So... in the lead up to the remaster, we did a lot of talking about how deities might blur the lines. Well, now we have some more information to blur the lines with. So let's talk about that.
Most of the good gods were Heal Only, can choose Holy. That all fits, and we won't bother hitting them individually.
Most of the neutral gods were Heal/Harm, can choose holy or unholy. That all fits, and we wont' bother hitting *them* individually either.
Asmodeus is mandatory unholy/harm. Anathema change from "don't free slaves" to "don't share power with the weak". No surprises here, and not much to say. Asmodeus continues to be an awful individual. News at 11.
Gozreh is Heal Only, No sanctification, which is interesting, but not surprising. Way more interested in making things alive than in making them dead, but wants no truck with the war in heaven.
Iomedae is mandatory holy/heal, which really ought not be a surprise to anyone.
Lamashtu is heal/harm, can choose unholy, which does that thing that lots of people have been looking forward to where you can play a nonhorrible child of the mother of monsters.
Norgorber is harm/can choose unholy, which opens up the possibility of... a non-horrible follower of Norgorber? Well, it's an interesting idea, at least.
Pharasma is None/Holy - basically the same schtick as Gozreh, except that she's more interested in the "smite the undead" part of the heal font than the "promote life" part.
Rovagug is, again, mandatory harm/unholy. No one is surprised.
Urgathoa is *also* mandatory harm/unholy, which puts a bit of a spanner in the gears for anyoen who was hoping to run a non-horrible splinter sect of hers.
...and finally, Zon-Kuthon is harm/can choose unholy. He's still a very edgy boy, but non-horrible devout followers are a real possibility (...and they probably mostly live in Nidal).
/**********/
Interesting breakdown bits:
- Iomedae is the only deity of the pre-war Core 20 at mandatory holy.
- Asmodeus, Rovagug, and Urgathoa are literally The Worst.
- Lamashtu, Norgorber, and Zon-Kuthon are there for your alignment-twisting pleasure, for those who want to run a character who's potentially sympathetic once you get to know them but is still super-creepy especially at first.
Lamashtu:
- Edicts: bring power to outcasts and the downtrodden, indoctrinate other in Lamashtu’s teachings, make the beautiful monstrous, reveal the corruption and flaws in all things
- Anathema: attempt to change that which makes you different, provide succor to Lamashtu’s enemies
Norgorber:
- Edicts: keep your true identity secret, sacrifice anyone necessary, take every advantage in a fight, work from the shadows
- Anathema: allow your true identity to be connected to your foul dealings, share a secret freely, show mercy
Zon-Kuthon:
- Edicts: bring pain to the world, mutilate your body
- Anathema: create permanent or long-lasting sources of light, provide comfort to those who suffer
Kinda feel that Pharasma should have the harm font. Obviously you can't use it to heal under, but she is still the god of death so it would make sense for some of her clerics to finish off people who are trying for immortality...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pharasma is None/Holy
Typo here, she's Heal/No Sanctification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still maintain I could create a "good" cult to Urgathoa in Cheliax that embracess her two big points: Hunger/indulgence and Undeath.
Not if you want any clerics you can't. That's the point. Clerics of Urgathoa are now *required* to show devotion to "victimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers"... and Urgathoa is the one who required this thing.
Like, you can have random whackadoos believe anything they want about whatever deity strikes their fancy. You can even have clerics delude their flocks in any of a wide variety of ways... but every cleric of Urgathoa who's actually receiving spells is a fundamentally horrible person.
Basically, if Urgathoa allowed for nonsanctified clerics, I'd agree with you... but she doesn't, so I don't.
Edit: On further consideration, I must acknowledge that there's a viable read where you can basically fake a sanctification - where you don't have to have devotion to "victimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers", you just have to convince the appropriate infernal authorities that you have those things.
Even so, a sect that's being run by clerics who are pretending to be awful in these ways isn't likely to be a particularly good group to hang around... and if everyone in the local leadership is faking it, they should probably be worshiping someone like Norgorber instead.
Pharasma is None/HolyTypo here, she's Heal/No Sanctification.
