"Chaos" and "Law" in PF2R


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess my question is- why is it important the Hellknights hate Proteans more than they hate criminals and revolutionaries?

The Protean is just acting in accordance to its nature, and should be escorted back to the Maelstrom, but "these things exist" isn't something Hellknights have much impact on.

The Raven Black wrote:
I am wondering what will differentiate Demons from Devils actually, apart from their adress in the Outer Planes.
I'm pretty sure "how they act, and what they want" hasn't changed for any outsiders.

I took Hellknight as an example of a character devoted to Law and who hated Chaos. Maybe that was not a good example, but the idea still stands and was not answered. Even if you revere Law and hate Chaos, you will not fare any better against a Demon than against a Devil. And vice versa.

A freedom-loving Champion should be more efficient fighting a minion of the most tyrannical system in the planes (a Devil) than a big bully who wants to do as they please (a Demon).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like people who know about outsiders realize that Demons absolutely cannot be trusted under any circumstances. You can cow one into fearing you, but that thing is going to be looking to betray you as soon as it possibly can.

Devils can generally be trusted to do what they promise to do, because these are entities that deal in contracts and when they take advantage of you it's because of a loophole, or a hidden clause, or a narrow interpretation of language.

The real tricky one remains telling the difference between Demons and Daemons however, since both are absolutely hostile to mortal life of all kinds.

Yes. The alignment axis is still there in the universe. It just might as well not exist on a PC level (until they die, but then their souls become NPCs).

I feel the disconnect is awkward.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Also I am not sure we would have had Hellknights if the game had been focused on Holy vs Unholy from the beginning.

I don't see why not. We're only keying on "Holy vs. Unholy" as a "cosmological conflict." There are plenty of terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law that don't need traits or energy types associated with them.

Like what's the basic deal that leads us to Hellknights? Cheliax, the birthplaces of Aroden and Iomedae ends up aligning with Asmodeus at the end of a civil war following Aroden's death. "Aligning with the the literal devil" can't have possibly been a popular thing, so how do unpopular rulers maintain control over societies? Via authoritarianism.

So Cheliax was always going to be a sort of police state/security state. The Hellknights are just the expression of this.

As someone whose favorite and most played PF1E PC was a Hellknight (Signifer) with the Asmodean Demon Hunter trait created for the PFS season tied into Wrath of the Righteous, I can't say I'm especially thrilled at being limited to just focusing on the "terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law".

But then I can't play a LN Asmodean anymore, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly disappointed in the removal of law and chaos because I mostly made characters who were lawful neutral. My characters rarely had the personal commitment to good as a cause. They were unwilling to make personal sacrifices to help others. At the same time, they preferred to live in a good society. They weren't evil, in the sense of definitely never being dedicated to some greater evil order. Though they weren't opposed to committing individual acts of evil if it helped them more easily complete their goal. They had no compunction against doing whatever it took to complete their tasks, including small/light scale evil. However they were never going to go randomly commit murders, and would even refrain from "evil" if there were other avenues that weren't "significantly" more difficult. It was a tight rope, but I didn't consider these characters to be evil. At least not any more than the average person is evil. But if you asked the character "would you slaughter 1000 people to save the entire world or convince a million *insert Golarion equivalent to Republicans and Democrats* to agree on *insert contentious topic like gun control* to save the world...they would already be on the killing spree.


The Raven Black wrote:

Yes. The alignment axis is still there in the universe. It just might as well not exist on a PC level (until they die, but then their souls become NPCs).

I feel the disconnect is awkward.

I feel like "alignment exists in the universe, rather than mortals" is actually coherent. You just view it as every person is a combination of various aligned energy, and what Pharasma does during her judgement is to remove the bits that aren't of whatever type is predominant and then send the bulk of your soul to one plane, while the trimmings can get sent where they go.

Like it makes sense that one person might have >51% of their soul end up in Axis, but some of it in Heaven, some of it in Hell, and a bit in the Boneyard.

Since the mechanics of "what happens when you die" are intentionally vague so as to allow a number of interpretations, I might fiat that one of the several things that cause you to reincarnate is in case one type of aligned energy does not cross the required threshold in order to allow for "continuity of the soul" so they just send it back and try again.

Paizo Employee Community and Social Media Specialist

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a baiting off topic post


I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.

It makes some sense to further simplify things by rotating the wheel model such that the Maelstrom becomes a lower plane and then to reclassify Proteans as a kind of Fiend. Similarly axis would then become an upper plane and then Aeons (or whatever they get replaced with...because they all seem like OGL creatures, especially the Inevitables) get reclassified as Celestials.

On the other hand, they might change nothing at all (beyond reworking the Aeons).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.

It makes some sense to further simplify things by rotating the wheel model such that the Maelstrom becomes a lower plane and then to reclassify Proteans as a kind of Fiend. Similarly axis would then become an upper plane and then Aeons (or whatever they get replaced with...because they all seem like OGL creatures, especially the Inevitables) get reclassified as Celestials.

