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.
That's my understanding of it as well.
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)
I agree, and disagree at the same time. By eschewing Law/Chaos (Order/Disorder) it allowed Paizo to sharpen and focus on the remaining things.
But for deities that have nothing to do with either Holy or Unholy it can be weird to try to give them either.
Like Gorum (RIP) allowed for either Holy or Unholy in PF2, but in PF1 he was Chaotic Neutral. I feel like it's a disservice to allow the deity that was about fighting for fighting's sake to really grant either good or evil. But, the decision was made (so that Gorum was a useful deity to worship for clerics) to grant either...the decision doesn't sit right with me. I don't' think deities that are supposed to be neutral, should grant access to either. But that is one way Paizo has chosen to represent some PF2 deities. Gozreh on the other hand, just doesn't allow any sanctification. So Paizo wasn't even consistent on the issue. But since you're less likely to see a cleric of Gozreh as opposed to a druid, I guess it was considered less of an issue.
If we got rid of the cleric class altogether, you could pretty much lose sanctification and holy/unholy.
I agree that Sanctification is a bit of a slapdash system that was clearly built to patch up an undeniably vestigial bit of design, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusion that formerly neutral deities that "can choose Holy or Unholy" in the remaster were done so for Cleric's mechanical considerations, and especially that they would be bad picks if they didn't offer that. I mean for one I think the system was built for Champions more than Clerics since their former binary tenets of good or evil reflect more cleanly on sanctification's nature.
More importantly for the discussion though, both Gozreh and Pharasma offer no sanctification options at all while Nethys allows either, all formerly true neutrals, so there's clearly more going on than the designers slapping "choose either" on them and calling it a day. The way I look at it, deities that don't have a stake in the cosmic war but aren't abstaining from it either are able to grant either source of power. We have to remember, true deities don't at all have to operate on the same systems of edicts and anathema their worshipers do, there's no one supplying Sarenrae or Asmodeus their (Un)Holy powers, they are simply so powerful that they have them. It is rather about whether they'll grant those gifts to their Clerics or Champions.
Someone like Abadar will gladly ally with either as long as there's good business to be had, someone like Nethys has too mercurial an agenda to be able to pick a side but might be firmly on one or the other at any given time, and someone like Gorum would stoke battle on both fronts. Besmara will support a voyage from either cause, if you wish to sink the horrendous skeleton captain's ghost ship so his unholy crew may finally find rest you'll get her blessing to do it, just as long as you make sure to steal every piece of potentially cursed gem on the vessel first.
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)
The subdivider is Good vs Evil to a degree, kinda to avoid the "Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil" thing many games had.
The issue with D&D and Pathfinder was that most of the focus was on the Good/Evil axis with Law/Chaos often barely there, and Neutral an after-thought a good deal of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Mechanically right now, a deity that doesn't provide access to a particular sanctification is prohibiting their followers from taking that sanctification 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.
I may have overstated, but it looks like I was remembering the Anathema entry in the Cleric class:
Casting spells with the unholy trait is almost always anathema to deities who don't allow unholy sanctification, and casting holy spells is likewise anathema to those who don't allow holy sanctification.
Furthermore, while the Champion class description lacks this exact line, a similar line reads "If the deity lists “none,” you can choose only options that don't require the holy or unholy trait." ...with regard to choosing class abilities, if not as a general statement.
To reiterate with additional clarity: It's almost always anathema for all deities to have their clerics to cast spells that with sanctifications they do not themeselves offer, and champions may not select causes with similar requirements. A deity like Pharasma offering no sanctification isn't saying they don't care whether you use holy or unholy powers, they're actively prohibiting it--albeit with some wiggle-room for the GM to introduce story-relevant exceptions as the plot demands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Gorum granting Holy or Unholy is the best example of a deity who should be doing that. "You want to fight demons? You want to fight angels? That sounds like fighting to me, go with my blessing!"