Right you are. Thought the right thing, wrote the wrong thing. Ah well. Past the edit window now.
Kinda feel that Pharasma should have the harm font. Obviously you can't use it to heal under, but she is still the god of death so it would make sense for some of her clerics to finish off people who are trying for immortality...
My understanding is that generally they do that by either embracing undeath or becoming gods. For undeath, she'd rather have the heal fond. The ones that try to become gods are another deity's department.
Yeah, immortal people don't bother Pharasma because it doesn't matter if you are immortal because in the end times when reality itself tears apart you'll disappear anyways. Undead actually harm reality itself though so it makes sense for her to be openly against them since that her whole shtick.
The other reason Pharasma objects to undeath more than other forms of immortality is that things like "apotheosis" are not available to everybody, so when it happens it's because it was fated to, but you can make an awful lot of vampires.
Ah shoot, I think I mixed up Pharasma's opinions with those of her psychopomps. The wiki does say they sometimes work against those trying to achieve immortality, but doesn't say anything about Pharasma caring much about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some interesting ones from Tian Xia World Guide: Hei Feng now only allows holy sanctification if you're tengu (I can't help but think it's for earning brownie points from Lady Jingxi lol), while Yaezhing went from LE/NE only followers to allowing both holy/unholy sanctification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some interesting ones from Tian Xia World Guide: Hei Feng now only allows holy sanctification if you're tengu (I can't help but think it's for earning brownie points from Lady Jingxi lol), while Yaezhing went from LE/NE only followers to allowing both holy/unholy sanctification.
Hmmm. Yaezhing also added an intro description that makes him a lot mroe evenhanded, and added "slaughter indiscriminately" to his anathema.
The Hei Feng/Lady Jingxi thing says quite a lot in relatively few words... like how three of Lady Jingxi's anathema are basically "Be Hei Feng". It's like, he's still trying. The social toolset he's got is 100% wrong for the job, but he is trying.
Hei Feng Edict: "make token attempts to apologize to those you have wronged"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lamashtu is heal/harm, can choose unholy, which does that thing that lots of people have been looking forward to where you can play a nonhorrible child of the mother of monsters.
Since the remaster, I play an Oracle of Life of Lamashtu in PFS. She's really an awful person but in a way that is not disruptive to the core of PFS adventures (obviously). It's a blast to play.
Last game, I played with completely random players in a PbP on Paizo boards and did not reveal her faith (as she's obviously keeping it for herself, it's illegal in a lot of places) and it went smooth. Even if it's been rather obvious she was not in line with most PCs views.
Lamashtu edicts and anathemas are really interesting to play as they can pass as "good". For example, "bring power to outcasts and the downtrodden" can be played as a far left political position (yes, she managed to proselytize in the middle of an adventure encouraging the poor people of Nantambu to reject their society). "reveal the corruption and flaws in all things" is absolutely lovely as she's always criticizing good people and good actions painting them as selfish and corrupted. Lamashtu's love for difformities and awful creatures can pass as extreme tolerance. Same for "attempt to change that which makes you different", as she's encouraging people to be proud of themselves and their difference. And the concept of mother of monsters is a double-edged sword: Who would attack a pregnant woman? Even if you know she'll give birth to some horribly flawed, corrupted and certainly evil creature?
I really like the concept of "acceptable evil", these awful persons that are never breaking the law or making truly horrible things even if you know their influence is as bad as it can be. They are sometimes even worse than the truly horrible people because the latter can be dealt with violently when the former will taint everyone around them for as long as they live.
My point was more "Urgathoa should allow for non-sanctified clerics" and not "I don't understand sanctification".
Also, this is all up to the actual GM I play with. Though this is not the first character idea I'd like to play with.
Ahhh. Got it. My misunderstanding.
Well, once you allow for house rules on this stuff, anything goes. Before that... I think it's more interesting to consider what it means that she doesn't allow unsanctified than to argue that it's incorrect. Like, at this point she's the most important goddess Geb has left, and she insists that her clerics must declare for a specific side in the War in Heaven. That's interesting.
|
I'm not surprised that Zon-Kuthon doesn't demand that his followers be unholy. He allowed LN clerics Pre-master.