I don't like the idea of making the Proteans fiends, I think that sort of misses the point of what they're ultimately about. Like the Maelstrom represents "Entropy" as in "the universe's tendency towards disorder." The second law of thermodynamics basically guarantees that the universe is eventually going to fall apart. This isn't malicious, since it's not intentional enough for malice, it's just a property of reality.

Locally, you can minimize entropy by "organizing things" but that's a temporary condition.

One of the reasons I like dropping Chaos/Law in terms of mechanics is that now I'm free to cast Proteans as minimally antagonistic- they don't really want anything, they just represent a facet of reality that other people find uncomfortable. Proteans should be dangerous because of their immense power and utter unpredictablity, rather than "they want bad things." It's more that they simply cause undesirable things to occur just by being around.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jacob Jett wrote:
I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.

I doubt there are any. The real world cosmology works fine without law and chaos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:
I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.
I doubt there are any. The real world cosmology works fine without law and chaos.

Real world cosmology was not created using law and chaos as core principless.

Golarion had that as a core principle that is getting effectively removed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.

It makes some sense to further simplify things by rotating the wheel model such that the Maelstrom becomes a lower plane and then to reclassify Proteans as a kind of Fiend. Similarly axis would then become an upper plane and then Aeons (or whatever they get replaced with...because they all seem like OGL creatures, especially the Inevitables) get reclassified as Celestials.

On the other hand, they might change nothing at all (beyond reworking the Aeons).

IIRC, Aeons are an original Paizo invention, as are axiomites. Inevitables however are OGL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Veltharis wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Also I am not sure we would have had Hellknights if the game had been focused on Holy vs Unholy from the beginning.

I don't see why not. We're only keying on "Holy vs. Unholy" as a "cosmological conflict." There are plenty of terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law that don't need traits or energy types associated with them.

Like what's the basic deal that leads us to Hellknights? Cheliax, the birthplaces of Aroden and Iomedae ends up aligning with Asmodeus at the end of a civil war following Aroden's death. "Aligning with the the literal devil" can't have possibly been a popular thing, so how do unpopular rulers maintain control over societies? Via authoritarianism.

So Cheliax was always going to be a sort of police state/security state. The Hellknights are just the expression of this.

As someone whose favorite and most played PF1E PC was a Hellknight (Signifer) with the Asmodean Demon Hunter trait created for the PFS season tied into Wrath of the Righteous, I can't say I'm especially thrilled at being limited to just focusing on the "terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law".

But then I can't play a LN Asmodean anymore, anyway.

Without alignment though it might be possible to play a nontraditional follower of a god, as long as you are not a champion or cleric.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.

It makes some sense to further simplify things by rotating the wheel model such that the Maelstrom becomes a lower plane and then to reclassify Proteans as a kind of Fiend. Similarly axis would then become an upper plane and then Aeons (or whatever they get replaced with...because they all seem like OGL creatures, especially the Inevitables) get reclassified as Celestials.

I don't like the idea of making the Proteans fiends, I think that sort of misses the point of what they're ultimately about. Like the Maelstrom represents "Entropy" as in "the universe's tendency towards disorder." The second law of thermodynamics basically guarantees that the universe is eventually going to fall apart. This isn't malicious, since it's not intentional enough for malice, it's just a property of reality.

Locally, you can minimize entropy by "organizing things" but that's a temporary condition.

One of the reasons I like dropping Chaos/Law in terms of mechanics is that now I'm free to cast Proteans as minimally antagonistic- they don't really want anything, they just represent a facet of reality that other people find uncomfortable. Proteans should be dangerous because of their immense power and utter unpredictablity, rather than "they want bad things." It's more that they simply cause undesirable things to occur just by being around.

Er, that's kind of a misread of how thermodynamics (and entropy) works...things appear to fall apart because unstable (dynamic) systems are hunting for stability (which usually means congealing into something at 0 Kelvins--but might mean getting eaten by an undifferentiated mass [i.e., a black hole]).

However, I do commiserate with your point. My own home setting makes heavy usage of law and chaos, moreso than good and evil. And, as I was reflecting upon while driving this weekend (so much driving...the whole weekend), an ambitious homebrewer might go in a different direction altogether.

Since we have three planes upon which good beings (or I have come to think of them, kind beings) dwell and three planes upon which evil beings (or as I have come to think of them, cruel beings) dwell, why not expand the "neutral" poles. There's no reason the cosmology has to be interpreted as two-dimensional image. Adding two additional lawful (let's call them principled) planes and two additional chaotic (let's call them mutable) planes suggests additional extra-planar beings that find principles or mutability, respectively, as important as our existing celestials and fiends find kindness or cruelty.

Now, the fact that we've expanded the model into a third dimension lets us further speculate that perhaps there should be two additional poles and thereby another 6 outer planes. The question becomes what would those poles be. We have already good and evil and also order and disorder. These do seem to be key components to human behavior and intelligence. It seems to be that one of the other axes that human beliefs frequently clash along is knowability vs unknowability. If we take these concepts, we can bootstrap our other notional poles, call them mystery (that which compels curiosity) and myth (that which explains through superstition) and we extrapolate that each is represented by three outer planes (and that their a groups of outsiders that are proponents for both knowability [and the seeking of answers] and unknowability [and the promotion of dogmas].

