Opinion: the ‘good’ gods of Golarion are not perfect


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Some people have always tried to depict Torag as the LG deity of genocide, which he is not.

These people tend to love Ragathiel, because really all they want is to be able to wear the LG badge while going on killing sprees against whole populations because "Good does not mean stupid or weak". Which is all pretty much Evil, but don't you dare tell them that.

So Dark Helmet was right? Good really is dumb?

More like Evil likes to think itself so much smarter because it can act in Evil ways that Good would not dare tread.

Completely missing why Good eschews Evil ways.

"Good redeems its own. Evil turns in upon itself."

Liberty's Edge

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Alignment is a decent enough framework for capturing the whole opposing forces of good and evil like you see in movies or read in books on mythology. Mainly created so designers could use an easy mechanic for holy swords, holy water, and alignment type spells.

I imagine alignment has rubbed a lot of game designers who also like to write fiction in the wrong way since it is far too simplistic a way to frame morality within a world. It works great for making alignment weapons and spells though. That is probably why they have kept it over the years.

Actually, I think alignment originated as a shortcut for depicting a NPC's likely behavior, granted based on a structure about the opposing moral forces you mention as well as the Chaos/Law struggle that was in Moorcock's books.


The Raven Black wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:

Alignment is a decent enough framework for capturing the whole opposing forces of good and evil like you see in movies or read in books on mythology. Mainly created so designers could use an easy mechanic for holy swords, holy water, and alignment type spells.

I imagine alignment has rubbed a lot of game designers who also like to write fiction in the wrong way since it is far too simplistic a way to frame morality within a world. It works great for making alignment weapons and spells though. That is probably why they have kept it over the years.

Actually, I think alignment originated as a shortcut for depicting a NPC's likely behavior, granted based on a structure about the opposing moral forces you mention as well as the Chaos/Law struggle that was in Moorcock's books.

The original had only Chaos, Neutral, and Law (as you mentioned, inspired by Moorcock's setting, as I think the planes were too). PCs from all three would work beside each other, with Thieves expected to Chaotic so there couldn't have been as much tension as in later versions w/ Good & Evil. There were certainly good & evil NPCs, yet Gygax avoided that as a mechanic until later (maybe because of Moorcock? or to avoid objective moral frameworks in a gray world?). If anything alignment added nuance to what likely would've remained murder-hoboing if not for the pressure of wanting to validate one's PC as good. Yet as you note, that's not nuanced enough from those coming from a fiction background (or philosophical, et al), as opposed to a wargaming one.

I wonder what direction character building would've taken if there hadn't been Moorcock's influence. Maybe then it'd be more grounded and better able to expand, deepen rather than having this (insufficient) shorthand.

Not that Gygax didn't supply some tools. There had been extensive lists a DM could draw from when making NPCs so you would choose or roll an adjective or two, i.e. charitable or belligerent, that described them.
Those would be better descriptors of an NPC's behavior than their alignment, and you could get more contrast, like jerks who served Law or fastidious chaotic people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

“I make no excuses for it nor do I wish to downplay it.”

Then why are you?

Why are you going through all this to defend this non-canon interpretation, if gods having flaws is important focus on any other one, why is it so important that this one be kept? Misogyny isn’t context dependent, it’s evil no matter what. Killing is context dependent.

You bring up Ragathiel to prove your point but here’s the thing, Ragathiel knows that’s a flaw of his and IS containing it, barely or not.

Having a paragon of Good, something literally made of Good, be a bigot okays bigotry, you claiming otherwise doesn’t make it not be true, and gives a bigots a foot in the door to justify themselves. Trying to spin it as absolutes misses the point. It doesn’t “undo” all the other good he did, but the good he did doesn’t undo him being a misogynist, and we’re left with a god of Good, the biggest Good you can get, be a misogynist. That sends a message.

A horrible one that was excised so you’re beating a long dead and rotting horse.

Is your argument that Good gods should never have any flawed elements whatsoever for fear that the portrayal of somebody Good engaging in such behavior would be an endorsement? That seems completely at odds with the entire point of portraying the gods as actual individuals with complete personalities and flaws.

Do you believe Evil gods practicing kind behaviors is in fact an accusation that those behaviors are revolting and vile? I don't think anyone would look at Mahathallah's Anathema of "Become too invested in mortal affairs" and believe that it's really Paizo saying that all of Buddhism is actually capital-E-Evil because an Evil god has the same message.

