where as Socoth's are listed as just "deviant rulers, drow, half-fiends, hedonists", though he also gets less space on the page so they might have been saving on word count.
Now granted that did get white-washed in the official Book of the Damned release but by that point they knew damn well what they were doing & were trying to make it look not as bad.
I'd like to point out that Nocticula was demon lord of assassins, prostitutes and drug orgies :p Socoth was out of two the more forceful one.
The only evil god that is directly god of rape is infernal duke Zepar who unlike Folca has never gotten banned being mentioned(still think they should have officially killed Folca)
Agreed, it would have been much more organic if Folca was killed as part of a demonic power struggle, even if it was unceremoniously in the background lore of some AP.
They still could do it, there is no official lore saying Folca never existed as far as I know.
Humbly,
Yawar
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As per Lords of Chaos, Nocticula's worshipers are listed as "assassins, drow, rapists, shadow-using creatures, succubi, whores", where as Socoth's are listed as just "deviant rulers, drow, half-fiends, hedonists", though he also gets less space on the page so they might have been saving on word count.
Now granted that did get white-washed in the official Book of the Damned release but by that point they knew damn well what they were doing & were trying to make it look not as bad.
To clarify this; I am not saying that Socothbenoth isn't also a patron of rapists, and I do not mean to imply that Nocticula is worse than him, or vis versa. They have a lot over overlapping interests over the issue, even if the specifics of their preferred methods are different.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As per Lords of Chaos, Nocticula's worshipers are listed as "assassins, drow, rapists, shadow-using creatures, succubi, whores", where as Socoth's are listed as just "deviant rulers, drow, half-fiends, hedonists", though he also gets less space on the page so they might have been saving on word count.
Now granted that did get white-washed in the official Book of the Damned release but by that point they knew damn well what they were doing & were trying to make it look not as bad.
Or it may have been removed because it was a legitimate error. Literally none of the rest of her description, modus operandi, or indeed anything else about her portrayal support that, including in the original Book of the Damned: Lords of Chaos. Additionally, even if true, it's a far cry from her being literally the Demon Lord of that behavior.
Now, re-reading Socothbenoth, I'm also convinced he doesn't actually qualify as the 'Demon Lord of rape' either, but Nocticula also definitely doesn't. Both seem more invested in seducing and manipulating people than they are in rape.
Now, given the nature of enchantment magic, the Abyss, the realities of power therein, and Demon Lords in general, I'd say that literally every Demon Lord (at least among those physically capable of the act) is almost certainly guilty of some form of sexual assault...and, with the exception of Lamashtu, probably also a victim of the same. But you have to go pretty far beyond that to literally become the god of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per Lords of Chaos, Nocticula's worshipers are listed as "assassins, drow, rapists, shadow-using creatures, succubi, whores", where as Socoth's are listed as just "deviant rulers, drow, half-fiends, hedonists", though he also gets less space on the page so they might have been saving on word count.
Now granted that did get white-washed in the official Book of the Damned release but by that point they knew damn well what they were doing & were trying to make it look not as bad.
Or it may have been removed because it was a legitimate error. Literally none of the rest of her description, modus operandi, or indeed anything else about her portrayal support that, including in the original Book of the Damned: Lords of Chaos. Additionally, even if true, it's a far cry from her being literally the Demon Lord of that behavior.
Now, re-reading Socothbenoth, I'm also convinced he doesn't actually qualify as the 'Demon Lord of rape' either, but Nocticula also definitely doesn't. Both seem more invested in seducing and manipulating people than they are in rape.
Now, given the nature of enchantment magic, the Abyss, the realities of power therein, and Demon Lords in general, I'd say that literally every Demon Lord (at least among those physically capable of the act) is almost certainly guilty of some form of sexual assault...and, with the exception of Lamashtu, probably also a victim of the same. But you have to go pretty far beyond that to literally become the god of it.
I've drawn different conclusions than you have based on my readings of their entries but I'm finding it difficult to word them in ways that wouldn't involve talking about the subject in more detail than I'd deem in good taste. Suffice to say that say that I would call seduction to be an overly generous descriptor, and one that is almost certainly being used at least somewhat euphemistically in the given context.