Now we have a cosmology which could never be confused for the one promulgated by D&D. Moreover, we might distill this cosmology into a system of 7 traits which players might leverage as role-playing cues. We can name them:
- Cruelty (evil)
- Kindness (good)
- Principledness (law)
- Mutability (chaos)
- Curiosity
- Superstition
- Indifference (which we already have from the Boneyard, the one in the middle)

Thank you for replying to me and providing me with the opportunity to articulate these thoughts, which have been knocking around in my brain since Sunday. Of course we shouldn't expect Paizo to create such a complex cosmological situation. (It'd take a rather ambitious amount of make work to realize.) As I speculated, if anything a simplification of cosmology could be indicated. But doing nothing and maintaining the status quo sans law/chaos damage is the path of least resistance (and the one expect to be executed through the revision). If really still need an extraplanar damage trait that isn't good/evil, it's a solvable problem via house rules.

Thanks again though. And really, I'm also going to miss law/chaos.

MMCJawa wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:

I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.

It makes some sense to further simplify things by rotating the wheel model such that the Maelstrom becomes a lower plane and then to reclassify Proteans as a kind of Fiend. Similarly axis would then become an upper plane and then Aeons (or whatever they get replaced with...because they all seem like OGL creatures, especially the Inevitables) get reclassified as Celestials.

On the other hand, they might change nothing at all (beyond reworking the Aeons).

IIRC, Aeons are an original Paizo invention, as are axiomites. Inevitables however are OGL.

Ah, thank you for that. It's just the case that Inevitables will go away then. That is fine.

Temperans wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:
I'm wondering what the implications are for the planar cosmology.
I doubt there are any. The real world cosmology works fine without law and chaos.

Real world cosmology was not created using law and chaos as core principless.

Golarion had that as a core principle that is not getting effectively removed.

Yes and no. Real world cosmology, as it turns out, has way more than just three, let alone two, axes (i.e., it's quite multidimensional). Basically, any and all of the unsolvable philosophical questions easily forms it's own axis. Indeed, real world cosmology is so complex that it's probably better modeled by some kind of woven tapestry with dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of individual threads.

EDIT: But I take your meaning that nothing further is likely to change in the game.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Golarion had that as a core principle that is not getting effectively removed.

It really doesn’t.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
...

My meaning was more specifically in that real life cosmology just have seemingly random metaphysical areas based on what the people who made the cosmology wanted. "Law and chaos" or "good and evil" was rarely the direct focus, more of a secondary focus. Punishment and reward however is a lot more common IRL.

Also yeah I meant that law and chaos now wont change, and any change won't be because of those concepts. Axis is now no more lawful and orderly than the Maelstrom.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

“Axis and the Maelstrom are functionally indistinguishable now.” is certainly a take.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:
...

My meaning was more specifically in that real life cosmology just have seemingly random metaphysical areas based on what the people who made the cosmology wanted. "Law and chaos" or "good and evil" was rarely the direct focus, more of a secondary focus. Punishment and reward however is a lot more common IRL.

Also yeah I meant that law and chaos now wont change, and any change won't be because of those concepts. Axis is now no more lawful and orderly than the Maelstrom.

I get it. However, we've had philosophers, theologists, theologians, etc., etc. discussing law/chaos, nature, good/evil, semantics, logic, punishment/rewards, etc., etc. for thousands of years. And, really, we have little reason to suspect that such debates don't actually predate writing (and thereby history). It is in the nature of some of us to question the way things are. And, we do grapple with these questions directly. Some really old examples come from ancient China with traditions like Legalism, Names (yes, there was a school devoted just to the names of things), Moism, Confucianism, etc., etc. Greek examples are nearly as old. And while there's a paucity of evidence, there's no reason to think that other cultures didn't have their own thinkers.

TOZ wrote:
“Axis and the Maelstrom are functionally indistinguishable now.” is certainly a take.

Which should indicate that both, and everything attached to them, are potentially on the chopping block. Much of their narrative purpose has been removed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
“Axis and the Maelstrom are functionally indistinguishable now.” is certainly a take.

It certainly feels like that has become something of a trend in the remake threads; volume and confidence of assertion standing in for logical extention...

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a bad take, if that wasn't clear.


Well, generally, like in a movie/television production, you want everything in your narrative/game to serve some purpose. It's kind of unclear to me why Axis and Maelstrom are there beyond, "they are." They and everything associated with them now take up valuable page space that might be used for more compelling concepts.

Like if chaos/law damage doesn't figure heavily in existing APs, would Aeons and Proteans figure heavily in them? My working assumption is that they don't (thus the dearth of chaos/law damage being important).

Personally, I miss what has been lost and channeling my best Solo Lando Calrissian, "I don't agree with it. I don't like it. But I accept it."

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Veltharis wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Also I am not sure we would have had Hellknights if the game had been focused on Holy vs Unholy from the beginning.

