"Chaos" and "Law" in PF2R

[CorvusMask]

I wish it was easier to talk about lore on forums though without it being on context of arguments. Thats why I mostly talked about lore on owlcat discord back in the day :'D

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

... Actually do we have any description of caravan signs in the vein of the zodiac? I don't know where I left my Occult Mysteries book and I don't have time to look.

I believe we do, though I can't remember where or what they are.

ah, here we go.

Sorry, I should have clarified, I knew about the cosmic caravan but I was wondering if we had any description of the signs' meanings a la "Capricorns are responsible and like family traditions". Unless I missed my skim, it doesn't look like anything like that is on the wiki yet.

Perhaps the Travel Guide mentioned above is hiding those details? Or likely as not anyone can make up their own details and it'll fit because of the nature of such things

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Removed a harassing post.

[Raiztt]

Claxon wrote:

It says they exist outside of reality...

If something exists "outside of reality" then it doesn't exist at all. Reality just consists of all existent things unless we're going to use a very non-standard definition of "real".

You can think of "reality" as a circle and inside that circle is literally everything that exists. There is nothing outside the circle by definition.

[Unicore]

Raiztt wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It says they exist outside of reality...

If something exists "outside of reality" then it doesn't exist at all. Reality just consists of all existent things unless we're going to use a very non-standard definition of "real".

You can think of "reality" as a circle and inside that circle is literally everything that exists. There is nothing outside the circle by definition.

We are talking about magic here. They can exist outside of any known, comprehensible or even subconsciously knowable reality because of magic.

Or alternatively, all of Golarion exists outside of "reality" too, so it might not be that big of stretch for something else to exist outside of reality.

The realities of Golarion are intentionally getting less objective and more subjective in the second edition of pathfinder. I am pretty sure the debates about what metaphysical realities intersect with the material plane can get pretty wild when someone does something that didn't seem possible until they did it. Is there an elemental plane of plasmas in the Golarion Multiverse? Probably not, but there always could be.

[The Raven Black]

Raiztt wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It says they exist outside of reality...

If something exists "outside of reality" then it doesn't exist at all. Reality just consists of all existent things unless we're going to use a very non-standard definition of "real".

You can think of "reality" as a circle and inside that circle is literally everything that exists. There is nothing outside the circle by definition.

If there is nothing outside the circle, then it cannot be a circle.

[PossibleCabbage]

In Foundations of Mathematics a "Universe" is simply a collection that contains all the entities one is willing to consider in the given context.

There are assuredly larger universes that contain the things you're not interested in considering The standard example would be that any set can be a universe for set theory, so long as we're only considering that set (and its subsets, etc.) So you can do set theory on the universe of say "the real numbers", but there are assuredly more things than "real numbers" out there in the vast world of mathematical concepts.

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In Foundations of Mathematics a "Universe" is simply a collection that contains all the entities one is willing to consider in the given context.

There are assuredly larger universes that contain the things you're not interested in considering The standard example would be that any set can be a universe for set theory, so long as we're only considering that set (and its subsets, etc.) So you can do set theory on the universe of say "the real numbers", but there are assuredly more things than "real numbers" out there in the vast world of mathematical concepts.

I mean to be fair all numbers are "real", so the mathematical term is more specific to distinguish between "normal" and "imaginary/polar/3d" numbers.

In his context is the difference between "false" and "true" numbers. Anything outside of the circle is a "false" number and thus not real, while anything inside of the circle is "true" and thus real.

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

[Dancing Wind]

Temperans wrote:

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

I think you're saying this unironically about a game that has dragons and goblins as characters, right?

What, exactly, is this "solid line" that differentiates real/imaginary numbers that also applies to Golarion.

[Squiggit]

Temperans wrote:

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

Because proteans no longer take slightly extra damage from a specific property rune or the right kind of Divine Lance?

[PossibleCabbage]

Temperans wrote:

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

I mean, the way to have a handle on this is that not every level of existence is accessible to things on other levels of existence, much like how points on the real number line (R) are relevant to precisely 0% of points in the cartesian product of R with itself (i.e. R^2).

So there are aspects of reality that are inaccessible to mortals, and there are likewise aspects of reality that are inaccessible to almost all gods (like Iomedae and Asmodeus). Perhaps the things that exist on the even higher levels have limited ability to influence things at lower levels as well.

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

I mean, the way to have a handle on this is that not every level of existence is accessible to things on other levels of existence, much like how points on the real number line (R) are relevant to precisely 0% of points in the cartesian product of R with itself (i.e. R^2).