Edit: In regards to the possibility of it being a legitimate error, if I'm being entirely frank, I'd call any Paizo writer who claimed such to be a liar. I'd be willing to believe that they later had a change of heart over what her characterization should be and that the initial inclusion didn't fall into it, but that is not the same thing as that initial inclusion being an "error", as I'd define the word, and I'd also have a rather cynical outlook on their motives for recharacterizing her to start with.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the thing you are quoting has been removed from every nocticula description after that and there hasn't been portrayal of her that supports that notion meaning its either error or super early retcon to make her more different from her brother.
And also note that the book that contained daemonic harbinger "torture children" obedience with unnatural lust spell as reward and the previous mentioned rape infernal duke still didn't mention Nocticula covering that area.
Also socoth definitely is about sexual violence :P His infamous worshipper in Magnimar famously poisoned his family with paralyzing poison and its implied he did something extremely messed up afterwards
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the thing you are quoting has been removed from every nocticula description after that and there hasn't been portrayal of her that supports that notion meaning its either error or super early retcon to make her more different from her brother.
And also note that the book that contained daemonic harbinger "torture children" obedience with unnatural lust spell as reward and the previous mentioned rape infernal duke still didn't mention Nocticula covering that area.
Yeah those retcons came after they had already decided she was going to be the redemption story and realized "oh crap we might want to change this particular detail".
I'm very generous when it comes to forgiving and accepting retcons, but I'm not inclined to give them any passes or benefits of any doubts on this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, you can feel as cynical as you want about succubi demon lord being redeemed, but you have to admit that it is possible that its another line like "Paladins of Asmodeus": something a writer included that creative director didn't approve. Being cynical doesn't really mean you are more likely to be right about it.
Granted, its pretty hard to know when they knew Nocticula was being redeemed since I don't know if creative director tells his plans on paizo before they are going to happen :p Moonscar is confusing example because it portrays Nocticula as evil as abyss, but it also comes with implications of her goal being to ascend to godhood, so there is possibility of it being set up there with wrath of the righteous providing the plot twist of her wanting to become non evil deity could actually be real.
(doesn't help that I don't remember how old the redeemer queen cult was in real life since I don't remember what is first source of it, I think it might have been magnimar book maybe? Which again was pretty early book)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, you can feel as cynical as you want about succubi demon lord being redeemed, but you have to admit that it is possible that its another line like "Paladins of Asmodeus": something a writer included that creative director didn't approve. Being cynical doesn't really mean you are more likely to be right about it.
Granted, its pretty hard to know when they knew Nocticula was being redeemed since I don't know if creative director tells his plans on paizo before they are going to happen :p Moonscar is confusing example because it portrays Nocticula as evil as abyss, but it also comes with implications of her goal being to ascend to godhood, so there is possibility of it being set up there with wrath of the righteous providing the plot twist of her wanting to become non evil deity could actually be real.
(doesn't help that I don't remember how old the redeemer queen cult was in real life since I don't remember what is first source of it, I think it might have been magnimar book maybe? Which again was pretty early book)
Lords of Chaos was 2010, City of Monuments - which I believe you're correct was the earliest mention of the redeemer queen cult - was 2012, and Wrath of the Righteous which, the "continuing the campaign" explicitly suggests redeeming Nocticula, was 2013.
If I'm being entirely honest a large part of why I'm salty about this, aside from "demon lord I was introduced to as being the patron of rapists being the redemption story", thing, is that my WotR character killed the hell out of Nocticula and while I never expected that to explicitly be made canon, it still stings.
|
|
Hmm and moonscar which suggested nocticula wanting to ascend to godhood was august 2012... So that would imply that paizo in general knowing about Nocticular redemption thing was in 2012.
Which is... Yeah, either way its impossible to say without devs stating it. Like it could be that they picked the succubi demon lord to be redeemed and then retconned the entry, or it could be that Jacobs had that idea around Nocticula's creation, but didn't share it yet until later.
Though I have to note that being salty about your personal campaign being different from default canon is silly since there are plenty of cases that happening around :p Like not all parties made deal with Azaersi in Ironfangs, plenty of parties had pc become queen of Korvosa or Iomedae's herald and in those cases at least both (party member becoming herald/ruler and Azaersi being killed) are options considered in text iself. Killing Nocticula isn't really provided as option in ap itself until post campaign demon lord hunting idea and the ap itself leans to idea that Nocticula for some reason wants to gain favors with good deities.
