Besmara is a Deity of Pirates. Raiders on the Sea. Her Edicts are to take what you want, no matter from whome or what reason. The only redeeming quality in her edicts seem to stay loyal to your crew. Your fellow crew of murderers and thieves, so you can successfully raid ships.
She herself became a deity for two reasons:
1. because she terrified sailors that she would send monsters after them (and probably did).
2. she killed multiple Spirits to ascend to Deity Status.
The one mention of non-pirates worshipping her, straight up ignore the pirate part of her worship. Which seems more like appeasing her then actually worshipping her. Or at the very least, Apocryphal?
Like she demandes almost the same things as Norgorber, the God of Murders and Thieves. Yes there is a loyalty demanded towards your fellow Pirates, your Partners in Crime. And there is no need to hide your identity. But like the point that makes Norgorber evil, is still shared. To do what you want, at the cost of others.
So.....how is there any form of being Holy? Any hint that there is a Well intended Follower of this Entity?
Lets take Calistria for a counter example. She is selfish. and wants Vengeance, but she doesn't demand that you just don't care for anyone else. Just that you get what you want and respect Vengeance. It is never specified that you have to take from others, ruin their properties and lifes. That is for me someone in the middle, you can lay out her teachings to be a killer who just takes what you want, but it is not specificly asked to be vile or merciless to follow her.
While Besmara you have to take what you want. its literally her Edict.
So what am I missing?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really have much commentary to give on this, but I checked the Divine Mysteries Web Supplement and her sanctification says “can choose unholy” so it’s either no sanctification or unholy sanctification; there’s no option for holy sanctification with her.
She does allow heal, but I assume that’s just part of being able to maintain crew health. Nor do I think that indicates holiness when Lamashtu apparently also allows harm or heal as a divine font. Dunno if that answers your question though.
I don’t really have much commentary to give on this, but I checked the Divine Mysteries Web Supplement and her sanctification says “can choose unholy” so it’s either no sanctification or unholy sanctification; there’s no option for holy sanctification with her.
She does allow heal, but I assume that’s just part of being able to maintain crew health. Nor do I think that indicates holiness when Lamashtu apparently also allows harm or heal as a divine font. Dunno if that answers your question though.
It actually does not. I looked it up the Web supplement and you are correct.
But I also have Divine Mysteries the Book, which states "Can choose holy or unholy"
So now I am more confused what happend there
But Besmara was already seen as a viable option for Chaotic Good characters back in pfe1 and Premaster, so even if the Web supplement is correct and the book not, my question still stands
Because she doesn't really care much about the cosmic war between Holy and Unholy but she finds "Holy" people insufferable. So, Unholy can hang as long as they don't betray the crew.
If "can choose either" is the correct one, the above gets trimmed down to just not caring about the cosmic moral war.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t really have much commentary to give on this, but I checked the Divine Mysteries Web Supplement and her sanctification says “can choose unholy” so it’s either no sanctification or unholy sanctification; there’s no option for holy sanctification with her.
She does allow heal, but I assume that’s just part of being able to maintain crew health. Nor do I think that indicates holiness when Lamashtu apparently also allows harm or heal as a divine font. Dunno if that answers your question though.
It actually does not. I looked it up the Web supplement and you are correct.
But I also have Divine Mysteries the Book, which states "Can choose holy or unholy"
So now I am more confused what happend there
But Besmara was already seen as a viable option for Chaotic Good characters back in pfe1 and Premaster, so even if the Web supplement is correct and the book not, my question still stands
Oh, I also have the Divine Mysteries book, but I forgot to check it. It does say that, odd.