So there are aspects of reality that are inaccessible to mortals, and there are likewise aspects of reality that are inaccessible to almost all gods (like Iomedae and Asmodeus). Perhaps the things that exist on the even higher levels have limited ability to influence things at lower levels as well.

We control them, and throught their stories they touch us...

[Unicore]

Everyone mark your calendars because Temperans and Unicore are making (loosely) the same argument in that PF2 is (slowly) moving away from a static cosmology that is knowable in its boundaries. We are going to see more of this explained in Rage of Elements and how different cultures and societies believe different things about the number of elemental planes. The folks in Avistan, for example had no knowledge at all about the plane of Metal or the plane of wood and only some are going to be getting introduced to them and believe they are real.

Also, magic is getting less structured and more open to interpretation about how it works and who can cast what spells.

These are not Golarion shattering changes, but it does seem clear that the lore team is leaning into Golarion bound narrators for rules books that have incomplete knowledge to share with the reader.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In Foundations of Mathematics a "Universe" is simply a collection that contains all the entities one is willing to consider in the given context.

There are assuredly larger universes that contain the things you're not interested in considering The standard example would be that any set can be a universe for set theory, so long as we're only considering that set (and its subsets, etc.) So you can do set theory on the universe of say "the real numbers", but there are assuredly more things than "real numbers" out there in the vast world of mathematical concepts.

I mean to be fair all numbers are "real", so the mathematical term is more specific to distinguish between "normal" and "imaginary/polar/3d" numbers.

In his context is the difference between "false" and "true" numbers. Anything outside of the circle is a "false" number and thus not real, while anything inside of the circle is "true" and thus real.

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

There is a difference between "the rules have changed" and "there are no rules".

Axis is where the rules never change. The Maelstrom is where there are no rules.

The Material plane sits in the middle, where rules sometimes change but always through a momentous event.

[The Raven Black]

Unicore wrote:

Everyone mark your calendars because Temperans and Unicore are making (loosely) the same argument in that PF2 is (slowly) moving away from a static cosmology that is knowable in its boundaries. We are going to see more of this explained in Rage of Elements and how different cultures and societies believe different things about the number of elemental planes. The folks in Avistan, for example had no knowledge at all about the plane of Metal or the plane of wood and only some are going to be getting introduced to them and believe they are real.

Also, magic is getting less structured and more open to interpretation about how it works and who can cast what spells.

These are not Golarion shattering changes, but it does seem clear that the lore team is leaning into Golarion bound narrators for rules books that have incomplete knowledge to share with the reader.

To be fair, the setting, as viewed by readers, players and GMs, is changing every now and then. It goes with being a living breathing thing and not static. A setting that keeps on evolving and growing.

[Claxon]

Raiztt wrote:

Claxon wrote:

It says they exist outside of reality...

If something exists "outside of reality" then it doesn't exist at all. Reality just consists of all existent things unless we're going to use a very non-standard definition of "real".

You can think of "reality" as a circle and inside that circle is literally everything that exists. There is nothing outside the circle by definition.

That's a very poor attitude for a world full of magic and gods. Like yes, in the real world that is a true statement.

In the Golarion universe there can be stuff outside mortal understanding and knowledge that is completely incomprehensible to us. Perhaps that is why beings like Azathoth are a gibbering, mindless mass of destruction is because that is the only lens through which can perceive its existence in our universe.

[Temperans]

Unicore wrote:

Everyone mark your calendars because Temperans and Unicore are making (loosely) the same argument in that PF2 is (slowly) moving away from a static cosmology that is knowable in its boundaries. We are going to see more of this explained in Rage of Elements and how different cultures and societies believe different things about the number of elemental planes. The folks in Avistan, for example had no knowledge at all about the plane of Metal or the plane of wood and only some are going to be getting introduced to them and believe they are real.

Also, magic is getting less structured and more open to interpretation about how it works and who can cast what spells.

These are not Golarion shattering changes, but it does seem clear that the lore team is leaning into Golarion bound narrators for rules books that have incomplete knowledge to share with the reader.

I never said because its obvious that they are doing that.

Also to you it might not be Golarion shattering. To me they are making the setting increasingly worse. Having set constraints makes it easier to be creative to get around said constraints, but once you start to just remove the constraints a lot of that creativity gets lost and replaced by bad writing and deus ex machinas.
Unreliable narrator is only good when they are unreliable because of themselves, not because things are constantly retconned.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

Temperans wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In Foundations of Mathematics a "Universe" is simply a collection that contains all the entities one is willing to consider in the given context.