(side note though, if you did kill her on the first meeting, then that is another example of how mythic rules in wrath were broken because ap never assumes you are capable of killing nocticular or babhoment when you first meet them xD And even then, Nocticula is CR 30 which should be borderline impossibly hard for what is supposed to be equivalent of level 25 characters(wince mythic tiers are supposed to be "2 equals +1 cr"))
I mean, don't get me wrong, I can understand being miffed when default canon assumes things your game didn't(such as certain redeemable npcs in Rise of the Runelord not being redeemed) because you like your version of canon, but I consider it more of option to have explicit permission for going further off the rails xD In my games none of Vancaskerkins have died yet, so I can do Vancaskerkin family reunion :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm and moonscar which suggested nocticula wanting to ascend to godhood was august 2012... So that would imply that paizo in general knowing about Nocticular redemption thing was in 2012.
Which is... Yeah, either way its impossible to say without devs stating it. Like it could be that they picked the succubi demon lord to be redeemed and then retconned the entry, or it could be that Jacobs had that idea around Nocticula's creation, but didn't share it yet until later.
Though I have to note that being salty about your personal campaign being different from default canon is silly since there are plenty of cases that happening around :p Like not all parties made deal with Azaersi in Ironfangs, plenty of parties had pc become queen of Korvosa or Iomedae's herald and in those cases at least both (party member becoming herald/ruler and Azaersi being killed) are options considered in text iself. Killing Nocticula isn't really provided as option in ap itself until post campaign demon lord hunting idea and the ap itself leans to idea that Nocticula for some reason wants to gain favors with good deities.
(side note though, if you did kill her on the first meeting, then that is another example of how mythic rules in wrath were broken because ap never assumes you are capable of killing nocticular or babhoment when you first meet them xD And even then, Nocticula is CR 30 which should be borderline impossibly hard for what is supposed to be equivalent of level 25 characters(wince mythic tiers are supposed to be "2 equals +1 cr"))
I mean, don't get me wrong, I can understand being miffed when default canon assumes things your game didn't(such as certain redeemable npcs in Rise of the Runelord not being redeemed) because you like your version of canon, but I consider it more of option to have explicit permission for going further off the rails xD In my games none of Vancaskerkins have died yet, so I can do Vancaskerkin family reunion :D
I mean in practice what it means is that I pretend that page 68 PF2's Gods & Magic was mysteriously left blank for some reason & that Shorshen didn't change her fashion sense.
But yeah it's a combination of things with the saltiness over my kill being stolen being a relatively minor one next to the grossness of a character I perceived as being a patron of rapists - and let's be clear, being as generous as I can, demon lord Nocticula's brand of "seduction" was almost certainly what I would call rape, just rape based on coercion, deception, manipulation, exploitation, & pressure as opposed to Socothbenoth's more likely method of violent force and/or chemical/magical influence.
And even taking that out of the equation, firstly if it was an honest mistake - which I do not believe - then the proper course of action in my opinion would be to take the whole planned demon lord redemption story thing and slap it on to one of the other 29ish demon lords you hadn't attached sexual predation to, rather than using a retcon to stoften up the one you have a personal favoritism for.
And secondly, I'd be left with, not a hostility towards the idea or even a saltiness, but a kind of cynical boredom at the notion of "oh they're redeeming the sexy one." I'm not saying the redeemed succubus can't be a fun idea, but besides the fact they did it better in WotR with Arueshalae, Planescape Torment was released in 1999, so they aren't exactly blazing new trails. If you're going to redeem an archfiend, do something interesting with it. Redeem, I don't know, Mazmezz or Mestama, to pull a couple names out of a hat. They would have been interesting.
Also to clarify I did not in fact kill Nocticula on the first meeting; it was part of the after the campaign demon lord hunt. She was stop #1 since we already had a grasp on what her realm was, and we were not feeling in a redemptive mood.
I feel like every awful thing you can imagine has someone in the Abyss who is a full-throated champion of that sort of thing. We're limited by the Paizo people (correctly) determining some of those things are too awful and there's no benefit to fleshing out the demon lord of [the worst thing you can think of].
