Rahadoum - Not atheistic, but dystheistic


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

151 to 200 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Contributor

Beckett wrote:
Not true. They both do persecute belief and even simple ownership of religious items, even those that are not used for conversion or evangical activities. Thats why Clerics have hidden personal practices and the Hidden Priest Archtype has the ability to use mundane items like a coin as a divine focus.

On the plus side, this does make Rahadoum a nation utterly free from religious kitsch. That's something at least.


LazarX wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm not arguing that atheism is evil in game: it's not. It's simply massively unwise. And Rahadoum isn't doing it right anyway: they're a lawful neutral group of fanatics who persecute innocent people for believing differently from them. That's not in any way "good".

They're not really prosecuting belief. What they do prosecute is evangelical activities. They do however have a very broad definition of the word. They associate divine agents with the disastrous war they went though. In essence their mindset is not that different from that of the Founding Fathers who came from a Europe that had been wracked with centuries of warfare between Christianity and Islam, but even more so between different branches of Christianity itself, in which all the European nations were essentially theocracies so those doctrinal differences came to influence a lot of politics.

So the Founders actually took pains to decouple the Church from State for that reason.

... um, you're exhibiting both a very flawed view of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. and Rahadoum.

Unrelated Rant on the Founding Fathers:
The decoupling church from state was not to protect the state from the church, it was to protect church (and individual's faith - the predominance was Christian or Deist among said Founding Fathers) from interference from the Church. Today, of course, that intent has been taken to the point where we seek to allow religious freedom for all (within reason - that "reason" translating more or less to "nobody gets hurt") and to do so by removing the influence of any one faith - and any faith at all - from governmental decisions. But that's not the intent, as evidenced by those who established the nation starting all things in prayer and citing God as the reason behind most of the things that they do: to claim otherwise is ignorant or self-deceptive.

Please note that I am not saying that they were always either correct or incorrect, that they always interpreted their own religion correct (they did not). I am also not claiming that interpreting the documents the way we have is fundamentally wrong. But assigning our current socio-political views to them is very disingenuous and smacks of fable-style history akin to the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree.

Rahadoum actively persecutes religion. By the very nature of the Laws of Man, religion - in all its forms - are legally prohibited and punishable by law. This is the definition of "persecuting".

I even cited an example: they Pure Legion hopes to incite an incident in one of their own towns such that bad things happen blamed on the (LG by definition) cult of Iomedae so they can step in and "heroically clean up" in order to break said burgeoning cult's influence. That's persecution.

(In other news, I know Beckett totally and succinctly ninja'd me, but I felt it was worth responding to.)

Kevin: I'm curious if you mean it's something (as in something positive, I believe) because they lack religious iconography altogether, or just because there isn't any "religious merchandising", or something else.

Set: Upon rereading your suggestion that Sarenrae might be punishing them... I'm not following the line that leads to said conclusion (aside from the obvious one-to-one drought/sun/thing).

Set wrote:

All that aside, Sarenrae is also the goddess of honesty, and has an entire Prestige Class (the Dawnflower Dissident) set aside to deceit, disguise, secrecy and internecine struggles between different sub-sects of her own religion, complete with bonuses to affect other followers of Sarenrae, so my notion of what is 'thematic' for a neutral good goddesss of honesty and redemption may not always jibe with canon. :)

Maybe like the various neutral nations of the Inner Sea, like Hermea or Rahadoum, Sarenrae is less good and more evil than her printed alignment would suggest.

It may be that I'm just not understanding the first sentence (and since I don't know the prestige class), but the second doesn't seem to apply: you seem to say that the Dawnflower Dissident's purpose is to eliminate deceit, disguise, secrecy, and internecine struggles of her church; but then take that to the conclusion that a deity of honesty is less good than mentioned? Am I just reading what you said backwards?

(I'd say your thought-line about Nethys is entirely accurate, though.)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
It may be that I'm just not understanding the first sentence (and since I don't know the prestige class), but the second doesn't seem to apply: you seem to say that the Dawnflower Dissident's purpose is to eliminate deceit, disguise, secrecy, and internecine struggles of her church

I communicated that poorly.

The Prestige Class *uses* deceit and disguise and secrecy and is an active part of internecine struggles within her church, to the point of having *combat bonuses* against fellow followers of Sarenrae.

For a goddess with honesty and redemption among her 'things,' a Sarenrae-specific PrC that's all about hiding who you are and doing things covertly and attacking co-religionists you don't agree with is a bit of an eye-opener, and suggests that perhaps Sarenrae *would* be the sort of 'neutral good' goddess who would drop a drought / famine on an entire country of non-evil people who annoyed her.


Ah, sorry and thanks! Makes more sense now! :)

And thus, I could see that.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That PC strikes me as particularly Inquisitor (better Cleric than Cleric) focused and also probably meant for Taldor (vs some non-good Qadirian Sarenrae "followers" rather than anything Rahadoum-like.

Im not sure it even has any connection to this thread's topic really.

Reading Osirions history and foundarion, however really hints at Nethys's "worship me OR ELSE!!!" attitude that essentually paints him/it in a very Whispering Tyrrant-like light in all mut the CE on his character <dev> sheet.

Contributor

Tacticslion wrote:
Kevin: I'm curious if you mean it's something (as in something positive, I believe) because they lack religious iconography altogether, or just because there isn't any "religious merchandising", or something else.

I specifically meant "religious kitsch," meaning religious merchandising and iconography both that's in severely bad taste and generally involves large numbers of cute children and/or babies in terminally quaint costumes with as many cute baby animals as you can stuff into the frame gazing adoringly at the deity of your choice.

As for the side rant...

separation of church and state:
I suggest you check Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists where he clarifies what he meant when he wrote the 1st Amendment, specifically the wall separating church and state, as well as the portion of the Treaty of Tripoli where it's lined out that the US is not a Christian nation. Note: All later treaties are considered part of the Constitution, same as Amendments.

And as further history, it should be noted that before the Founding Fathers made their break from England, there was some nasty business where Oliver Cromwell had the celebration of Christmas banned in Boston because he considered it a pagan holiday.

The Founding Fathers wanted the separation of church and state to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense, not to have every state set up its own personal state religion.


Ah, got it. I don't necessarily agree (though the images you paint are strange - not really the kind of art I normally associate with religious stuff, but to each their own), but I can see what you mean.

Side-rant continued! WARNING: IT'S HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE. Also, please note, I'm not upset, though I could see how this might come across as such. I just talk too much.:
Yes, I've read it. "A wall of seperation between church and state" means exactly that: that the state does not mandate any religion on others. Again, that's not the point. While they wanted each person to be free to follow their own faith, they founded every single principle of their law in what they believed were religious ideals: the very religious ideals they espoused. "Endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights" sound familiar? That's because they all beleived in a creator and it was the basis upon which they claimed said "inalienable rights".

I'm not going to claim "their" Christianity (or Deism, for that matter) resembles "ours" (as cultural implications and associations change over time), but their respective faiths were instrumental to their creation of the law. Their faith absolutely informed their creation - it was the basis for their morality and view of the world. It was different from ours, certainly, but Jefferson's words do not mean that the law is free of religious influence: it means it's not a church-run state. I.E. the "church" - as an institution - does not run the government. That is what he meant, and what he clarified in his letters.