There are assuredly larger universes that contain the things you're not interested in considering The standard example would be that any set can be a universe for set theory, so long as we're only considering that set (and its subsets, etc.) So you can do set theory on the universe of say "the real numbers", but there are assuredly more things than "real numbers" out there in the vast world of mathematical concepts.

I mean to be fair all numbers are "real", so the mathematical term is more specific to distinguish between "normal" and "imaginary/polar/3d" numbers.

In his context is the difference between "false" and "true" numbers. Anything outside of the circle is a "false" number and thus not real, while anything inside of the circle is "true" and thus real.

Having said this, the pathfinder universe is rapidly losing its solid line. For some that's great, they'll finally be able to do whatever they want. For others like me, well there is no point in caring for a universe that has no rules.

There is a difference between "the rules have changed" and "there are no rules".

Axis is where the rules never change. The Maelstrom is where there are no rules.

The Material plane sits in the middle, where rules sometimes change but always through a momentous event.

I was talking about the overall narrative. Also they already broke the "axis does not change" when they made Aeon part of Axiom and changed how that society worked to justify it.

Now that lawful and chaotic are gone, and that they already did the firebrand book. My bet/prediction is that Axiom and the Maelstrom will increasingly lose relevance from lack of dev support and by PF3e they will delete those planes.

[Jacob Jett]

Unicore wrote:

Everyone mark your calendars because Temperans and Unicore are making (loosely) the same argument in that PF2 is (slowly) moving away from a static cosmology that is knowable in its boundaries. We are going to see more of this explained in Rage of Elements and how different cultures and societies believe different things about the number of elemental planes. The folks in Avistan, for example had no knowledge at all about the plane of Metal or the plane of wood and only some are going to be getting introduced to them and believe they are real.

Also, magic is getting less structured and more open to interpretation about how it works and who can cast what spells.

These are not Golarion shattering changes, but it does seem clear that the lore team is leaning into Golarion bound narrators for rules books that have incomplete knowledge to share with the reader.

I mean...not unironically, the existing Game Mastery Guide has rather relevant (if not too crunchy) instructions on how individual GMs can turn these knobs and flip these switches anyways. IMO, the customizability is just more apparent now.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the cosmology has never been that well understood. There's lots of things that are mysterious, like "Where do Domains come from, they apparently predate Gods" and "Why does Pharasma do what she does" (a thing they won't comment on too much because they don't want players trying to "game" dying.)

So "what's outside this universe, it's not nothing" isn't necessarily that much of an issue.

[Jacob Jett]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the cosmology has never been that well understood. There's lots of things that are mysterious, like "Where do Domains come from, they apparently predate Gods" and "Why does Pharasma do what she does" (a thing they won't comment on too much because they don't want players trying to "game" dying.)

So "what's outside this universe, it's not nothing" isn't necessarily that much of an issue.

Which is why the rules treatment for non-deity faiths is sooooooooooooo frustrating...

[CorvusMask]

I mean, I assume monitors will still exist to have that non holy/unholy option(I still don't really like holy/unholy dictomy) :'D So not sure why they would get rid of aeons and proteans, but I definitely want my mechanical representation of the LAAAAAAAAAW and CHAOS to exist

[keftiu]

Player Core mentions aeons in the text of Summon Celestial, which I'm hoping is a typo and not a sign of a Remaster change...

[Sy Kerraduess]

GM Core still lists Aeons as Monitors, so I'm comfortable calling this one a typo.

[exequiel759]

I honestly think most of the problems people have with "holy" and "unholy" is that its pretty much the same as "good" and "evil" so "chaos" and "law" were pretty much let out. What Paizo should have done is opt to use more ambiguous terms like "entropy" that could relate to evil but not be as cut and dried as "unholy". I don't know what could replace holy though.

[Veltharis]

Used to play an Asmodean demon hunter in 1e PFS. Haven't picked up Player Core 1 yet (it's on my list), but is there any way to specialize in that sort of thing (demon hunting) without basically requiring holy sanctification now?

Generally a moot point, given that Asmodeus-worshipers require unholy sanctification (which other unholy creatures would be unaffected by at best and resistant to at worst) and just flat out aren't playable in 2e PFS as a result, but I'd like to know if there's any room for that "Law vs. Chaos/Evil vs. Evil" concept within the game system anymore or if it's been completely shut down.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

What makes you think Asmodeus-worshippers require unholy sanctification? So far only clerics and (we presume) champions may require sanctification, and not even all of them. Regular worshippers certainly don't.

