|
does anyone else sort of chafe at the idea of "Evil Gods" and people following them? Like gods confirmed to be on the side of the hells, who will not reward you in the afterlife, and are known to be untrustworthy... but still get followers?
I feel like this is the conflict between the modern (western) idea of monotheistic worship of God and pagan worship of pantheons and multiple gods.
Like, if Lamashtu or Urgathoa was a pagan goddess in the real world, with all the lore we currently have of her, I feel like a half-way decent researcher would find out that "Oh, most of that evil and cruel stuff was added by Christian scholars later on who didn't like the idea of a powerful maternal deity worshiped by this "lesser" races.
In actual Pagan mythologies there were destructive deities who were destructive and aggressive, but the worship was seen as a means to keep them placated. Apocalypse worship and courting is more of a Christian doctrine. Gods like Sekhmet were worshiped as ways to placate and calm them.
And, as I've petitioned in other places the "Confirmed" hard and fast nature of the river of souls makes players who want to explore necromancy get treated as always bad guys since it's always evil.
Just some thoughts I've had does anyone else have thoughts regarding this stuff?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
does anyone else sort of chafe at the idea of "Evil Gods" and people following them? Like gods confirmed to be on the side of the hells, who will not reward you in the afterlife, and are known to be untrustworthy... but still get followers?
This is an example of the classic "buy now, pay later" scenario.
Many people will do whatever it takes to get what they desire as soon as possible not thinking that they will have a much heavier price to pay when the bill comes due later (after they die, to use your example).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Evil" as a definable cosmological construction is a whole can of worms that the culture of D&D-and-similar-properties aren't really equipped to dissect. Gygax was an evangelical christian and a lot of the early seeds of worlbuilding we're still stuck with are reflective of that. Asmodeus worshippers in this sort of setting are not so much based on any cult of a polytheistic deity, but on modern american mythology of "Satanists" taken to its logical extreme, and other Evil deities follow the same lines.
On a cosmological sense you could argue that the unholy afterlives are not strictly meant as a punishment, just realms defined by a particular moral perspective--one of self-interest. Much of Abrahamic thought defines hell as sort of "the place of greatest distance from God," but Abbadon has gods down there to be very close to. Hell in this fantasy is not defined as a realm where sinners are tormented--that sinners go there and that they are tormented is largely incidental. Its core premise is the afterlife for people whose lives were defined by an ordered or legalistic perspective on their abiding self-interest; in which they (eventually) become devils and are able to exert that self-interest on a hierarchy of cosmological scale. To someone who genuinely deserves to go to the Outer Rifts, the Outer Rifts may well be a paradise of uninhibited violence and depravity--assuming they can grow out of the Larva stage. What goodly folk would define as "punishment" in these realms is not some god penalizing them, it's just the degree to which the damned experience the fruits of their own ethical outlook taken to an extreme and reflected back on them. Sartre was right in this case, the Hell of it is "other people."
Otherwise, many evil deities specifically promise rewards in the living Universe. To cite your own examples, Urgathoa's whole schtick is dodging the afterlife entirely; and Lamashtu for all her mayhem is fundamentally a social god, she promises community outside of the strictures of society that reject you. Norgorber is prayed to in the search for riches and power, Zon-Kuthon because the state will torture you if you don't.
None of this QUITE synchs up in an interally logical way, and the disconnect you're seeing is absolutely there, the product of a weird mismatch of evangelical bias, misunderstood polytheism, Michael Moorcock references, and fifty years of retcons. I just like figuring out justifications for things. Put me on the Lore team, Paizo!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, thank you for recognizing this sort of Satanism as a American Myth and not some actual cult.
And I am all for getting into the lore and justifying.
FOR INSTANCE
Zon-Kuthon: I can very much see worship of him and his anathema to relieving or easing pain as a "Accept pain, and it will inure you to the pain of living". Relieving pain, by essentially growing too used to pain to acknowledge it.
Lamashtu, I absolutely agree does offer community. and as we recognize the, for lack of better word, humanity of the non-humanoid species that are her traditional followers, I think a redemption of her must take place. a recognition that she was a goddess of oppressed people, and the oppressors made her into something heinous.
The same can be said of Urgathoa, she was a mortal who escaped Death and spread that knowledge to other mortals, and became a goddess. And for this, she is slandered and preached against by the followers of Pharasma, arguably the goddess with the largest following currently.
further I want this kind of redemption for undeath. We say that stepping outside of the cycle of life and death is "Wrong" and damaging to the universe... unless you do it without undeath. such as passing the test of the star stone, or Alchemy, or other COUNTLESS methods to achieve immortality in Golarion that don't involve undeath.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
does anyone else sort of chafe at the idea of "Evil Gods" and people following them? Like gods confirmed to be on the side of the hells, who will not reward you in the afterlife, and are known to be untrustworthy... but still get followers?
Well, most followers don't know what if any reward they actually receive in the afterlife is. Even the good ones.
The evil gods tend to provide much more concrete direct benefits to the ardent worshippers, to attract them in the first place.
And with Lawful Evil gods, it's usually boils down to the contracted person doesn't read/understand the fine print (or else they wouldn't sign).
Edit: I will add, within the context of Golarion, I will always consider Undead/Undeath to be inherently evil because of the way it damages the overall cycle of souls and risk ending the universe. It's also why Pharasma (creator of the multiverse) bothers to get involved. And other methods of avoiding death are also damaging, they're just so much less common that it doesn't get brought up much. But there are (I believe) Psychopomps dedicated to exterminating mortals who have artificially extended their lives using methods other than Undeath.