So it's less that "there's no demon lord whose portfolio includes [just the worst thing]" it's that "the Paizo baseline cautions them to not bother talking about it."
|
|
I'm the weird xenofiction fan who would definitely approve spider-leg-mass god being redeemed so you don't get arguments from me about that xD
But yeah, I do think that Nocticular redemption was either from start or very early on, though I don't think Sorshen is as recent. But hard to tell since while it could be a plot twist intended from start, implications that creative director would have made lust villain male if they had second go make me think combined with Sorshen being teased as continue the campaign boss for crimson throne and having multiple lore writings about their evilness makes me think Sorshen redemption was probably not planned before Shattered Star connected Nocticula and Sorshen.(I do think Alaznist was probably always intended as final boss of the trilogy though since it book ends trilogy with her rival being the final boss of first part)
On the otherhand, there are plenty of monstrous or male characters you can redeem in Pathfinder APs and plenty of non redeemed attractive CE characters... On the otherhand, its still notable that two most important redeemed characters are both lust associated female characters :p Like I think part of it is because Paizo believes lust based female villains to be offensive(but are STILL fans of succubi), but even I feel cynical about the "oh so sexy chaotic evil characters can be redeemed" thing because there aren't notable or important other examples of redemption happening. Yeah sure its nice its option in aps, but when it comes to 2e setting update most of those characters might be canonically dead as far as writers are concerned.
Sorshen is bit more disturbing actually than Nocticula in that aspect actually since none of Sorshen's evilness has gotten retconned in any way, and Sorshen's main motivation with stopping being evil is both boredom and to avoid being killed by adventurers. Nocticula at least wanted to become not evil initially even if she did lot of evil s~+* along the way to the goal. Both are still CN yeah, but Sorshen manages to come across as more suspicious than Nocticula as Sorshen would likely never have changed her ways if Karzoug had won RotR.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually figured out second thing that does bit trouble me about Sorshen:
Her redemption has kind of same problem as Darth Vader's has: There is no any form of compensation, repercussion or consenquence for years and years and years of doing evil crap. Heck at least Vader died even if he came back as force ghost, Sorshen gets to be ruler of nation and still do her luxurious lifestyle.
Like thing with redeeming npcs is that life afterwards is most likely going to be really hard for them if they actually did evil deeds. Besides guilt, there are lot of people around who remember what they did and they have to live with that. Most of the such npcs don't tend to be rich or have strong support network or people praising them for their actions. Redemption isn't really something you are supposed to be rewarded for, its something you do as continual process of atonement. But with Sorshen, everyone she has wronged have been dead for thousands of years and she is building up reputation for protecting outcasts and being more reasonable than the other runelord. Which again kinda makes sense for CN character, but it makes it more notable that books haven't yet depicted Sorshen negatively post redemption.
Redemption without consenquence really only feels approriate for characters who never were that evil to begin with or didn't have chance to do anything super bad before it.
That said, I do think it is telling she is CN and not CG, so we will see what Paizo will do with Sorshen in the future.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Her redemption has kind of same problem as Darth Vader's has: There is no any form of compensation, repercussion or consenquence for years and years and years of doing evil crap. Heck at least Vader died even if he came back as force ghost, Sorshen gets to be ruler of nation and still do her luxurious lifestyle.
I mean, she's in the process of actively doing good by providing a safe haven for outcasts of all sorts. Darth Vader died too quickly to have much of a chance to do anything too redemptive beyond killing Palpatine (or, at least, saving Luke). Sorshen is very much alive and trying, in her own way, to make amends in an ongoing fashion. She's not self-flagellating and wearing burlap, but is her lack of suffering more important than the good she's doing?
It's an interesting question, actually. For someone to be redeemed must they suffer, must they be punished, or must they merely realize they were wrong and did awful things and seek to make amends as best they can?
In the real world, data suggests that suffering and punishment do little to actually induce reformation, so perhaps decoupling them in fiction as well is for the best. The US prison system's problems stem in part from the mistaken belief that punishment will somehow make people reformed, after all, and the narratives we see in fiction absolutely shape our real world beliefs to some degree.
And there are absolutely people still alive who Sorshen wronged. Ayandamahla is very much alive, for example, and while she's a succubus Sorshen's betrayal of her was still awful. And she's got a vendetta to boot, so I have no doubt that plotline will progress at least somewhat if Sorshen's story ever takes center stage again.
Most of the above (the specific example of Ayandamahla aside) also applies to Nocticula, by the way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing with punishment is that its often tied to concept of justice. Justice actually has nothing to do with concept of redemption or atonement <_<
Then there is debate of "Does good deed really help to make good for bad things you did, especially if you are helping someone else than people you wronged?"