I don't see why not. We're only keying on "Holy vs. Unholy" as a "cosmological conflict." There are plenty of terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law that don't need traits or energy types associated with them.

Like what's the basic deal that leads us to Hellknights? Cheliax, the birthplaces of Aroden and Iomedae ends up aligning with Asmodeus at the end of a civil war following Aroden's death. "Aligning with the the literal devil" can't have possibly been a popular thing, so how do unpopular rulers maintain control over societies? Via authoritarianism.

So Cheliax was always going to be a sort of police state/security state. The Hellknights are just the expression of this.

As someone whose favorite and most played PF1E PC was a Hellknight (Signifer) with the Asmodean Demon Hunter trait created for the PFS season tied into Wrath of the Righteous, I can't say I'm especially thrilled at being limited to just focusing on the "terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law".

But then I can't play a LN Asmodean anymore, anyway.

Without alignment though it might be possible to play a nontraditional follower of a god, as long as you are not a champion or cleric.

Sorry, the "Can't play an LN Asmodean anymore" bit was force of habit - I know alignment is going out the door altogether and you can already play a character that "reveres" Asmodeus in PFS. There are plenty "nontraditional" angles one can take.

Unfortunately, my old PFS Hellknight was as "traditional" an Asmodeus worshiping divine caster as could be made without an evil alignment, and with the advent of 2E, that's no longer an option*. Even with the remaster tossing out alignment, I fully expect Asmodeus will be among the gods that only accepts worshippers that are sanctified as unholy (or whatever the terminology ends up settling as) and that being sanctified as unholy will be off-limits in PFS and any table that bans evil PCs, putting people like me right back in the same position we're already in.

At the end of the day, the implication is that my character doesn't really count as a follower of Asmodeus unless they are evil/unholy - I have to change the character to be a less true version of who they previously were in order to play them in PF2E. Even without alignment, I'm not expecting that to change, and with law vs. chaos being ditched, I can't even lean into smiting demons with order magic anymore.

*This is, admittedly, not entirely true, at least on a technical level. My Hellknight PC was not a Cleric, but an Oracle, which I know is available in its new form and doesn't actually have deity/alignment requirements, so on a technical level, I could rebuilt her in PF2E (until I wanted to replicate her levels in Diabolist, anyway). It just doesn't evoke the same feeling anymore...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
Er, that's kind of a misread of how thermodynamics (and entropy) works...things appear to fall apart because unstable (dynamic) systems are hunting for stability (which usually means congealing into something at 0 Kelvins--but might mean getting eaten by an undifferentiated mass [i.e., a black hole]).

I disagree. I think *that* is a misread of how thermodynamics and entropy works. The ur-example is if you prepare a collection of atoms and all of those atoms have the same energy level. This is a situation with minimal entropy because you have maximal information about the state of the system, because the probability distribution of "what energy is a sample going to give me" is atomic, as there's exactly one state it can be.

This is also a situation that always falls apart if you don't maintain it. One of those atoms is eventually going to end up in a different state and then entropy will be nonzero.

Entropy is a thing that extends to the quantum level and even non-physical things like code (i.e. Shannon entropy). It's about probability distributions, not about black holes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:
Er, that's kind of a misread of how thermodynamics (and entropy) works...things appear to fall apart because unstable (dynamic) systems are hunting for stability (which usually means congealing into something at 0 Kelvins--but might mean getting eaten by an undifferentiated mass [i.e., a black hole]).

I disagree. I think *that* is a misread of how thermodynamics and entropy works. The ur-example is if you prepare a collection of atoms and all of those atoms have the same energy level. This is a situation with minimal entropy because you have maximal information about the state of the system, because the probability distribution of "what energy is a sample going to give me" is atomic, as there's exactly one state it can be.

This is also a situation that always falls apart if you don't maintain it. One of those atoms is eventually going to end up in a different state and then entropy will be nonzero.

Entropy is a thing that extends to the quantum level and even non-physical things like code (i.e. Shannon entropy). It's about probability distributions, not about black holes.

This seems like the atoms are already in an unusual state.

And of course the issue with probabilities and distributions of them, is that they are only so predictive and it very much depends on what we know going in. And as we already know, knowing itself is kind of disruptive. Observers are part of the system. So it's hard to know if an energy decay is because it was going to decay or because you looked at it. Ultimately, entropy is just moving energy from location A (usually something specific, like a turkey in a convection oven) to location B (usually the environment).

Food for thought, code explicitly depends on the energy states of the all-to-physical substrates that store, transmit, and maintain it. Since the world is an open system, there are any number of calamities that will affect it, including I check the substrate to see what energy state it's in.

Entropy itself is just an explanatory model chasing after a difficult-to-articulate phenomena. But in effect, saying that entropy represents chaos is a poor articulation of what is happening--stuff is moving around the system. That we use the word chaos is because the movement is frequently undesirable to some objective we had for the system's behavior and the predictability of that behavior. The system no longer behaves according to some principle we defined. That seems to me more of a problem of perspective than one of the actual phenomena.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Veltharis wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Also I am not sure we would have had Hellknights if the game had been focused on Holy vs Unholy from the beginning.