I understand the reasoning, but it still irks me that Chelaxian PCs are basically locked out of their state religion in PFS (and anywhere else that bans evil/unholy characters).
Just clerics of Asmodeus, who I don't think kick it with the Pathifinder Society anyways, since it's banned in Cheliax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder Society is trying to save the world.
Asmodeus seeks eternally to damn it.
It's a bit of a conflict of interest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While there are certain social observances a citizen of Cheliax is expected to participate, I'm pretty sure there are members of the nobility in good standing who aren't really whole-hearted devil worshipers. There's a big gulf between "participating in the social aspects of a state religion" and "accepting spells from Asmodeus."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was more "Urgathoa should allow for non-sanctified clerics" and not "I don't understand sanctification".
I kind of don't understand sanctification. Like, the description of the trait implies a clear moral standard in line with pre-remaster good and evil, but Paizo elected to not attach edicts or anathema to the act of sanctification, which weirdly suggests that unholy clerics who are sweethearts and holy clerics who are evil manipulative monsters are both valid (if odd) conceptual spaces.
As stated, the trait definition does suggest some moral boundaries, but... this is also specifically what the anathema system was created for and the omission of any coverage of sanctification there is very conspicuous.
My point was more "Urgathoa should allow for non-sanctified clerics" and not "I don't understand sanctification".I kind of don't understand sanctification. Like, the description of the trait implies a clear moral standard in line with pre-remaster good and evil, but Paizo elected to not attach edicts or anathema to the act of sanctification, which weirdly suggests that unholy clerics who are sweethearts and holy clerics who are evil manipulative monsters are both valid (if odd) conceptual spaces.
As stated, the trait definition does suggest some moral boundaries, but... this is also specifically what the anathema system was created for and the omission of any coverage of sanctification there is very conspicuous.
First of all, I honor that confusion. It's not clear. It's especially unclear because sanctification is clearly and explicitly a thing in Golarion, but the mechanisms are only vaguely implied, rather than actually explained. If you decide you want to be sanctified, what determines whether or not you are worthy? What is the method by which the sanctification is applied? If you see the error of your ways and either fall to corruption or redeem yourself, does the sanctification remain? Is there *any* way to get rid of it? Is it technically possible to be both holy and unholy at the same time?
That said... I think that the best way to take it is as if it *is* a personal edict/anathema. Like, if you're sanctified Holy, then that means that you really care about helping people and opposing the forces of the hells. If you're sanctified unholy, then you really are dedicated to cruelty in some way, and also you've firmly aligned yourself with the devils and against the celestials.
Now, this take really doesn't work well for the game of "How far can I twist alignment definitions/expectations". That's true. It pretty much both assumes and insists that you not do that. At this point, though, I think it's either that or houserule. We simply don't have the close-look clarity on it right now.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While there are certain social observances a citizen of Cheliax is expected to participate, I'm pretty sure there are members of the nobility in good standing who aren't really whole-hearted devil worshipers. There's a big gulf between "participating in the social aspects of a state religion" and "accepting spells from Asmodeus."
Certainly consistent with how they've handled Asmodeus throughout 2e.
My issue is that the way they've handled him in 2e has always been a change from how they did it in 1e, where LN Asmodeus worshipers were at least theoretically supported.
That was a conceptual space I enjoyed playing in, and it no longer exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that the way they've handled him in 2e has always been a change from how they did it in 1e, where LN Asmodeus worshipers were at least theoretically supported.
I believe the official line from Paizo was something to the effect of "LN worshippers of Asmodeus were a lore error that needed correcting, since Asmodeus is *supposed* to be one of the main 2 big bads of the setting."
Dispater is always there for when you want to be a kinder, friendlier devil worshiper, after all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is that the way they've handled him in 2e has always been a change from how they did it in 1e, where LN Asmodeus worshipers were at least theoretically supported.Dispater is always there for when you want to be a kinder, friendlier devil worshiper, after all.