The question of Undeath you've raised is interesting, because to look at it from the outside, it has a cyclical quality. Pharasma fundamentally values the cycle of life and death, the "water cycle" of the River of Souls. Is this an actual fundamental good, or simply one powerful individual's perspective? Pharasma is pointedly Neutral, to again evoke Premaster Alignment, pointedly disconcerned with "good" or "evil"--she is invested in the Status Quo she set up at the onset of this multiverse.
Urgathoa established a deviation from Pharasma's cycle--souls variously tucked away where the river can't reach them--evidently out of a refusal to let something as plain as Death stop a good party. Pharasma violently opposes this--again, is this an actual ontological good, or simply one person's conviction?
You cite the broadness of Pharasma's following as a validation of Urgathoa's villainization. One could easily argue the opposite--the greatest concentration of Pharasmins are in places under constant threat by undead. Urgathoa's gluttony and hedonism are reflected in the ravenousness of a plurality of beings who follow her path, and living people seek the god who offers the most stringent defense against that. But again we see that this characterization is personal, rather than cosmological or ontological--had Urgathoa shunned the river of souls out of an abiding sense of charity for those she'd left behind, or personal love, simply curiosity, would the broad temperment of the Undead be different? And then would worship of Pharasma--defined not by kindness or community or courage but by intangible balances--be so in-demand?
The Undead, in this sense, are condemmed not by pure abstract nature but by the predelections under which their clade was founded. Those who shirk Urgathoa's temperment remain--in the eyes of Pharasma--guilty by association.
This is why I've been hoping, ever since the Remaster started, for a ruleset, a blurb, a sidebar, anything, about alternate Sanctification systems. Even setting aside that Fiends and Undead (or, hell, fiends and other fiends) exist on entirely different axes of so-called "Unholiness", what if I want to create a setting with a little more moral nuance? Where sanctification merely refers to the untimately fallible divine backing of mortal factions?
Urgathoa established a deviation from Pharasma's cycle--souls variously tucked away where the river can't reach them--evidently out of a refusal to let something as plain as Death stop a good party. Pharasma violently opposes this--again, is this an actual ontological good, or simply one person's conviction?
Well, it depends on how you want to define good.
The way I understand things is that without the cycle of souls the multiverse will literally cease to exist and collapse on itself. Undeath degrades that cycle, hastening the end of the universe.
Now to be fair, any individual undead is probably a drop in the bucket in terms of how much it degrades the cycle. But eventually those drops could cause a problem is left unchecked.
Is the universe existing a good thing? Would then end of the universe be good?
|
|
First: Lore as Written, Urgathoa is a terrible, selfish goddess who cares not for her followers beyond how they agrandize and sate her needs and wants. I KNOW that.
What I'm saying is that in the real world THAT characterization smacks of retconning of lore done by Christian Scholars who dislike the values she stood for or the idea of a woman defying her "Natural place". the entire insistence of Pharasma as "Neutral" and correct about the cycle of souls is what I'm talking about.
This rigid explanaition of the divine cosmology restricts a lot of people's perspectives, and entrenchs a lot of western ideas. Like the idea of holy vs. unholy, that's a western mono-theistic idea.
In the Greek/Roman tradition, it wasn't so much "Good vs. Evil" as simply a succession of rulers trying to hold power. it wasn't "Titans bad, Gods good" they were all just powerful rules trying to keep and hold power. In the Japanese shinto tradition again, not good vs. Evil, more often it is about purification, and nobility.
I'm just saying I'd like a structure of cosmology that doesn't give an easy simplistic "These gods are good, these gods are bad"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm just saying I'd like a structure of cosmology that doesn't give an easy simplistic "These gods are good, these gods are bad""
---
Lamashtu & Hei Feng (et al) show that Golarion's deities already go beyond simplistic good & bad. Add in families, (ex-)lovers, etc. for more complications.
---
If not enough (or stripping away Holy/Unholy is insufficient) how would one go about making such a cosmology? Most pantheons have distinct antagonists. Does that too smack of retconning? Or is that simply a necessary component of drama, which an RPG also needs?
---
Let's begin from scratch with the basic notion that a deity is a being that oversees some aspect of reality. Then add the RPG fantasy premise that there's heroing to be done. After a whole bunch of worldbuilding it seems inevitable that we'd conclude with a wide range of "aspects of reality" running the spectrum from bad to good. But by whose metric?? Oh my, now we're involving moral theory and will smash into Euthyphro's Dilemma and many other unanswered conundrums. How did these deities even align themselves with these aspects of reality to begin with?
Even if we establish the bad-good gamut from the GM's perspective (or use a generic principle like sapient/sentient suffering-bad, flourishing-good), wouldn't we get some "evil" aspects like murder & torture and "good" aspects like benevolence & healing? Now how does one assign these morally-laden aspects to deities without the deities being so laden themselves?
I suppose one could mix & match, so every deity reflects some Yin/Yang balance, which kinda neuters them IMO like if the same goddess was pro-healing and pro-wounding. Would the deities have no preferences themselves? Or do the harmful aspects have some good purpose hidden behind them?
Or maybe deities only control amoral aspects, like natural forces. Okay, but that feels like it tightens narrative space, ruling out many classic fantasy tropes that IMO would have to be filled in by other "pseudo-deities" like angels, devils, etc. (And we are including them, right?!) Do you want good & bad merely to be victors' propaganda? Then what sets these forces at odds? (Being mere power plays seems of little interest to mortals in the bleachers; they want to know how they'll be treated, who best represents their interests, and other factors they'll in turn label good/bad.)
---
Okay, starting again.
If all you want, Zoken, is to do away with good/bad labels, then just remove the labels on Golarion's deities. (Maybe even return some of the Good deities their negative traits like misogyny & greed.) Seems pretty straightforward.