[Arachnofiend]

The question there would be the ability for Asmodeus worshipers to acquire power that targets a demon's weaknesses. You could make a Bomber Alchemist with alignment ampoules I suppose.

[Sy Kerraduess]

Veltharis wrote:

I'd like to know if there's any room for that "Law vs. Chaos/Evil vs. Evil" concept within the game system anymore or if it's been completely shut down.

They will definitely have to revisit the issue since some law/chaos concepts like Hellknights are too iconic to the setting to just get swept under a rug.

Whatever the new implementation, it will have to make up for the loss of the law/chaos traits somehow. Maybe bonuses against chaotic outsiders just become bonuses against Elysium, the Maelstrom and the Outer Rifts specifically. And maybe a chaotic individual will be defined as one that commits an anathema of yours related to order.

We'll just have to wait until those things get remastered to know where they stand exactly.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think they're not particularly interested in supporting "Devils hunting Demons" or "Archons vs. Azatas" because they literally haven't foregrounded that story in any Paizo materials. We always got "CG against LE" or "LG against CE" not Good vs. Good or Evil vs. Evil.

But because Paizo doesn't seem interested here, this seems like a perfect opportunity to homebrew your own stuff for these interactions if those are the stories you want to tell.

[TriOmegaZero]

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

[pH unbalanced]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

Fey (or sometimes goblins) vs stodgy villagers.

The movie Footloose.

ETA: Your stereotypical Hallmark Movie with the boring boyfriend vs the exciting lost love. Arguably the first half of Fiddler on the Roof.

[pH unbalanced]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

(sorry having too much fun with this)

Honestly, a whole lot of fiction in genre's *other than* sf&f could be classified as Law vs Chaos, because there often isn't anyone who is "Evil". Most romances. A lot of comedy. Anything where "the plucky upstarts" are "overturning how we've always done things". An awful lot of YAs with clueless parents and hypercompetent kids.

Law vs Chaos is also behind a lot of culture clash stories, although to the extent to that those involve Colonialism (they don't have to, but often do) that can get problematic, and recontextualized as Good vs Evil.

In fantasy, Chaos foremost starts with Fey (or other trickster beings), especially anything that unites Summer and Winter courts.

You can absolutely write an epic AP level story that is about Law vs Chaos, but the problem is that the player base will be much more likely to split over what the "correct" outcome is if you don't shade one side towards Evil, and so it probably isn't a good business move to do so.

[TriOmegaZero]

pH unbalanced wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

Fey (or sometimes goblins) vs stodgy villagers.

Isn't that usually the plot of a horror film?

pH unbalanced wrote:

The movie Footloose.

ETA: Your stereotypical Hallmark Movie with the boring boyfriend vs the exciting lost love. Arguably the first half of Fiddler on the Roof.

I mean, I know plenty of parties that would love to beat the BBEG in a danceoff. They are definite Chaos and maybe only a little Evil.

[Captain Morgan]

Veltharis wrote:

Used to play an Asmodean demon hunter in 1e PFS. Haven't picked up Player Core 1 yet (it's on my list), but is there any way to specialize in that sort of thing (demon hunting) without basically requiring holy sanctification now?

Generally a moot point, given that Asmodeus-worshipers require unholy sanctification (which other unholy creatures would be unaffected by at best and resistant to at worst) and just flat out aren't playable in 2e PFS as a result, but I'd like to know if there's any room for that "Law vs. Chaos/Evil vs. Evil" concept within the game system anymore or if it's been completely shut down.

Just use a cold iron weapon, or play a thaumaturge.

[Perpdepog]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think they're not particularly interested in supporting "Devils hunting Demons" or "Archons vs. Azatas" because they literally haven't foregrounded that story in any Paizo materials. We always got "CG against LE" or "LG against CE" not Good vs. Good or Evil vs. Evil.

But because Paizo doesn't seem interested here, this seems like a perfect opportunity to homebrew your own stuff for these interactions if those are the stories you want to tell.

Well, there is the eternal grudge match going on between demons and qlippoth, and daemons and qlippoth by extension for some evil-on-evil action. It's not been really foregrounded outside of qlippoth lore though, that's for sure.

I wonder if qlippoth are going to be unholy. They didn't have weakness to good previously, I don't think. They had a weakness to law, instead.

[pH unbalanced]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

Fey (or sometimes goblins) vs stodgy villagers.