In terms of chaotic good followers though prior to the loss of alignment, I don’t think that’s exceptionally weird; it’s a common enough trope to be a ‘folk hero’ pirating crew, regardless of the actual morality of piracy. Also I’d assume that’d be partially bc some people might want to play Besmarans who are Firebrands or something similar. In another vein, her page in Divine Mysteries says that she’s worshipped by “the vilest of high-sea murderers and the privateers who seek them out”. While my vague knowledge of nautical history suggests that privateers mainly worked for governments to raid ships during times of explicit war, I can also see said groups being directed by the governments they are hired by to attack pirates who are targeting said government’s commercial interests. Higher up, it does say that her followers tend to go against laws that restrict personal freedom, but I guess that could also be an indicator that those who tend to be most devout are ones whose personality are more in line with Besmara’s, while those who are less so lean more towards slightly heretical means of viewing her or more token displays.
Again, I don’t know for sure, this is mostly rambling. I think it’s an interesting debate though in terms of which one is meant to be accurate and why Besmara might be more chill about ‘nice’ followers than her own personality and area of concern would suggest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "take what you want" but "be loyal to your crew" part I think is what keeps Besmaran adherents from going full murder hobo.
Also, if you look at history, pirates usually didn't want to kill their targets. Because if you became notorious for killing your prey, they would fight harder and to the death (if they thought their only way out alive was to kill you). Ideally pirates just want their prey to surrender and give over their stuff.
And stealing is bad, but like, not as bad as murder.
Yeah, that's one of the few who does suffer from changes in editions, rules, terms, etc.
Worked well with Positive Energy / Heal vs Negative Energy / Harm, but not that well with the connotations of the Holy/Unholy terminology.
Also, what Claxon pointed out.
Think Jack Sparrow, truly.
We don't see Jack kill anyone (okay, a few minor exceptions but generally he doesn't kill). But he doesn't hesitate to plunder things he wants.
Classic "chaotic neutral" type in my opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besmara isn't just the goddess of people who become pirates because they are greedy and bloodthirsty, she's also the goddess of people who becomes pirates because they are oppressed and disenfranchised on land.
The "take what you want" but "be loyal to your crew" part I think is what keeps Besmaran adherents from going full murder hobo.
Also, if you look at history, pirates usually didn't want to kill their targets. Because if you became notorious for killing your prey, they would fight harder and to the death (if they thought their only way out alive was to kill you). Ideally pirates just want their prey to surrender and give over their stuff.
And stealing is bad, but like, not as bad as murder.
You hit the nail on the head
I completly aggree with youMy question is not, can there be non-evil pirates, that I aggree with
I am talking specifically Holy (good aligned) Clerics of a Goddess of PIracy. Someone who has good intentions but will only raid and plunder as their lifes work. How would THAT work
Jack is a fun guy, but I wouldn't call him a really morally upstanding person.
I mean, thieving/pirating is still bad.
But also circumstances matter and those kind of pirate as probably the ones that fell into the old chaotic good category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If killing the bad guys (unholy sanctification or not) is A-OK for those holy sanctified, I'm not sure why raiding and plundering the bad guys would be off the table???
If killing the bad guys (unholy sanctification or not) is A-OK for those holy sanctified, I'm not sure why raiding and plundering the bad guys would be off the table???
Well, it's not necessarily that simple.
You could be up against a ship from Cheliax that has really done anything wrong other than being from Cheliax, at least as far as your characters know.
So if they try to arrest you for being pirates...it quickly becomes morally grey.
And that's fine with the new morally grey functionality of PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besmara as a goddess of sea monsters was the boss who kept everyone in check. Sure, she benefited from it, but she was necessary evil, because if not her the sea monsters would run loose. For example, her planar ally Old Vengeance is one such monster.
More so, I would say that her views on personal freedom are reflected in the option to choose between Holy or Unholy. Just like Besmara might be fighting either Hell or Heaven in her journeys, her worshippers might fight Cheliax's Navy or oppose the Eagle Knights. She encourages her worshipers to take what they want, but what they want depends on them - just like one pirate desire riches and fame, another might desire vengeance on those who hurt him. Besmara would encourage them both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "take what you want" but "be loyal to your crew" part I think is what keeps Besmaran adherents from going full murder hobo.