I don't see why not. We're only keying on "Holy vs. Unholy" as a "cosmological conflict." There are plenty of terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law that don't need traits or energy types associated with them.

Like what's the basic deal that leads us to Hellknights? Cheliax, the birthplaces of Aroden and Iomedae ends up aligning with Asmodeus at the end of a civil war following Aroden's death. "Aligning with the the literal devil" can't have possibly been a popular thing, so how do unpopular rulers maintain control over societies? Via authoritarianism.

So Cheliax was always going to be a sort of police state/security state. The Hellknights are just the expression of this.

As someone whose favorite and most played PF1E PC was a Hellknight (Signifer) with the Asmodean Demon Hunter trait created for the PFS season tied into Wrath of the Righteous, I can't say I'm especially thrilled at being limited to just focusing on the "terrestrial versions of chaos vs. law".

But then I can't play a LN Asmodean anymore, anyway.

Without alignment though it might be possible to play a nontraditional follower of a god, as long as you are not a champion or cleric.

That has always been possible AFAIK. Even when alignment was still there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Entropy, in physics, has multiple interpretations, at least two of which sound like opposites when expressed in layman's language. To me, the simplest notion is that entropy represents how "energy available for work diminishes" which translates poorly into fantasy terms. In turn, I think the Maelstrom translates poorly into physics terms because the Maelstrom provides a whole lot of usable energy. I don't even think the 2nd law applies what with magic existing, i.e. will > matter/energy, & teleporting outpaces the speed of light. Golarion's cosmology might not even represent a closed system (with the Maelstrom perhaps being an inlet). Haven't brushed up on my Golarion eschatology lately, but there'd be a big difference (in a scientific view) between the Maelstrom (re-)claiming everything or a heat death. One would expect the Maelstrom might spawn new cosmologies given infinite time, all the while being vibrant in itself.

Or look at the Proteans themselves, constantly creating and reforming. They contrast pretty strongly with the nihilistic Daemons which IMO better embody the colloquial usage of entropy/dissolution.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the forecasted end of the Pathfinder universe is that the Maelstrom eventually grinds everything down to undifferentiated potentiality, and then the Survivor will help build the next universe out of some particular bit of grist that the a critical mass of potentiality will coalesce around.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Veltharis wrote:
My Hellknight PC was not a Cleric, but an Oracle, which I know is available in its new form and doesn't actually have deity/alignment requirements, so on a technical level, I could rebuilt her in PF2E (until I wanted to replicate her levels in Diabolist, anyway).

Out of curiosity, of which Hellknight Order was she a member?

Dark Archive

Ed Reppert wrote:
Veltharis wrote:
My Hellknight PC was not a Cleric, but an Oracle, which I know is available in its new form and doesn't actually have deity/alignment requirements, so on a technical level, I could rebuilt her in PF2E (until I wanted to replicate her levels in Diabolist, anyway).
Out of curiosity, of which Hellknight Order was she a member?

Order of the Gate


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I personally enjoy that in the battle between law and chaos as cosmological forces, chaos has clearly won, eliminating an established Order/structure for how alignment as a whole works, but especially how the force of law enforced in self on the universe.

But at the same time, edicts and anathema represent a much better way for LAW in the universe to establish itself with the bureaucratic specificity and nuance that really feels like legalism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:

Well, generally, like in a movie/television production, you want everything in your narrative/game to serve some purpose. It's kind of unclear to me why Axis and Maelstrom are there beyond, "they are." They and everything associated with them now take up valuable page space that might be used for more compelling concepts.

Like if chaos/law damage doesn't figure heavily in existing APs, would Aeons and Proteans figure heavily in them? My working assumption is that they don't (thus the dearth of chaos/law damage being important).

Personally, I miss what has been lost and channeling my best Solo Lando Calrissian, "I don't agree with it. I don't like it. But I accept it."

Just because alignment is going away doesn't mean they are going to junk all of the neutral outsiders and planes. You can still have the war between Axis and the Maelstrom, even if the players no longer have a specific tag for there damage to target those of opposite alignment.

Silver Crusade

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

The concepts of law and chaos aren't going away, the mechanics tied to them are.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
The concepts of law and chaos aren't going away, the mechanics tied to them are.

I strongly believe that, without mechanics, concepts are only that to PCs : vague ideas no one really cares about. Which does sound a bit strange for metaphysical realities that actually structure the Great Beyond as strongly as the Holy/Unholy axis.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm pretty sure the forecasted end of the Pathfinder universe is that the Maelstrom eventually grinds everything down to undifferentiated potentiality, and then the Survivor will help build the next universe out of some particular bit of grist that the a critical mass of potentiality will coalesce around.

Omens are lost and Fate is broken. Not even Pharasma knows for sure what will happen ever since the Seal disappeared (and Aroden died : great test to make sure Fate and Prophecy are indeed broken).

So whatever was forecasted / foreordained before has no weight anymore.

Maybe the universe can be endless.

Maybe the Outer deities can finally be killed.