Dispater isn't the patron deity of a major Inner Sea nation and, if past is prologue, will be just as banned as Asmodeus as far as PFS is concerned, regardless of his sanctification allowances.
I get that the official line is that you can't have a neutral/unsanctified Asmodeus worshipper anymore. Reiterating that fact doesn't make it less frustrating that it renders character concepts I enjoyed effectively unplayable and makes me feel like I have to work extra hard to justify playing any Chelaxian character that doesn't come with the words "Ask me how I'm a subversive element" tattooed on their forehead.
There's a big gulf between "participating in the social aspects of a state religion" and "accepting spells from Asmodeus."
They're all fodder to your average adventurer, so I don't think the distinction matters much in most games.
Alright, that's it. If I get a chance I'm playing my Stout Halfling Mummy as a bones Oracle who worships Urgathoa as a liberator and provider, despite the fact that his kindness and mercy piss her off, causing his curse.
...and if there's any way at all, try and see if you can get sanctified Holy.
I was thinking that should be part of the blessed one archetype or background.
Awesome.
...and now I'm imagining a version that's nearly identical other than the fact that he instead worships Pharasma specifically in her role as creator-deity. They'd work well together, but their theological debates would be legendary.
Unholy means you've dedicated part of your life to promoting pain and suffering. You make the decision to do so. Other terrible people are terrible because they have trauma they haven't dealt with, but they don't often acknowledge or understand the negative impact they have on others.
Pain and suffering are consequences of terrible peoples actions, while for unholy people pain and suffering are the goal.
A terrible person would say "I'll become king even though it will cost thousands of people their lives."
An unholy person would say "I'm going to cause thousands of people to die, and somehow that will make me king? Great bonus."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have trouble understanding why people feel Unholy is the worst. You can absolutely be the worst person alive and not be Unholy.
It's just that this person cannot be Holy.
It goes past that.
It's not just "being an awful person means you can't be holy". There's a really strong argument to be made that being unholy pretty much inherently means that you're an awful person. Like yeah, there's space for GM interpretation there, and not just houserules. The rules themselves are unclear and arguably contradictory... but "being unholy means that you're an awful human being" is, I think, one of the stronger rhetorical positions in that morass.
Still, your core assertion is correct. For an individual person, the unholy sanctification functions primarily as a requirement. "You must be this evil to ride this ride". There's nothing stopping you from being whatever level of horrible with no sanctification at all.
In the context of gods, however, if unholy sanctification is a hard requirement for you... then yeah. Among deities, you are, in fact, The Worst. Asmodeus and Urgathoa are simply more horrible than Zon-Kuthon and Norgorber. None of the four are what we'd describe as good, but ZK and the Hamburglar are at least willing to accept and share power with non-awful followers who are at least potentially seeking non-awful ends. For Asmodeus and Urgathoa, that's simply not true.
I understand the point of the restrictions for Pathfinder Society, but it's still silly to me.
I played a Cleric of Zyphus, who became the group-dad to his adventuring party, because of how much he worried and overprepared for everything. Packed more than enough rations for everyone, had every tool needed to solve a problem, they just doubled as implements for sabotage. He spotted every trap and hazard, making every place as safe as possible for his party, and when they would leave, he'd improve some of the traps and make them worse.
He was vicious to his enemies in all the ways the unholy trait demands, but to his allies and loved ones, he treated them with immense affection and care because he truly believed his god could take them from him at any time. He married a Cleric of Urgathoa after she convinced him that if she died in some horrible accident, she'd just come right back, so he'd never lose her. They have three children now.
Beloved character, his Schadenfreude was legendary.
The rules might say you need to be a terrible person, but if you read the lore of the gods, most of them are extremely reasonable. Most of the time, evil gods don't need to demand for you to be evil, you'll philosophize yourself into doing terrible things on your own without any pressure.
Well, we haven't seen the rules for a lot of the minor deities and won't until Divine Mysteries comes out in November. But it's possible that your "technically evil deities who have a reasonable side" are the ones that are supposed to have sanctification of "can choose unholy" like Zon-Kuthon, Norgorber, and Lamashtu.