Also, if you look at history, pirates usually didn't want to kill their targets. Because if you became notorious for killing your prey, they would fight harder and to the death (if they thought their only way out alive was to kill you). Ideally pirates just want their prey to surrender and give over their stuff.
And stealing is bad, but like, not as bad as murder.
You hit the nail on the head
I completly aggree with youMy question is not, can there be non-evil pirates, that I aggree with
I am talking specifically Holy (good aligned) Clerics of a Goddess of PIracy. Someone who has good intentions but will only raid and plunder as their lifes work. How would THAT workJack is a fun guy, but I wouldn't call him a really morally upstanding person.
While Good vs Evil is one thing, it can be useful to remember the whole Law vs Chaos part, and maybe avoid conflating Good with Law and Evil with Chaos.
Also, Robin Hood as a "good thief"
She's also the goddess of sea monsters and there's nothing unholy about a kraken- a kraken just has to eat.
|
I don’t really have much commentary to give on this, but I checked the Divine Mysteries Web Supplement and her sanctification says “can choose unholy” so it’s either no sanctification or unholy sanctification; there’s no option for holy sanctification with her.
She does allow heal, but I assume that’s just part of being able to maintain crew health. Nor do I think that indicates holiness when Lamashtu apparently also allows harm or heal as a divine font. Dunno if that answers your question though.
It actually does not. I looked it up the Web supplement and you are correct.
But I also have Divine Mysteries the Book, which states "Can choose holy or unholy"
So now I am more confused what happend there
But Besmara was already seen as a viable option for Chaotic Good characters back in pfe1 and Premaster, so even if the Web supplement is correct and the book not, my question still stands
The web supplement was finalized after the book went to the printer. I would personally assume most discrepancies would act like an "errata".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While Good vs Evil is one thing, it can be useful to remember the whole Law vs Chaos part, and maybe avoid conflating Good with Law and Evil with Chaos.
Also, Robin Hood as a "good thief"
That one I want clarify, Robin Hood was a Thief out of Necessity. If everything went well, he would have happily just remained a noble and kept running his estate well.
But he couldn't, it was desperate Times
And circumstances can be explained, even excused
But if your base approach is "PLunder and Raid" in every situation, no matter if poor or Rich, that is diffrent for me. Piracy for Piracy sake, is a vile act for me.
The web supplement was finalized after the book went to the printer. I would personally assume most discrepancies would act like an "errata".
That I would like to believe. Because I am not having an issue with a casual Sailor praying for Besmara to "Please don't get us killed on this voyage" is normal and fine
I had an issue seeing a dedicated cleric who is Holy aligned, saying "You always plunder and loot, no matter what the situation is, take what you want. You don't earn anything, you just take it."
And if there the choice is, that you are either in the middle or completly in the unholy side, would make more sense to me.
One thing I would like to point out is that Holy does not necessarily mean good, and Unholy does not necessarily mean evil in the Remaster.
Holy means side with the angelic (roughly) side, and Unholy means side with the demonic (roughly) side in their eternal war.
You could have something good like
|
My answer/opinion to the OP: Because it's based on old-school, Bad Design principles. Pirates are Evil. I almost spit out my milk laughing earlier reading a post that implied Pirates may not be evil since they don't (often) kill, only steal, because killing people gives them a bad reputation and the consequence will be to get hunted down. LOL. Besmara is Evil. No doubt. No argument. Certainly there are many potential followers of Besmara that may not be Evil: There can be Neutral or even NG followers who appease her or look at her as a "Mistress of Neutral sea monsters" such as the Neutral Kraken, who just has to eat, as someone pointed out. But reading on Besmara, she's as CE as is Umberlee.