Meanwhile, Gozreh's take is that you shouldn't be focused on all this otherworldly spiritual battle stuff.
That's very consistent with both of their attitudes.
I agree that Sanctification is a bit of a slapdash system that was clearly built to patch up an undeniably vestigial bit of design, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusion that formerly neutral deities that "can choose Holy or Unholy" in the remaster were done so for Cleric's mechanical considerations, and especially that they would be bad picks if they didn't offer that. I mean for one I think the system was built for Champions more than Clerics since their former binary tenets of good or evil reflect more cleanly on sanctification's nature.
More importantly for the discussion though, both Gozreh and Pharasma offer no sanctification options at all while Nethys allows either, all formerly true neutrals, so there's clearly more going on than the designers slapping "choose either" on them and calling it a day. The way I look at it, deities that don't have a stake in the cosmic war but aren't abstaining from it either are able to grant either source of power. We have to remember, true deities don't at all have to operate on the same systems of edicts and anathema their worshipers do, there's no one supplying Sarenrae or Asmodeus their (Un)Holy powers, they are simply so powerful that they have them. It is rather about whether they'll grant those gifts to their Clerics or Champions.
Someone like Abadar will gladly ally with either as long as there's good business to be had, someone like Nethys has too mercurial an agenda to be able to pick a side but might be firmly on one or the other at any given time, and someone like Gorum would stoke battle on both fronts. Besmara will support a voyage from either cause, if you wish to sink the horrendous skeleton captain's ghost ship so his unholy crew may finally find rest you'll get her blessing to do it, just as long as you make sure to steal every piece of potentially cursed gem on the vessel first.
That's a valid way to view it, I just don't share that view.
Considering the system that we've got, it is likely that the devs took a view similar to what you're suggesting.
I would have preferred a system where we had Order and Freedom sanctifications and for formerly neutral deities on the Good Evil axis to have generally been given either Order/Freedom sanctification, with an extremely rare "none sanctification" for those deities that actively avoided participating in any of the cosmological fronts.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would be sticking to the old chaotic/lawful alignment. and at that point, why bother going to new sanctification.
I mean, hot take, Paizo did it for IP reasons.
But yeah, I liked the old system, as imperfect as it was.
As long as you understood it as helpful tool and not a straight jacket, and stopped anyone from going "lol, that's what my character would do" when it would piss of the other players (not characters) at the table.
That's a valid way to view it, I just don't share that view.
Considering the system that we've got, it is likely that the devs took a view similar to what you're suggesting.
I would have preferred a system where we had Order and Freedom sanctifications and for formerly neutral deities on the Good Evil axis to have generally been given either Order/Freedom sanctification, with an extremely rare "none sanctification" for those deities that actively avoided participating in any of the cosmological fronts.
I actually kind of agree with this sentiment. Even under the old alignment chart Aeons and Proteans were by far the most shafted and now they've been cut from the equation entirely. That said I didn't like the simultaneously rigid yet hazy system of alignment anyways so defocusing Sanctification from moral/behavioral descriptors and instead making it about the cosmic war was a good choice in my opinion. I just wish we didn't lose what little Monitors had going on in the crossfire. Still, it's pointless talking about the what-if, because what-is is the Holy/Unholy split, and with deities conforming to that, Besmara makes sense as "can choose Holy or Unholy" and I'm willing to wager would have allowed those anyways even if there was an additional Order/Freedom divide because, well, she's always allowed Good and Evil followers just as long as they were Chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She always allowed good and evil followers, but she didn't give her followers good or evil power. She gave them chaos power.
The way Sanctification works is kinda the inverse of how things worked in PF1.
With sanctification, your deities imbues you with holy or unholy power.
In PF1 one, your deity didn't really do that. They would just stop you from casting things opposed to their alignment. So a chaotic neutral deity would only stop you from casting lawful spells.