Maybe the old cycle of death and resurrection of the universes has already ended and the current universe is what comes after.

Everything is possible now.


The Raven Black wrote:
Cori Marie wrote:
The concepts of law and chaos aren't going away, the mechanics tied to them are.
I strongly believe that, without mechanics, concepts are only that to PCs : vague ideas no one really cares about. Which does sound a bit strange for metaphysical realities that actually structure the Great Beyond as strongly as the Holy/Unholy axis.

My play experience is mostly with people who already didn't care about what alignment was written on their sheet, and there's no mechanical benefit to playing a lawful or chaotic character unless you happen to be a cleric and your foes happen to be the opposite. Rather, the mechanics as they've existed up until now made it better to be as ambivalent as possible about alignment, rendering yourself immune to aligned damage.

I had a Champion player whose alignment shifted from LG to NG for RP reasons, but then shifted back to LG later because the retributive strike made more sense for the character. In this case, alignment having discreet mechanics was an impediment to the character's story, since he couldn't both have the mechanics and alignment that suited his character at once.

My personal play experience is somewhat different (see the Liberator Champion example I have given previously in several threads) but largely I have found that alignment itself is the vague idea which no one really cares about, while more specific, more concrete ideals may or may not tickle somebody's fancy.

Thing is, players will tend to make the kind of character they want to make, and punishing them with mechanics isn't going to get somebody to play a lawful character who didn't originally care about hierarchy, nor a chaotic character who didn't originally care about rebelling. These players already had the option to ignore both by picking neutral unless the deity they liked didn't allow it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:


I had a Champion player whose alignment shifted from LG to NG for RP reasons, but then shifted back to LG later because the retributive strike made more sense for the character. In this case, alignment having discreet mechanics was an impediment to the character's story, since he couldn't both have the mechanics and alignment that suited his character at once.
[...]
and punishing them with mechanics isn't going to get somebody to play a lawful character who didn't originally care about hierarchy, nor a chaotic character who didn't originally care about rebelling. These players already had the option to ignore both by picking neutral unless the deity they liked didn't allow it.

To be honest the whole "But the rules conflicted with the story of my character" point often didn't resonate with me.

In my, 100% subjective and personal, experience and opinion people often want to have the cake and eat it. To me: "If you want this specific benefit, you have to adhere to specific rules" never was impeding per se. (But it could be in some instances)

so here, saying: "if you want specific Champion-Power X you have to adhere to a specific code of behaviour" is fine. It is nothing different than saying: "If you want the social benefits of being a member of an organization, you have to adhere to their code". And if the situation or the roleplay demands it you can break it, but have to live with the repercussions for a while.

So: "I cannot play a NG character and be a Liberator" was, to me, nothing different than "I cannot play a Barbarian and cast wizard spells".

I agree, that these mechanics should not be applied or used solely as some kind of punishment or "education"-tool. But: "If you don't follow X, you don't get the benefits of X" is not inherently punishing to me.

edit: corrected some spelling errors and one wrong term


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alynia wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:


I had a Champion player whose alignment shifted from LG to NG for RP reasons, but then shifted back to LG later because the retributive strike made more sense for the character. In this case, alignment having discreet mechanics was an impediment to the character's story, since he couldn't both have the mechanics and alignment that suited his character at once.
[...]
and punishing them with mechanics isn't going to get somebody to play a lawful character who didn't originally care about hierarchy, nor a chaotic character who didn't originally care about rebelling. These players already had the option to ignore both by picking neutral unless the deity they liked didn't allow it.

To be honest the whole "But the rules conflicted with the story of my character" point often didn't resonate with me.

In my, 100% subjective and personal, experience and opinion people often want to have the cake and eat it. To me: "If you want this specific benefit, you have to adhere to specific rules" never was impeding per se. (But it could be in some instances)

so here, saying: "if you want specific Champion-Power X you have to adhere to a specific code of behaviour" is fine. It is nothing different than saying: "If you want the social benefits of being a member of an organization, you have to adhere to their code". And if the situation or the roleplay demands it you can break it, but have to live with the repercussions for a while.

So: "I cannot play a NG character and be a Liberator" was, to me, nothing different than "I cannot play a Barbarian and cast wizard spells".

I agree, that these mechanics should not be applied or used solely as some kind of punishment or "education"-tool. But: "If you don't follow X, you don't get the benefits of X" is not inherently punishing to me.

I understand where you're coming from. I have a tendency very much of falling on the side of "The flavour of the game matters to me, so please don't ignore the flavour of your abilities". Over the years I have learned to come around on ways things can be re-flavoured to suit a concept, but I don't like skipping over any flavour entirely. The thing is, I don't feel like the Champion reactions really offer much in the way of flavour.

If I were to pick apart the difference on the spot, "If you want social benefits, you must adhere to the code" is a roleplaying benefit for a roleplaying requirement. To me this is nothing like "If you want to have this power with minimal roleplaying weight, you have to have to adhere to an unrelated code of behaviour". To me there isn't a good reason why a lawful Champion can't, in their purity of heart, have the Glimpse of Redemption reaction, or vice versa. All champions are paragons of goodness.