In Wrath of the Righteous, the Lawful Good Iomedae kidnaps the party and can torture them to death with 15d6 sonic damage and permanently blind them such that even Wish cannot cure it if they get mad at her assaulting them. Does that mean Paizo approves of torture or kidnapping? No, it means Iomedae is a newly ascended god who behaves more like a mortal than she does an omnipotent cosmic being and is capable of acting impulsively or making errors in judgement.

The Erastil argument is silly since it's already been retconned, but there's plenty of times the Good gods behave in flawed ways and I don't think they all need to be retconned out of existence just to avoid this strawman argument that "A being of pure Good having a bad personality is actually a secret endorsement of improper behavior in your playerbase and dogwhistles that you approve of it."

That's just as ridiculous as the inverse argument: that it's somehow bad for Evil characters to occasionally show loyalty, kindness, understanding, or empathy. And indeed it precludes the entire fact that ALIGNMENT CAN CHANGE. How can a Good deity ever fall to neutrality or evil if they're never allowed to make mistakes in the first place?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
quoting quotes got so long that post I was responding to got hidden so I was like "yeah I'll just quote person whose post I'm responding to" so if you want to read it ye can go to read their last post

Ye are being too dismissive of tabletop rpg writing for my tastes though I don't disagree with doylist reasoning of it (I personally think that good tabletop writing IS about setting being written from game perspective)

But yeah, I don't think alignment for most parts "restricts writers", at least based on stuff like James Sutter's redemption engine :p I find alignment to be more of descriptive short hand.

That said, I do prefer it that pathfinder good guy gods avoid D&D good guy gods greek mythology shenanigans of acting like childish jerks :p Like good gods of course have flaws, but its they shouldn't behave in the way that makes it hard to believe they are good

Also umm to Callibourc:

Ye do realize that Iomedae 1) doesn't "literally" kidnap players to put them to torture and that is more of "Writers messed up framing of situation?

Like reading the actual scene, damage aspect of scene is completely nonsensical because and doesn't make sense in or out of the scene. She isn't trying to harm party, but writer wrote it as "Iomedae tries to awaken party" and I'm as reader like "What the heck that means?"

2) that its very much aspect writers regret and ignore meaning its less about what Iomedae acts like and more "This is example of how they shouldn't act" and essentially treated as non canon? :p

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.

“Is your argument that Good gods should never have any flawed elements whatsoever”

No, and you would know that if you bothered to read the following posts rather than just jump to respond to this one.

“for fear that the portrayal of somebody Good engaging in such behavior would be an endorsement?”

That WAS the issue, because Erastil’s misogyny was not portrayed as a flaw, but perfectly fine for him, god of Good, and his followers, majority Good, to engage in and remain Good.

It was not a one-time mistake that he learnt from, it was not a bit of character flavor (seasoning like that ruins the whole stew anyway), it was an acceptance of bigotry.

It has been stated explicitly by the creator of Erastil this was an error and it has been RETCONNED. Not evolved from, retconned.

“ avoid this strawman argument that "A being of pure Good having a bad personality is actually a secret endorsement of improper behavior in your playerbase and dogwhistles that you approve of it."”

How safe and sheltered you be, to think that a strawman.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, Erastil's major flaw is probably that he's slow to accept change even when it's good change. Even in small, rural, tight-knit communities there are going to be innovations that improve people's lives- once upon a time there was no seed drill, and then someone invented one. The seed drill is of value to people in farming communities because it helps you farm better. Erastil's nature is that he's going to be suspicious of novelty or innovation, which inhibits communities thriving to the extent that they can.

Torag's major flaw is that he's reactive and unforgiving.

Iomedae's major flaw is that she's new at this and probably overcompensating (Aroden had very big shoes to fill).

Desna's major flaw is that she's impulsive to a degree that is only available to higher forms of existence.

Cayden is reckless.

Sarenrae's major flaw is lack of self-control when she's genuinely passionate about something.

Shelyn can be accused of being somewhat unserious at times, or at least having weird priorities.

et cetera

You can do this for all the good gods, but the point is that the good gods have flaws that are like "personality and relationship problems" akin to the deities in classical myths and not like "actively believe and advocate for things which are harmful or destructive" because if they did that, they wouldn't be the Good gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are Evil gods allowed to have virtues that ARE "actively believe and advocate for things which are beneficial or constructive" but Good deities are not allowed to have corresponding fatal flaws?
Unless we're back to "Charity is Evil because Lamashtu says give alms to the poor", in which case that's silly.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There's a big difference between "flaw" and "encourages active discrimination against half the populace".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a tension of sorts in how in one sense alignment is descriptive, whereas in another sense it's aspirational.