Like it seems pretty clear from the lore that ZK, Norgie, and Lamashtu are supposed to be less evil than Asmodeus, Rovagug, and Urgathoa. So it's possible that all the former "evil deities who allowed neutral followers in 2e" are going to be "can choose unholy" and likewise former good deities that allowed neutral will be "can choose holy."
|
I understand the point of the restrictions for Pathfinder Society, but it's still silly to me.
I played a Cleric of Zyphus, who became the group-dad to his adventuring party, because of how much he worried and overprepared for everything. Packed more than enough rations for everyone, had every tool needed to solve a problem, they just doubled as implements for sabotage. He spotted every trap and hazard, making every place as safe as possible for his party, and when they would leave, he'd improve some of the traps and make them worse.
He was vicious to his enemies in all the ways the unholy trait demands, but to his allies and loved ones, he treated them with immense affection and care because he truly believed his god could take them from him at any time. He married a Cleric of Urgathoa after she convinced him that if she died in some horrible accident, she'd just come right back, so he'd never lose her. They have three children now.
Beloved character, his Schadenfreude was legendary.
The rules might say you need to be a terrible person, but if you read the lore of the gods, most of them are extremely reasonable. Most of the time, evil gods don't need to demand for you to be evil, you'll philosophize yourself into doing terrible things on your own without any pressure.
From my perspective at least, the Follower Alignments section used to provide guidance as to what sort of people the deity would be willing to directly empower, and the Sanctification section does the same now. If a deity has reasonable-seeming edicts and anathema, but would only empower terrible people, that says something. The same way you can play a follower of Asmodeus from Cheliax who is a reasonable person and takes what they value from the teachings of Asmodeus but can't play a Cleric of Asmodeus himself (because Asmodeus will only provide you power when you've actually finished your journey to the evil-person-land), you can play a follower of Zyphus who fits your description all you want, but Zyphus himself is only willing to give them powers if they become truly evil.
On top of that, I struggle to see how the character is consistent with the teachings of Zyphus, personally. Zyphus will strip his powers from you if you consistently spread hope to others; providing the members of your group with safety and security against the threat of traps, and specifically being the one who is prepared for everything, seems like it would be spreading a lot of hope to me. Zyphus' edicts and anathema are pretty difficult to follow without being a truly terrible person, from my perspective.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I just had more of an idea for that Oracle: The reason he is sanctified Holly (the deity who blessed them) Calistria is messing with Urgathoa. She is specifically not taking credit and letting the Oracle attribute his powers to Urgathoa and preach what Urgathoa would call a blasphemous doctrine SPECIFICALLY to piss off the Pallid Princess, who has never learned restraint.
On top of that, I struggle to see how the character is consistent with the teachings of Zyphus, personally. Zyphus will strip his powers from you if you consistently spread hope to others; providing the members of your group with safety and security against the threat of traps, and specifically being the one who is prepared for everything, seems like it would be spreading a lot of hope to me. Zyphus' edicts and anathema are pretty difficult to follow without being a truly terrible person, from my perspective.
And your perspective is valid. I simply used all the material I have on Zyphus to create the character, which included my issue of #89 Pathfinder Adventure Path: Palace of Fallen Stars, and the Campaign Setting book Inner Sea Faiths as my guidelines. Both books contained a full spread article on Zyphus and a lot of the text was copied verbatim from the Palace of Fallen Stars to Inner Sea Faiths. Here's the part I feel that supports my character's perspective the most.
Zyphus doesn't care about mortal marriage or families—his followers may take spouses and have children, but are keenly aware that they might lose these people at any time. As a result, most in the church are either extremely committed to their loved ones (and are more devastated at their deaths) or coolly remote with their emotions (the better to survive the inevitable grief).
And I've never known an overprotective or burdensome parent to be a source of hope for anyone. Typically they're a minor annoyance that might make a person feel too confident that nothing will go wrong, instead of hopeful. As I said, the character essentially wore two faces. The caring parental figure for his companions and family, and the wicked trapmaster whose fascination with building snares and maiming devices should have alarmed the other characters in the party, except they didn't care about it because they weren't the targets of said hazards.