My personal opinion is actually more of "Well if evil people change to good or neutral, that is objectively good", but I think Sorshen should be treated as controversial figure in universe
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing with punishment is that its often tied to concept of justice. Justice actually has nothing to do with concept of redemption or atonement <_<
Shouldn't it, though? I'm not arguing against punishments for having done bad things, but for everything short of execution, isn't preventing future bad things also important?
Justice is important, but so is the prevention of future crimes of the same sort.
Then there is debate of "Does good deed really help to make good for bad things you did, especially if you are helping someone else than people you wronged?"
That's certainly a fair discussion to have, but it's not quite the same issue as Darth Vader's not doing much of anything other than die. I mean, at least she's doing something.
My personal opinion is actually more of "Well if evil people change to good or neutral, that is objectively good", but I think Sorshen should be treated as controversial figure in universe
In universe? She pretty clearly is. However, as a level 26 creature (well, CR 26, I presume that concerts directly, CR usually does), she's on par with the Whispering Tyrant in power. She's not trusted, but nobody can actually do anything to or about her, and trying is generally gonna be biting off more than you can chew.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Her redemption has kind of same problem as Darth Vader's has: There is no any form of compensation, repercussion or consenquence for years and years and years of doing evil crap.
She was apparently conscious if immobile and incommunicado for the last ten thousand years, which is torturous. Her punishment not being severe enough isn't a problem. The problem is. . .
Heck at least Vader died even if he came back as force ghost, Sorshen gets to be ruler of nation and still do her luxurious lifestyle.
This. A Sorshen who did the Ruby Phoenix, Baba Yaga, or Jatembe thing of withdrawing from the world, either to live as a hermit or to pursue her own esoteric interests, would probably draw a lot less ire even if, concretely, doing so might have less of a positive impact on the world than founding a refuge for Golarion's boheme in Xin-Shalast. She has her legacy, it's one of wrack and ruin, and even if she wants to make up for that, it's narratively weird to have her do it from a position of political power, which is the perch from which she made her legacy in the first place. Surely part of a redemption would be self-denial, and another would be eschewing behaviors that might coax one into old habits? As you say, as things stand now, it feels like she got rewarded above and beyond what seems appropriate. It also feels a bit like she's using her new subjects (not citizens, she's an absolute monarch, she has subjects) as human shields against anyone enterprising enough to try and force her from power.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, you can feel as cynical as you want about succubi demon lord being redeemed, but you have to admit that it is possible that its another line like "Paladins of Asmodeus": something a writer included that creative director didn't approve. Being cynical doesn't really mean you are more likely to be right about it.
To be fair it really dosent help her look with the former runelord they chose to basically be the closest thing she has to a high priest at the moment.
|
|
But yeah, I do think that Nocticular redemption was either from start or very early on, though I don't think Sorshen is as recent. But hard to tell since while it could be a plot twist intended from start, implications that creative director would have made lust villain male if they had second go make me think combined with Sorshen being teased as continue the campaign boss for crimson throne and having multiple lore writings about their evilness makes me think Sorshen redemption was probably not planned before Shattered Star connected Nocticula and Sorshen.(I do think Alaznist was probably always intended as final boss of the trilogy though since it book ends trilogy with her rival being the final boss of first part)
On the otherhand, there are plenty of monstrous or male characters you can redeem in Pathfinder APs and plenty of non redeemed attractive CE characters... On the otherhand, its still notable that two most important redeemed characters are both lust associated female characters :p Like I think part of it is because Paizo believes lust based female villains to be offensive(but are STILL fans of succubi), but even I feel cynical about the "oh so sexy chaotic evil characters can be redeemed" thing because there aren't notable or important other examples of redemption happening. Yeah sure its nice its option in aps, but when it comes to 2e setting update most of those characters might be canonically dead as far as writers are concerned.
Sorshen is bit more disturbing actually than Nocticula in that aspect actually since none of Sorshen's evilness has gotten retconned in any way, and Sorshen's main motivation with stopping being evil is both boredom and to avoid being killed by adventurers. Nocticula at least wanted to become not evil initially even if she did lot of evil s~@! along the way to the goal. Both are still CN yeah, but Sorshen manages to...
