| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also dominate is an absolutely terrible spell, especially to be used to force a Jann to grant you some nebulous idea of godhood (which is absolutely not defined in Pathfinder 2nd edition). Any character thinking they are accomplishing something not pathetic and evil by trying to do so deserves whatever divine wrath they bring down upon themselves for thinking they have hacked the system. I am sure there is a special place in one of the layers of hell for all the mortals who thought they could cheat their way to godhood. I am sure the arch devil responsible for this layer is still waiting to get their hands on Cayden Cailean, and maybe still one day will...but not today.
I will simply assert that the morality of mind control is a fascinating and very complicated topic that people have very strong opinions about... and that probably isn't worth anyone's time to re-hash here.
Going back to alignments! I'm curious for people's take on whether or not something should have the holy/unholy tag if it's a fallen angel, or a risen fiend? What do you all think makes a more interesting story? The risen demon, tragically cursed to ping as evil even as he tries to do his best? Or maybe not pinging as holy/unholy at all?
Consecration/Desecration is a thing that you do, that changes you. It's possible that there will be effects that undo that change as well, and if we're lucky they will be specifically stated. So the question is whether or not you've been consecrated/desecrated (yes) and whether you've lost it since then (maybe?).
Like... if a properly desecrated cleric of evil had a change of heart, started performing anathema right and left and warring against their old masters as best they could... would they still be permitted to be unholy, or would that be stripped from them? Same question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am sure the archduke of this layer of Hell probably would share those thoughts about the starstone trial.
And I am pretty sure legalistic arguments about the morality of manipulating another creature into granting you divinity is a common topic of conversation around the water cooler there too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My solution is to make the "various genies grant wishes in a certain way" part of their nature and how their wishes work. It isn't a matter of convincing or forcing a jann to disregard its inclination; the wish will still be granted in a way that encourages growth, like travel arrangements to the Starstone Cathedral and the contact information for a leading historian of trial attempts.
Sure, that's not how it's described. It's also very clearly not a setting or rules system where a level 4 creature can be coerced or convinced into giving godhood. It'd be nice if Paizo were clearer on closing the "loophole" themselves, but it's understandable if it didn't happen in remaster shift, and fine if the GM steps in with their own reason why it doesn't work like that.
I love the idea of a little slice of Hell just for this sort of person, though.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the Wanderer's Wish discussion really got under my skin. Like, are you guys actually playing with people who would seriously do that? I'd much rather sit at a table where everyone can trust one another not to nuke the campaign for the sake of munchkinnery, and honestly resent how paranoia against said munchkinnery has been baked into so much of PF2's design. It's demoralizing to see that the one time they don't drown a gameplay feature in caveats, people on this forum are already zeroing in on the abuse potential.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Anyway, alignment. Glad it's gone. While I feel for those who found it useful as a roleplaying aid, I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who are upset that they can't harbor rules-suported prejudices anymore. Like, this is absolutely just a subjective, petty judgment on my part, but that kind of play is right up there with the "dominate a jann and become a god" thing on my list of gaming approaches that squick me out. A fantasy setting where morality is absolute and often divided along biological/cultural lines is fundamentally unappealing to me, as it reminds me too much of how real-life bigots conceptualize the world. This is one of the few areas where I can't just turn my brain off and accept the fiction on its own terms, and I can't help but be a bit uncomfortable at tables who not only can, but are eager to do so. Again, big squick. No thank you.
I'm bummed that the removal wasn't complete--holy/unholy is also a firm no-thank-you--but as much as I hate that stuff, I understand that enough people enjoy black-and-white morality as a form of escapism that it'd be unfair to cut all support. I'm a big boy who can use/homebrew alternate rules, so it's okay that not everything is for me. I was, after all, already enjoying Golarion despite the squicky elements mentioned above.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
As a goblin merchant, I'm not much of a killer, but that saying, with a bit of modification, makes for a great saying for a merchant to live by.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to sell something to everybody you meet."