I will add this, though, in a combined Cosmology -- and many gamers game in a setting where Greyhawk, Faerun, Ptolus, Golarion, Krynn, and etc., etc. can all coexist in the same multiverse (To-Hell-with-published-Intellectual-Property considerations at 'our' Table) -- you can easily Homebrew Besmara to get rid of the Evil stuff in order to highlight the difference between Umberlee and Besmara as two distinct deities in the overall setting.
Yeah, Besmara's too non-good to be Holy or sanctify such. That's absurd, even if many of her Golarion followers fight Cheliax. There's room for some followers to finesse a good lifestyle, but there's no active encouragement on the part of Besmara.
I also don't see her as pro-evil enough to sanctify Unholy, even if she has followers who are pro-evil. She does endorse evil acts, but more as byproducts of her (warped/callous) sense of freedom and adventure. She wants her people to flourish and helps protect others, actions the Unholy deities only do as part of a greater evil purpose. She's no role model, and perhaps unhinged, but she's not anti-angelic, anti-cosmos, anti-sapient beings.
Not sure how this balances mechanically, if that's a factor at all. And you get other weird middle-of-the-road deities like Irori who can sanctify either way and Gozreh who can do neither (despite the amount of "bad" destruction he does and being "good" by disliking undead). I see Besmara more on the Gozreh side, so focused on earthly/Golarionly issues that the cosmic conflicts mean little to her. (With Irori being more involved in such transcendent matters and the different paths available, as yucky as the ramifications are (and on top of the physical development).)
In old parlance, I would call Besmara firmly chaotic neutral with a slight lean to little e Evil (because of the thieving aspect of "take what you want").
But she's not cosmically dedicated to a greater good or greater evil.
Probably she shouldn't be able to sanctify anyone as holy or unholy...but mechanically that kind of sucks if you wanted be a cleric of Besmara.
To be honest, many Neutral Deities feel/felt closer to Evil than actual neutrality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While Good vs Evil is one thing, it can be useful to remember the whole Law vs Chaos part, and maybe avoid conflating Good with Law and Evil with Chaos.
Also, Robin Hood as a "good thief"
That one I want clarify, Robin Hood was a Thief out of Necessity. If everything went well, he would have happily just remained a noble and kept running his estate well.
But he couldn't, it was desperate Times
And circumstances can be explained, even excused
But if your base approach is "PLunder and Raid" in every situation, no matter if poor or Rich, that is diffrent for me. Piracy for Piracy sake, is a vile act for me.
That depends on the source you are using. The character of Robin Hood is a folkloric character and has a number of versions. the Noble origin is a latter addition to Robin Hood, heck even Maid Marion wasn't in some of the earlist Ballads. Also in the original Ballads, it wasn't just a desperate thing, I don't know when he got his rob from the rich to give to the poor thing but it wasn't there in the early ballads, though some of them did have him with a code of conduct.
That depends on the source you are using. The character of Robin Hood is a folkloric character and has a number of versions. the Noble origin is a latter addition to Robin Hood, heck even Maid Marion wasn't in some of the earlist Ballads. Also in the original Ballads, it wasn't just a desperate thing, I don't know when he got his rob from the rich to give to the poor thing but it wasn't there in the early ballads, though some of them did have him with a code of conduct.
Indeed and it is quite fascinating on how Folklore does develop. Though the noble background is usually used when he is portrait as the "noble thief who fights for his people". Hence I was refering to that.
What was more important, is the portrait of a good thief usually means, something was taken away unjustifiably which is now returned, or someone loses something they didn't earn. Which does usually require some context.
Besmara doesn't need context to thief and steal or kill. She wants you to "Take what you want" at all times. And that includes more then just material goods, taking someone ransom would be another example. I take a person to make money from their family.
Agreed, and I would never ever call Besmara good. And to me allowing for good aligned clerics never made sense. But I could see good aligned people worshipping Besmara, but also having a self imposed code of conduct and limiting "what they want" by saying "I wan this, but I want to also not take it by killing" or something to that effect. But I feel like that only works for now divinely empowered worshippers of Besmara.