Any dynamic cosmology requires opposing forces. We, as hypothetical devs, get to stand above them without labels; so no generic labels. Now how do we differentiate them? (and how many types are there?). Let's keep in mind we're still building for an RPG and we're not telling the deities' tales; they exist to exemplify tropes PCs (& their players) are interested in RPing about.
Seems no matter how one shakes it out, there will be good & bad deities, if not in print, then by the zeitgeist of players' opinions. I think Paizo's done an excellent job allowing for both basic Holy/Unholy warfare while allowing many deities to have more nuanced personal stories (and transitions) for those who want to invest in such.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This rigid explanaition of the divine cosmology restricts a lot of people's perspectives, and entrenchs a lot of western ideas. Like the idea of holy vs. unholy, that's a western mono-theistic idea.
Eh. Not exactly.
Yes, it draws upon Zoroastrianism (which influenced all of the Abrahamic religions). However, the "Cycle of Souls" has significant parallels to Buddhism; just as "good" has parallels with the Buddhist concepts of enlightenment and the Eightfold Path.
Also, many polytheistic religions have embodiments of "evil" such as the asuras and rakshasas in Hindu myths.
|
|
Does anyone reasonable worship or seek to empower the Ashuras or Rakshasas?
And often times the "Antagonistic forces" like I said are not Evil. in Greek/Roman it's just a transfer of power, the Gods aren't better than the Titans, they're just the ones currently in power.
there's also evidence that some of those antagonistic forces were invented or rewritten due to outside influences, such as Set's role as antagonist when he was originally a loyal servant of Ra, but because he was well received by the greek conquorers he came to be seen as a traitor by the Egyptians.
There's evidence that Snori Sterlison, the source we have for most of our understanding of Norse mythology, entirely MADE UP Loki, taking things that were originally ascribed to Odin.
I feel like the current system perpetuates a lot of harmful stereotypes and enforces western centric ideas of morality.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we're talking past each other because a lot of people, myself included are going at this from a very Watsonian perspective (what is the in-universe explanation?) while you're trying to hone in on a very Doylist conversation (why was it written this way?). I think it's an entirely fair critique of Pathfinder's worlbuilding to call it eurocentric in many of its base assumptions -- those were established by Americans in 2007, set predominantly in and around the Fantasy Mediterranean, and building off tropes established by, again, a weird evangelical dweeb from the 70s.
But if you're expecting the folks at Paizo to up and rewrite the interconnected mythology they've been building on for almost twenty years, I'm sorry, but you're shouting into the void here. Even in the Remaster they did their damnest to preserve the spirit of the lore wherever possible, partly for their own ease and partly because that's the paradigm under which thousands of people have played games and lived adventures.
Yes, characters like Urgathoa evoke the demonization of foreign religions that occurred many times throughout history (not at all exclusive to Christianity or Europe; Journey to the West depicts a very specific interaction between Buddhism and Taoism)--hell, I think some demon lords explicity have the names of Mesopotamian or Semitic deities that were demonized as Judaism transitioned toward monotheism. But that's not a thing that's actually supposed to have happened to those characters. This is not a setting in which the gods are ephemeral social constructs subject to reinterpretation, not even in the Discworld "Gods Need Prayer Badly" sense (with a few exceptions). They're actual real sapient figures as much as kings and paupers and capable of expressing displeasure when their followers mischaracterize them.
I also disagree with your impication that a mythological trope or idea is invalid simply because it's not "Original," mainly because there IS NO Original; these ideas and characterizations were in constant flux for generations before the examples you're cherrypicking. Yeah, it's entirely possible the Eddas made up Loki, but at this point that character has existed in a fairly fixed form for almost a thousand years, longer than any aspect of that mythology was ever static previously! Egyptian religion varied massively across both the bredth of their empire and its duration--Osirus was probably adopted from a Lybian pantheon millenia before any Greek conquest; to consider the Last narrative shift alone flasehood is ultimately perposterous. The entire concept of the Fey comes from post-Christian bastardization of Celtic religion, how many tentpoles of this genre are we expected to dig up?
Now, the beauty of the TTRPG Medium is that you can build out your games to your liking! You are free to run your games in a homebrew setting or a version of Golarion free of any of these theological constructions that irritate you, you will get no judgement from me on that account. But by the same token, the people at Paizo are writing their own world, and there are no fundamnetally invalid fantasy tropes, just matters of execution.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest assumptions about religion in Pathfinder (inherited from AD&D and D&D 3.x) are:
1) Ethics and morality (embodied in the planes) are inherent sources of power in and of themselves;
2) deities actively impose and enforce belief systems, actions, and taboos among their worshipers or at least their priests.
Attempting to apply moral relativism and/or real-world historical interpretations of religions is something that would be more productively discussed as a homebrew topic. The Golarion setting doesn't incorporate those assumptions.
Yeah, ethics & morality as objective concepts, even entities & substances, severs it from real world comparisons. And we're in objective positions ourselves standing outside Golarion's cosmos. No matter how Cheliax spins their rescuing their populace from the forces of chaos (which I suspect was a false flag), their diabolic, authoritarian aspects remain evil.
To strip away this objectivity would require such an overhaul it'd disrupt more than it'd add. And in turn GMs & players would impose their own moral frameworks on the situation anyway, i.e. of course angels are Good good. If anything I could see Cheliax (et al) trying to introduce subjective philosophy, to frame themselves as just another POV maligned by the power-that-be of other countries for selfish/hateful reasons.