To say this equates to "it can't and shouldn't ever influence" is simply not true.

Again, to clarify: I'm not defending my own faith as "America's", nor claiming their beliefs in any way resembled mine. From everything I've read, very few of them did. But their beliefs created, maintained, and influenced law and how it was created.

To quote it:

Jefferson wrote:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

This is clearly saying that no religious institution will dictate the nature of the government, not that religious ideas won't influence it.

Wikipedia's article.

To quote:

wikipedia wrote:
As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.

Their preceding letter:

Danbury letter wrote:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge } Eph'm Robbins } The Committee Stephen S. Nelson }
Source Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.

(bold mine)

Which was exactly what Jefferson was talking about. He ain't'a gonna let one religious body govern. Which was exactly the problem with Cromwell: only one religious body had any say. The difference, of course, was that at the time, nearly all were Christian of some sort (the majority Anglican, if I recall correctly), while the rest were Deists (such as Benjamin Franklin).

Thus, they really couldn't have conceived of any sensible religious notion that was outside of or beyond that. They would never have conceived of the concept of Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, or other religions as remotely acceptable - it would have been far too much. While atheism certainly existed, it was looked down upon and generally thought of as foolishness. Darwin wouldn't be born for thirty more years, and his theory wouldn't be published for nearly a eighty years (paving the way for "religion-free" science). The "pagan" (non-Christian/Deistic) religions and religious ideology were all considered dangerous and unstable, and were socially reprehensible at the time.

Simply put, the Founding Fathers place religious tenets - their religious tenets - as the reasoning behind their early laws because that's where they came from and their thought process. The actual structure of the legal system came from Greek/Roman elements (Republic ideals) that were earlier refined in such countries as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (which maintained the power of the aristocracy), and later in our own Constitution* (after our brief romp with the effectively-failed - due to weakness - Articles of Confederation) which is what we have now. The point of all this? The Founding Fathers came from a time and place where everything - everything had religious basis - specifically of Judeo-Christian origin. Thus, all that they did was steeped in that kind of religious thought, even the "religious freedom".

*Yes, yes, I linked to the type of constitution rather than the actual U.S. Constitution. It doesn't matter, though, as I linked to it in the previous sentence - nyah-hah! - and, I felt it fit better to describe the transition of governmental types. Incidentally, after our constitution, the now-failing Polish-Lithunanian Commonwealth adopted their own!

So, anyway, my point isn't that "we're doing it wrong", so much as it is "we're not doing what they were thinking - at all - and claiming modern sensibilities on non-modern people is silly anyway". I mean, I'd describe myself as a Baptist, but I can say for certain that none of my Biblical heroes, at any point, would do so, nor would they share many of my thoughts, because, quite frankly, I live in a different time. I like to think that ultimately they would come to the same conclusions, but I know for a fact that many would be shocked and displeased that I... don't wear a beard (among other things). So, you know. Cultural differences matter when talking about these things. :)

EDIT: reference the side-rant: feel free to make a rebuttal, or whatever as you would like, but, I think for the purpose of this thread, after that, we should probably drop it. I'd be glad to continue with any questions, or if there are specific points (such as the note about Jefferson's letter), if I'm specifically invited to do so, but otherwise, after anything else you guys'd like to say, it probably shouldn't continue. Waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy off topic, after all. :)

Shadow Lodge

Another aspect along the same lines as the misunderstanding of church and state is that an aspect of the intent was also that "the church" not being a direct political entity of government, would serve as one of the two outside moral and ethic guards against that government abusing power. The point that the Church and the Press where given specific freedoms and privledges.

Early French Revolution philosophy and some American ideas based on similar sources tried very had for a almost anti-religious, humanistic focus, and in both cases this was removed.

They seemed very similar to Rahadoum's on the surface looks, vs say Andoran (as oppossed to Galt vs Andoran philosophies/outcomes).

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Ah, got it. I don't necessarily agree (though the images you paint are strange - not really the kind of art I normally associate with religious stuff, but to each their own), but I can see what you mean.

** spoiler omitted **

...

Agreed.

For closing, I'll just go with the reference you skipped, likely for lack of space:

Spoiler:
The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)


I have to admit: that was my ignorance, and was not left out due to "lack of space", but "lack of remembering it"! :)

I've got a few potential rebuttles, but again, different topic, so not for here or today. :D

Reference similarity between U.S. as compared to Rahadoum, I can't even begin to see it. Even with all that has been passed back and forth, the U.S. was clearly based on freedom of religion, instead of freedom from religion, and Rahadoum was very strongly the latter, to the point that they're setting up cons to frame/blame verifiably <spell check doesn't recognize this, but doesn't give me an alternative> good religion(s) in order to run them out, regardless of any behavior they've held (nothing is cited, at least, leaving us with a poor impression of them).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

I have to admit: that was my ignorance, and was not left out due to "lack of space", but "lack of remembering it"! :)

I've got a few potential rebuttles, but again, different topic, so not for here or today. :D

Reference similarity between U.S. as compared to Rahadoum, I can't even begin to see it. Even with all that has been passed back and forth, the U.S. was clearly based on freedom of religion, instead of freedom from religion, and Rahadoum was very strongly the latter, to the point that they're setting up cons to frame/blame verifiably <spell check doesn't recognize this, but doesn't give me an alternative> good religion(s) in order to run them out, regardless of any behavior they've held (nothing is cited, at least, leaving us with a poor impression of them).

One thing you need to understand that prior to the writing of the American Constitution, the Church was the State and the State was the Church. In England for instance the ruling monarch is the head of the Church of England. At the time this included laws against being a Catholic for example. Catholic nations like Spain, had the same strictures against Protestants. Inquisitions were held not just to seek out witches but against other offenses classified as heresies.

The Founding Fathers were trying to keep the nation from being embroiled in all that nonsense. With good reason as at least some of them were Gnostics or other beliefs which sprang during the Enlightenment, which were persecuted by both parties.

Freedom of Religion is meaningless unless it includes Freedom FROM Religion. The last is a goal that's only been partially met in this society as declaring yourself an Atheist effectively removes you from seeking public office.

Shadow Lodge

I dont think that being aligned with an unpopular polutical catagory reflects a failure of freedom of religion, not to mention that having a different religion (say Mormon or Muslim) tends to offer a great deal of scorn and derogatory attitudes from others, too.


One thing I think it's important to understand in Rahadoum vis a vis the false flag operations the Pure Legion wants to run is that the Pure Legion has *very* little oversight and isn't directly part of the civilian government. It's more a problem of runaway military authority, possibly resulting in a coup, than any particular issue with the Rahadoumi as a whole being dicks.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terraneaux wrote:
One thing I think it's important to understand in Rahadoum vis a vis the false flag operations the Pure Legion wants to run is that the Pure Legion has *very* little oversight and isn't directly part of the civilian government. It's more a problem of runaway military authority, possibly resulting in a coup, than any particular issue with the Rahadoumi as a whole being dicks.