As to why she isn't straight evil....because there are scenarios in which one can get what they want without killing, and even without stealing. And it's also less morally clear if you're stealing from the Golarion equivalent of the East India Company versus an individual.
It's enough to me to say, Besmara would be chaotic neutral in the old parlance, with a slight leaning towards evil (or rather than her tenants are much more easily achieved with evil means) and that she should mostly have neutral and evil followers, with a minority of good, but I don't think she should be able to sanctify holy ever.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, this is a very narrow view of morality. Yeah, I can easily see morality in raiding and stealing. For the good of Freedom, to be just one step beyond the reach of any king or tyrant who wishes to impose on you. Loyal only to those who pledge themselves equally to you.
Also, if you would have to hurt true innocents to take something... I would imagine a good person would just: No longer want it. and thus no longer be bound by their edicts. If they NEED it then it becomes an ethical dilemma.
I can see a good and holy person flying Holy banner with pride. Calling for their prey to drop arms, or suffer the Pirate Queen's wrath.
Wow, this is a very narrow view of morality. Yeah, I can easily see morality in raiding and stealing. For the good of Freedom, to be just one step beyond the reach of any king or tyrant who wishes to impose on you. Loyal only to those who pledge themselves equally to you.
Also, if you would have to hurt true innocents to take something... I would imagine a good person would just: No longer want it. and thus no longer be bound by their edicts. If they NEED it then it becomes an ethical dilemma.
I can see a good and holy person flying Holy banner with pride. Calling for their prey to drop arms, or suffer the Pirate Queen's wrath.
THAT is the kind of answer I have been looking for. That does make sense.
I will admit, I have quite a negative view on the classic pirates, given I have readen up on how gruesome that got. So I do appriciate this
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I would like to point out is that Holy does not necessarily mean good, and Unholy does not necessarily mean evil in the Remaster.
Holy means side with the angelic (roughly) side, and Unholy means side with the demonic (roughly) side in their eternal war.
You could have something good like ** spoiler omitted ** do things that fall into the Unholy side, and it is very easy to see someone that we might call 'evil' working with the side of angels to not want to see demons take over the world, for instance.
Holy absolutely means adherence to good, on a cosmic scale even. Same for Unholy and evil.
I will admit, I have quite a negative view on the classic pirates, given I have readen up on how gruesome that got. So I do appriciate this
Many works of fictions depict them in darker light, especially when they are up against armies/navies depicted as knights in shining armors type. Granted, some Pirates were just that bad.
It's enough to me to say, Besmara would be chaotic neutral in the old parlance, with a slight leaning towards evil (or rather than her tenants are much more easily achieved with evil means) and that she should mostly have neutral and evil followers, with a minority of good, but I don't think she should be able to sanctify holy ever.
I do agree that the demographic of Besmara's empowered worshippers are majority not sanctified, then a sizable chunk that is unholy, and a minority of holy, but I disagree that she shouldn't allow holy sanctification at all. Because first of all, why would she care? She's pretty big on personal freedoms, and her only rules are to never betray your crew and to never forsake piracy. How a worshipper goes about that doesn't matter to her at all. I see her similarly like Nethys in that way, or remastered Gorum (may he rest in conflict).
Besides, she will also do anything to gain an upper hand, and it's been mentioned she raids both Heaven and Hell, among others. I would 100% expect her to take advantage of holy weaknesses when she's raiding Hell, and vice versa for Heaven. So why wouldn't she extend the same advantage to her followers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My headcanon is that Iomedae is asexual, but not aromantic. She is not just a patron of knights and crusaders, but of the chaste, courtly attraction embodied by Lancelot and Guinevere, pulled between desire and dishonour, where the beauty is in the tension, perpetually drawn out but never consummated. She's also firmly monogamous, and thus flamed out of Sarenrae's polycule because it just wasn't working - Iomedae resented Sarenrae's attentions being divided and clearly not being the senior partner, while Sarenrae struggled with the idea of compassion and love restrained. They remain cordial allies, but there's an unspoken tension there between them that their worshippers have misinterpreted as doctrinal. She briefly considered Ragathiel as someone more closely aligned to her own ethos, but Ragathiel is too much of a Blood Knight for her tastes, and there's some resentment on his end over the Hand of the Inheritor leaving his service for hers. For now, she's content to be single.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My headcanon is ~snip~
I think you posted that in the wrong thread.