As much as I love that saying, I must admit that selling things to my wife will be hard. It's much easier if you can sell something to everyone the first time you meet them. Otherwise, you have to keep a list of all the people you have met but have not sold something to. I think this is a great goal but will get tricky over time to keep track of. It might be easer to own everything and sell it all to one person. Oh, that's a good goal too!
If you're selling to everyone, then if they have an alignment or not doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't even really players abusing it so much as what the potential to abuse it like that implies about the setting. I guess the "growth and exploration" language is the best explanation here, or even "the loopholes here are artifacts of the rules, and it works differently in-universe - maybe wishes have to be granted freely."
I suppose I can see that, but at the same time the flavor text seems to imply that the jann's free will is an essential part of the equation: the jann is the one imparting meaning and intention to the wish, and the verb "to grant" implies permission and consent (see: Merriam-Webster).
There is, nonetheless, an acknowledgement in the general genie flavor text (under the shuyookh subheader specifically) that wish-granting exploitation is a persistent problem for genies, and thus something that likely influences extraplanar politics. The djinni of earthly folklore had a similar struggle.
Thus, even though it is absent in the flavor text, it is easy to imagine how wariness of mortal greed might influence janni cultre. They may be comparatively weak, sure, but they've been around since the dawn of creation, and their magic enables them to easily hide and get out of trouble.
You could do a whole adventure around either trying to catch or protect a jann, I think. That's pretty neat!
|
Reading the Wanderer's Wish discussion really got under my skin. Like, are you guys actually playing with people who would seriously do that? I'd much rather sit at a table where everyone can trust one another not to nuke the campaign for the sake of munchkinnery, and honestly resent how paranoia against said munchkinnery has been baked into so much of PF2's design. It's demoralizing to see that the one time they don't drown a gameplay feature in caveats, people on this forum are already zeroing in on the abuse potential.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Anyway, alignment. Glad it's gone. While I feel for those who found it useful as a roleplaying aid, I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who are upset that they can't harbor rules-suported prejudices anymore. Like, this is absolutely just a subjective, petty judgment on my part, but that kind of play is right up there with the "dominate a jann and become a god" thing on my list of gaming approaches that squick me out. A fantasy setting where morality is absolute and often divided along biological/cultural lines is fundamentally unappealing to me, as it reminds me too much of how real-life bigots conceptualize the world. This is one of the few areas where I can't just turn my brain off and accept the fiction on its own terms, and I can't help but be a bit uncomfortable at tables who not only can, but are eager to do so. Again, big squick. No thank you.
I'm bummed that the removal wasn't complete--holy/unholy is also a firm no-thank-you--but as much as I hate that stuff, I understand that enough people enjoy black-and-white morality as a form of escapism that it'd be unfair to cut all support. I'm a big boy who can use/homebrew alternate rules, so it's okay that not everything is for me. I was, after all, already enjoying Golarion despite the squicky elements mentioned above.
Golarion has not had absolute morality, especially along biological/cultural lines, for quite some time. In fact Paizo has persevered in making the exact changes you want on this topic in spite of the ragestorms they met on the way, including some pretty heavy ones on these very boards.