All he had to do was spin a little lie about how trapping the tomb behind them would make it dangerous and difficult for new monsters to inhabit the space after they've left. He prided himself on being a handyman and could fix anything given enough time, but letting him take things apart simply taught him how to make them dangerous later, and the party's ignorance toward his actions could be said to be a subtle corruption of their noble goals. If the authorities had ever come after the party for anything he had done, his bond with the other characters would have seen them obstructing justice by protecting him from consequences.
He also really liked posting his "letters to the common man" on notice boards and other public places. Though this action isn't required in Second Edition, it's an example of the small practices a cleric of Zyphus would undertake daily in their travels.
Obedience Spend an hour sitting on the grave of someone who suffered an accidental death. You must reflect on how chance has wronged you and vocally reject the influence of any deity associated with these wrongs. If no suitable grave exists, spend an hour telling strangers how their religious beliefs and hopes for a just afterlife are folly and of no consequence. Alternatively, you can write this screed and post it in a public place within a settlement. If you're away from civilization, you can instead spend an hour sabotaging a path, bridge, tool, or other device so that it's dangerous for the next person who uses it.
So I'd say that my Cleric was sanctified as Unholy. But I don't feel that Unholy means someone has to be a miserable antisocial hermit who can't get along with anyone. And adventuring groups are a great vector for spreading harm to others—most adventuring parties kill everything and everyone who actively obstructs their path anyway.
I hope fear that may have made my position clearer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is possible to play an unrepentantly evil character in a party and have it work, with or without hiding things from your fellow party members.
It is possible to have an entire party be composed of such characters.
That's not what PFS is about, though. PFS is about generally good people doing generally good things, and making the world (in general) a better place.
PFS is about generally good people doing generally good things, and making the world (in general) a better place.
I beg to diffe—no I'm kidding. Of course, and that's not what the original topic of this thread is about, anyway.
To readdress the topic, since the Holy/Unholy appears to be the line drawn in the sand, perhaps there is a distinct reason the gods on either side have chosen where to stand?
Perhaps Urgathoa and Asmodeus may have decided to require such a pledge because they won't receive mercy from the other side when one side claims victory.
I mean, Zon Kuthon has the benefit of his sister wanting to help him, Norgobor just wants to be on the winning team but Lamashtu is a really odd case here, because as the Demon Queen she's declared herself the enemy of practically everyone else, even the other evil gods.
So perhaps taking sides when the line in the sand was drawn is because both sides know that they're not known to be reasonable, and that will be used against them in the end.
Perhaps Gorum refused to truly take a side and both sides were infuriated by this, so his death was simply a means to deny either side having the aspect of War behind them?
Lots to ponder.
Perhaps Gorum refused to truly take a side and both sides were infuriated by this, so his death was simply a means to deny either side having the aspect of War behind them?
That's a really weird take, since he'd almost certainly follow the same bog-standard pattern as all of he other neutral deities and let his followers go either way... and it wouldn't be in his nature to ever pick sides when he could instead revel in the carnage.
Lamashtu is a really odd case here, because as the Demon Queen she's declared herself the enemy of practically everyone else, even the other evil gods.
I think the thing about Lamashtu is that she has sympathy for anybody who is perceived as "monstrous" or "wrong" whether or not those beings actually further the causes of Demons. Like she's the (albeit icky) god who will tell Fleshwarps that they are beautiful the way they are and should not try to seek acceptance from "regular people" by changing or hiding themselves.
You could say that this is arguably a "lovebombing" approach to rope those who fear they are monstrous into her whole agenda, but I think her love for "freaks" is genuine.
Oh, I was just musing, honestly.
and it wouldn't be in his nature to ever pick sides when he could instead revel in the carnage.
Exactly the reason why the other gods might see his removal as necessary before they undertake a great war.
Perhaps this terrible Batman quote will better illustrate what I meant:He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there’s even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty… and we have to destroy him.
I'm not saying that's the reason Gorum died. Merely positing it as one of the myriad possibilities until we know for sure in the coming content.