I do apologise, that was indeed meant for a different thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would help the OP to think of how piracy actually worked in the real world then add fantasy elements to it. First off most if not all ships of that time period were crewed by officers and crew. Officers were the children of lords, nobles, and those middle class that could afford to pay for the apprenticeship. They started there carers as very young boys...cabin boys. The crew was a split of skilled and unskilled labor. The crew could by paid, indentured, or be a slave.
Add to that that there were two "types" of Pirates. You had Pirates and Privateers. Often Pirate ships were ships that used to be captained by crewel men before the crew mutinied. These ships would commit piracy on the high seas against merchant ships. Privateers on the other hand had a "Letter of Marquee". This was a letter from a king or queen that made it legal for that ship to piracy for the crown. There was much shenanigans had by England, Denmark, and Spain.
So lets make a hypothetical pirate crew of freed Cheliaxn' slaves that only attack Chelish ships returning to Cheliax filled with plunder from the Mwangi Jungle. The crew only kill who they must to take the ship. They then free the crew to board the lifeboats and start rowing home. The officers are then tried and probably hung. The pirates then commandeer the ship and return to Vidrian with the stolen loot.
To the Cheliax government this is a crew of pirates that should be hung, but how are they viewed in Vidrian. More important is how dose the crew view themselves. Dose the crew commit piracy on the high sea for profit or to prevent an evil empire from stealing their cultural wealth.
I do agree that the demographic of Besmara's empowered worshippers are majority not sanctified, then a sizable chunk that is unholy, and a minority of holy, but I disagree that she shouldn't allow holy sanctification at all. Because first of all, why would she care? She's pretty big on personal freedoms, and her only rules are to never betray your crew and to never forsake piracy. How a worshipper goes about that doesn't matter to her at all. I see her similarly like Nethys in that way, or remastered Gorum (may he rest in conflict).
Besides, she will also do anything to gain an upper hand, and it's been mentioned she raids both Heaven and Hell, among others. I would 100% expect her to take advantage of holy weaknesses when she's raiding Hell, and vice versa for Heaven. So why wouldn't she extend the same advantage to her followers?
My reasoning for that is mostly that Besmara herself doesn't have a Cosmic Holy purpose/existence/whatever you want to call it. She's clearly out for herself, and to a lesser extent whoever she calls her crew.
She's simply not "good" (in the old speak). But you're right, she doesn't care if her followers are good or evil (Holy or Unholy), I just don't think she'd be a source of Holy power for her followers. But if you had another source of holy power, she's not going to care.
I agree she'd use holy power, if it was available to her, to fight any who were weak to it. But that's not a justification for her to have holy power in the first place.
Honestly, I'd write her as not giving holy or unholy...but that turns her into a really bad choice for a cleric, and I'm not even sure how it'd work mechanically. They downplayed the role of law and chaos in PF2, but for deities like Besmara where the chaos part was the strongest portion of her alignment, it leaves her in an awkward spot.
Maybe one day (PF3?) we'll get Order and Disorder sanctifications and creatures with weaknesses and resistance to it.
I wonder if it's a holdover from when they were deciding if Liberators would be required to sanctify Holy or not? Liberator of Besmara is definitely on brand given that many pirate crews recruited slaves and conscripts, some of whom themself rose to command.