Anyways, my dissatisfaction with current system not withstanding...there are many ways to narratively justify whatever stance you want to take with a lot of deities, especially a lot of former neutral deities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who was fond of alignment, I have to say I vastly prefer sanctification. Alignment itself was enough of a beast, but aligned damage--what sanctification truly means to replace, more than any other part of aligment, was pretty much non-functional except in the good/evil axis. The addition of the spirit damage type with the frequent add-on of contextualizing it as holy or unholy is way better than four separate damage types that could only affect certain targets. The fact that for the majority of games one of these types of damage is incredibly more useful than the other three (and the two runner ups typically affecting no more than 1/3rd of all enemies) is almost an afterthought when one considers that, for example, the typical way to gain access to any one of these damage types was as niche as being a cleric of a certain subset of deities.
I had hoped when sanctification was first announced that there would be an equivalent Ordinal and Anarchic dedication too (not that this would have been likely), but even if they had, we have to acknowledge that it likely would have meant a lot of extra words put forth on something that would affect a vanishingly small number of characters and monsters (even accounting for new Champions). And I certainly would not have wanted to see a repeat of the Marut, whose regeneration could not be disarmed except by a chaotic cleric unless you happened to be carrying around a niche type of bomb or rune that, again, wouldn't work against most other enemies you're likely to encounter.
The war between law and chaos is a very cool and still very real part of the setting, but on the whole, it is a blip on the radar compared to the much more active and important war between good and evil. It makes sense, then, that deities are defined in part by their stance on the latter war, while the former takes much more of a backseat. It's just not that important for player characters to have an option which deals extra damage to proteans or aeons. Certainly not when gods like Besmara still foster everything that was true about the chaotic alignment before, including Champions of Freedom or Iniquity and pirate priests dedicated to plunder regardless of their moral outlook.
--
But of course, I also don't see as 'can sanctify any' as meaning the deity is somehow 'on both sides'. Rather it feels to me a lot more like keeping a font of holy and/or unholy on tap at all times for those who want to take a stake... or perhaps simply remaining hands-off when the cleric chooses to sign up for holy or unholy powers. Besmara only cares that you dedicate yourself to a life of high-seas adventures; if you also want to take the vows to fight good or evil she's not going to get jealous like some other gods who demand strict neutrality.
Absolutely a valid interpretation, just not one I share completely, but I agree with parts of what you say.
The funny thing to me, is that I view the cosmic war between order and chaos as far more important than the war between good and evil.
The flaw in reality means that slowly everything falls away into the maelstrom. The forces of Order/Law are in direct opposition to that collapse of reality. To me, the continuation of existence is actually far more important than the moral outlook of those in charge.
But it is undeniable that the struggle between good and evil gets far more attention. Likely because the struggle between chaos and order doesn't tend to involve mortals as much.
|
What cosmic war between order and chaos?
I think people have a strangely antagonistic view of chaos.
Erastil would say there is chaos in the way the elk runs.
Gozreh would say there there is chaos in the wind that brings the gentle rains or the torrential flood.
Abadar, would admit there is chaos in the soul who chooses to horde wealth, and in the soul who gives the wealth away to serve his community.
If anything it would be forces of pure order who champion entropy as it is the purest, simplest order... nothingness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What cosmic war between order and chaos?
The one that is Axiomites/Inevitables against vs Proteans.
It doesn't get much attention, but essentially proteans would like everything to be the malestrom, and that's unpopular with the Axiomites/Invetiables.
Not really. They want to understand the universe. And they want to "enforce" the rules of the universe. So I wouldn't consider them trying to "make" everything their territory, but they do think the whole of reality should follow rules. And they will throw fisticuffs if you want to break the rules.
|
|
These "rules" being antithetical to the very nature of the Malestrom? (also is that capital U universe, or are you talking about the other planes of existence too?)
My point being, you are coming at this from an "Order/Law is good, chaos is bad" perspective, thus further making the differentiation between "holy vs. Unholy meaningless.
These "rules" being antithetical to the very nature of the Malestrom? (also is that capital U universe, or are you talking about the other planes of existence too?)