I see no problem with the wish stuff. When the player dominates the genie and wishes for godhood I'll totally gas em up. I'll spend 2-3 minutes describing the amazing apotheosis of their character. When it's all said and done they'll roll a new character as I describe how they've gone beyond the scope of a PC and have crept into a realm beyond even powerful NPC status...... which means I run that character now and I think they're well beyond the petty mortal concerns of the party; they subsequently fly off to do greater works. So yea, sure, become a god, just remember it's a game for PCs so you'll never get to PLAY a god at my table. Maybe they wish to blow up Cheliax. Sure, the entire Cheliax Navy still exists and is still mobilizing for war so you still have to go out and fight hellknights.....but congratulations, it's easier now. Never forget as the DM you are there to facilitate play, which means there is no winning or losing unless the campaign has reached its conclusion. The players can never WIN the same way you can't.....bc it's a Saturday night game to hang out, play, and tell stories. It's not a sports ball match with defined winners and losers. This means wish can never bypass playing the campaign (unless you were already at the end). That's my gm philosophy at least. I know it's not for everyone though. To me, it's always gonna be point A to point B; the magic of dming is that you apply enough smoke and mirrors to make the route convoluted and windy enough to convince the players they successfully created a route to C. That's the secret sauce, the part that makes me love running games on the tabletop
Reading the Wanderer's Wish discussion really got under my skin. Like, are you guys actually playing with people who would seriously do that? I'd much rather sit at a table where everyone can trust one another not to nuke the campaign for the sake of munchkinnery, and honestly resent how paranoia against said munchkinnery has been baked into so much of PF2's design. It's demoralizing to see that the one time they don't drown a gameplay feature in caveats, people on this forum are already zeroing in on the abuse potential.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I dunno. It is kind of a good litmus test for what players you want to continue playing with. Maybe it is a good thing to leave such obvious exploits as 'technically RAW'. For both the GM side and the player side.
Things like "I can take this 6th level feat at 6th level, then take this 2nd level feat at 8th level that violates the requirements of the 6th level feat - and still be able to use the 6th level feat since I haven't used Retraining." Or "No the Ghost is immune to Strength-based checks including Strike, so the +1 Ghost Touch Greatsword is completely ineffective."
Edit: Another example - Catfolk being immune to trip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if a player made a Jann turn them into a god I would simply ask them to turn in their character sheet and make a new character because the GM controls all the gods.
But the Jann should probably have some sort of limitation on "what kind of wishes they can grant." It's easy enough to ensure Tar Baphon never thinks of this.
My problem is I never follow through on my plans to kill people. Especially when I'm at work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, on Golarion it's possible for someone to construct an atomic bomb. Lots of potential conflicts would be extremely different if, say, Cheliax became a nuclear power. But that's not the sort of story we want to tell, so it's easy enough to insist "nobody in modern Golarion has realized the tremendous amount of energy released by a fission reaction yet." So I don't have to worry about Tar-Baphon's nuclear program, since he literally doesn't have one until the text says he does.
I figure it's much the same with "leveraging Janns to do your bidding." "Wishes can even grant godhood" is a thing that we, the people outside the diagesis understand, but that doesn't mean anybody (even all the Janns) realize this. The first people to realize this would probably be the Janns who would understand what would happen to them if this idea was widely disseminated, and would take a vastly more standoffish posture towards all outsiders as a result.
Like the limitations on the ability are "a summoned Jann can't do this" and "only 3 wishes/year." So if "keeping people from exploiting Janns" became a concern for Jann society, then they could simply have a holiday where they secure themselves in a hidden location, and everybody grants all their wishes to a handful of mortals with modest desires so that everybody is out of wishes for the next year. Like this is probably more likely than "all the baddies in the setting become Gods because they got their hands on a Jann." Like let's give the Janns some agency here.
mean, on Golarion it's possible for someone to construct an atomic bomb. Lots of potential conflicts would be extremely different if, say, Cheliax became a nuclear power. But that's not the sort of story we want to tell…
Well, about that…
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment was never stopping one Jann from doing whatever they want.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of absolutely bizarre takes in this thread. I can't help but be glad that the kinds of games I play make this thread seem so strange to me.
I don't see why I can't make friends with the entire bestiary now.
Finally the Flumph will get some respect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like even if you're running a "really strict RAW" game as a GM, you can always have any particular Jann that the party waylays to be able to say "sorry, used all my wishes this year." There aren't so many Janns that this can't prevent basically all shenanigans.
There are a lot of absolutely bizarre takes in this thread. I can't help but be glad that the kinds of games I play make this thread seem so strange to me.
Like where the Inventor O’Ppenheimer gives a Jann a pizza and becomes as one of the gods to use nuclear weapons?