Sure, Earth has subjective morality (at least in practice), but we also have the virtue of deities depending on the POV of who's judging. To devolve deities to tribal/ethnic/geographic representatives would be a step backward in sophistication IMO. If deities were the main characters of Golarion, then sure, I'd likely prefer more complexity, maybe even scales for various ethical attributes. But they operate more as themes, banners to rally around which I'd prefer be devoid of any tribalism, bigotry, or plain ol' confusion re: their natures (at least from a GM's perspective). With subjectivity, we'd need a grid of who thinks what of whom. Oy. And that divisiveness would be rather petty compared to the high fantasy notions of thwarting Evil incarnate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's not too hard to see from what some people ask for that there is a demand for some amount of straight-up cosmic good-vs.-evil conflict. Even with the removal of formal alignment, Holy and Unholy stuck around because so many people want that.
Once you have that, your amount of nuance has a bit of a cap.
Now, what I do want is that if gods are shown as having followers, that there be a good reason for that. And, generally, I think that's handled decently well.
Take the core 6 evil deities.
- Rovagug gets a pass: it isn't core because it has followers, it's core for literally being at the core of the planet.
- Lamashtu has a very clear recruitment policy: welcome the outsider, offer power to the disenfranchised, and as a side-hustle, you can pray to her to save your child at a cost if Pharasma is too uncaring.
- Urgathoa is also pretty clear on recruitment: her church will help you live forever, and even do so with a focus on enjoying it.
- Norgorber is all about getting what you want, and even has a far more palatable aspect in the Reaper of Reputation- plus, as an added bonus, his domain is in Axis.
- Zon-Kuthon has Nidal, which I think does a lot to flesh him out. He's a god who answered a desperate people's prayer and kept his word for ten thousand years. The setting doesn't pretend he's all that popular outside of that region, and those that do follow him elsewhere are there for what's advertised: pain and control. There are much healthier deities for that, but hey.
- Asmodeus is very transactional. Power for service or some other payment. Need to prop up a failing regime? Asmodeus is one of the few gods who will do that. Care more about having people under you than whether you have people over you, or simply delude yourself into thinking you deserve to be in charge? Then Pathfinder's Hell might actually sound good to you.
Yeah, there are plenty of evil deities that at least have some level of believability to why they are there and why people follow them.
And for others like Rovagug, "crazy cultist wants to end the world and doesn't care if that includes them" is a pretty common (and fun for players) trope in fantasy. They're like nihilists, who also want to make sure no one else is having a good time because they aren't.
|
|
the "crazy cultist wants to end the world and doesn't care if that includes them" is what christians think of the satanists they made up. and then ruined a lot of REAL PEOPLE's lives (Pagans in older times and more recently in the Satanic Panic) by accusing them of being this thing they made up.
I guess I just wish there were more wiggle room as so many people seem to think trying to interpret the "evil" gods as anything but completely evil is a bad way to see the game, and trying to inject any nuance into your enemy makes the game "less fun".
I get this perspective is unpopular, and definitely not Lore as Written or Intended, and it's not many people wanting that nuance so... yeah, whatever. Thank y'all for talking about it with me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the "crazy cultist wants to end the world and doesn't care if that includes them" is what christians think of the satanists they made up. and then ruined a lot of REAL PEOPLE's lives (Pagans in older times and more recently in the Satanic Panic) by accusing them of being this thing they made up.
I guess I just wish there were more wiggle room as so many people seem to think trying to interpret the "evil" gods as anything but completely evil is a bad way to see the game, and trying to inject any nuance into your enemy makes the game "less fun".
I get this perspective is unpopular, and definitely not Lore as Written or Intended, and it's not many people wanting that nuance so... yeah, whatever. Thank y'all for talking about it with me.
I'm going to ignore the real life implications and issue stuff cause...yeah.
Anyways, I think there is room for both kind of game where you can have grey and nuance or black and white. But it's a stylistic choice that really needs buy in from everyone that's going to be playing in the game (although it could be different in different games, even with the same group).
Generally I prefer stark black and white games, only because it means after a long stressful day/week I don't have to think about what's good and what's bad. Are the enemies redeemable or irredeemable? I don't want those kinds of question most days. I want to kill the bad guy and not question if that was the right thing to do.
But, it's totally reasonable to want the other way of playing. And I don't think it's that much effort to bring the grey aspects in of both good and evil gods.
And if your group doesn't actually have clerics or champions, the answers to these questions don't really matter beyond what the group wants to force them to matter. There aren't built in mechanical consequences for other classes. So beyond the feelings between players/GM there's no problem (although disputes between players/GM over this kind of thing can absolutely ruin a game).
|
|
I dislike that way of thinking, but I can't explain it without it coming off as a major personal attack (which I don't want to do), so I'm just going to leave it as I don't like that way of thinking.
All that said, I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, or out of nothing. and I leave that bit unsaid because "How we play a game" isn't something I want to disrespect anyone over, especially as you've been completely respectful to me here.
I dislike that way of thinking, but I can't explain it without it coming off as a major personal attack (which I don't want to do), so I'm just going to leave it as I don't like that way of thinking.
All that said, I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, or out of nothing. and I leave that bit unsaid because "How we play a game" isn't something I want to disrespect anyone over, especially as you've been completely respectful to me here.
Hey, I certainly can understand that sentiment. There are folks whose interest in the good vs. evil dichotomy is a bit much for me, even if my line is at a different place. But, I am someone who enjoys playing an evil character more than playing a good one, so the evil deities are occasionally useful for me as they are.
I think it's an excellent thing to cover in a recruitment and/or session zero. I'd be happy to play in a game that takes some of the evil deities and applies that same "de-propaganda" treatment that's so useful in understanding the deities of historical cultures. Unfortunately, I think it's hard to ever get away from needing the preface of, "And in my version of the setting..." when talking about it on the forums, though.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you're so much "making a mountain out of a molehill," as coming at this from the wrong angle. "I'm uncomfortable with this, so I'm not going to personally engage with it" is, again, not only a perfectly resonable course of action, it's the basis of a healthy relationship with fiction. "I'm uncomfortable with this, so I would like people to stop making or engaging with it" is just censorship. It's an understandable emotional reflex, but it's one we're all responsible for examining critically and curtailing in ourselves.