Isn't that usually the plot of a horror film?

You're right, it totally is. But I just ran "The Great Dasilane Prank War," so I was thinking more zany than gruesome. (Though if Mr. Clompyfeet got his way...)

TriOmegaZero wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

The movie Footloose.

ETA: Your stereotypical Hallmark Movie with the boring boyfriend vs the exciting lost love. Arguably the first half of Fiddler on the Roof.

I mean, I know plenty of parties that would love to beat the BBEG in a danceoff. They are definite Chaos and maybe only a little Evil.

Any self-respecting BBCG should agree to that. Or a fiddle contest. Would be epic.

[PossibleCabbage]

I would say that most Law vs. Chaos stories that exist out there in the culture are also not set in a world where "Good" and "Evil" are actual things that objectively exist.

Like there aren't angels and demons in Footloose.

[Veltharis]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

What makes you think Asmodeus-worshippers require unholy sanctification? So far only clerics and (we presume) champions may require sanctification, and not even all of them. Regular worshippers certainly don't.

Fair enough, I guess. The 1e character in question was a divine caster, so I suppose I'm somewhat stuck in that mindset...

It was an oracle rather than a cleric, but the character drank the proverbial Asmodeus kool-aid in a way that was allowed back in 1e (LN alignment), but has since been removed as an option, and I'm not especially interested in the "How to circumvent deity alignment/sanctification requirements on a technicality for fun and profit" dance when considering if/how I might revisit her using the current ruleset.

And on that front, the options available to me seem limited to nonexistent at the moment - though again, not fully up to date on the remaster ruleset as of yet.

[Calliope5431]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

(Hollywood) pirates vs merchants. The pirates want freedom and the odd bit of booty, the merchants like stability.

The Roman conquest of Britain. Neither side was particularly good, given the former were greedy and the latter were WAY too invested in human sacrifice and eating people

The English Civil War. Absolute monarchy against not-so-nice parliamentarians.

The French Revolution against the French Monarchy. Because random beheadings are bad but so is rampant exploitation.

Honestly the main issue with law vs chaos in my experience is that the PCs can get disillusioned by the fact that nobody are the "good guys" and they wind up hating everyone. Which is why it often turns into good vs evil...to give the PCs a side to root for and support.

Nobody likes to be told "and you know that prince you helped restore to his rightful throne? He's now taxing the peasants out of their homes"

[Captain Morgan]

Veltharis wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

What makes you think Asmodeus-worshippers require unholy sanctification? So far only clerics and (we presume) champions may require sanctification, and not even all of them. Regular worshippers certainly don't.

Fair enough, I guess. The 1e character in question was a divine caster, so I suppose I'm somewhat stuck in that mindset...

It was an oracle rather than a cleric, but the character drank the proverbial Asmodeus kool-aid in a way that was allowed back in 1e (LN alignment), but has since been removed as an option, and I'm not especially interested in the "How to circumvent deity alignment/sanctification requirements on a technicality for fun and profit" dance when considering if/how I might revisit her using the current ruleset.

And on that front, the options available to me seem limited to nonexistent at the moment - though again, not fully up to date on the remaster ruleset as of yet.

You can still be an oracle, or a divine sorcerer, summoner, witch, or Animist, who worships Asmodeus. You just can't be a cleric or champion who isn't unholy.

[TriOmegaZero]

Calliope5431 wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

(Hollywood) pirates vs merchants. The pirates want freedom and the odd bit of booty, the merchants like stability.

The Roman conquest of Britain. Neither side was particularly good, given the former were greedy and the latter were WAY too invested in human sacrifice and eating people

The English Civil War. Absolute monarchy against not-so-nice parliamentarians.

The French Revolution against the French Monarchy. Because random beheadings are bad but so is rampant exploitation.

Honestly the main issue with law vs chaos in my experience is that the PCs can get disillusioned by the fact that nobody are the "good guys" and they wind up hating everyone. Which is why it often turns into good vs evil...to give the PCs a side to root for and support.

Nobody likes to be told "and you know that prince you helped restore to his rightful throne? He's now taxing the peasants out of their homes"

And none of those require a cosmic Law and Chaos, just the mundane concepts we deal with in the real world.

Pretty much every example is just a bunch of Neutral characters disagreeing about the best way to organize their society.

[Calliope5431]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

(Hollywood) pirates vs merchants. The pirates want freedom and the odd bit of booty, the merchants like stability.