So the worst excesses of the Pure Legion don't represent all of Rahadoum any more than The Burners represent all Iomedae worshippers, or the Lumber Consortium paymasters represent all Andorans?

That seems reasonable.

Shadow Lodge

I think that the Pure Legion is much moe common in Rahadoum than those other groups are within their associeted areas. The Pure Legion is essentually the countries police force/army, and does extend outside the country, while as I understand it, the Burners are a very minor cult and the L.C. only has any real presence in a smaller aea of Andoran (and only certain individuals within it are actually bad).

I could be wrong though.


Set wrote:
So the worst excesses of the Pure Legion don't represent all of Rahadoum any more than The Burners represent all Iomedae worshippers, or the Lumber Consortium paymasters represent all Andorans?

The Pure Legion doesn't 'represent' anyone. It's a military dictatorship occupying the same physical space as a representative democracy.

Acquisitives

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just got the Campaign Setting and going through it, Rahadoum stuck out like a sore thumb.

It just didn't make sense... and then I read a little more about Arnoden... the God of Man. Law of Man, God of Man, the nation closest to Azlant... is there a connection?

Is it possible that Rahadoum (I know this might conflicts greatly with canon) adopted the faith of Arnoden in exasperation with the manipulations and insanities of the other gods?

Now Arnoden is dead... his priests are powerless, and the squabbling pettiness of the other gods is the alternative. Perhaps Rahadoum is keeping the faith with Arnoden, but since he's dead, they no longer venerate him as divine, and in fact because he is dead, they are now ever more puritanical about rejecting the influence of other gods?

Just a thought.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Timothy Hanson wrote:
I am not sure how people would find this offensive. Actually I will go a step further and say I am not sure how this could even be seen as offensive.I can only assume you are referring to people who hate the gods being called atheist?

To clarify, the "offensive" content with respect to atheism in Pathfinder was not related to Rahadoum, but rather to the treatement of atheist souls in the Great Beyond cosmology. It's been discussed, and I think the creative director has said he would have it work differently in future versions.

Now, I wasn't personally offended by the Great Beyond example, but I can see how it gets a little strange what with atheism being the only belief system that exists more or less identically in the real world and the fantasy setting.

I am not trying to make a big deal of it, though. This topic carries a lot of baggage, and I fear that baggage may keep Paizo from exploring Rahadoum as much as I would like. Let's not let this thread degenerate into a real-world religious debate.

Although I am a Christian ("practicing" my faith as well as I know how), I must agree with my atheist friend. Atheists are sometimes unfairly portrayed as angry and hateful in debates across America and the West. The same, alas, has been the case for Christians. The immature form of the debate seems to equate disagreement with hate or intolerance. While there are angry and hateful people on both sides of the "faith" debate, it is unfair to paint all people within a certain belief system with the same broad brush. This is something that today's public square does all too often.

With all this said, I find the approach to Rahadoum fascinating and could hold interesting consequences for PCs as they adventure across this nation. Awesome stuff!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

According to The Inner Sea World Guide, slavery is "commonplace" in Rahadoum. That makes it unambiguously evil by any normal standard. They have their "reasons" why? I'm sure they do. So did the Confederacy, apartheid South Africa, late Republican Rome, and any number of other states.

It's amazing to me how willing people are to make excuses for commonplace slavery because the slavers are "atheists".

James Sutter wrote:
Also, it should be noted that religious folks aren't necessarily executed.

Oh, I'm quite sure we're not. Again, slavery is "commonplace". Where do you think they get so many slaves from? Not by restricting potential slaves to atheists.

James Sutter wrote:
Would I immigrate to Rahadoum? Hell no--I want all that divine magic to keep my PCs healthy and happy. Yet I can also see the nobility in their mission (if not their method)

Yeah. You see, I wouldn't (voluntarily) immigrate to Rahadoum because I wouldn't want to be tortured and enslaved or killed. That you see "nobility" in a "mission" not to end oppression, but to become the oppressor, while dealing torture and slavery to those less fortunate than yourself, as long as it's "atheists" killing and enslaving "religious" people...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone in this thread probably beat me to the punch, but in scanning it I didn't see it. A very recent PFS scenario, you can probably guess by the title, makes this distinction. I haven't read it, but my GM in "I am reading box text" voice stated something like "While most people regard the people of Rahadoum as atheists, this is not entirely correct. They believe the gods exist, but that they are not worthy of worship."

Shadow Lodge

James Sutter wrote:
Also, it should be noted that religious folks aren't necessarily executed.
Oh, I'm quite sure we're not. Again, slavery is "commonplace". Where do you think they get so many slaves from? Not by restricting potential slaves to atheists.

It's very unlikely that they would keep religious people as slaves. For one, that is probably something that will get the nation itself erased from the surface of Golarion as other faithful catch wind of it and make it their faiths persona duty to cleanse the bastion of evil. Secondly, the natives would not want those people around to spread their faith. Thirdly, that would give the deities someone on the inside, and lastly, not everyone would actually want that. Most of the population has a sort of misguided, unrealistic fear of religion, and we know that the nation has some real issues with things like plagues and starvation. Having an individual that could honestly be able to help right there would probably break the nation. Sort of a reverse puritanism.

Most faithful are either executed, (not sure why James said they are not), or if they are lucky simply beaten and then forced out.

Sovereign Court

Dotted.
Great thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(Yes, thread necro, but don't worry - I'm an arcane caster!) Rahadoum really "jumped out at me" from the setting, because at first I was like "whaaat? An "atheist" nation in a world where the power of the gods is objectively provable?", so that led me to this thread, which has been an interesting and enlightening read.

(Since the etiquette here seems to be to identify our IRL worldviews for reference, I'd describe myself Christian Libertarian - I strive to follow Christian principles such as "love thy neighbor as yourself" as best as I can interpret them - "in good faith", in both senses of the word "faith" - but I try not to force my beliefs on others, because I've been wrong about some stuff I strongly believed in before).

If I were a denizen of Golarion (but still had my irl tendencies), I'd probably worship some sexy hippie goddess like Milani or Arshea or some other "do what you want, don't violate the rights of others" deities, while praying to other gods when appropriate (Gorzeh when making a sea voyage, Abadar when making a business deal, etc).

Anyway, I see Rahadoum as anti-theistic, not atheistic (at least not in the way people in the real world define atheism). They do not disbelieve the existence of gods, they simply hate the fact that gods exist and that people worship them.

And I would also say those 2 categories are generally mutually exclusive. Is it not insane to hate something that you don't believe even exists? Hate is not the opposite of love, apathy is. To truly hate takes time, emotional effort, focus on the object of your hate. We call the KKK and the Black Panthers "hate-groups" for a reason - they'd be a lot less trouble if they were simply "don't give a dire-rat's arse about people different then them" groups.

The truly ironic thing is, that despite their Nietzschean (betcha they'd love that guy) pursuit of becoming Übermenschen by tearing free from reliance on and obedience to deities, Rahadoumi culture has been "they who fight monsters" from the very start.