Like for PCs there's a long tradition of trying to maintain their good alignment and to not do things that are evil, possibly for roleplaying reasons but also possibly because you lose your powers if you sin too much. But if you flip things for evil PCs (if you're into that sort of thing) there's little similar pressure to not do things that are selfless or good.

Like if a cleric of Norgorber buys a homeless informant a hot meal and some medicine in order to get the informant to give up some key information (instead of just beating it out of them) Norgorber isn't going to strip that cleric's spells or something (a few CP for a secret isn't a bad trade, particularly if that secret lets you steal or extort a lot more from someone else.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Callibourc, would you care to list all the traits of bigotry that you feel allow someone to to partake in and encourage that aren't Evil? Because you definitely can't.


Grankless wrote:
Callibourc, would you care to list all the traits of bigotry that you feel allow someone to to partake in and encourage that aren't Evil? Because you definitely can't.

I mean... Torag's pretty racist.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Sandal Fury wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Callibourc, would you care to list all the traits of bigotry that you feel allow someone to to partake in and encourage that aren't Evil? Because you definitely can't.
I mean... Torag's pretty racist.

Enemies of your people is not racist per se. Doubly so since, Torag being Good, it means no innocent will ever be considered an enemy of his followers' people, no matter their Ancestry. In fact a follower of Torag can be from any Ancestry. How does this make Torag racist ?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Callibourc wrote:
Rysky wrote:

1) Please point out who is expecting that.

1.b) actually read the conversation that’s been going on.

2) stop downplaying bigotry. It’s not a “minor flaw” or being “jerk”, it’s actually rather serious and horrendous.

murder and torture are also serious and horrendous, and Good deities still get away with them all the time without instantly switching alignment.

Examples would be welcome.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Callibourc wrote:

Why are Evil gods allowed to have virtues that ARE "actively believe and advocate for things which are beneficial or constructive" but Good deities are not allowed to have corresponding fatal flaws?

Unless we're back to "Charity is Evil because Lamashtu says give alms to the poor", in which case that's silly.

But Lamashtu does not say this.

Her edict is "bring power to outcasts and the downtrodden". Nothing to do with Charity here.

Given that she is Evil, how do you think this power will be used and abused ?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a mistake to frame Good & Evil as mirror opposites. They aren't; there's a distinct imbalance. Redemption's hard; corruption & destruction are simple. (And I'm glad Gorum's lost his Good followers.)

A kind doctor that saves lives all year then settles down for a living, cannibalistic meal every birthday is evil, even if they use pain meds so their unwilling victim doesn't suffer too much.
Or a real example: That guy who worked at a suicide hotline perhaps saving lives wasn't good; he was Dahmer, not only evil, but famously so.

---
And as others have noted yet it seems to get lost in the shuffle:
Somebody who knows their flaw is a flaw (and hopefully works on fixing it, not putting it into practice) differs mightily than somebody who embraces that flaw as a virtue and preaches it to others.

---
What bugs me about much of this is most of these deities have aeons of experience AND they have superhuman wisdom w/ the intelligence to guide it (or vice-versa). This goes for uber-outsiders too, many who enact some foolish, shortsighted, self-destructive behavior. They all should have as much grasp of ethics & moral philosophy as the greatest of us coupled with forethought and willpower. They really should be the epitome of themselves, actualized in whatever that means.
Or have lower stats. I'd rather they just had mortal stats that reflect how they actually live & how dumb or repugnant they often are. Much like with high level PCs re: proficiency level, let the deities' godhood stand in for much their prowess, and maybe tone down the amount of genius (et al) outsiders. (I recognize it's too late for this...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Sandal Fury wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Callibourc, would you care to list all the traits of bigotry that you feel allow someone to to partake in and encourage that aren't Evil? Because you definitely can't.
I mean... Torag's pretty racist.
Enemies of your people is not racist per se. Doubly so since, Torag being Good, it means no innocent will ever be considered an enemy of his followers' people, no matter their Ancestry. In fact a follower of Torag can be from any Ancestry. How does this make Torag racist ?