Yes, there are no real world nihilistic doomsday cultists. There are also no real world elves or centaurs or velstracs. Even if the trope were derived exclusively from Christian fearmongering (I would argue it's not that simple) it is not in and of itself morally suspect to look at that concept and ask, through fiction, "what would that actually look like?" or "what material conditions would result in this?" or even to just use it more-or-less unironically because this is a fighting game that requires a certain quantity of people worth stabbing.
Your Pathfinder game is not political praxis. Just as the multiple attack penalty is a very rough abstraction of how swordfighting works, the cosmology of a fantasy setting need not -- in fact cannot -- reflect the full diversity of real world morality.
Yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill if you think Paizo's devs applied "demonization of pagan/outside beliefs" as a criteria in their worldbuilding. Even if done subconsciously as part of D&D's legacy, most of Golarion's deities are their creations created to fit the roles & labels they ended up with, not somebody else's god tagged evil for tribalism (et al). And borrowed Earth deities, like the Egyptian pantheon, lean(ed) more Good & Lawful than Evil & Chaotic. (And I think it was Paizo's sensitivity to some of this issue that led them to extract many Earth deities from the lore.)
As QuidEst listed above, the core Unholy deities (minus one) have palatable aspects, and there are others with fleshed out backstories too. Not sure how much more can be done other than removing Holy/Unholy (which as also noted by others, can be stripped out rather easily). Funnily enough, fans have expressed love for redemption arcs & other positive arcs some Unholy folk. That nuance does exist. On that side. The struggle has been with the Good deities; fans rebuked Paizo for Good deities having non-Good traits (as that essentially gave credence to some real-world turmoil & dogma).
You've also skipped the question of how would one go about developing an RPG-friendly cosmology like you suggest. As mentioned by others, players want the high fantasy clash of good vs. evil, which seems awkward without actual evil deities (or entities powerful enough to counterbalance the forces of Good). IMO Paizo has kinda found the sweet spot where high fantasy can include redemption & corruption arcs, even creatures formed of Evil incarnate.
ETA: As well as having a Good deity with Evil aspects, I think fans would also push back if something deemed evil (by us, even with our differing moralities) weren't deemed Evil on Golarion. I know Paizo's felt it from some let's say tradition-minded segments of society.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike that way of thinking, but I can't explain it without it coming off as a major personal attack (which I don't want to do), so I'm just going to leave it as I don't like that way of thinking.
All that said, I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, or out of nothing. and I leave that bit unsaid because "How we play a game" isn't something I want to disrespect anyone over, especially as you've been completely respectful to me here.
Everyone is welcome to their preference for the game, and remember this is a game we're talking about, not how I or you feel about the real world or what should or shouldn't be.
In games where I'm trying to simply relax and enjoy adventuring/combat, I'm not looking for moral introspection. I'll go read a book if I want that. It's not something I generally want to explore with other people, because if you're not all on the same page it can get...awkward fast. And when those people are your friends, it gets even more awkward. There is potentially high stakes with hurt feelings and damaged relationships.
I would urge you examine why you dislike what I'm saying with regard to a preference of black and white game. The fact that you say you dislike does sort of ring as telling me how to play the game. You're not telling me I have to play the game your way, but you are implying there is a sort of moral judgment being made for not playing it the way you prefer. And I hope I'm saying this in a way that comes across as respectful, because I'm not trying to be disrespectful or tell you that you're playing the game wrong.
No, what I really would like is for you to examine why you dislike me having a preference that is different from your own. I think I've made clear why I prefer morally simple games, and I personally think those are good reasons to choose to avoid the nuanced games you like. If nuanced games work for you and your group that is amazing. But the honest truth (from my experience of the world) is that a group of people rarely lack the introspection, respect, and honesty to process such serious divides as our moral basis of our world views.
|
|
what I'm saying is that a lot of the way this topic gets framed reminds me of the framework used to say "All Orcs are evil, they have absolutely no real world counter parts, so how could just saying this entire ancestry are a group of big ugly brutish thugs that we can kill with no remorse be problematic?"
That's why I chafe at "This god is wrong and bad, so no matter what principals it espouses they, and all their followers, can be slaughtered without question".
These are subconscious biases that I'm suggesting are perhaps not entirely unpacked, and continue to creep into the stories we tell, and games we play, which then influences the reality we perceive. Even the comparison "If I wants something deep I'll read a book" makes the assumption that we learn and absorb nothing from the game.
Most of the times when it is said "I just want something that isn't political" what is meant is "I just want something that doesn't challenge my current politics."
I'm trying to be careful, because I have no right to disrespect anyone, and I hope I haven't, but this is the source of my discomfort with this kind of hard and fast cosmology, and no, it's not at all going to change to suit me, nor should it, I'm one idiot out of millions of players. but... I don't know, I wanted to say something about it. And If I did disrespect you, I'm sorry that I chose my words poorly and that I insulted you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you might not have the clearest idea of what you're trying to accomplish or what point you're trying to make with this thread. You started it with a fairly direct question of "How do capital-E Evil deities with significant followings make sense?" And as people have explored that question from various angles, it feels like you've danced around the dialogue we're engaging with to air more and more abstract Doylist concerns. "It parallels real world religious villainizaton… No, political compartmentalization."
None of us are unaware of the problematic history and potential of the tropes and ideas baked into this sort of game. We're all adults with at least some grasp of the genre. Yes, fiction and life reflect one another, but as adults we're able to distinguish between the two. No mentally healthy person is going to hear about Urgathoa and think, "Cool, so I can eat people in real life!" That's some Satanic Panic b~&*!$%~. Fiction, fantasy especially, is a way to explore abstract ideas in a concrete way; even a black and white depiction of good vs evil fundamentally prompts the question: What is Evil to you?
