|
But it can have CN followers. We're talking about neutral alignments here.One of his anathemas is straight up "Spread hope" lolGroetus cannot have Good Clerics. It is consistent.
After all, he is the god of the end of all things.
Spreading hope is Good.
IIRC Groetus does not have an edict about spreading despair.
|
|
Yes, and not all games are simplistic. Some might feature much murkier waters, like finding out that the neutral evil lord of the city is the lesser of two evils and needing to work with them to defeat a demon that has been claiming lives deep in the nearby mines. I like that gritty cyberpunk rags to rags style of game and Saturday morning cartoon morality doesn't work in such games.We're still talking about DnD/PF alignments, right ?This is starting to get real close to personal harassmentI'm not attacking Raven, I'm merely asking if they live according to the principles they espouse. Anybody can preach about morality but it tends to ring hollow when the standard for good is unobtainable by all but a saint or a cartoon character designed to teach young children manners.
KC examples were of diverse Evil. I think it is quite amenable to Lesser Evil takes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm lost, the deity is CN, followers of Groetus could hypothetically follow his edicts and anathemas and remain CN like every other cleric could with their own deity. That's what I was getting at.But it can have CN followers. We're talking about neutral alignments here.One of his anathemas is straight up "Spread hope" lolGroetus cannot have Good Clerics. It is consistent.
After all, he is the god of the end of all things.
Spreading hope is Good.
IIRC Groetus does not have an edict about spreading despair.
I think I'm lost too.
Not doing Good is not necessarily Evil. It can easily be Neutral.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How can you be that much in a rut? This is a game where part of it's inspiration is a police procedural and a children's card game.
.
Don't misunderstand, please - I love playing. Even though I've seen it all.
It's no different than a poker player, I guess, who after decades has literally seen every hand and every bet and every bad beat and miracle cards. But it's still addictively fun. And I'm never gonna stop playing this game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Groetus not allowing good clerics isn't totally different from Gorum or the Lantern King not allowing good clerics. Sure "ending a thing that has outlived its usefulness" can be put to good ends, but so can "fighting" and "humor."
The thing is that the three deities in question want you to do it even when it's not good. Groetus wants to end all things good and bad, Gorum tells you that if you can't find a good cause to fight for then fight for a different one instead, and the Lantern King understands the value of mirth to uplift people but also points out that it can be funny (to him) to be mean (even lethally so) as well.
Neutrality in the context of the second alignment component for divinities seems to be mostly about "I care about the thing I'm about, and don't really care if it's good or bad ultimately." Sometimes the bad parts of the thing are incompatible with being good. Like a good cleric of Brigh couldn't just smash a killing machine that an evil cleric of Brigh has created, but they could easily work to help that killing machine self-actualize and maybe choose to do something else. Evil and Good Clerics for Abadar can both try to use the mechanisms of civilization and society to undermine each other's schemes. It's just a question of "can I value [thing] above absolutely everything else and still be a good person." For "creation" and "civilization" the answer is likely yes. In terms of "endings", "fighting", and "humor" the answer is probably no.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s one of the tricky parts of our game — Deity Morality Definition.
I believe that the DM has ‘total’ authority on the make-up of the deities; they’re essentially no different than NPCs such as the town’s Constable or Tower’s cloaked Wizard.
If the DM defines Groetus as ‘X’ then that’s just how it is and the Player has to decide if that fits his PC or if he should choose some other deity. And thus My Groetus will be necessarily different than the one in Your game.
The tricky part is that — and convention gaming aside — Players build their PCs based on their interpretation of a published deity. And as DM, with so many irons in our fires, we just kinda need to answer, “Yeah that sounds good” when a Player asks about Groetus for his or her PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure a credo of "Never not fight" is going to get you thrown out of the UFC pretty quickly.
I can sort of get not being Good per se.
But if I told you about a character I had who was a warrior who believed in fair, direct combat, refused to harm noncombatants, and had a strict code of conduct that meant they abhorred indirect tactics such as poison or illusions... I think more people would guess that character is LN or LE than CE.
And yet those alignments (along with anything non-chaotic) are completely off the table.
It feels especially weird when he's specifically called out as not being concerned with concepts such as Law or Chaos... while also refusing non-chaotic adherents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the problem the hypothetical ardent Gorumite in the UFC will have is not that they won't follow the rules agreed upon for the fight they're in, or take a break to recover, etc.
It's that this person is going to fight people in the parking lot, on the bus, at a Denny's, in the locker room, on an airplane, etc. They're going to fight more or less anybody they feel has it coming, as well. Their employer would prefer they fight only the person they're scheduled to fight and only at the specified time and place.
Like if the Gorumite is out at a bar and someone makes combative advances and suggests "they take this outside", then it's going to go outside and someone might end up swallowing some teeth. But even if the guy is literally asking for a fight, polite society, the law, and your employer generally frowns upon this kind of thing.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can sort of get not being Good per se.
But if I told you about a character I had who was a warrior who believed in fair, direct combat, refused to harm noncombatants, and had a strict code of conduct that meant they abhorred indirect tactics such as poison or illusions... I think more people would guess that character is LN or LE than CE.
And yet those alignments (along with anything non-chaotic) are completely off the table.
It feels especially weird when he's specifically called out as not being concerned with concepts such as Law or Chaos... while also refusing non-chaotic adherents.