Bad logic is a trait even the Gods of Pathfinder share with mortals, no matter how removed from mortal woes they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC 110
Sanctification
Depending on your deity, their sanctification can make
you holy or unholy. This gives you the holy or unholy
trait, which commits you to one side of a struggle over
the souls of the planes and may be referenced in other
abilities. If you “can be” holy or unholy according to your
deity, you make that choice, and if you “must be” holy or
unholy you gain the trait automatically. If you gain the
opposing trait in some way, you lose the previous trait
until you complete an atone ritual (page 390).
This kind of doesn't get into anything relating to a characters disposition towards others except that they have taken a side in a extra planar war and have been imbued with the trait given by their deity. is there more on the topic somewhere?
Could be the nicest most loving/sharing/generous go out of their way to help you kind of character but when it comes to matters of explanar war they have a duty to carry out.
The repercussion here is that a person who is by all other measures good will have to justify to themselves why they follow an Unholy sanctifying deity and what drives them to continue fighting for that side despite their natural inclinations towards what would otherwise be considered the traits of a good person.
That's not what PFS is about, though. PFS is about generally good people doing generally good things, and making the world (in general) a better place.
PFS adventure are not really about being good per se. The PFS organization is considered neutral. And you are always performing missions for the Society during PFS adventure. So an evil character who has reasons to progress inside the PFS or who's loyal has all the right in the world to participate to PFS. Actually, PFS missions are very rarely purely selfless. The Society is very often "helping" to get allies or consolidate its position in the area. A very political reading would consider it neutral, hiding its political maneuvers behind apparently good actions.
Still, there are a few situations where the PFS clearly acted against evil. But these are more exceptions than the rule.
|
|
That's not what PFS is about, though. PFS is about generally good people doing generally good things, and making the world (in general) a better place.PFS adventure are not really about being good per se. The PFS organization is considered neutral. And you are always performing missions for the Society during PFS adventure. So an evil character who has reasons to progress inside the PFS or who's loyal has all the right in the world to participate to PFS. Actually, PFS missions are very rarely purely selfless. The Society is very often "helping" to get allies or consolidate its position in the area. A very political reading would consider it neutral, hiding its political maneuvers behind apparently good actions.
Still, there are a few situations where the PFS clearly acted against evil. But these are more exceptions than the rule.
Still you could never play an Evil PFS PC.
That's not what PFS is about, though. PFS is about generally good people doing generally good things, and making the world (in general) a better place.PFS adventure are not really about being good per se. The PFS organization is considered neutral. And you are always performing missions for the Society during PFS adventure. So an evil character who has reasons to progress inside the PFS or who's loyal has all the right in the world to participate to PFS. Actually, PFS missions are very rarely purely selfless. The Society is very often "helping" to get allies or consolidate its position in the area. A very political reading would consider it neutral, hiding its political maneuvers behind apparently good actions.
Still, there are a few situations where the PFS clearly acted against evil. But these are more exceptions than the rule.
So, I may have overstated.
At the same time, there's the fact that evil character options aren't really allowed, and taking more than about three significantly evil acts will make you retire your character permanently.
PFS does not support play as an evil character. It's not intended to. You can cram in some evilness around the edges if you work at it, but you shouldn't be surprised when your "I'm evil but it's okay" character concept isn't allowed because you were never intended to be able to play PFS as an evil character in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PC 110
Sanctification
Depending on your deity, their sanctification can make
you holy or unholy. This gives you the holy or unholy
trait, which commits you to one side of a struggle over
the souls of the planes and may be referenced in other
abilities. If you “can be” holy or unholy according to your
deity, you make that choice, and if you “must be” holy or
unholy you gain the trait automatically. If you gain the
opposing trait in some way, you lose the previous trait
until you complete an atone ritual (page 390).This kind of doesn't get into anything relating to a characters disposition towards others except that they have taken a side in a extra planar war and have been imbued with the trait given by their deity. is there more on the topic somewhere?
Could be the nicest most loving/sharing/generous go out of their way to help you kind of character but when it comes to matters of explanar war they have a duty to carry out.
