I wouldn't call it censorship, but to me it does look like a desire that certain things are excised from the setting. Which I oppose for a series of reasons: first, those things don't really look that bad; second, removing them would make the setting poorer; third, as I said in another comment, making a whole story arc just to assassinate a god that has become unlikable looks too cheap for Paizo.
In general, I'm pretty sure that it won't happen (so no, the 'censorship' will indeed not exist), at least not for that reason. I really don't think that the developers' goal for the whole War of Immortals is making Golarion a better place.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never really bought Torag as advocating Genocide TBH. His deal was always "people who are threatening you and yours shouldn't be shown mercy" than "hunt down all of their distant cousins too."
His great sin is that when the Dwarves were doing the Quest for the Sky the only way they could come up with to get through Orc territory is "driving the orcs out of their territory with violence." This is regrettable (and would have been avoidable) but it was more of a screw-up on Torag's part than actual malice.
Since the Dwarven people have been on the surface mostly his deal has been "defensive war" in part a a pivot that recognizes that "people who are over there minding their own business are fine."
Like this story is best told about the Dwarves growing as a people. Dwarves are hidebound, traditionalist, and prone to xenophobia. In their darklands days they basically never met another people who weren't actively antagonistic. When they move towards the surface, their first encounter with a people who are not inherently antagonistic (though orcs never really signpost "welcoming" either) went poorly. In retrospect, it was avoidable, and it is regrettable. The story to tell here is the Dwarven people or their gods making amends to the Orcish peoples they displaced. Not "the Dwarves were driven to genocidal madness by their god who loves this sort of thing". Torag screwed up, but he wasn't malicious.
Like if we judged Aroden by his screwups, he would be LE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is Asmodeus, was he wise enough to put contingency clauses in all his contracts, or was he arrogant enough to believe he was invincible.What deity would plan for his own demise? He certainly would not want to make things easier for the survivors if something did happen to him.
Of course, a natural thought would be whether consistency with the Starfinder setting would require the removal of Torag and/or Rovagug, as they are the only two deities specifically absent from that setting. But I have always assumed that they went wherever Golarion did and thus are most likely still alive.
Or can dead deities be brought back to life? The loss of power by some of the core deities in Starfinder could be the result of a temporary death.
you can use Thor as much as you want, but you can't put him in the costume that marvel created, that is copyright infringement. But you can use and all the lore around, that he is the god of thunder, all of it, because none of that was created by marvel. the hammer was not created by marvel, but the costume is, however.
This is not the same as Asmodeus, Asmodeus is flat out too close to the D&D version. t. they are both devils, which he is not in the lore, he is not the king of hell either in the lore, he is the king of demons in the lore, a deity, in the lore he does not rule over hell, nor is hell defined as having nine layers, he is not defined as being at war with demons in the lore, in fact in the lore he is the king of demons, every single one of those elements arose in D&D.
You can say that you don't think they are close, but the case law says otherwise.
Whilst you have a point, I think some of your specific examples aren't amazing. To go through them one by one:
"He is not a devil in lore": it's important to keep in mind that "devil" is usually referring to a single figure not a collective, so following this logic literally any Christian demons apart...
1. You have to remember that Wotc would not be trying to win, they want to say that's close enough that a trial is needed. Trials are super expensive. History is littered with successful companies that went bankrupt even though they won the trial. That is common where one party has vastly more resources that the other party.
2. copyright law is different from other torts. The end goal of most torts is just to make things equal. it's very difficult to in most cases to get punitive damages. Copyright is an exception, copyright tends to be about deterrence, the remedies tend to be punitive. which is why they almost always settle if you can make it past the motion to dismiss.
So, the question isn't whether or not Asmodeus is the same, but whether or not the question is close enough that need a trial to decide. Is he worth the risk to keep him in your game in his current incarnation.