Let's take a moment and ask - what have they proven with their bold stance? Their unquestioning surrender to the word of a single powerful demagogue, militant intolerance and violent persecution of any that dare disagree, and continuation of the slave trade shows quite clearly that they are capable (and zealously willing) of being as cruel, as uncaring toward the plight of man as the very gods - and extremist followers thereof - that they despise. They didn't need a religious crusade to lead them to Hell - the evil was inside them all along!

They've not demonstrated themselves to be better than gods or religious folk - if anything, they've shown themselves to be just as bad, and all on their own. With no deities to roll the buck uphill toward, the blame falls squarely on the citizens of Rahadoum for their iniquities.

hogarth wrote:


Apparently the problem is having faith in anything (nature, etc.). Which leads to the paradox: what happens if I have faith in the Rahadoumi government? ;-)

Random Rahadoimi citizen 1: "Blasphemy!" ~starts throwing stones~

Random Rahadoimi citizen 2: Wait, isn't the concept of "blasphemy" indicative of having faith? Stone the heretic! ~throws stones at #1~

Random Rahadoimi citizen 3: "'Heretic?' We don't tolerate that kind of religious nonsense here!" ~throws stones at #2~

~Pure Legion rides up~

Pure Legion Commander: "A riot, huh? Eh, kill 'em all let gods sort 'em ou- hey! Watch where you're pointing that thing!

Random Rahadoimi citizen 4: "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the gods ever done for us?""

Tacticslion wrote:
And really, if there was nothing sinister, why would they have to hide it?

One could ask governments (real and fictional) the same thing.

James Sutter wrote:
Sure, they might *say* they're not, and that their power is coming from somewhere areligious... but really, in this sort of McCarthyist witch-hunt environment, everybody's going to say that.

Ironically, witches, being arcane casters, would be safe from Rahadoumi persecution.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
There are also stories about ... officials using innocent family memebers as hostages...

And now Scientology will sue them for copyright infringement or something.

Terraneaux wrote:
Most people in the setting don't have enough money to afford divine spellcasting anyway. 10 gp for a cure light wounds? That's a ridiculous amount of money for a common laborer.

Is it? Even a commoner gets 2+Int mod skill ranks / level. Assuming a human average all 10s for ability scores (Commoners are, by definition, the most average of people), that's a +4 to a Profession skill. Taking 10 would net 1 gp, 4 sp per day or 7gp per 5-day week (as defined in Downtime Rules), or 28 gp / 20-day work-month (four 5-day work-weeks). Deducting 10 gp for Average-level (middle-class) monthly cost-of-living expenses (room & board, taxes, etc), that still leaves Joe Peasant with 18 gp every month in disposable income.

Yes, 10 gp eats into that, but is it so different from health insurance in our world? Unless you're an adventurer, raking in big adventurer bucks for living dangerously day in and day out, chances are, you won't need a potion of CLW every couple days.

Also, I want to know - where is he shopping that allows him to buy potions for a 5th of their market price? Is this some kind of government-subsidized socialist healthcare that's coming to Golarion and driving all the artificers out of business? Does Rahadoum just steal stuff from religious people and sell it dirt-cheap in the streets?

Beckett wrote:

I wouldn't say Rahadoum is at all free from the deities. It's more along the lines of them holing up and trying to pretend that the zombie apocalypse outside is going to go away one day. :) I would even venture that they are even more bound by deities and religion than others, trying so hard to have no part of it and rebel against it. My understanding is that that is the whole point of the Death's Heretic novel.

As for Rahadoum having a religious-freedom, they don't. At all. They actively dictate their belief (on pain of death or exile) on the populace. They just created their own "religious belief".

Exactly - Rahadoum is kinda like a hipster trying so hard to counter the mainstream that they inevitably become lashed to it. The Rahadoumi aren't simply saying "no thank you" - they're actively, zealously pursuing their beliefs and forcing them on their fellow man. Their greatest commandment "Let no man be beholden to a god" is just a fat sack of self-deception. By expending so much effort to stamp out religion, they have made themselves beholden to all the gods, in an inverse form of worship.

It's like this - if I'm a city-slicker that worships Abadar, I really couldn't care less what some raft-rat in the backwaters of the River Kingdoms is doing in their devotion to Hanspur. Their dealings have little to no direct effect on my life. But if I'm a paladin of Iomedae, actively bringing the fight against Asmodeus, what the followers of Asmodeus do affects me personally. I have to be aware if there's new cult activity on the rise, because my life - and more importantly, the lives of those I've sworn to protect - could literally depend on it. My declaration of war means that what Asmodeus and his flock do is my business.

Rahadoum isn't content to say "don't force your religion on people" or even "leave your religion out of our politics and philosophical self-enlightenment" - they literally force their one, very intolerant view on all their citizens.

I could be a positive-energy-channeling healer that's never preached a word in my life - all I want to do is help others, regardless of what they believe - and Rahadoum would brand me a public enemy, destroy my neighbor's house, and blame it on me. I could be a non-divine-casting one-and-only worshiper of a banjo-playing sock puppet - and the Pure Legion would drag me from my home because they feared some "threat" from me. Rahadoum isn't about freedom - it's about slavery to one very specific way of life. The government even seeks to impose its will upon your eternal soul. Dissenters don't even have the option to leave peacefully. Even the militant theocracies of age-of-sail Europe allowed some who refused to get with the program [i.e. the Pilgrims] to gtfo and sail away to somewhere where they were someone else's problem. Rahadoum isn't saying "do your thing, but don't interfere with ours" - they're closer to how Daesh seeks to behead anyone that tries to leave the territory they're despoiling.

Sovereign Court

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
According to The Inner Sea World Guide, slavery is "commonplace" in Rahadoum. That makes it unambiguously evil by any normal standard.

Whose normal?

From what I can tell, slavery is fairly common in Golarion, even in supposedly good nations.

But presumably, a Lawful Good individual would treat their slaves well, and allow them whatever legal opportunities there are to get their freedom (and maybe more, depending on how Good they are).

A Lawful Evil master might not beat their slaves on a whim, but if they deserve a good whipping, they get a good whipping.

Obviously, being Chaotic Good would not mix with slavery too well, but a CG person in a society where slavery is seen as normal might simply allow his slaves scandalous amount of liberty rather than freeing them.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
James Sutter wrote:

Also, it should be noted that religious folks aren't necessarily executed.

Oh, I'm quite sure we're not. Again, slavery is "commonplace". Where do you think they get so many slaves from? Not by restricting potential slaves to atheists.

It's very unlikely that they would keep religious people as slaves. For one, that is probably something that will get the nation itself erased from the surface of Golarion as other faithful catch wind of it and make it their faiths persona duty to cleanse the bastion of evil. Secondly, the natives would not want those people around to spread their faith. Thirdly, that would give the deities someone on the inside, and lastly, not everyone would actually want that. Most of the population has a sort of misguided, unrealistic fear of religion, and we know that the nation has some real issues with things like plagues and starvation. Having an individual that could honestly be able to help right there would probably break the nation. Sort of a reverse puritanism.

Most faithful are either executed, (not sure why James said they are not), or if they are lucky simply beaten and then forced out.