Honestly This is why I find the end of return of the runelords so distatsfull and why it ruined the whole runelords trilogy for my group since frankly you have a character who has commited murder on an unimaginable scale and is IMO a full blown rapist as well (I mean Runelord of lust and enchanment magic so I think I'm fair in saying there were plenty of occasions were consent was not a given option) but apparently that can all just be brushed off?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
since frankly you have a character who has commited murder on an unimaginable scale and is IMO a full blown rapist as well (I mean Runelord of lust and enchanment magic so I think I'm fair in saying there were plenty of occasions were consent was not a given option)Well, I mean, its not fair to say. You don't know. There is no proof to any such claims. (There might be if we do a closer reading of every Sorshen related tidbit over the course of Paizo's publishing, admittedly I haven't.)
Oh dont get me wrong it dosent flat out state it but looking at all the evidence seems to strongly imply it at least(Mentions of harems, incidents shown where she openly uses enchanment magic to alter peoples thoughts/opinions, including various rulers of Thasilonion things you see visiting various locations under her or her followers dominion like the cages of lust from runeforge etc/)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This... Is not at all what I expected to find when I saw this thread had started up again, but I don't know why I expected anything different...
I've lost track of what we are trying to prove here, so perhaps if this topic holds sufficient interest, someone may like to start a new thread to recentre discussion? Don't have to, I just can't tell what's being argued anymore--whether X or Y entity in canon can be proven guilty of assault, whether characters have to suffer to be redeemed, or whether demon worshippers are evil or just misunderstood.
|
|
I've brought this up with regards to Shorshen before, but I find it generally applies to a lot of powerful entities on Golarion. (Most Player Characters too) There is no court by which one can actually hold her accountable.
Yes, that's why I was talking in terms of the narrative and how it feels like she was treated by it (and the author(s)), and not from an in-world perspective. The strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must, but a writer can make events play out to make it seem like a powerful character is getting his or her just deserts anyway.
As for Pharasma's judgment, Sorshen is immortal and will never face it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for Pharasma's judgment, Sorshen is immortal and will never face it.
Sorshen is unaging, not immortal. She can be killed as easily as any other level 26 creature. That's not at all easily, but given a sufficient length of time it becomes all but inevitable.
Some Mythic characters are actually immortal, but Sorshen is not among them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Historically Pharasma has known that even people who are theoretically immortal, might find still work their way into circumstances where they get got and when prophecy worked reliably she would know exactly when that was.
If Sorshen lives for 10m years and Baba Yaga lives for a billion years, that's just a drop in the bucket in terms of time on a cosmic scale. The difference between living 70 years and a billion years is immaterial to Pharasma.
Her people are a little on edge since they can no longer see the ends of these things, but you can be pretty confident that given sufficient time each of them is going to end up facing the ire of something equally potent and one of those things is going to leave the universe.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's true. Its just a little frustrating that something is mentioned as an aspect of her portfolio (Fights undead and those who prolong their life), but the in world application is 'Well, we'll get'em eventually.'
I guess it is the Neutral way to go about it.
In fairness, her attitude towards undead is much more immediate. Immortality is only a problem in the very long term if nothing kills you. Undead are a problem right now and she has people who deal with them in that time scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, in the universe there are going to be beings who live for a very short time and for a very long time, and there's really no difference between those things as far as Pharasma is concerned- she doesn't have a particular fondness for goblins or a particular disdain of elves.
Actual immortality tends to happen on a case by case basis, and is thus largely a theoretical problem. If there was an unlimited supply of Sun Orchid Elixir there might be an issue, but her people have seen to it that there is not (by coming to an agreement with its creator to limit the supply).
As one of the oldest beings in the universe (she predates it), Pharasma has the benefit of patience. A lot of people who become immortal would probably just get sick of existing after an especially obnoxious length of time.
I'd probably have to do more reading, but I never seem to see it in game. Table variation and all that for sure, and I haven't experienced every appearance of the church, but they seem to let a lot of stuff slide. Caliphas is ruled by Vampires and there's a giant church of Pharasma right there. Geb. Whispering Tyrant was mostly the church of Aroden/Iomedae's problem it seems. The most proactive/useful depiction of the Pharasman Church I've seen was in Mummy's Mask where they organized the looting of a Necropolis at the behest of the Ruby Prince and the subsequent handling of the zombie outbreak. Oh yeah, Extinction Curse has an entire city ruled by a clan of undead Drow that routinely enslaves living people to be the working class.