You have to remember that one of the best defenses is that your idea was unintentionally similar, that you that you came up with it independently and never heard of the other idea that it was just an accident that they ended up similar. However, pathfinder started as a OGL game based on Dungeon & Dragons so any court is going to be skeptical of that line of defense and the bar is going to be really high, which almost certainly means a trial.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sky King’s Tomb certainly has a lot to say about Torag - enough that I think he’s certainly closer to Abadar than Iomedae, if I’m being honest. Some itchiness around how Good he could possibly be after the Quest for Sky is something textual, both in-setting and to us as readers.
(I accidentally called this AP Stolen Fate upthread - oops!)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is Asmodeus, was he wise enough to put contingency clauses in all his contracts, or was he arrogant enough to believe he was invincible.What deity would plan for his own demise? He certainly would not want to make things easier for the survivors if something did happen to him.A deity who knows (or has sufficient reason to believe) that their demise is unavoidable and has goals they want achieved even if they cannot see it done themselves.
I mean, it's easy enough to imagine a good deity defending some dangerous artifact to put plans in place to have said artifact moved to the protection of an ally in the event of their death, or kept out of reach of those who would misuse it, at a minimum.
If the deity in question is well known as a Machiavellian schemer and they don't have plans specifically designed to go into motion upon their death, then what are they even doing?
I didn't mean to say that Asmodeus made no plans for the possibility of his death -- but I am sure that any such plans would be to screw over the survivors, not ensure a smooth transition of power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sky King’s Tomb certainly has a lot to say about Torag - enough that I think he’s certainly closer to Abadar than Iomedae, if I’m being honest. Some itchiness around how Good he could possibly be after the Quest for Sky is something textual, both in-setting and to us as readers.
(I accidentally called this AP Stolen Fate upthread - oops!)
It's telling that his allowed alignments are LG and LN, where Iomedae only allows LG and NG (and Abadar any L). This change went all the way back to the start of the edition. I wondered about that at the time. Now I don't.
Torag's flaw is a hyperfixation upon the (perceived) good of his children to the exclusion of all else. Did he advocate genocide? Absolutely not. Would he have preferred a peaceful solution? Definitely, yes. Was he all that bothered when the dwarves didn't try all that hard for one? No, and that's where the problem lies. For the dwarves, it was likely a (for lack of a better term) trauma response to their original neighbors and all of what they faced just to get up to Nar-Voth. What it ignores is any empathy to the orcish perspective. What experience would the orcs have had with things coming up from Sekamina? Exactly. The fact that the dwarves were so quick to attack would have been taken as proof that their words were hollow all along. Torag either ignored that truth or didn't care. Him telling them to slow down and focus on negotiations could have saved countless lives. Instead, history unfolded as it did.
I don't think "the game rules" should ever be taken as the model for "what an ordinary member of a demographic is like". "Dwarf PCs get a bonus to X" means "Dwarves, who are player characters, get a bonus to X" not "all Dwarves everywhere past, present, and future get a bonus to X".
All PCs are iconoclasts, after all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do I hear so much grinding coming from this room, and why are all these axes so dang sharp in here? Did somebody announce another Quest for Sky or something?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thankfully alignements are going away, so this debate won't be relevant anymore.
(Prerecorded andience laughter)
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the secret: Ethics debates weren't ever truly about alignment :P They were people arguing about whether "x character is horrible person or not". Removing alignment doesn't remove ethic debates, just look at BG3 reddit
Anyway, Sky King's Tomb is reaffirming to me that killing off Torag would make no sense overall because continued exploration of Torag's faith would be more interesting than just killing him off
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the conversation around Torag, his intended will versus how it was interpreted versus his inaction, and what to do going forward will all be much more interesting without the argument being "is he magically, cosmically Good or not?"
I think the conversation around Torag, his intended will versus how it was interpreted versus his inaction, and what to do going forward will all be much more interesting without the argument being "is he magically, cosmically Good or not?"
Unfortunately, as much as I agree, it will likely only give way to "But should he be sanctified or not?"
|
I think the conversation around Torag, his intended will versus how it was interpreted versus his inaction, and what to do going forward will all be much more interesting without the argument being "is he magically, cosmically Good or not?"
TBT that argument was pretty helpful in reaffirming that Erastil was not supposed to be a misogynist.