Primarily because it encourages total war with no thought as to how that might affect the enemies of your people's dependents. Or what might happen when two followers of Torag fight.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Sandal Fury wrote:
Grankless wrote:
Callibourc, would you care to list all the traits of bigotry that you feel allow someone to to partake in and encourage that aren't Evil? Because you definitely can't.
I mean... Torag's pretty racist.
Enemies of your people is not racist per se. Doubly so since, Torag being Good, it means no innocent will ever be considered an enemy of his followers' people, no matter their Ancestry. In fact a follower of Torag can be from any Ancestry. How does this make Torag racist ?
Primarily because it encourages total war with no thought as to how that might affect the enemies of your people's dependents. Or what might happen when two followers of Torag fight.

I do not think it does though. Torag is more about protection than agression. And LG should always care about consequences.

And why would two followers of Torag ever fight unless tricked ? And as soon as they see that their opponent also follows Torag, they should negotiate a way out. Torag is not Gorum.

And all this has nothing to do with racism.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Since most or all of the objections raised here have already been dealt with on the second page of this selfsame thread, I'll refrain from repeating myself again but also I'll highlight pixierose's excellent breakdown in their first post from that same page once again.

Instead I want to focus on one thing brought up here that hasn't been answered yet: It was said that Iomedae is depicted kidnapping, torturing, and possibly permanently blinding a party of PCs if they upset her without it being a violation of her Good alignment. This is presented as a goddess with realistic flaws. It is true that these events are as-written in the Wrath of the Righteous, however, much like Erastil's misogyny, this has also been described as out-of-character events which are considered to be mistakes on the part of the authors, not as authentic depictions of the deities in question.

Just to reiterate: Nobody is saying that the gods of good should not have flaws. Even a casual read of this thread should clarify that. However, many are arguing that certain flaws are beyond what any entity, god or not, should get away with and remain a Good god (a moral event horizon, if you will). Where the lines of this argument have remained drawn, sadly, is whether people believe that misogyny is a quirky flaw or if the contempt for an entire gender which actively harms people in real life is inexcusable in a Good creature, especially once which carries as much implicit authorial endorsement as a Good god.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly if anything this and other things convince me more and more that allighment is something that the game would be better without


Kevin Mack wrote:
Honestly if anything this and other things convince me more and more that allighment is something that the game would be better without

Absolutely. It is a very lazy and poorly nuanced morality system. Thankfully, the GMG has some options for things more my speed. Between the moral intentions variant and edicts/anathema, I think the game provides a much better framework.


Castilliano wrote:
Lycar wrote:

Okay, before this goes completely off the rails, I have been wondering about something.

...

But the gods in this setting are basically outsiders who never died to reach the outer planes. So while they are strongly connected to the alignment they chose prior to their ascension to godhood, they still retain enough of a free will that they could still change their alignment, and thus are capable of doing things that would run counter to their professed alignment.

So a 'Good' god still is capable of doing things that are evil, and vice versa. Same for Law and Chaos presumably.

So that's why many gods seem to be so 'flawed', they are very much still having part of a mortal mindset clinging to them.

Golarion metaphysics certainly could be that way. AFAIK nothing conflicts with that interpretation, yet is it that way?

What sources are you citing?

No sources, just going from my memory there. And apparently mixing things up as Sibelius Eos Owm has pointed out.

Castilliano wrote:

How much do free will, innate inclinations, acquired inclinations, and alignment intertwine? And empathy, social cognition, ethics, etc.?

This all relies one what we consider the self, its origins, and boundaries.

...
How much different might it be for mortals?
Might our own assumptions of the real world balance of essentialism/existentialism interfere? Which does Golarion favor?

With the Maelstrom as the source I could see all varieties of mortals of all alignments popping into existence, especially if they're born with desires. These desires wouldn't be chosen, they'd exist from time zero. Alignments just aren't baked into the souls' substance, so altering/rechoosing becomes easier, i.e. through loving parents or because there's an internal struggle. There could be a moral dissonance because they aren't purely any alignment, could have conflicting desires from the get go. And then what the heck happens to that when implanted into a zygote (or at first breath, one month, etc. depending on lore)?
Or maybe mortals begin as blank slates, in which case do they have a self yet? IMO yes, albeit a seed, nearly nothing, needing experience and input with which it builds and is built.

But what the heck would be the corresponding state for a deity, especially one like Pharasma? How much had been determined about them at inception? How much by intrinsic nature/substance? What dissonance did they have to alleviate, or still struggle with?
IMO Paizo seems to portray them as mortal/outsider hybrids (& exemplars), but we haven't pinned down what those terms mean either.
Hmm.