The repercussion here is that a person who is by all other measures good will have to justify to themselves why they follow an Unholy sanctifying deity and what drives them to continue fighting for that side despite their natural inclinations towards what would otherwise be considered the traits of a good person.
Unholy trait states "Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to unholy causes".
And the Remastered preview was very clear that Unholy implies evil.
Also, on AoN, there is this sidebar on Sanctification in the Deities part :
"Sanctification
Some deities sanctify their clerics and similarly devoted followers. This gives the follower the holy or unholy trait. The holy trait indicates a powerful devotion to altruism, helping others, and battling against unholy forces like fiends and undead. The unholy trait, in turn, shows devotion to victimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers. Deities that list “must choose” mandate gaining the trait and those that list “can choose” give the devotee the option to choose the trait or not. You can have the holy trait, unholy trait, or neither, but can never have both the holy and unholy traits."
The whole part mentions : Source Player Core pg. 35
PC 110
Sanctification
Depending on your deity, their sanctification can make
you holy or unholy. This gives you the holy or unholy
trait, which commits you to one side of a struggle over
the souls of the planes and may be referenced in other
abilities. If you “can be” holy or unholy according to your
deity, you make that choice, and if you “must be” holy or
unholy you gain the trait automatically. If you gain the
opposing trait in some way, you lose the previous trait
until you complete an atone ritual (page 390).This kind of doesn't get into anything relating to a characters disposition towards others except that they have taken a side in a extra planar war and have been imbued with the trait given by their deity. is there more on the topic somewhere?
Could be the nicest most loving/sharing/generous go out of their way to help you kind of character but when it comes to matters of explanar war they have a duty to carry out.
The repercussion here is that a person who is by all other measures good will have to justify to themselves why they follow an Unholy sanctifying deity and what drives them to continue fighting for that side despite their natural inclinations towards what would otherwise be considered the traits of a good person.
Unholy trait states "Creatures with this trait are strongly devoted to unholy causes".
And the Remastered preview was very clear that Unholy implies evil.
Also, on AoN, there is this sidebar on Sanctification in the Deities part :
"Sanctification
Some deities sanctify their clerics and similarly devoted followers. This gives the follower the holy or unholy trait. The holy trait indicates a powerful devotion to altruism, helping others, and battling against unholy forces like fiends and undead. The unholy trait, in turn, shows devotion to victimizing others, inflicting harm, and battling celestial powers. Deities that list “must choose” mandate gaining the trait and those that list “can choose” give the devotee the...
Ah thanks.
That does look to make taking the trait a sign of good or evil devotion. not just being dedicated to a side in a extra planar war.
You can cram in some evilness around the edges if you work at it, but you shouldn't be surprised when your "I'm evil but it's okay" character concept isn't allowed because you were never intended to be able to play PFS as an evil character in the first place.
And it's clearly understood that this comes from a meta-understanding that the purpose of Pathfinder Society Play is to facilitate quick, fun, Pathfinder games for groups for interested players.
The main issue that likely contributed to this rule is the fact that it's meant to prevent group and inter-player disharmony from occurring due to how volatile some individuals can become when acting out their characters in situations where ethics can play a role in the outcome. Essentially, we can't guarantee that every group will be comprised of mature adults who won't become emotional or refrain from antagonizing other players during the course of play, so locking players out of the choice was seen as the easiest solution.
Given that Alignment is a thing of the past, but sanctification is still present and assigns the label of "Good" and "Evil" to characters whose players have chosen certain combinations of Gods and Classes, it doesn't surprise me at all to see that little has changed, fundamentally.
I'm simply thankful that my group has no such restrictions in place, and our stories are all the more unique for it.
Now to wonder how the Minor Gods and other divinities will change to be compliant as Pathfinder rounds its most dramatic story upheaval thus far, very exciting!
Still you could never play an Evil PFS PC.
That was before remaster. Since remaster, evil is no more a thing. So there's some leeway.
taking more than about three significantly evil acts will make you retire your character permanently.
Yes, you have to avoid Infamy. So you can't kill puppies. But your character can still be evil, just not extremely (stupidly) evil.