And I feel, without the alignment, it will simply be a Torag is as Torag does thing that pretty much interests nobody outside Torag's followers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually usually enjoy alignment... discussions, we'll call them, but it feels like there was never a chance here. I'm actually really interested in the idea that Torag might have made a mistake. We've seen more than once in history that the gods are not necessarily all-powerful with regards to the actions of their followers. The Quest of Sky is more recent than the mythic times of Gormuz, but even the good gods can do harm and regret those actions.
A plot line revealing that the Quest for Sky was not and unambiguously good holy crusade but a morally complicated event begun with the best of intentions but mired in messy difficulties, and which explores what it might mean for dwarves and orcs to bury the hatchet is fascinating to me. A couple of factions that have been fighting for so long nobody remembers nor cares when the fighting began and both sides having committed more atrocities than either can count is ripe ground for complex storytelling.
Book 3 of Sky King's Tomb only just came out, so this story isn't over--unless perhaps commentors above might have had early access to some big reveal that Torag wanted his followers to kill as many things on the way out of the Darklands as possible and actively fosters the eradication of other species from the surface... that seems unlikely.
|
|
I think the conversation around Torag, his intended will versus how it was interpreted versus his inaction, and what to do going forward will all be much more interesting without the argument being "is he magically, cosmically Good or not?"Unfortunately, as much as I agree, it will likely only give way to "But should he be sanctified or not?"Unfortunately that's probably true.
Holy is the new good. But the good news is, you are allowed to make holy people vile if you want to!
Indeed. I can play a Graul Exemplar true to their dear old family values and be Sanctified to Holy.
With Ogre Hook as a weapon ikon of course.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the closest thing (and TBH even it feels more subdued) to Torag keeping the lid shut all this time on his failures of long ago would be the Cult of the Dawnflower.
Gormuz and Ghlaunder were mistakes on the spur of the moment, that Sarenrae and Desna admitted, regretted and tried to correct.
Not so here.
Now, maybe the new lore will cast Torag in a better light, but right now it feels bad.
Not sure how important is going to be in the remaster if Torag is good or not, as he is not going to be Good. Alignment is out, so there's no more a need to clearly identify a God with a particular moral. Torag can be mostly fine with some anger problems, or whatever, without needing to fill a particular alignment niche because the PC mechanic rely on it
My point above (some of which must have crossed a forum line, oops and sorry!)
Note that if it was quoting a post that had been deleted itself, your post would have gone with it, even if you hadn't said anything overtly objectionable.
|
|
Not sure how important is going to be in the remaster if Torag is good or not, as he is not going to be Good. Alignment is out, so there's no more a need to clearly identify a God with a particular moral. Torag can be mostly fine with some anger problems, or whatever, without needing to fill a particular alignment niche because the PC mechanic rely on it
True, but the deities will still hold to the same values. It's just that there will be two letters less in their description.
They will still live in the same place, have the same allies, enemies, servants and worshippers and care about the same things. And their edicts and anathemas will stay the same too.
Not sure how important is going to be in the remaster if Torag is good or not, as he is not going to be Good. Alignment is out, so there's no more a need to clearly identify a God with a particular moral. Torag can be mostly fine with some anger problems, or whatever, without needing to fill a particular alignment niche because the PC mechanic rely on itTrue, but the deities will still hold to the same values. It's just that there will be two letters less in their description.
They will still live in the same place, have the same allies, enemies, servants and worshippers and care about the same things. And their edicts and anathemas will stay the same too.
Except people had hangups with Torag being defined as a LG deity for the things he condoned his followers with doing. Now that he is no longer being defined as that, we shouldn't have an issue with whatever his edicts/anathemas should be to replicate what his alignment was stated to be.
|
|
Except people had hangups with Torag being defined as a LG deity for the things he condoned his followers with doing. Now that he is no longer being defined as that, we shouldn't have an issue with whatever his edicts/anathemas should be to replicate what his alignment was stated to be.Not sure how important is going to be in the remaster if Torag is good or not, as he is not going to be Good. Alignment is out, so there's no more a need to clearly identify a God with a particular moral. Torag can be mostly fine with some anger problems, or whatever, without needing to fill a particular alignment niche because the PC mechanic rely on itTrue, but the deities will still hold to the same values. It's just that there will be two letters less in their description.