Honestly, I'd write her as not giving holy or unholy...but that turns her into a really bad choice for a cleric, and I'm not even sure how it'd work mechanically. They downplayed the role of law and chaos in PF2, but for deities like Besmara where the chaos part was the strongest portion of her alignment, it leaves her in an awkward spot.
Maybe one day (PF3?) we'll get Order and Disorder sanctifications and creatures with weaknesses and resistance to it.
This was kind of an issue in PF1 as well, and sort of inherited from DnD.
And on the list of issues some had with Hell's Vengeance, two opposite factions sharing a non-neutral alignment tend to come with some headaches.For the sanctification thing, maybe some rule patch/append.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Holy/Unholy dichotomy is arguably not a moral dichotomy at all. It has more to do with the cycle of souls through the metaphysic. 'Holy' fights for the passage of souls through the cycle in their appropriate time & course; from the font, through a mortal life, to the great beyond where they are judged according to their choices & actions, and ultimately occupy that 'afterlife' appropriate to their choices & actions, as part of the appropriate afterlife, the soul will eventually (on a cosmic time scale) fully discorporate to ultimately return as quintessence (or comparable term) to the void, to begin the cycle anew.
'Unholy' effectively says 'F+#$ That!' to some or all of said cycle. Anything from being willing to throw everyone else under the bus so long as they get to keep going, to 'the entire system is broken, let's shred it all' & any possible variation between and/or beside.
It's actually somewhat grimly amusing that those deities & philosophies that are arguably more attuned to the Cycle in question tend to stay quite unequivocally out of the holy/unholy dichotomy. There is a definite sense that they that the cycle, being literally the engine that keeps all of existence going, is the actual definition of 'too big to fail'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone be so motivated as to seek the plunder of souls from under Hell's dark dominion, caring not for the heavy weight o' Pharasma's cesure, then will Besmara not then bless their cause? Is not the Boatman Charon's vessel upon the Styx as tempting a target as ever plied the open seas? I say unto you all, the Pirate Queen cares not if one predicates their piracy upon a convoluted moral framework somewhat unmoored from the practical realities of more mundane sea-based looting, for this is fantasy and that sounds rad for the sorts of folks who are into that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone be so motivated as to seek the plunder of souls from under Hell's dark dominion, caring not for the heavy weight o' Pharasma's cesure, then will Besmara not then bless their cause? Is not the Boatman Charon's vessel upon the Styx as tempting a target as ever plied the open seas? I say unto you all, the Pirate Queen cares not if one predicates their piracy upon a convoluted moral framework somewhat unmoored from the practical realities of more mundane sea-based looting, for this is fantasy and that sounds rad for the sorts of folks who are into that!
They're more like...guidelines, than actual edicts and anathemae.
|
|
The Holy/Unholy dichotomy does not revolve around the cycle of life and death. While the Unholy side is far more likely to violate that cycle, it is not the central issue in their conflict.
Someone else said it further up, Besmara is a pirate, and thus an opportunist by nature. She would of course allow her people to take the necessary advantages that sanctification brings. She loathes the restrictions put in by both sides.
I see her as sort of a foil to Pharasma. Not in Pharasma's dedication to the cycle, but Pharasma is dedicated to the ORDER of the cycle. Shackling herself to it as much as she shackles all others in it (hence her followers cannot sanctify because they cannot take sides). Besmara is the opposite. She is about Freedom, freedom from a society that wishes to label and limit her and her followers, freedom to chase the horizon and take whatever is within reach of her blade, and Freedom to offer that freedom to any willing to take it. That is a passionate stance. And I can see her actively, and with conviction, jumping from side to side in the Holy/Unholy war.
I see her as sort of a foil to Pharasma. Not in Pharasma's dedication to the cycle, but Pharasma is dedicated to the ORDER of the cycle. Shackling herself to it as much as she shackles all others in it (hence her followers cannot sanctify because they cannot take sides). Besmara is the opposite. She is about Freedom, freedom from a society that wishes to label and limit her and her followers, freedom to chase the horizon and take whatever is within reach of her blade, and Freedom to offer that freedom to any willing to take it. That is a passionate stance. And I can see her actively, and with conviction, jumping from side to side in the Holy/Unholy war.