My point being, you are coming at this from an "Order/Law is good, chaos is bad" perspective, thus further making the differentiation between "holy vs. Unholy meaningless.
So the Maelstrom is kind of an "always has been" existing outside of anything else in the universe/multiverse as far as we're aware.
The maelstrom has infinite potential for creation and destruction and is very fluid. But as such it is also fleeting. It's kind of the definition of chaos in the way you might think of Heaven as the definition of lawful good. The maelstrom will break rules at whim, if rules arguably even exist there.
And normally I try to say multiverse, but in my previous post I said universe but meant to encompass all planes in my description.
But I disagree that I'm coming from a "law is good chaos is bad sort of thing". But it is a true statement that without intervention, the multiverse would slowly (but more quickly than with intervention) crumble into the maelstrom until nothing of the existences we're familiar with remain. Is that good or bad? I don't think it's the right question. It's the outcome of the universe, but the forces of law are trying to delay it as long as possible (and might believe they can come up with a way to subvert it).
You're trying to apply our human sense of good and evil to this situation, but it doesn't really apply at the grand level at which this is happening. The maelstrom and the forces of chaos aren't actively seeking the destruction of sentient life in the way some parts of evil would. They seek a world unrestrained by rules, full of infinite possibility. But for mundane creatures, the outcome can feel incredibly terrifying.
|
|
You're trying to apply our human concepts of good and evil as well. Especially since you think Law and Order would oppose this entropy, when in reality, you just described the crumbling of the world into the Maelstrom as basically "The Rule". It is happening, will happen. Why would the forces of law oppose that? as I said before, the ultimate order is Nothingness, if there is nothing, there can be no chaos.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're trying to apply our human concepts of good and evil as well. Especially since you think Law and Order would oppose this entropy, when in reality, you just described the crumbling of the world into the Maelstrom as basically "The Rule". It is happening, will happen. Why would the forces of law oppose that? as I said before, the ultimate order is Nothingness, if there is nothing, there can be no chaos.
I mean, the forces of law oppose chaos because the lore of Pathfinder says it does. I didn't make that up, that's just a thing.
So I don't "think" it's happening. I know it's happening because the lore says so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except now there are no forces of law and chaos.
Not true actually. To our knowledge Axiomites and Proteans haven't ceased their conflict and their ideals haven't changed either. They just don't deal damage types powered by their ideologies anymore because Paizo technically doesn't have the rights to do that (without using the OGL which is the thing they don't want to do)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except now there are no forces of law and chaos.
No they still exist, there's just no sanctification that matches with them.
Proteans, Aeons, Inevitables, etc still exist. They've just been sidelined in the lore for the time being (although they've kind of always been sidelined).
Just checking, I'm not bugging you am I? Seriously, I want to make sure I'm not arguing to just to argue. It's a bad habit, and this is not something I want to make someone upset at me over. So If I'm being annoying, please let me know, I like talking about this, but I don't want to be a jerk.
My honest take was that you were unfamiliar with the lore and making some guesses about how things work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, as a result of the OGL fallout and the move to ORC License Paizo has deemphasized the cosmic war of law and chaos, with the rules sort of backing up what had already been. Very little adventure space focused on the battle of chaos and law, and even when it was present there were usually bigger issue with good and evil about.
It's also easier for people to relate to, they understand (or at least have their own ideas) about what good and evil are.
Couple that with needing to rewrite rules and create new things with the overhaul of the system and they just decided to kind of strip the underutilized bits about law and chaos out of the system mechanically.
Lore wise, nothing really changed.
|
|
Would be interesting to see these realms revisited (also some lore did have to get re-written as part of the cosmology was based on that law/chaos dichotomy which was ret-conned out. I knew about the OGL fall out and the remaster. I'm just not familiar with the deeper lore of the realms formerly of neutral chaos and law.