Don't want to get into metaphysics here, that is probably going a bit far (but check out Existential Comics if you want a light-hearted approach), but yeah, 'Mortal/outside hybrids' seems to fit the bill.

And then I do not see why people seem so focused on 'good' gods having evil sides and totally seem to ignore 'evil' gods having good sides too.

Then again, there are philosophies that argue that wanting to help another being is trying to impose your own will over theirs and thus evil *shrug*.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:

The other question to ask is one of free will. Can the people of Golarion have free will when we're not entirely sure that actual living human beings have it? Even if we did determine that actual humans do have free will, which will take some doing as we don't even know what to look for much less how to test for it, can we assume the same of human-like beings influenced by literal gods and outsiders?

If it is determined that the beings of Golarion don't have free will because we will-less humans cannot possibly simulate it, how can any good god judge a mortal soul as being evil?

I don't think there's any problem with fictional creatures having free will within the fiction, whether or not we have it in reality. They have free will because we define the metaphysics of the world such that they have free will.


Verdyn wrote:
Saedar wrote:
This might be an interesting argument if Israel weren't running an apartheid state and engaging in genocide. Those are Evil things.
So how would Torag solve the issue of a sacred dwarven hold being claimed by some loathsome race that refuses to vacate the premises to make room for his chosen people? It seems to me that it should turn into fantasy IvP but that James would swoop in and kybosh that if any writer actually tried to write that.

Torag would probably not personally get involved, so how he would solve it isn't that big of a deal. Aroden is the god most known for interfering in mortal wars, and even he stayed completely out of the last big one.

In any case, this is not a hypothetical question, I'm sure you know, but an inevitable future when a dwarf faction (presumably the Five Kings) finally manages to get itself together enough to take notice of what Belkzen is doing. The moment Belkzen orcs and Five Kings dwarves come to the same diplomatic event, it's virtually guaranteed that the dwarves are going to start demanding their old capital back. This is unless, of course, some major event to draw the dwarves and orcs together (evil immortal lich whose territory lies directly between them, anyone?) and the dwarves finally decide to relinquish their old grudge out of newfound respect for a fellow war-like subterranean species they didn't realize they had so much in common with.

I'm for one fascinated by the possibilities but it would require a subtle hand to write it well so I'm not sure it's very ripe ground for an AP, even if it happens any time within the next two decades in-universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I don't think there's any problem with fictional creatures having free will within the fiction, whether or not we have it in reality. They have free will because we define the metaphysics of the world such that they have free will.

Wouldn't that then make all the PCs and GM-controlled NPCs different in potentially unwanted ways? The primary issue is that any character touched by the people playing the game essentially has their free will erased irevokably.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:
Saedar wrote:
This might be an interesting argument if Israel weren't running an apartheid state and engaging in genocide. Those are Evil things.
So how would Torag solve the issue of a sacred dwarven hold being claimed by some loathsome race that refuses to vacate the premises to make room for his chosen people? It seems to me that it should turn into fantasy IvP but that James would swoop in and kybosh that if any writer actually tried to write that.

1) I didn't invent Torag and haven't done any real work on developing his story or mythos. He's very much in the increasingly large category of lore content that I don't work on or have much direct advice to offer on, which is a good thing since it gives more and more voices the chance to tell their stories rather than limiting them to just me or other folks who have been at Paizo for decades.

2) It's not my job to "swoop in and kybosh things." And in fact I try to encourage folks here to expand the setting in ways they're passionate about. I want to share that role, not rule it. I try to provide advice to our writers, but increasingly my role as a "keeper of lore" for the setting is going away. I'm still invested in the lore I've worked on, and in the development of the specific projects I'm working on (these are mostly limited to the standalone adventures and bigger projects like Kingmaker these days), but I'm not a "lore gatekeeper." How a plot like the one you mention above would play out would depend much more on the interpretations and goals and preferences of the project's actual developer, who would then guide and shape the words of the freelancer as they wished.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
Verdyn wrote:
Saedar wrote:
This might be an interesting argument if Israel weren't running an apartheid state and engaging in genocide. Those are Evil things.
So how would Torag solve the issue of a sacred dwarven hold being claimed by some loathsome race that refuses to vacate the premises to make room for his chosen people? It seems to me that it should turn into fantasy IvP but that James would swoop in and kybosh that if any writer actually tried to write that.
Torag would probably not personally get involved, so how he would solve it isn't that big of a deal. Aroden is the god most known for interfering in mortal wars, and even he stayed completely out of the last big one.