I agree. And so I would say that Besmara should be neither Holy or Unholy, but in the game rules as is that would make her bad for a cleric to have as a deity.
|
|
I was saying all that is why should SHOULD be allowed to sanctify as either Holy or Unholy. She is a god who can feel passionate about both sides, and enthusiastically join and switch sides, so of course she would give that same power and freedom to her clerics. You want to Stand firmly on the Holy Side, so long as you stand with your crew, go for it. You want to dedicate yourself to the Unholy forces, so long as you give the freedom to choose to your crew as well, raise Hell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, well I disagree with that in the sense that in my view a deity needs to be dedicated to Holy or Unholy to be able to provide that to others, and Besmara isn't dedicated to either.
But I agree with you that Besmara wouldn't care about whether her faithful could access Holy or Unholy power from any source, I just don't think Besmara would be the source.
Like Gozreh, I would make Besmara not provide any sanctification (well really I'd do Chaos sanctification, but that doesn't exist).
I don't personally think that deities should be providing access to both Unholy and Holy, but that's a whole different issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically right now, a deity that doesn't provide access to a particular sanctification is prohibiting their followers from taking that alsanctification by any means. For all deities it is anathema to wield spells and abilities with a sanctification that the deity doesn't offer. Offering both options for sanctification currently is the mechanical expression of "doesn't personally care which side, but doesn't restrict you from choosing."
Besides which, there are vanishing few, rare options for gaining sanctification outside of a deity's power last I checked. Maybe Divine Mysteries has developed this, but outside of becoming a cultivator or exemplar, almost all sanctification comes strictly from your deity, so a deity who doesn't care where you sanctify but won't give it to you isn't meaningfully different from a deity that refuses you sanctification right now.
Mechanically right now, a deity that doesn't provide access to a particular sanctification is prohibiting their followers from taking that alsanctification by any means. For all deities it is anathema to wield spells and abilities with a sanctification that the deity doesn't offer. Offering both options for sanctification currently is the mechanical expression of "doesn't personally care which side, but doesn't restrict you from choosing."
Besides which, there are vanishing few, rare options for gaining sanctification outside of a deity's power last I checked. Maybe Divine Mysteries has developed this, but outside of becoming a cultivator or exemplar, almost all sanctification comes strictly from your deity, so a deity who doesn't care where you sanctify but won't give it to you isn't meaningfully different from a deity that refuses you sanctification right now.
Do you have a source for this? Cause as far I'm currently aware, that's not true, unless there's some sort of generic catch all side bar that I'm not remembering.
There is a sidebar that says:
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.Spells and other effects can also have these traits, making them more powerful against creatures with the opposite trait. Some spells and abilities have the sanctified trait. If you have the holy or unholy trait, when you use a sanctified ability you add your holy or unholy trait to it.
But when I read that it's not saying anything about having neither Holy or Unholy sanctification makes them both considered anathema.
In any event, I think the real problem is that by losing the law/chaos axis we're now putting deities that have a strong connection to neither on one side or the other because it otherwise makes the deity not a good PC choice.
|
|
I think the restriction is on if you are sanctified, spells that have the trait opposite to your sanctification are anathema. So if you are a Besmara worshiper who is Holy, Unholy spells would be anathema to you, and vice versa. At least that's how I would rule it.
I think the old Law/Chaos divider is genuinely unnecessary. A vestige left over from D&D. Especially because even if you get into "Chaos" a character being "chaotic" could be further put onto a spectrum of Ambivalent or Apathetic. The difference there is the difference in the chaos of Deadpool, who is chaotic because the things he cares about are mercurial, but he cares passionately, and Joker, who doesn't care about anything because to him nothing matters (Toxic Nihilism)