I'm now imagining a very very Exodus-like situation developing in Rahadoum with an Apocalypse mystery oracle with Snake Staff and Control Water demanding his fellow believers be released from slavery. Human history indicates that enslaving religious minorities is hardly uncommon.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I'm now imagining a very very Exodus-like situation developing in Rahadoum with an Apocalypse mystery oracle with Snake Staff and Control Water demanding his fellow believers be released from slavery. Human history indicates that enslaving religious minorities is hardly uncommon.

I am finding a spot in my campaigns, and I am doing this. ^_^

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I'm now imagining a very very Exodus-like situation developing in Rahadoum with an Apocalypse mystery oracle with Snake Staff and Control Water demanding his fellow believers be released from slavery. Human history indicates that enslaving religious minorities is hardly uncommon.
I am finding a spot in my campaigns, and I am doing this. ^_^

You said campaigns, plural. How I envy you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady Kamari Ipeq wrote:
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
According to The Inner Sea World Guide, slavery is "commonplace" in Rahadoum. That makes it unambiguously evil by any normal standard.

Whose normal?

From what I can tell, slavery is fairly common in Golarion, even in supposedly good nations.

I guess in any such discussion, we should consider what does "slavery" mean? (Bear in mind that I am *extremely* opposed to the practice IRL - this is a discussion, *not* an endorsement).

Not all institutions of slavery in our own history were what we most commonly think of as slavery, or the race-based slave trade between Africa, Europe, and the Americas.

In the ancient near-east and Mediterranean, for example, being a slave had little to do with race. More likely, a slave was a conquered person, a prisoner of war, a debtor, a criminal, or someone who had otherwise found themselves plunged into the bottom of the social ladder. Many slaves had the opportunity to work/buy themselves out of slavery through years of dedicated work.

So let's do a thought experiment - how *could* a "Good" society (in the PF sense of cosmic "Good") permit an institution of slavery in their culture?

Well, perhaps it's part of their "rehabilitative" justice system. Rather than flog or mutilate a non-capital transgressor or let them waste their potential (and society's resources) sitting in a gaol, they auction them off to "repay their debts to society".

Now you might say "that violates their Freedom, and Good people/societies protect freedom!".

A perfectly valid rebuttal could be that in *choosing* to commit their crimes, these individuals *forfeited* their right to freedom, showing that they obviously could not handle it, and through their actions asking that society take it away and discipline them. After all, no criminal is taken truly "against their will" - they all know the consequences of what they do and the verdict they bring down on their own heads.

Perhaps "indentured servant" or "debtor to the people" might be a more politically-correct term than "slave" to use there. It is likely in this kind of an institution that this "community service" not be "for life", but rather that there be a set sentence for them to fulfill (maybe even time off for good behavior).

Another controversial, but perhaps "fair for the setting" source of slaves might be prisoners of war (since Golarion seems to have had little in the way of treaties and conventions regarding the Laws and Customs of War, or international law of any sort - do they even *have* common maritime law?). Any nation could see it as perfectly acceptable to force POWs to rebuild what they destroyed (as the USSR did in WWII), and could still keep with the "Good" alignment if the POWs are treated humanely and sent back home when the war is over. Also, if being sent back would be a *worse* fate (Evil masters that would torture and kill them for daring to fail), then they may throw themselves on the mercy of their captors.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
To truly hate takes time, emotional effort, focus on the object of your hate. We call the KKK and the Black Panthers "hate-groups" for a reason - they'd be a lot less trouble if they were simply "don't give a dire-rat's arse about people different then them" groups.

Hey sorry, I know this is semi off-topic, but this is just something I have to address because it's an oft-repeated and yet rarely challenged fallacy and it bothers me a lot.

It's popular to immediately compare the Black Panthers to the Klan for some misguided attempt at 'fairness', but the reality is the two groups could not be more different. The Black Panther Party was a group created by members of an oppressed minority in solidarity against a government that was actively killing them. The Black Panthers worked and interacted with other leftist groups of all races. Their fight wasn't against white people, per se, but white supremacy.

Furthermore their gathering immediately caught the ire of the US government, and in particular Hoover's FBI. They were immediately targeted with arrest, persecution, and murder. (Fred Hampton being the highest profile of these cases.)

I don't want to act as though it was all sunshine and roses - they were revolutionary, after all, and still radical. But they were not an organization founded to promote black supremacy or white genocide.

The Klan, by contrast, was founded by former Confederate soldiers with the express purpose of killing and intimidating black people after the Civil War. The Klan has killed nearly literally thousands of blacks by lynching alone. Despite this foundation of violent extremism and terrorism, it not only was not greeted with the same sort of resistance, but actually enjoyed a long period of legitimacy in the US government. (There was a time when my state, Indiana, had an entire state legislature consisting of Klansmen.)

For further contrast, here is the mission statement of the Klan as provided by a 1920 pamphlet the group released:

Quote:
WE STAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY. Distinction among the races is not accidental but designed. This is clearly brought out in the one book that tells authoritatively of the origin of the races. This distinction is not incidental, but is of the vastest import and indicates the wisdom of the divine mind. It is not temporary but is as abiding as the ages that have not yet ceased to roll. The supremacy of the White Race must be maintained, or be overwhelmed by the rising tide of color.

Now in fairness there is a black separatist, antisemitic organization of a much smaller number called the New Black Panther Party that HAS been designated a hate group, but typically when the Black Panthers are brought up the distinction is not being made. (It should also be said for the record that members of the original BPP have denounced them.)

We really need to quit parroting this myth. Without digressing too far into current events, it's a seductive narrative meant to assuage white guilt at the expense of meaningful change - and this sort of mythology we have built around our history is literally deadly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for sharing, EntrerisShadow. That was educational.

I must admit, I am not that well-versed on the distinctions between the various iterations of the groups that have claimed the "Black Panther" moniker. I guess the group I was referencing must have been the NBBP.
In a way, I suppose the analogy could be made to the various incarnations of groups that have called themselves the "Irish Republican Army" in terms of what they stood for an what tactics they were willing to employ.

Unfortunately, regardless of race, politics, ethnicity, nationality, or religion, the problem of extremists and zealots seems to crop up on the fringes of nearly every significant organization. Worse yet, it is the voices of these obnoxious splinter-groups that tend to be the loudest, drowning out moderation and cross-factional dialogue. To the casual outside observer, often the extremist outliers are all they hear representing that faction, simply because the larger group of regular, sane people don't typically go out of their way to make a big splash.

For example, as a Christian, it sometimes becomes difficult to talk about my faith with those whose only exposure to the church has been "wolves in sheep's clothing" that hid their transgressions beneath a cloak of self-righteousness and misrepresented what I believe in.

A similar phenomenon has been experienced by many Muslims in America (and around the world) in the past decade-and-a-half, as the public is quick to suddenly paint their neighbors with the same brush as the terrorists we see on the news blowing stuff up (again, the extremists make up a minority of those who call themselves "Islamic").

My point wasn't to "assuage white guilt". Frankly, I don't feel any reason to have any. I was born in the USSR where all of us white citizens were slaves to the brutal tyranny of the Communist Party because that's how the true "equality" of Marxism plays out in real life. After the fall of the Soviet Union, my mother and I came to America seeking a better life. I didn't come from a family of plantation owners - I clawed my way up from nothing here, like countless huddled masses yearning to breathe free had done before me. So while the injustices done to the blacks and other minorities here (and elsewhere) infuriate me, I don't muddle the issue by trying to conjure up any personal culpability out of the actions of dead men from a century ago that weren't even related to me.