You're not "disrespecting" anyone, you're just being kind of stubborn and evasive in a way that's not actually conducive to dialogue. Is it possible that you're just reflexively uncomfortable with something and looking for someone to validate you in that beyond the "yeah, dude, you do you," that you're getting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what I'm saying is that a lot of the way this topic gets framed reminds me of the framework used to say "All Orcs are evil, they have absolutely no real world counter parts, so how could just saying this entire ancestry are a group of big ugly brutish thugs that we can kill with no remorse be problematic?"
That's why I chafe at "This god is wrong and bad, so no matter what principals it espouses they, and all their followers, can be slaughtered without question".
The issue that people are bringing up is that Paizo has already moved away from that mindset...
The enemies that the party fights in most Paizo adventures (apart from some that are intentionally set as morally gray or even casting the PCs as "bad guys/girls") are enemies because they are bandits, committing crimes, oppressing others, etc. You aren't sent to fight a group of orcs "because they're orcs," but because "this group of orcs is slaughtering your neighbors."
There is even the Triumph of the Tusk AP where the PCs are working with, or even taking the role of, orcs trying to prevent being conquered/killed/turned into "cannon fodder" (again).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact of the matter is that a lot of your more objectionable gods simply don't have many followers. Pathfinder has never participated in "a god's power or stature is proportional to their mortal following" and the whole "core deity" idea is about prominence (i.e. people know who you are) not about followers.
Like nobody other than a maniac worships Rovagug, but he gets talked about in the faiths of Asmodeus, Abadar, Torag, Pharasma, Desna, etc. so everybody knows who he is.
Pathfinder does set up a number of "evil" gods that do have significant mortal followings, but there's more of a case for following Asmodeus, Zon Kuthon, or Norgorber than there is in following Cyth-V'sug or Trelmarixian who might have precisely zero mortal followers.
what I'm saying is that a lot of the way this topic gets framed reminds me of the framework used to say "All Orcs are evil, they have absolutely no real world counter parts, so how could just saying this entire ancestry are a group of big ugly brutish thugs that we can kill with no remorse be problematic?"
That's why I chafe at "This god is wrong and bad, so no matter what principals it espouses they, and all their followers, can be slaughtered without question".
These are subconscious biases that I'm suggesting are perhaps not entirely unpacked, and continue to creep into the stories we tell, and games we play, which then influences the reality we perceive. Even the comparison "If I wants something deep I'll read a book" makes the assumption that we learn and absorb nothing from the game.
Most of the times when it is said "I just want something that isn't political" what is meant is "I just want something that doesn't challenge my current politics."
I'm trying to be careful, because I have no right to disrespect anyone, and I hope I haven't, but this is the source of my discomfort with this kind of hard and fast cosmology, and no, it's not at all going to change to suit me, nor should it, I'm one idiot out of millions of players. but... I don't know, I wanted to say something about it. And If I did disrespect you, I'm sorry that I chose my words poorly and that I insulted you.
I'll be honest, while I understand that people might draw really awful real world analogies/conclusions from the concept, for a game I honestly never had that much problem with the whole "All Orcs are evil" thing. If that's how it works in your game and your players are all cool with it, and no one is turning it into some overt racist thing where it crosses a line into being a true real life a%*$@&&, then enjoy what you enjoy.
I guess my group always side stepped the darkest parts of those issues because there were never innocents to be seen. The enemies we encounter in a black and white morality game are viewed the way you might view Chaos (or maybe even Orks) from Warhammer. In setting full of grey where there are no good guys (well, at least no factions, there are good individuals) Chaos is easily one faction that literally everyone else agrees is bad. That's exactly the kind of enemy I want.
Anyways, I think you can mostly move past that by having "this group of orcs that is raiding this innocent town" be the enemy, with no problem in my opinion. It's still black and white, that whole group of Orcs is bad. But not all Orcs are bad.
And just to express, I don't feel disrespected nor discomforted by this discussion. The opinion of an individual stranger on the internet means little to me (no offense) so it's not something I would get worked up over, even if you did intend to offend. I just genuine felt you needed to consider more deeply why the way someone else plays/views the game bothers you.
|
|
The Townsend: yeah, the validation would be nice, good to know I'm not the only person thinking in these terms, but I do disagree that all of these topics are disparate and separate things. They are intertwined. It doesn't make sense, and it parallels religious villanization (which also doesn't make sense) and it's often justified with political compartmentalization.
Dragonchess Player: In most places, yeah, Paizo has moved past it. Which is why I felt it okay to bring up with a group of Pathfinder players, but probably wouldn't with D&D players. But even as Paizo moves past it, I still see people in these forms griping about making Drow less evil and other things made to, for lack of better word, humanize the once "unquestionably Evil" ancestries. So it isn't like no one here pushes back on deconstructing these concepts.
Possible Cabbage: Rovagug having ANY organized cult makes no sense. like you said only maniacs would follow him, and yet frequently he has organized cults to him, which would be antithetical. it's the "Satanic Cult" trope. As for Asmodeus, Zon-Kuthon, or Norgorber, you realize right now there are religions (at least in America) that large populations are willing to say "Oh, all followers of that are X" which is enabled by the idea that "people will follow an evil god" being considered normal and reasonable.