I think it would be interesting to revisit these realms and see both extremes, the extreme you worry about where all is churned into the ever devouring maelstrom, and the extreme I fear the removal of choice and autonomy and reduction of all existence to mechanically following some other being's will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would be interesting to see these realms revisited (also some lore did have to get re-written as part of the cosmology was based on that law/chaos dichotomy which was ret-conned out. I knew about the OGL fall out and the remaster. I'm just not familiar with the deeper lore of the realms formerly of neutral chaos and law.
I think it would be interesting to revisit these realms and see both extremes, the extreme you worry about where all is churned into the ever devouring maelstrom, and the extreme I fear the removal of choice and autonomy and reduction of all existence to mechanically following some other being's will.
Law and chaos as forces weren't removed from the game, anymore than good and evil were removed.
Player facing rules for alignment were removed, and instead we got anathema and areas of concern and sanctification.
You shouldn't treat that or understand it as a removal of good and evil or of law and chaos. All those forces still exist. What was removed was abilities that did damage based on law/chaos/good/evil. And we got abilities that deal Holy and Unholy damage, with chaos and law getting nothing.
It doesn't mean those forces don't exist cosmically, just that there isn't a "energy" type associated with them anymore.
That said, I agree with you that I actually find the cosmic war of order versus chaos far more terrifying (and interesting) than good vs evil. Because honestly both ends of the good and evil spectrum are "bad".
In one, there is no consistent "reality". In the other there is no free will, just adherence to a formula.
My point being, you are coming at this from an "Order/Law is good, chaos is bad" perspective, thus further making the differentiation between "holy vs. Unholy meaningless.
Pointed out before that the Nine Alignments system was a way to avoid that, at least technically.
Except now there are no forces of law and chaos.Not true actually. To our knowledge Axiomites and Proteans haven't ceased their conflict and their ideals haven't changed either. They just don't deal damage types powered by their ideologies anymore because Paizo technically doesn't have the rights to do that (without using the OGL which is the thing they don't want to do)
There might be ways around that, but Law/Chaos is apparently less interesting than Good/Evil.
The Neutral alignments on either axis were also underutilised and often misinterpreted/misunderstood.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The greatest player-facing change is that all PCs were previously assigned a side on both axes of alignment. And that had mechanical consequences.
Now there is only one axis and a PC has to voluntarily commit to one side for mechanical consequences to happen.
Nothing changed in the way the setting works though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I agree with you that I actually find the cosmic war of order versus chaos far more terrifying (and interesting) than good vs evil. Because honestly both ends of the law
goodand chaosevilspectrum are "bad".In one, there is no consistent "reality". In the other there is no free will, just adherence to a formula.
Correcting errors in my statement, because they might otherwise cause confusion.
The greatest player-facing change is that all PCs were previously assigned a side on both axes of alignment. And that had mechanical consequences.
Now there is only one axis and a PC has to voluntarily commit to one side for mechanical consequences to happen.
Nothing changed in the way the setting works though.
Yep, while the player facing rules are different, nothing change cosmically within the universe and lore, at least regarding law and chaos.
Why is Besmara not just Unholy?For the same reason the average Bandit and Pirate NPC isn't Unholy.
Barely anything that was Evil in Premaster is Unholy in Remaster.
Sanctification is the exception, not the rule for anything "formerly Evil".
I like to explain Unholy as "Extreme Evil" and Holy as "Extreme Good", because that highlights that it is an exceptional thing.Mortals can be plenty evil without needing Fiends to worship or convince them.
Mortals can do plenty good without Celestials egging them on.
The contrast wasn't optional Unholy vs. just/forced Unholy, as you're evaluating. It's rather why not just optional Unholy vs. optional Unholy + optional Holy. As in, why's Holy an option instead of Unholy being the only option (if wanting to be Sanctified).
Everybody's on board* with her followers being able to opt out of Sanctification all together, and some believe she shouldn't empower any at all.*pun detected afterward...subconscious at work.