That character concept isn't off the table.
That character concept who also wants to be divinely empowered by Gorum is though.
Gorum can "not care" about chaos/law all he wants, he's still chaotic, which shapes his mindset and who he associates with/wants to empower.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, Gorum heartily approves of the weakling standing to fight even though they cannot conceivably win. So a Gorumite can't really decline to fight someone because "they are too weak to fight me"- their willingness to fight you, regardless of how bad an idea this would be, is what makes this a legitimate fight in Gorum's eyes.
If the level 12 Champion of Gorum is razing a village as part of a war, and a level 1 peasant charges at the Champion with some farming implement, Gorum believes it is good and proper for the Champion to honor the peasant's willingness to fight by fighting back to the extent of their abilities, which is most likely going to result in a dead peasant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can sort of get not being Good per se.
But if I told you about a character I had who was a warrior who believed in fair, direct combat, refused to harm noncombatants, and had a strict code of conduct that meant they abhorred indirect tactics such as poison or illusions... I think more people would guess that character is LN or LE than CE.
And yet those alignments (along with anything non-chaotic) are completely off the table.
It feels especially weird when he's specifically called out as not being concerned with concepts such as Law or Chaos... while also refusing non-chaotic adherents.
Gorum does not refuse non-Chaotic or Good adherents. They just are not enough in synch with his divine energies to be able to channel them.
Just as Asmodeus would LOVE to grant his divine powers to LN and LG people, the better to tempt and corrupt them. But it just cannot work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For verisimilitude it's probably likely that people who are not actually members of the clergy of a given deity will readily offer prayers and rites to whichever deities they're aware of that are most relevant to their situation.
Like if you're going to go on a sea voyage, pray to Gozreh and Desna.
If you're going to try to hold against a siege, pray to Torag and Iomedae.
If you need a good harvest or your village is going to starve, pray to Erastil and Gozreh.
If it looks like your battle is going to come to a "ranks of soldiers pressing against each other" you might pray to Gorum and Pharasma.
An issue I have with LN/LE characters and Gorum is that I think a Lawful approach to values is not one Gorum would appreciate. Lawful characters, to me, are the ones who look to reconcile conflicting values by examining ambiguities in their own values. While Chaotic characters do not look to reconcile conflicting values so much as they accept that one value wins out and the others must be broken. I think lawful characters would see ambiguities in cases of conflicting values as critical to understanding how to act, striving to uphold all values. But chaotic characters would disregard ambiguities as mere technicalities immaterial to their actions. I think Gorum prefers the latter when it comes to the values for his clergy. I think he wants people to abide by the spirit of the rules of battle, and wouldn't care about ambiguities in those rules. But a Lawful character with the same values would see those ambiguities as their obligation to explore whenever possible.
|
|
My take on Lawful is that they tend to do as told by a legitimate (in their view) authority.
And that telling Gorum what he should do will do nothing, except maybe attract his attention and turn you into his next target. Hence Chaotic.
And I think no self-respecting Gorumite will ever withdraw from a fight even if ordered to do so by their commander. Also Chaotic.
|
|
And I think no self-respecting Gorumite will ever withdraw from a fight even if ordered to do so by their commander. Also Chaotic.That probably depends on the context of the fight. Nothing in Gorum's anathema demands fighting to the bitter end. If you've lost, or the opponent's strength is superior, then retreating is a sound tactical decision. Gorum wants you to win, but there's always a loser.
Right, but that will be a personal choice for the Gorumite. Not because someone else ordered them to.
|
|
Many battles were lost because armies blindly followed stupid orders.
And I guess many were won because they disobeyed stupid orders.
Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic characters can obey or disobey orders. I don't think that following orders is the purview of Lawful or Chaotic. Its probably neutral, as its the bare minimum level of expected behavior for being in an organization with a hierarchy.
When a lawful character disobeys a bad order and accomplishes a victory, they will accept the consequences of disobeying that order.
When a chaotic character does the same, they expect the transgression to be overlooked because of the result.
Not everyone has the same definition of Lawful and Chaotic. Also alignment of acts and of people are 2 different things.
To me, blindly obeying an order is a Lawful act, blindly rejecting it is a Chaotic act and weighing the pros and cons before deciding whether to follow it or not is a neutral act on this axis.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gorum understands the need for strategy, tactics, unit cohesion, bowmen, siege weapons, etc. But these are things that are necessary for a battle to go well, much like how putting your socks on is necessary for a battle to go well. What Gorum really likes is once everybody has dressed and maneuvered properly is the actual press of bodies and metal against each other in the thick of the pell-mell. Other things are just prelude to that.
|
|
A character can do any kind of aligned acts, but most actions are pretty easy to categorize according to alignment IMO.
Then you can deduce a given character's alignment from the actions they are most likely to take.
Which does not absolutely preclude doing acts of another alignment. These are just less likely / less frequent.
The one thing I don't really understand well diagetically is evil. Like I get why someone might want to resort to banditry or why Asmodeus does what he does, but a lot of what's between is unclear to me.
Like other than "I can't access certain character options without being evil" I don't really understand why people would want to play evil characters, since those are people who will eventually be powerful enough to do basically anything they want. So why would they still want bad things? Like the level 1 character who will do anything for money makes sense, but when they're level 16 and wearing like 15,000 GP worth of gear I don't know why they would continue to act that way.