In fairness, her attitude towards undead is much more immediate. Immortality is only a problem in the very long term if nothing kills you. Undead are a problem right now and she has people who deal with them in that time scale.
As someone running Book 5 of Carrion Crown right now, I can speak a little to the issue in Caliphas. In that book, the plot focuses on a spate of apparent vampire-murders (i.e. vampires turning up dead around the city). It is stressed to the PCs that these murders are a problem because they could provoke a war between the undead and living populations of the city, which would be costly and only result in further casualties.
Personally I picture Mother Thestia doing her best to protect the city indirectly without acting against the vampire underground, while the exorcist Zetiah spends her time jeopardising the uneasy truce by slaying straggling spawn whenever she gets the chance not to trigger any response.
I thought Pharasma's issues with immortals where with people abusing reincarnate , clone and other type resurrection shenanigan to make themselves effectively immortal.
Humbly,
Yawar
Ultimately Pharasma's issues and actions/non-actions regarding immortality are largely to set up exciting stories for your PCs to bounce off of. Remember, she's somewhat omniscient. So it's conceivable that historically she just handled things via "well, your vampire council is going to be wiped out in a few centuries by some heroes, so we can wait for that".
Similarly like someone with the "Reincarnated Druid" archetype from PF1 might die and come back a whole lot, and live for millennia but (at least before prophecy broke) she knew when eventually you were going to die twice before the cooldownon your reincarnation ended.
In terms of setting details or as a GM, this works to explain "here's why sun orchid elixir is so rare" or "why there's not huge groups of immortals"or "to throw an obstacle in the way of a PC who is angling for eternal life."
In Golarion, practice of religion is not a matter of personal conscience or freedom of expression. A worshipper is literally an agent of a deity... and deities are real, actual beings with their own interests and agendas. Prayer has real outcomes. Divine spellcasters can destroy entire communities in a fit of pique at their chosen divinity being improperly adored.
Rahadoum's state-enforced atheism is not a matter of just being authoritarian jerks for the sake of being authoritarian jerks. It's a method this particular society has decided upon to preserve and protect itself from being caught up in the agendas and infighting of these extraplanar monstrosities that have caused nothing but chaos and destruction in that society's history. And the history of its neighbors.
After all, they only have to look across the inner sea to see how well Asmodeus has worked out for Chelilax... how great Zon-Kuthon has treated Nidal. There's the whole history that Garund has with Qadira and Qadira's rabid take on Sarenrae.
And if you're going to flush those out (wisely so) you might as well flush all of them out; being a subject-state to Shelyn might be a lot nicer than being a subject of Urgathoa... But you're still a subject.
Simply put, the deities - even the good ones - are far from benign beings. Worshipers are catspaws for their interests and agendas, whether those worshippers are flame-and-sword Iomedean crusaders, or mumbling little hermits making offering to Gozreh off in the wilderness. Banning a few simply creates more room for the others to gain influence and power which can eventually lead to a situation like Chelilax. So... Might as well just kick them all out. Worship, just not within these borders
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then it would be logical to also steer free of non-divine institutions as well. Mortals can be just as evil and manipulative as deities after all (say, Razmir). And then you end up with Galt. Which is such a beautiful earthly paradise.
Also, Rahadoum's alignment has nothing to do with their stance on deities and worship, but with how they enact it.
In Golarion, practice of religion is not a matter of personal conscience or freedom of expression. A worshipper is literally an agent of a deity... and deities are real, actual beings with their own interests and agendas. Prayer has real outcomes. Divine spellcasters can destroy entire communities in a fit of pique at their chosen divinity being improperly adored.Only if you are a cleric are you an agent of a deity. Every lay worshipper is practicing freedom of expression or following their personal conscience.
The objective truth or lack there of in scootalol's statement is irrelevant compared to the perceived truth in it. It's true from the perspective of the populous of Rahadoum, this perception shapes their world view, their world view informs how they structure their society.
And they structure their society in a way that we would argue oppresses the freedom of expression & conscience of their citizens, though they would argue liberates their citizens from the influence of religion & gods.
Which goes to a point that the oppression they impose is one lacking in the malice required to rise to the level of lawful evil. No one is arguing that they're lawful good, here.