After all, truly caring about the plight of our fellow humans should be about them not us. White guilt/liberal guilt/whatever the SJWs on tumblr are getting off on self-flagellating with these days - it's all just another form of "look at me!" narcissism - the white knight condescendingly reaching down from their ivory tower. It's not so different than the pharisees of old whipping out all the pomp and circumstance when they gave to the poor. "Look at how awesomely pious I am, everybody! I feel bad for being so filthy rich that I'm gonna shed some of these heavy gold coins into the pan of that beggar there!"

The point I was trying to make is that extremists can be found pretty much anywhere (like cockroaches). In retrospect, the specific example I chose may not have been the best one, but my error gave you an opportunity to enlighten us and correct a misconception, and then led to us having a constructive dialogue, so I'd count that as a net positive. I wish more people looked at mistakes as "an opportunity to learn something".

So to at least try to bring this back on track, my main point was that Rahadoum did not respond to religious extremism in a rational manner. They responded to it with anti-theist extremism, using the atrocities of others to justify their own. And in doing so, they proved themselves as bad as, if not worse than, the religious zealots they so despise.

The departure from one extreme rarely leads to moderation - more often it leads to the other extreme.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Sutter wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Set wrote:
These days, the pendulum seems to have swung a bit to 'everyone in Rahadoum is evil, crazy and filled with hate, and will burn their own atheist brother at the stake when he gains that 4th ranger level'
What pendulum is this? Did I miss some content? This seems radically different from how the nation is portrayed in the two campaign setting guides.

I'm with Lincoln--as probably the staffer with the most investment in Rahadoum, it's definitely not supposed to be a totally evil, hateful place. While there's certainly a witch-hunt element for those who directly espouse the worship of a god, they see it as an attempt to protect their freedom and independence from powerful outside forces (the gods and their churches) who are constantly throwing their weight around and telling mortals what to do.

I see Rahadoum less as an evil society, and more as a fiercely independent nation that's terrified of religious terrorists trying to subvert or destroy their culture. (I know, it's an outlandish idea for a nation, but this is fantasy, right...?)

True James. But, as you wrote about Rahadoum, the god wars there soured the general country. They had seen nothing but death at the hands of "good" and "evil" deities. So, they flipped the gods, goddesses and clergy the bird, forced them out and told them, don't come back or else.

People today feel that way in the real world about many religions that are supposed to be based on love and hate. That is the reason a country like Rahadoum can exist.

I love the Pathfinder Tales book Death's Heretic because it took a former leader in the Pure Legionnaires and turned him into a tool for a goddess, because he asked her to save his love.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No atheists in foxholes, and love is a battlefield. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flynn Greywalker wrote:
James Sutter wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Set wrote:
These days, the pendulum seems to have swung a bit to 'everyone in Rahadoum is evil, crazy and filled with hate, and will burn their own atheist brother at the stake when he gains that 4th ranger level'
What pendulum is this? Did I miss some content? This seems radically different from how the nation is portrayed in the two campaign setting guides.

I'm with Lincoln--as probably the staffer with the most investment in Rahadoum, it's definitely not supposed to be a totally evil, hateful place. While there's certainly a witch-hunt element for those who directly espouse the worship of a god, they see it as an attempt to protect their freedom and independence from powerful outside forces (the gods and their churches) who are constantly throwing their weight around and telling mortals what to do.

I see Rahadoum less as an evil society, and more as a fiercely independent nation that's terrified of religious terrorists trying to subvert or destroy their culture. (I know, it's an outlandish idea for a nation, but this is fantasy, right...?)

True James. But, as you wrote about Rahadoum, the god wars there soured the general country. They had seen nothing but death at the hands of "good" and "evil" deities. So, they flipped the gods, goddesses and clergy the bird, forced them out and told them, don't come back or else.

People today feel that way in the real world about many religions that are supposed to be based on love and hate. That is the reason a country like Rahadoum can exist.

I love the Pathfinder Tales book Death's Heretic because it took a former leader in the Pure Legionnaires and turned him into a tool for a goddess, because he asked her to save his love.

The basic problem with that is do we assume that there has been more or less death afterwards? Afterwards, obviously means that it wasn't the divine responsible, but the people and leadership. If its more, that means that Rahadoum basically is the idiotic hypocrisy some people see it as. If it is less death afterwards, well, why does no other nation, empire, or people anywhere else share the same experience, data, or results? Either way, it does not make Rahadoum look good, smart, or logical.

Secondly, I just can not buy an explanation that the nation would be anything but CE for such practices as being perfectly willing to murder even a friend or family member who is just trying to help someone out by curing them. The sheer fact that the entire nation is based on the idea of enforcing a tyrannical law on everyone is even more vile and depraved than things like seduction into a demon cult. It's also a offensive concept which indicates a lack of understanding or care for an individuals sense of spirituality, which is probably the most important aspect of any ones sense of self. Kind of ironic as part of the reason for the Rahadoum face-lift was to not offend real world atheists.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, here's what the official sources tell us about that (obviously, GMs are free to make up their own version in their own campaigns).

Pathfinder Gazeteer wrote:
While a lack of religion brought the region the peace it so desperately desired, it has come at a serious price. Plague ravaged Azir and Botosani three times in the past 500 years, and the prospect of famine hovers over the fragile land like a shroud.
Golariopedia wrote:

The Oath Wars were ended in 2555 AR by the militia of Azir led by the philosopher Kalim Onaku, who put the city's temples to the torch and demanded that all citizens, both of Azir and neighboring city-states, swear off their faiths and follow the new Laws of Man

...
The government's primary military and peacekeeping force, especially with respect to the quelling of religious cults, speech and paraphernalia, is the Pure Legion.
...
Rahadoum conscripted its native merchant vessels into a massive merchant marine fleet.
...
Foreigners must submit to a thorough search by the Pure Legion upon arrival in Rahadoum, either by ship or overland. Possession of contraband items such as holy symbols or religious artifacts carries heavy fines and potential exile, while preaching religious doctrine garners much harsher punishments, including imprisonment or worse.

Alright, let's see what we've got:

* "peace" by killing off all the people that dared disagree with them, and making everyone swear allegiance to the new order
* A mass theft of private property for government collectivization
* A terrifying secret police that brutally enforces the Draconian and paranoid edicts of the state
* Strict censorship of "subversive" (religious) material
* plague and famine everywhere

As a someone born in Russia, this doesn't sound too different from the "utopia" of godless communism that Joseph Stalin inflicted upon the motherland (fun fact: that moniker he gave himself basically translates to "Joe Steel").