The Roman conquest of Britain. Neither side was particularly good, given the former were greedy and the latter were WAY too invested in human sacrifice and eating people

The English Civil War. Absolute monarchy against not-so-nice parliamentarians.

The French Revolution against the French Monarchy. Because random beheadings are bad but so is rampant exploitation.

Honestly the main issue with law vs chaos in my experience is that the PCs can get disillusioned by the fact that nobody are the "good guys" and they wind up hating everyone. Which is why it often turns into good vs evil...to give the PCs a side to root for and support.

Nobody likes to be told "and you know that prince you helped restore to his rightful throne? He's now taxing the peasants out of their homes"

And none of those require a cosmic Law and Chaos, just the mundane concepts we deal with in the real world.

Pretty much every example is just a bunch of Neutral characters disagreeing about the best way to organize their society.

Thought you were looking for non supernatural examples, since other people were listing Ferris Bueller.

If you're looking for examples of cosmic chaos and cosmic law the best you'll get are the shadows and the vorlons in Babylon 5. The vorlons look "good" until they start using planet killers on innocent people.

[Perpdepog]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

And none of those require a cosmic Law and Chaos, just the mundane concepts we deal with in the real world.

Pretty much every example is just a bunch of Neutral characters disagreeing about the best way to organize their society.

That's pretty much what monitors in PF do, just on a bigger scale.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like there aren't angels and demons in Footloose.

Are we sure about that?

[TriOmegaZero]

Perpdepog wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

And none of those require a cosmic Law and Chaos, just the mundane concepts we deal with in the real world.

Pretty much every example is just a bunch of Neutral characters disagreeing about the best way to organize their society.

That's pretty much what monitors in PF do, just on a bigger scale.

Sure, but Paizo has never done an adventure focused on that without getting Good and Evil in there as well. So I'm mostly focused on the fact that fantasy stories that RPGs deal in don't really have good examples to go off of.

Ferris Bueller is a decent example of a force of chaos, but I don't know that he rises to the level of Chaos.

Calliope5431 wrote:

If you're looking for examples of cosmic chaos and cosmic law the best you'll get are the shadows and the vorlons in Babylon 5. The vorlons look "good" until they start using planet killers on innocent people.

Indeed, not familiar with the show but serial television always has a problem with staying within its focus thanks to getting pushed past the intended progession and having to make content for the sake of publishing.

[pH unbalanced]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

If you're looking for examples of cosmic chaos and cosmic law the best you'll get are the shadows and the vorlons in Babylon 5. The vorlons look "good" until they start using planet killers on innocent people.

Indeed, not familiar with the show but serial television always has a problem with staying within its focus thanks to getting pushed past the intended progession and having to make content for the sake of publishing.

Babylon 5 is actually *the* example of a genre show that started with a five year script, and lasted for exactly five years. Its pivot from "Good v Evil" to "it's more complicated" was always planned.

(Definitely well worth watching if you can...first season is a little slow, as is often the case for '90s shows. It's not my pick for best sf show of all time, but it's in the discussion.)

[Ed Reppert]

Out of curiosity, what is your pick for best sf show of all time?

[MEATSHED]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I'm still at a loss to find a story that is Law vs Chaos where the two sides aren't just Good and Evil in masks respectively.

I guess SMT, but law in that is mostly "authoritarian hellhole" and chaos is mostly "Might makes right hellhole" so 9/10 times the game wants you to go neutral for the ending where everything doesn't turn into a hellhole.

[TriOmegaZero]

Man, I need to go back and finish that.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Veltharis wrote:

Used to play an Asmodean demon hunter in 1e PFS. Haven't picked up Player Core 1 yet (it's on my list), but is there any way to specialize in that sort of thing (demon hunting) without basically requiring holy sanctification now?

Generally a moot point, given that Asmodeus-worshipers require unholy sanctification (which other unholy creatures would be unaffected by at best and resistant to at worst) and just flat out aren't playable in 2e PFS as a result, but I'd like to know if there's any room for that "Law vs. Chaos/Evil vs. Evil" concept within the game system anymore or if it's been completely shut down.

I wanted to address a misconception here. By default unholy creatures shouldn't be immune to spirit damage that happens to be unholy, they just don't suffer bonus damage. There are probably a variety of effects which selectively deal no damage "same team" entities, but by default I think an unholy spirit damage spell should still affect anything that has a spirit, holy or unholy. On the other hand, does a sanctified spell always gain the trait or can you choose not to apply it if it would be more advantageous to you to cast generic spirit damage?