Claxon: Not at all offended, you are correct, I'm one person whining on the internet. I'm glad I haven't offended anyone. and the way people engage with media concerns me because it colors the way they perceive reality. not in so direct a way as TheTownsend suggests. but... a good example is "To Protect and Serve". we've all heard that motto for the cops in America. It's on every show where they are closing cases constantly, and all (mostly) working toward good. It's not true. Cops have gone to court and had it declared they have NO responsibility to protect people. but we think it's true, from the media we consume.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon: Not at all offended, you are correct, I'm one person whining on the internet. I'm glad I haven't offended anyone. and the way people engage with media concerns me because it colors the way they perceive reality. not in so direct a way as TheTownsend suggests. but... a good example is "To Protect and Serve". we've all heard that motto for the cops in America. It's on every show where they are closing cases constantly, and all (mostly) working toward good. It's not true. Cops have gone to court and had it declared they have NO responsibility to protect people. but we think it's true, from the media we consume.
I really do understand your concern with how media can impact how people think and feel. You're not at all incorrect about that.
I just don't think my, yours, or anyone else's home game of Pathfinder, D&D, or any other TTRPG is the source that needs to be examined for how the lenses people view the world are created. So I don't disagree with your concern, I just don't think a home TTRPG is the place to worry about it. Or even at the level of Paizo or D&D (WOTC). Sure, there might be official written adventures that present people in a way that I would disagree with if it were reality. But it's relatively fringe compared to all the media one might consume. I guess what I'm saying is to me it's a bit like worry about the pinhole sized leak in a boat when there's a 3ft hole on the other side. Sure, we don't want any leaks. But I'm not putting my energy into the small one until the big one is addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I said I wouldn't let someone's negative opinion harm me, conversely I do love to have intelligent kind discussions with strangers that allow us to grow and exchange ideas.
So while some conversations can be difficult, paradoxically those potentially difficult conversations are easier with strangers (because the stakes are low) but the reward remains roughly the same.
That is to say, my pleasure.
And that's fair. and I appreciate you engaging with all this.
I will also add that this isn't a situation where there's nothing you can do. Removing a bad example will do less to make people think than providing a good example, so if you want, you can put together a homebrew for the core deities to provide a more neutral version. Maybe include some setting implications of that as well for folks that want to apply it to Golarion. Folks are more likely to consider it if you present what an alternative looks like.
|
|
Many of these reinterpretations might be rejected as "that's not the history we have". the point being that "Winner's write the history books and often defame the gods and beliefs of their conquered rivals in the process.
Zon-Kuthon: The pain as a means to strength and endurance. The pain is inevitable "Life is pain princess". So embrace the pain, become callous, become inured to protect yourself and find peace even within the storm of pain, even within the eternal darkness of the age of darkness.
Urgathoa: Not a princess by birth, but a merchant's daughter who because of her beauty married into nobility. She would throw lavish banquets with her family's money, but unlike nobles, she invited her father's employees too, she dined on the food of the wealthy, and the peasant alike. and when she died, she questioned the Goddess of death's pronouncement that there could be only one path, that mortality was the only method, she rebelled, becoming the first undead, and continued her revels and indulgences in life, inviting all to her dining table.
Lamashtu was actually born a beautiful succubae, but she conceived and found join in motherhood. her children were considered hideous, which she rebuked. She loved them, and would see them brought out of subjugation. she transformed herself to be united with her children, the be as beautiful as she told them they were.
Asmodeus: this is just an ancient king, and first law giver, contrary to the claims of Abadar. Unlike many other gods, he has not allowed many of his values to advance, so they ossify justifying slavery and cruelty as necessary to keep the rabble in line. yes, we find him dark and cruel, but that is because he is a god of the rich and noble-born, who find him reasonable and strict.
|
Any RL belief system has its own values and morality and will judge other beliefs accordingly.
Now, I, for a long time, desired to be able to play a good priest of an evil deity who would be all about placating them and directing their wrath to other more deserving targets.
I once had the opportunity to play a good, even anti-Undead, Cleric of a pantheon who did promote respect for all deities, even opposed ones. To the point of warning the Fighter PC that he would not heal him of any damage, curse ... said Fighter would get from desecrating the altar of our enemies' Evil deity (that was in 3.5).
You could absolutely rewrite all deities to be for more neutral or grey.
I would however suggest, you just make new deities (even if there are a lot of mirrors to existing ones).
I say this only because, as a player, I'd have a hard time ever viewing Asmodeus as anything other than the highest devil, using legal trickery to claim souls and bring harm to others to achieve his goals.
Even if you've rewritten him, I'm still likely to react to the deity in such a way, including his followers. And for what it's worth, Asmodeus is probably my favorite non-good deity. One of my favorite PF1 characters was my Tyrant Antipaladin of Asmodeus. But the character was definitely awful. I played him in the AP where you play an evil party "working" for/with House Thrune (the name escapes me). He did awful things like purposefully being infected with every possible disease (because he was immune to the effects) and then spreading the disease to every non-Thrune supporting town he came across. And then basically sold snake oil to everyone to cure the super diseases.
Sometimes it's fun to be bad.
|
|
About Undeath as Evil or more precisely creating permanent Undead capable of inflicting damage as an evil act, this does not come from Pharasma's opinion, but from the fact that Undead, especially the mindless ones, will attack innocent living beings if left on their own.
That kind of behaviour is also what made these Undead Evil in the previous alignment system.
If mindless Undead did not go out of their way to kill living beings, they would not be Evil, and neither would creating them.
Pharasma would still be relentless in putting Undead down as they still keep a soul (even if only a sliver of it) from the Cycle of life and death that she maintains.
And she would still hate Urgathoa for making Undeath possible, even if the Pallid Princess was the greatest do-gooder there is.
The root of this lies in all those tropes and stories about the restless and hungry dead who will kill innocent living beings. Which is a pretty universal RL myth AFAIK.
1. That version of Asmodeus might be less Evil, but IMO is more evil in practice. His rationalizing, catering to the powerful, and appeal to a harmful status quo or even regressive past mirror exactly how I think an Evil Asmodeus would play his hand (and arguably did in Cheliax when taking over).