* Killing off - by the tens of millions - everyone who dissented, in his mass purges. Yes, members of my own family were murdered by his vile regime simply for daring to speak against this monster.
* The government robbing citizens of private property for some hopeless vision of a Marxist "worker's paradise", resulting in famines that killed millions more
* A terrifying secret police force, in the form of the NKVD or the KGB, depending on the era (see "purges", above)
* Strict censorship of "unpatriotic" literature, including history books that weren't approved by the state (anything that didn't sing the praises of the "Glorious Leaders!"), Bibles, and even English dictionaries (because if you can read in English, you might start reading all sorts of nonsense about "freedom" and "equality", and we can't have that)

And this isn't even getting into similar atrocities that happened (or are still happening) in other communist nations like China, Cuba, or North Korea.

As you can see, history (and current events) teach us that a fiercely anti-theistic government can be just as murderously oppressive as fundamentalist theocracies.

Like I said - extremists can be found practically anywhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
No atheists in foxholes, and love is a battlefield. :)

That first phrase is obnoxious.

Executive Editor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Flynn Greywalker wrote:


I love the Pathfinder Tales book Death's Heretic because it took a former leader in the Pure Legionnaires and turned him into a tool for a goddess, because he asked her to save his love.

Thank you!

Also, if you liked DH, I continued to dig into the morality of Salim's whole situation (and the questions of good, evil, and free will) in the sequel, The Redemption Engine. :D

/shameless plug


Using correct terminology would help if you ask me.

That's just my two cents regarding Rahadoum's stance on gods in general.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
It's also a offensive concept which indicates a lack of understanding or care for an individuals sense of spirituality, which is probably the most important aspect of any ones sense of self. Kind of ironic as part of the reason for the Rahadoum face-lift was to not offend real world atheists.

I dunno. I am a real-world atheist and I sympathise with any ideas that revolve around eradication of religion.

Breaking News: Atheists Are Not a Uniform Group! :)

Shadow Lodge

Ok. Lets say you are a fantasy character where its a real world fact that there are these folks that can remove curses, (again a real thing) or cure even the deadliest diseases with a few kind words.

He or she obviously believes the universe works differently than you do, but is willing to set that all aside if needed, or at most pay a little compensation or a favor.

Then, one day your son, daughter, close friend, whatever gets sick.And then gets worse. Then everyone else they live with starts dying from similar symptom, and its clear that your guy/girl is just not getting better.

You sympathize with the person that slits the persons throat that had the only means to help your guy/girl over the one who decides to risk their life just to help you out? The one who only failed because someone else killed them for nothing but a close-minded, uneducated sense of utter selfishness.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Given how remove curse/disease/poison aren't exclusive to religious classes, I don't see the problem. Also, Use Magic Device is a thing. Rahadoum is just a place where Bards, Witches and Alchemists fill the niches left by having Clerics, Oracles and Paladins out of the picture.

Silver Crusade Contributor

One rather gets the impression that Rahadoum was written well before any of those classes were conceived. ^_^

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bards and Rogues with UMD are around since 2000, and there's the entire non-core 3.5 content that's full of non-divine healing.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
One rather gets the impression that Rahadoum was written well before any of those classes were conceived. ^_^

Not really. It, like Irrisen and Razmiran and Thuvia and other countries that were written before the APG came out were written with the foreknowledge that some day we WOULD Have classes like witches and alchemists in the game. That's one of the advantages of knowing our schedule and plans way in advance.


Larkos wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
No atheists in foxholes, and love is a battlefield. :)
That first phrase is obnoxious.

~sigh~ I was being facetious. Hence the smiley. And the obvious fusing of two obvious cliches.

We can have a bit of levity here to keep it friendly and keep this topic from getting too serious, mkay? Because when conversation (IRL or on the net) gets too serious about a deeply personal topic like faith (or lack thereof), people get tense, and butt-hurt, and go on the offensive/ragequit, that's how flame-wars (IRL and the internet kind) get started, and we don't want that.

So I'm not trying to be obnoxious, disrespectful, or overly flippant, but rather to keep things light-hearted and friendly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so they can get healing. That addresses one problem out of the many they have.

* Famines. Unless there's some arcane "Nom-o-Mancer" class out there that I'm not aware of (their familiar should look like Pac-Man), spells like Purify Food and Drink, Create Food and Water, and Plant Growth are all squarely in the wheelhouse of divine casters.

* State-sponsored terrorism in the form of brutal, paranoid government secret police that will set your neighbor's house on fire, blame you for it, and then kill you if they so much as catch you with unpatriotic literature a religious pamphlet. You remember that part in "V for Vendetta" where

Movie plot spoiler:
Stephen Fry's character was beaten to death because the Gestapos found a Quran in his house?
. It's like that - Rahadoum is not too unlike Norsefire in their tyrannical intolerance.

Rahadoum paraphrasing Prothero wrote:
We did what we had to do. Clerics. Adepts. Oracles. Druidic-spell-casting degenerates. They had to go! Strength through unity. Unity through... lack of?... faith. I'm a god-hating Rahadoumian and I'm damn proud of it!

Or, like in the case of iconic Oracle Alahazra, if you happen to one day be "blessed" with divine powers through no choice of your own. So for absolutely no wrongdoing other than "wake up unlucky", the S.S./N.K.V.D./K.G.B./Stasi/D.H.S. Pure Legion (why does that sound uncomfortably like a KKK/neo-Fascist chapter name?) will hunt you down and murder you. And this anti-religious persecution doesn't stop even if you manage to flee. No, just like Scientology, they're too insecure to get over a grudge and will keep hounding you forever. Sheesh, even the Nazis generally knew to give up chasing people when they made it safely over a border.

* Censorship of free thought and free trade. So much for "making their own destiny". You know the worst thing about censorship? I'll tell you: it's *********.

Okay, yeah, most non-evil nations in Golarion make evil religions illegal for the obvious reason that evil religions like to do just awful things like human sentient sacrifice, conjuring up undead/fiends/unspeakable horrors and worse. We have freedom of religion in the U.S., but we don't let people do human sacrifice here either, because that would violate someone else's right to life.

But in a place like Brevoy, I'm not gonna get arrested, framed for arson, and murdered if in one of my adventures I happen to recover a ceremonial dagger from a cult of Gyronna and go to the marketplace to try to find a scholar who'd be interested in buying it off of me.

In Rahadoum, you can't read about religion, you're scared to even talk about it, and most importantly of all they take away your personal power to decide for yourself. Ignorance is Strength, and Big Brother is Watching.

For a nation that was founded by a philosopher and prides itself on figuring stuff out for themselves, their policies (in-game, not the fact that Rahadoum exists as a PF product) are frankly insulting to everyone's intelligence.

That's always been my biggest problem with censorship. It is inherently disrespectful and condescending. Because who the 9 Hells does this other person - whether they're a government official, a religious person, a "concerned parent", or whatever - think they are to police what goes on in my mind? I'm a grown adult, I can make up my own mind about stuff. It's one thing if, for example, you enable "filter mature content" on a website or TV service you use because you decide you don't want to see that stuff. Unfortunately, throughout the long and useful-as-nads-on-a-Pope history of censors, they typically don't wait for anyone to request their "services", they just force it down everyone's throat because they think they know better than everyone else what's good for them. That is the height of arrogance, and that's what Rahadoum's government does to the people living there.