If the ability were more obviously tied to your character's behaviour (clerics losing powers for not following their deity's code) I wouldn't mind as much, but it's not like he was trying to play as a Hellknight who didn't follow the rules, nor was he trying to double-dip Paladin and Redeemer abilities. He was just playing a champion of good who had his faith in the law shaken after fighting within a corrupt system, but whose favoured tactic of striking down those who tried to hurt his allies had nothing to do with his opinion of the law.

Incidentally, you can play a Barbarian and cast wizard spells. Furthermore I don't think this example serves very well because it's a clear mechanical cause with clear mechanical consequences. A raging Barbarian can't concentrate, so any wizard spells they learn which require concentration will be difficult. Neither being a barbarian or wizard require you to behave in ways which limit you from the other--with the obvious exception of the Superstition Instinct, where once again there is an obvious thematic connection between distrusting magic and not learning magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I understand where you're coming from. I have a tendency very much of falling on the side of "The flavour of the game matters to me, so please don't ignore the flavour of your...

Thanks for replying.

I admit, the example wasn't as good as it could be. But i want to emphazise again: It was a "to me"-argument. Not an "objectively it is the same as"-argument. As you pointed out there are measurable differences between the champion-example and my barbarian/wizard-one.

To me it was really as simple as: "You want liberator powers, your characters inner self has to be chaotic, so on the "Bah, laws are to restrictive"-side of the scale. So the "price" of having to play a chaotic character to get the Liberator-skill or to play a lawful character to get the paladin-skill was fine. Yes it was a compromise, but none i thought overly harsh or restricting. At least not more than: "You have to follow the edicts/anathemas of your god:dess to..."

And because while there was alignment these things were parts of how the universe worked, i was fine with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alynia wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I understand where you're coming from. I have a tendency very much of falling on the side of "The flavour of the game matters to me, so please don't ignore the flavour of your...

To me it was really as simple as: "You want liberator powers, your characters inner self has to be chaotic, so on the "Bah, laws are to restrictive"-side of the scale. So the "price" of having to play a chaotic character to get the Liberator-skill or to play a lawful character to get the paladin-skill was fine. Yes it was a compromise, but none i thought overly harsh or restricting. At least not more than: "You have to follow the edicts/anathemas of your god:dess to..."

On that note, I do want to agree with at least as much as "If you want to be a Liberator, you have to care about being a free spirit who doesn't give a fig to laws and hierarchies." This comes bundled with the Liberator's cause and it's important to me that a champion who believes in freedom still has to hold to that belief, even if I'm not entirely onboard for the idea that telling your allies to side-step attacks is an inherently chaotic-good thing (though the 'escape from grabs' I admit is much closer to that line for me).

... I really hope we get to have future Champions who still care strongly about law and chaos more than good or evil even though there's nothing in the alignment box.

PS thank you for the most coherent back-and-forth discussion/debate I've had on here in days


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:


... I really hope we get to have future Champions who still care strongly about law and chaos more than good or evil even though there's nothing in the alignment box.

PS thank you for the most coherent back-and-forth discussion/debate I've had on here in days

I share your hope. At the end of the day i really hope the new system for alignment-replacement and champions in particular will not bring more: "do whatever you want" arbitrariness but another system of codes, especially for characters as the champion.

And you're welcome. As I am relatively new to post here, I am happy to have discussions like this one with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Cori Marie wrote:
The concepts of law and chaos aren't going away, the mechanics tied to them are.
I strongly believe that, without mechanics, concepts are only that to PCs : vague ideas no one really cares about. Which does sound a bit strange for metaphysical realities that actually structure the Great Beyond as strongly as the Holy/Unholy axis.

My play experience is mostly with people who already didn't care about what alignment was written on their sheet, and there's no mechanical benefit to playing a lawful or chaotic character unless you happen to be a cleric and your foes happen to be the opposite. Rather, the mechanics as they've existed up until now made it better to be as ambivalent as possible about alignment, rendering yourself immune to aligned damage.

I had a Champion player whose alignment shifted from LG to NG for RP reasons, but then shifted back to LG later because the retributive strike made more sense for the character. In this case, alignment having discreet mechanics was an impediment to the character's story, since he couldn't both have the mechanics and alignment that suited his character at once.

My personal play experience is somewhat different (see the Liberator Champion example I have given previously in several threads) but largely I have found that alignment itself is the vague idea which no one really cares about, while more specific, more concrete ideals may or may not tickle somebody's fancy.

Thing is, players will tend to make the kind of character they want to make, and punishing them with mechanics isn't going to get somebody to play a lawful character who didn't originally care about hierarchy, nor a chaotic character who didn't originally care about rebelling. These players already had the option to ignore both by picking neutral unless the deity they liked didn't allow it.

Honestly, I never understood how people founded alignment restricting, but then want to take extra restrictions because that's interesting. But then they want to have the benefit of the thing that has the restrictions without having to actually follow up on said restrictions.