They will still live in the same place, have the same allies, enemies, servants and worshippers and care about the same things. And their edicts and anathemas will stay the same too.
I spent years fighting against the idea that Torag was the LG god of genocide, in spite of all the people who wanted to depict him thusly. So, you might see why I would have an issue with how he is portrayed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tbh I think the biggest beneficiary of the change is Findeladlara, the pre-remaster chaotic good god of uh... racism and maintaining the status quo by promoting traditional values over innovation.
The Torag stuff is kind of complicated by the setting evolving around him which I think makes making direct judgement calls a little more difficult. I'm kind of surprised at how intense some of the reactions are.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it is Asmodeus, was he wise enough to put contingency clauses in all his contracts, or was he arrogant enough to believe he was invincible.What deity would plan for his own demise? He certainly would not want to make things easier for the survivors if something did happen to him.
On one hand, he's spiteful and possessive by nature, and might want all the people he's screwed over to remain well and truly screwed over even after his death.
On the other hand, his ego is immense, and he might not really give a crap what happens a millisecond after his death, and find it funny to have all of his contracts expire, rather than leave a single *scrap* of power or benefit to his squabbling archdevil 'lessers,' who would be stepping up to fight over his holdings. He can't 'take it with him,' but he can certainly burn down everything of value, and leave nothing but ashes for the one who means to replace him.
|
|
I think the conversation around Torag, his intended will versus how it was interpreted versus his inaction, and what to do going forward will all be much more interesting without the argument being "is he magically, cosmically Good or not?"
In theory, but in practice people like to make things about black and white rather than nuance :'D (again based on bg3 reddit x'D)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I spent years fighting against the idea that Torag was the LG god of genocide, in spite of all the people who wanted to depict him thusly. So, you might see why I would have an issue with how he is portrayed.Except people had hangups with Torag being defined as a LG deity for the things he condoned his followers with doing. Now that he is no longer being defined as that, we shouldn't have an issue with whatever his edicts/anathemas should be to replicate what his alignment was stated to be.Not sure how important is going to be in the remaster if Torag is good or not, as he is not going to be Good. Alignment is out, so there's no more a need to clearly identify a God with a particular moral. Torag can be mostly fine with some anger problems, or whatever, without needing to fill a particular alignment niche because the PC mechanic rely on itTrue, but the deities will still hold to the same values. It's just that there will be two letters less in their description.
They will still live in the same place, have the same allies, enemies, servants and worshippers and care about the same things. And their edicts and anathemas will stay the same too.
To be fair, there are several deities that operated under non-appropriate alignments. It just so happens that people fixated on the LG ones because these ones are usually the strictest/most codified compared to others that aren't. Ragathiel is probably another example, even though he is more against Fiends, which are more irredeemably Evil compared to a mortal ancestry.
I can safely say now that with alignment being removed that we can have more compelling storylines that involve more moral gray areas which let us think more individually about the entities involved, rather than categorizing it on an arbitrary chart and taking a guess whether it's an accurate depiction of said arbitrary chart.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*quotes snipped for brevity*
Yup.Again this is why I prefer holy/unholy. It makes it so you can't make snap judgement calls about everyone you meet.
That would be the ideal and the hope.
Unfortunately, there is a subset of players who mirror parts of themselves in their characters (I've been guilty of this myself a couple of times in the past before I discovered how awful it is in certain cases) and adopt an exceptionally... reactionary POV on problematic issues.
Once someone slaps 'Holy' or 'Unholy' on an activity, then those who would utilize the game-space to evangelize (and yes, these players DO exist) perform increasingly horrific acts 'in-character' because 'it's Holy .
After all, they can't be faulted for doing 'bad' things if their Deity says it's 'Holy', right?
I believe that Raven Black and a few others here have understood my concern with certain deities, and I appreciate their candor in addressing the shortcomings in ways that I lacked perspective to do.