Or as Benjamin Franklin would say, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Even foreigners are subject to search-and-seizure at the ports, lest they "pollute" Rahadoum's "purity" by starting to hand out literature saying "Have you heard about Milani?". Considering how dangerous sea voyages are, and how sailors (irl history and in fantasy) have been know to pray to all gods they can think of in the hopes that one of them is listening and will keep them safe, you can see how this can cause a problem when pulling into a Rahadoumi port.

Speaking of sailors...

* Mass robbery of private property for the sake of government collectivization: You had your own merchant ship in Rahadoum? Not anymore! The more I think about Rahadoum, the more it begins to resemble bleak communist dystopias (like the one I was born in). But hey, at least the "internationale" Marxist revolutions made some empty promises of "equality" and "ending the plight of the proletariat" and all that "feel-good" jazz they still failed to deliver on a century and tens of millions of innocents brutally murdered later. That was the excuse they gave when they subjected millions to armed robbery and subsequent starvation.

Rahadoum was just "Nope, all your ships are belong to us now, suckers! Have some plague/famine with a side of giant beetles!" and they still have open slavery and stuff. No grand vision of a "workers' paradise" in 5 years, just everyone getting shafted. Those
hands on their nation's heraldry might as well be turned the other way and have their middle fingers extended, lol.

P.S. Yeah, you can Use Magic Device to mimic spells they'd otherwise not have access to, but those things are expensive, and are unlikely to have a large-scale impact for the general population in the way Plant Growth can have.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:

* Mass robbery of private property for the sake of government collectivization: You had your own merchant ship in Rahadoum? Not anymore! The more I think about Rahadoum, the more it begins to resemble bleak communist dystopias (like the one I was born in). But hey, at least the "internationale" Marxist revolutions made some empty promises of "equality" and "ending the plight of the proletariat" and all that "feel-good" jazz they still failed to deliver on a century and tens of millions of innocents brutally murdered later. That was the excuse they gave when they subjected millions to armed robbery and subsequent starvation.

Rahadoum was just "Nope, all your ships are belong to us now, suckers! Have some plague/famine with a side of giant beetles!" and they still have open slavery and stuff. No grand vision of a "workers' paradise" in 5 years, just everyone getting shafted. Those hands on their nation's heraldry might as well be turned the other way and have their middle fingers extended, lol.

It's been pretty common in history to press merchant ships into navies as needed, long before communism. Along with press ganging merchant crews of course.

Not to defend it, of course, but I think the parallel to the Soviet Union is stretched.


Also, as much as I don't like having to (re) state the obvious, it seems on this thread, the issue of terminology is hiccuping again, so allow me to hit the highlights:

"atheist" (noun): a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

antitheist: (noun) also anti-theist, "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god,"

(emphasis mine)

Okay, so "anti-theist", may not perfectly describe Rahadoum's outlook, but it's as close of a word as I can think of (English is a second language to me).

For this next section, "Rahadom/i" refers to the government and majority of the people there, as evident from the official material.

Rahadomi are not real-life atheists, and are likely not meant to be a political/social commentary on such.

Rahadom is aware/acknowledges that the gods of Golarion exist (obviously), they just despise the deities and their followers, and choose not to allow any worship in their borders (and take it to a scary extreme).

thejeff wrote:

It's been pretty common in history to press merchant ships into navies as needed, long before communism. Along with press ganging merchant crews of course.

Not to defend it, of course, but I think the parallel to the Soviet Union is stretched.

Form what I saw in the text though, they weren't pressed into a military navy (which would have been understandable, if they were desperate in a time of war), but rather a state-controlled-merchant-fleet. The parallels I drew were to the communist uprising plundering privately-owned means of production (farms, factories, etc) to turn the Soviet Union into a collectivized "industrial powerhouse" while leaving millions to starve because the goods were going where the government wanted them to, instead of where the people needed them to.

And I see quite a bit of similarity to that in Rahadoum. Sure, it says the collectivized fleet has "been successful" and that other nations hire Rahadoumi ships, but if it's so awesome, why are there still famines and slavery? The USSR's collectivized industries looked formidable to the rest of the world too - until you realized that sending grain to Cuba to secure political favor meant that the Russians and Ukrainians who harvested that grain were starving in government-engineered famines.

So where's all that prosperity from their "successful" collectivized merchant fleet going? Apparently not to the people (there's a big surprise).

And yes, I realize there are significant differences between Rahadoum and the USSR (could Kalim Onaku rock a goatee the way Lenin did?), but there are also more than a couple similarities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's been pretty common in history to press merchant ships into navies as needed, long before communism. Along with press ganging merchant crews of course.

Not to defend it, of course, but I think the parallel to the Soviet Union is stretched.

Form what I saw in the text though, they weren't pressed into a military navy (which would have been understandable, if they were desperate in a time of war), but rather a state-controlled-merchant-fleet. The parallels I drew were to the communist uprising plundering privately-owned means of production (farms, factories, etc) to turn the Soviet Union into a collectivized "industrial powerhouse" while leaving millions to starve because the goods were going where the government wanted them to, instead of where the people needed them to.

And I see quite a bit of similarity to that in Rahadoum. Sure, it says the collectivized fleet has "been successful" and that other nations hire Rahadoumi ships, but if...

Ah, a Merchant Navy. Also a common historical concept. Slightly different, in that private ships are commandeered to ship goods as needed in time of war, but similar enough.

I mean, yeah, I kind of see the parallel, but I don't think it's that strong and I don't think it was intended. The implication in the write up is that the plagues and famines are the result of the lack of divine magic, not the economic policies or nationalization of the fleet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Ah, a Merchant Navy. Also a common historical concept. Slightly different, in that private ships are commandeered to ship goods as needed in time of war, but similar enough.

I mean, yeah, I kind of see the parallel, but I don't think it's that strong and I don't think it was intended. The implication in the write up is that the plagues and famines are the result of the lack of divine magic, not the economic policies or nationalization of the fleet.

Yeah, but they haven't really been at at war against anyone but dissidents from among their own populace.

And I realize the similarities were probably not intentional. The similarities between the USSR and Nazi Germany probably weren't intentional either (on the surface, they were polar opposites - extreme left-wing vs extreme right-wing ideologies), but in practice, the concentration camps, mass purges, secret police, censorship, and personality cults of the supreme leaders made them no so different to the masses suffering beneath the blood-stained jackboot of either one.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Approved.

It also goes a long way to address the editorial issue expressed by James Jacobs: (paraphrasing) atheism as a real-world "belief" portrayed in a fantasy game with "real" gods can be curiously offensive to real-world atheists.

Dystheism, as a category, is much less likely to rankle.

I certainly hope Paizo adopts this terminology and hopefully that it removes whatever blocks may exist to more Rahadoum material. I really like that nation, and though I am (coincidentally) an atheist I doubt I would be one on Golarion. The appeal of Rahadoum speaks much more to my anti-authoritarian streak, and not at all to my spiritual beliefs.

As an atheist myself who keeps track of several atheist discussion forums, I truly doubt that Paizo's use of the term as per Golarion will ever be an issue with the Atheist community.

If anything, Atheists are more likely to commend the publication of "Death's Heretic" which puts a character who rejects gods as the central protagonist.

151 to 200 of 329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Rahadoum - Not atheistic, but dystheistic All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.