As for champion, I think the biggest issue is that their main ability should had been the same: A buff to your attacks vs your opposed alignments, with Redeemer converting damage to nonlethal while desecrator added persistent damage. Then the thematic abilities could be made into feats like with other classes. That would had greatly simplified things. While easily allowing lawful and chaotic champions. Then not having the alignment is not seen as a "punishment" but a "requirement" to use their abilities. Just like you are required to have a certain muse/order to pick certain feats.

Also, everyond already picks rules for how they play their characters, and the game already gives a ton of ideas of what your character might do. Alignment was effectively acting as a way to limit behavior without interfering with RP. Anathema and Edicts are the complete opposite, forcing a player to pick a specific behavior and they must do that behavior or get punished, directly interfering with RP.


The Raven Black wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm pretty sure the forecasted end of the Pathfinder universe is that the Maelstrom eventually grinds everything down to undifferentiated potentiality, and then the Survivor will help build the next universe out of some particular bit of grist that the a critical mass of potentiality will coalesce around.

Omens are lost and Fate is broken. Not even Pharasma knows for sure what will happen ever since the Seal disappeared (and Aroden died : great test to make sure Fate and Prophecy are indeed broken).

So whatever was forecasted / foreordained before has no weight anymore.

Maybe the universe can be endless.

[b]Maybe the Outer deities can finally be killed.[b]

Maybe the old cycle of death and resurrection of the universes has already ended and the current universe is what comes after.

Everything is possible now.

To be clear, the lore as I understand it has only two entities survive each iteration of the multiverse (because it's multiple planes, universe isn't the appropriate word). Those entities are the Survivor, and the Watcher. Pharasma was the survivor of the last universe. The Watcher is implied to be an outer deity that also exist outside of the multiverse. Everyone else and everything else will cease to be at the end of this incarnation of the universe, assuming that is still its inevitable fate. Unfortunately it's on time scale unfathomable perhaps even to deities so it's doubtful we'll find out more.

Edit: Just reread some bits, the Watcher is Yog-Sothoth

Liberty's Edge

IIRC all Outer Gods are outside the universe and survive its death and the birth of the new one.

And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.


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

IIRC all Outer Gods are outside the universe and survive its death and the birth of the new one.

And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.

I can imagine him being like a player in a Visual Novel that suddenly saw one of the characters break the 4th wall and ask if the last save file was different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.

Wow, Commune is so useless not even Pharasma can get the silly thing to work? At least as a ritual it is more likely to be overlooked entirely, which it should be.


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

IIRC all Outer Gods are outside the universe and survive its death and the birth of the new one.

And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.

The lore in this blog post implies only the Survivor and the Watcher survive an instance of a multiverse, and the Watcher is the only one that maintains continuity between all the existences (as the Survivor changes each time).

But I would be interested in seeing lore that states otherwise for the outer gods.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

IIRC all Outer Gods are outside the universe and survive its death and the birth of the new one.

And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.

The lore in this blog post implies only the Survivor and the Watcher survive an instance of a multiverse, and the Watcher is the only one that maintains continuity between all the existences (as the Survivor changes each time).

But I would be interested in seeing lore that states otherwise for the outer gods.

Now I am curious about realities where the Survivor wasn't Pharasma. Do they get 'subsumed' into Pharasma, or is their reality dramatically different?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Now I am curious about realities where the Survivor wasn't Pharasma. Do they get 'subsumed' into Pharasma, or is their reality dramatically different?

There's a new Survivor every time. One of the Windsong testaments suggests that it's one of Pharasma's jobs at the end to choose who that's going to be, so presumably she was chosen by the Survivor of the previous universe based on whatever criteria.

Only the Watcher (Yog-Sothoth) persists for 3 or more universes.

Liberty's Edge

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

IIRC all Outer Gods are outside the universe and survive its death and the birth of the new one.

And Pharasma was surprised by the disappearance of the Seal and prophecy being broken. IIRC she tried to contact Yog-Sothoth to know whether such a thing ever happened in any of the previous universes and what the consequences might be. But the Watcher did not answer.

The lore in this blog post implies only the Survivor and the Watcher survive an instance of a multiverse, and the Watcher is the only one that maintains continuity between all the existences (as the Survivor changes each time).

But I would be interested in seeing lore that states otherwise for the outer gods.

Found it. It is in fact in the comments of the blog post you linked ;-)

James Jacobs wrote:
The Gula Path wrote:
Oh man this was really good, I love the Lovecraft influence although it's got me wondering something. Is Azathoth still the same centre of creation like in the mythos or is he now "merely" just a really old powerful creature like Rovagug?

I see Azathoth as the center of the Material Plane, yes. If the material plane is a vinyl record, then Azathoth is the spike the record sits on.

In fact, I see ALL of the outer gods and great old ones as creatures that exist outside of the cycle of life and death and time, and that when a new iteration of reality begins, the outer gods and great old ones transition over. Which ones end up in which reality might vary, though. The next cycle of reality might have something else (or nothing at all) at the center of the Material Plane than Azathoth, for example.

301 to 350 of 529 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / "Chaos" and "Law" in PF2R All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.