Pathfinder 1E Gods of Pathfinder: Shelyn, the Eternal Rose

[jasin]

Over on Paizo's boards, Mike McArtor posted pretty much the complete write-up (at this point) for Pathfinder's goddess of love, beauty and arts.

 

[Arnwyn]

*shrug* Looks fine. Same ol', same ol'.

But really - I hope they concentrate more on the adventures than on their Varisia/whatever campaign world nonsense.

I really liked the previous adventure paths from Dungeon because they were so easy to insert into one's campaign world. So far, though, it looks like Pathfinder is going in the opposite direction and may be far too difficult to insert into one's own world - especially if they keep detailing their campaign world overmuch. In any case, I'm certainly not going to start buying them until I get through my transition run (7 books) and see for myself how difficult it is to insert. Looks grim so far though, AFAIC.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Looks pretty good. Fluff is always easy enough to mix around, especially if you have a world with wide-open space to plunk something down in.

The more I see of the Pathfinder stuff, the more it feels like the heady days of yore, with that sense of wonder and possibility. The Realms (for me) is too burdened with its own mass, now, and I never cared for the taste of Eberron. This so far seems to hit the sweet spot.

I just hope they don't go overboard and fill in every nook and cranny. Create the setting and let me run with it and don't feel the need to dictate every nuance, or, god forbid, wrap it around a bunch of mediocre fiction.

 

[Kaladhan]

Disclaimer: Gods and pantheons are a pet peeve of mine. I'm very hard to satisfy. I really don't appreciate putting alignments on gods. But since it's such a factor of DnD, I can understand why it exists and live with it. I also prefer gods that always try to screw mortals and view them as their plaything or pawns (much like the Greek gods).

I'm not a big fan of Shelyn. How is she different from other Goddesses of Love, Beauty and Art? Okay, she has a glaive and a relationship with an evil god. For me, this is not only generic, it's somewhat bland. I would have prefered if she used seduction as a weapon. Some kind of goddess of succubi.

But I understand what they wanted to do with it, and I think it's a success, but just not for me. Hopefully, I will like the other gods.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I like that they sat down and figured out at the goddess' genesis how she'd work out in play. She's good-aligned, so she'll have some paladins: What are they like?

That's a level of utility you don't see in WotC gods and settings except retroactively and then it often feels off, since it's not part of the starting point for the religion.

I'm not saying to create a pantheon based around adventurers -- THAT's my biggest pet peeve -- but when creating a pantheon full of gods that ordinary people would relate to, go ahead and figure out how the pantheon would work with the PHB and plan around them being used in a D&D game from the beginning.

I love that Paizo seems to be doing all of this.

 

[Wycen]

How far into that Paizo thread would I have to dig to find the pertinent info?

 

[Kaladhan]

The link provided directly send you to the relevent post.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

How far into that Paizo thread would I have to dig to find the pertinent info?

Just click the link. It was right there.

 

[jasin]

*shrug* Looks fine. Same ol', same ol'.

But really - I hope they concentrate more on the adventures than on their Varisia/whatever campaign world nonsense.

I really liked the previous adventure paths from Dungeon because they were so easy to insert into one's campaign world. So far, though, it looks like Pathfinder is going in the opposite direction and may be far too difficult to insert into one's own world - especially if they keep detailing their campaign world overmuch. In any case, I'm certainly not going to start buying them until I get through my transition run (7 books) and see for myself how difficult it is to insert. Looks grim so far though, AFAIC.

"Grim"?

I think it looks just fine as far as portability goes. My impression is that's why it's same ol' same ol': because this is not supposed to be Eberron with it's twisting of D&D's tropes and genre-mixing, but a world of D&D tropes at their most basic and default. (And I'm not saying that with full approval.)

 

[Arnwyn]

"Grim"?

I think it looks just fine as far as portability goes. My impression is that's why it's same ol' same ol': because this is not supposed to be Eberron with it's twisting of D&D's tropes and genre-mixing, but a world of D&D tropes at their most basic and default. (And I'm not saying that with full approval.)

Yes, "grim". That's what I said.

I certainly hope what you say is going to be the case. I just hope that they don't make the adventures too dependent on specific geography, politics, and gods. I said grim because of the amount of time they've been spending on blathering about the campaign world as opposed to the adventures. Not impressed with that tactic, in any case.