2, Does Evil exist in this incarnation? Is it a substance, damage trait, or tangible concept any more, or simply liked/disliked behavior? Are devils & demons all similarly misunderstood? If Evil still exists metaphysically, do deities have an inability to be/use/manipulate Evil, is such an inability part of the godly package?
3. With the utmost Evil deities neutered, will the utmost Good deities also have shades of gray? Are they worse than followers believed? And who/what will take over as top rotten banana? What keeps irrational people from worshiping those powerful entities like deities, i.e Treerazer? Where does evil/Evil peak if not with the gods? And kinda repeating myself, but why not deities? Maybe not popular ones, yet with hundreds of them, it seems some would fall under the label of evil (if not Evil).
---
I'm reminded of Speaker for the Dead, where eulogies portray an exhaustive, fair report of the deceased, which allows listeners to empathize with even the evil folk. Not that it redeems their evil. Seems at the end of the day that even the more tepid, sympathetic versions of those evil deities will still be evil if they and their servants operate the same way as originally. Or are there no cults spreading suffering and such? Do neutral or even good religions have bad seeds among them?
Hmm. Seems a lot of work to overhaul and then reintroduce to players. As noted above, there will be baggage interfering with new interpretations so it might be better to rename them.
Regarding Asmodeus, one of the justifications for worshiping him is that he promotes ORDER. Even if it may be a harsh order (especially for those lower in status); frankly, the evil aspects are considered less important to the higher-ups than maintaining control (and their place in the social hierarchy).
Add in some propaganda (both from the state and Asmodeus' priests) and a place like Cheliax can keep things together for a while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Asmodeus is kind of just an extreme example of how cultural conservatives IRL invest heavily in hierarchy as the organizing principle of society. We just happen to know from the omnisicent rulebook perspective that this sort of thing isn't natural or trustworthy- people in the diagesis don't have access to that frame of reference.
The Townsend: yeah, the validation would be nice, good to know I'm not the only person thinking in these terms, but I do disagree that all of these topics are disparate and separate things. They are intertwined. It doesn't make sense, and it parallels religious villanization (which also doesn't make sense) and it's often justified with political compartmentalization.
I would not say I'm thinking in the same terms as you, more that that was me trying to prompt you to look inward and seriously question if "Blindly fishing for someone to agree with me on an issue I haven't bothered to unpack my own thoughts on" is a healthy or even reasonable perpective on which to enter an Internet Forum full of Technically Minded Nerds.
I'm not going to continue debating you here, since -- seeing as you've cycled entirely back to querying the Watsonian justification that we've been trying to answer for three days -- you don't seem to actually be looking for answers to your questions.
|
|
Regarding Asmodeus, one of the justifications for worshiping him is that he promotes ORDER. Even if it may be a harsh order (especially for those lower in status); frankly, the evil aspects are considered less important to the higher-ups than maintaining control (and their place in the social hierarchy).
Add in some propaganda (both from the state and Asmodeus' priests) and a place like Cheliax can keep things together for a while.
Just add and enforce the perspective of just reward by advancement for those who zealously uphold the party line / respect and protect the social order and you get the masses too.
Obviously, those who get it bad must have done something really bad to deserve it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty important thing that I think deserves mentioning that really does remove some of the 'its like the real world' discussion: in Golarion, the gods are actual physical/metaphysical, provable, existing entities. They aren't things people believe are real but have no actual day to day presence. You can actually pray to Lamashtu and she will actually answer them.
It's not like someone in the real world calling out to some god and interpreting something as their will. It's like if an IRL Catholic priest called out to the Saints to smite some perceived Satanist and an actual real beam of light shone down and obliterated them. Or the Satanist conjured forth actual hellfire and burned down a cathedral.
Like we do need to approach this from that viewpoint. Of course someone who watches a priest of Zon-Kuthon summon shadows and sexy pain fiends to engage in their wild fantasies would be like 'oh okay that's kinda exciting'. A suffering person dying from a disease who longs for the taste of their favorite meal and another chance at life may call out to Urgathoa and actually be given just that. It's not wishing; it's measurable effect.
It's not just abstract philosophy in Golarion. It's real, actual, observable power.
Following an 'evil' god makes a lot more sense when you can see the actual benefit first-hand.
Pretty important thing that I think deserves mentioning that really does remove some of the 'its like the real world' discussion: in Golarion, the gods are actual physical/metaphysical, provable, existing entities. They aren't things people believe are real but have no actual day to day presence. You can actually pray to Lamashtu and she will actually answer them.
It's not like someone in the real world calling out to some god and interpreting something as their will. It's like if an IRL Catholic priest called out to the Saints to smite some perceived Satanist and an actual real beam of light shone down and obliterated them. Or the Satanist conjured forth actual hellfire and burned down a cathedral.
Like we do need to approach this from that viewpoint. Of course someone who watches a priest of Zon-Kuthon summon shadows and sexy pain fiends to engage in their wild fantasies would be like 'oh okay that's kinda exciting'. A suffering person dying from a disease who longs for the taste of their favorite meal and another chance at life may call out to Urgathoa and actually be given just that. It's not wishing; it's measurable effect.
It's not just abstract philosophy in Golarion. It's real, actual, observable power.
Following an 'evil' god makes a lot more sense when you can see the actual benefit first-hand.
Except that people who are true believers in the real world really do believe. That catholic priest may vary well 100% believes in God. People in the real world do believe that miracles are real and given by God/the gods. Yes, we can say that they aren't real, but to the believers these miracles are very much real.
LegalKimchi has a great video IMO about fantasy religions, it focuses on DnD with an interview with Ed Greenwood but a lot of it can apply to Pathfinder too.