I suppose I should have phrased that as his followers acting and then proceeded to ask what his thoughts on it would be. His distance means he may not act but he should still care about the issue and have thoughts on it.

Quote:

In any case, this is not a hypothetical question, I'm sure you know, but an inevitable future when a dwarf faction (presumably the Five Kings) finally manages to get itself together enough to take notice of what Belkzen is doing. The moment Belkzen orcs and Five Kings dwarves come to the same diplomatic event, it's virtually guaranteed that the dwarves are going to start demanding their old capital back. This is unless, of course, some major event to draw the dwarves and orcs together (evil immortal lich whose territory lies directly between them, anyone?) and the dwarves finally decide to relinquish their old grudge out of newfound respect for a fellow war-like subterranean species they didn't realize they had so much in common with.

I'm for one fascinated by the possibilities but it would require a subtle hand to write it well so I'm not sure it's very ripe ground for an AP, even if it happens any time within the next two decades in-universe.

It has the potential to go all sorts of ways and is an event I'd watch carefully for future retcons.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Verdyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I don't think there's any problem with fictional creatures having free will within the fiction, whether or not we have it in reality. They have free will because we define the metaphysics of the world such that they have free will.
Wouldn't that then make all the PCs and GM-controlled NPCs different in potentially unwanted ways? The primary issue is that any character touched by the people playing the game essentially has their free will erased irevokably.

How? Of course they don't. It's a fiction.

Obviously from outside the fiction, they don't have free will. Or even the illusion of it. The GM or players decide what characters in the world do. No one actually thinks that characters in an RPG are self-willed in any sense.

But if we define the fiction such that free will exists for those inside it, then it does.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

What thejeff said. Someone outside the fiction determining a characters actions doesn’t mean those actions weren’t the result of their free will in the fiction.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Torag isn't even the aggro one in the Dwarven Pantheon, that's Angradd (and to a lesser extent Dranngvit.) Remember, the Dwarf deities are a family and Torag is just their (grumpy) patriarch. If it came to "Dwarves retaking ancestral holdings" Angradd would be the one saying "let's take it back" while Torag would be the one encouraging caution.

Remember, Torag's thing isn't only "show no mercy to the enemies of your people" he's more a god of strategy and planning and protecting what you have.

Wayfinders Contributor

10 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's not my job to "swoop in and kybosh things." And in fact I try to encourage folks here to expand the setting in ways they're passionate about. I want to share that role, not rule it. I try to provide advice to our writers, but increasingly my role as a "keeper of lore" for the setting is going away. I'm still invested in the lore I've worked on, and in the development of the specific projects I'm working on (these are mostly limited to the standalone adventures and bigger projects like Kingmaker these days), but I'm not a "lore gatekeeper." How a plot like the one you mention above would play out would depend much more on the interpretations and goals and preferences of the project's actual developer, who would then guide and shape the words of the freelancer as they wished.

I appreciate how the job of lore keeping has spread throughout the developers and the freelancing community. I love it whenever I get to write an article for AP Backmatter or the Lost Omens line that allows us to expand upon lore and develop something new. As freelancers, we get pointed to places to do our research on existing lore so that we can get it right, which is guidance that I appreciate. But we also get to add our bits that are new. Some of the best moments for me occur when I am collaborating on a project with other writers and we start inspiring each other.

I think that it's good that we occasionally retcon problematic lore. While writing the Sodden Lands for LO: Mwangi Expanse, I asked Luis, "Do we really still have cannibals here? Please tell me no." Luis responded and they were retconned out of existence. I'm sure no one misses them. The best news is that removing them gave me space to write up a whole bunch of new delights for adventurers traveling through the area to experience!

Hmm

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Torag also asks his followers to be honorable and forthright.

And all Good deities will oppose Evil acts, including those done by their own people. Dwarves do not get any special allowance in the eyes of their deities to casually do Evil and still count as Good.

In the end, like any deity, Torag will care how his own followers behave. Not how people who do not worship him behave. Let their deities, if any, care about them.


Yep it's the combination of Dwarven deities that create that active religious war over land.

Even if Torag doesn't start it, he will be brutal about it.

151 to 200 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Opinion: the ‘good’ gods of Golarion are not perfect All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.