Golarion Remixed and Pantheon Option Added

First off, a diversion. I read a fair bit while traveling, because that's mostly what I do when traveling for business and not actually working. I rarely have time to do any significant site-seeing on business trips, so I mostly load up on books. I finished Salvatore's Exile, which I was about halfway through at the start of the trip, the second book in the Dark Elf prequel trilogy, and I also read Sojourn, the final book. I'd read these before; they were all published in the very early 90s, and I probably read them by the mid-90s at the latest. I remember liking them, and don't get me wrong; I did again, but I almost wish that I hadn't bought them, because now I have them, and I doubt I'll read them again. I think that prequels generally shouldn't be done. You already know where it's going to end up, because of the prequel is a neologism of sequel, i.e., the book (or movie, etc.) that takes place later was actually made first, and this is a sequel that takes place earlier. I'm convinced more and more that while there's always a strong desire to explore the origin of a popular character before he really became that character, it rarely works out well. The Star Wars prequels were disappointing. Solo was disappointing, and shouldn't have been made. Wolverine: Origin was OK, but Marvel were right to be suspicious of it. Ultimately, although it was pretty good and no doubt sold like crazy, it probably did more damage to the "brand" of Wolverine than anything else in the end. And here; Drizzt was a cool character. As Salvatore himself "discovered" while writing the original Icewind Dale trilogy, which was supposed to star Wulfgar as the protagonist, Drizzt ended up being a much more intriguing character, and was the real break-out star of the series, and of his writing as a whole. But seeing him as he was before he was the character that we know was mostly kept afloat by the—at the time, still—exotic environment of the Underdark and the dark elf society, which was more intriguing than Drizzt as a teenager or whatever.

But I already discussed this somewhat in my brief mention of having finished the first book of the trilogy, Homeland; rather, what struck me this time, although again, it's hardly revelatory, just something that struck me particularly this time around, was that neither Drizzt nor Wulfgar, despite being indubitably D&D characters created for a D&D setting, and statted out in various D&D products, don't behave anything like D&D characters in most respects as you watch their bildungsroman in The Crystal Shard and this trilogy in particular. Rather, they start out as exceptional individuals, who go through what amounts to little more than a Rocky-style training montage, and then they're superlative characters who change very little over the course of multiple books after that. Certainly they change very little in terms of powers, abilities or capabilities; I don't mean to imply that they don't have character development. But it is nothing at all like the progression of levels in a D&D game. It just doesn't work very well, does it? The whole leveling thing is a gamism that doesn't resemble anything in the mediums which supposedly informed the game. You don't see anything like leveling in Conan or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. They may learn, grow and age, but they don't "level up" or anything at all like that. James Bond doesn't "level up" (or have a backstory either, for that matter) he just is and we like him as he is. 

Anyway, I dunno. I kind of like leveling in my own games, but I also like flat power curves and more "static" characters. Static at least in the sense that they don't have some crazy power curve, but they just kind of are, and things that happen to increase their capabilities are more in line with things that happen in real life; acquiring materiel that would give them more capabilities, learning something new through study, getting promoted or otherwise creating a network of relationships that offer support, etc. I'm starting to lean more and more into the house rule of smoothing the leveling and minimizing its obviousness, if not eliminating it altogether

Secondly, Paizo. I've been reading and finding lots of stuff on Paizo and the Golarion setting, and watching YouTube videos by MythKeeper and stuff. It's an interesting setting. To use it, I'd still have to make lots of changes. I like the frontier "Varisia" region quite a bit, for example, but I hate Kaer Maga, the "City of Strangers" and I'd have to swap some other city in its place entirely. I'm not a huge fan of the rune magic themes of ancient Thassilon, with their Seven Deadly Sins stuff either, nor am I a huge fan of Deliverance-style ogres (which I honestly find more and more offensive the more I encounter that particular stereotype) or the "Against the Giants" vibe of the fourth installment (the one I just finished) or their take on goblins, honestly. I like the more honest and "playing-it-straight" vibe of goblins in D&D rather than an attempt to hijack them into comic relief, or at least dark silliness. Goblins in Golarion are more like the gremlins of the Gremlins movie than they are like goblins of D&D or Lord of the Rings. They even kind of look like them.

What struck me about Pathfinder, especially as I started to find out about the changes made from 1e to 2e, and even moreso the changes from 2e to the Remastered Project, was that people who went to Paizo in 2007-9 or so often cited the reason for doing so that 4e didn't resemble D&D enough, and it made too many changes to the mechanics and especially to the lore of the game. So, they stuck with Pathfinder, which felt like just another setting—albeit one with high production and writing values, and one still strongly supported—of D&D. Paizo in the early days was more similar to Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms than 4e was, or even 3.5's own Eberron setting. But Golarion of today, post Remastered Project, is less like D&D than 4e was in terms of lore, and honestly, has a lot of similarities to 4e in terms of mechanics, in many ways. It's interesting how the tables turn. I think it's a case of the boiled frog analogy that people love to refer to; 4e was too many changes too fast for most people, but honestly, many of its ideas were good ideas. Many of its mechanics have wormed their way into Pathfinder and 5e and the whole modern ecosystem of games, for instance, and many of its lore changes (which I was always a fan of relative to the "traditional" lore as represented in its later stages by 3e and again in many ways by 5e). I wonder if many of those people who hated the 4e lore are perfectly comfortable now with Pathfinder Remastered's lore or not.

Anyway, I'm thinking of doodling a bit with Varisia like I did with Timischburg. That was my attempt to make a "fake Ustalav", and I think I'd like a fake Varisia too. Varisia may not be my favorite single element of the Golarion setting, but then again, it might be. It's a good one. In some ways, the Hill Country is an even more mundane version of Varisia, and I've deliberately added two city-states that were inspired in many ways by the rivalry between Korvosa and Magnimar in my own Garenport and Barrowmere. I can re-do some of the geography, rename the Hill Country and add some more Varisia-like elements to it, and make an alternate setting that includes some traditional D&D-like races, sort of like my High Fantasy X project, such as it was, was. The draft map I sketched up for High Fantasy X was more like Eberron meets Heroes of Might & Magic III, but there's no reason not to have more than one setting for the game. I like creating settings for its own sake, after all. This one will be more explicitly Golarion Remixed, and maybe I'll use that tag, which I haven't done much with, to explore how I'd change elements of it. 

Whatever I do as part of my "Golarion Remixed" project, it'll probably be more radical than my Eberron Remixed project. Eberron feels more like a single setting with multiple areas in it, while Golarion feels almost like a patchwork of settings that are connected, but for any given campaign, you're not really expected to use more than one of the elements. Maybe two at the most. A campaign set in Varisia is not going to go to Absalom or Katapesh, for instance. Each area has its own tone and theme. If all that makes any sense.

Finally, I also want to have the alternative of using fantasy deities, a mythological pantheon, even if I'm not sure if I prefer that, or not. But certainly, it will help D&D players adjust to my more esoteric tastes if I wean them in by making games I run resemble what they're expecting just a little more. Anyway, here's my full list of gods that I'd use for High Fantasy X, Golarion Remixed (maybe), Eberron Remixed (maybe) and even as an alternative in Old Night if I wanted to do it that way.

Sol Invictus - sun god (as you'd expect) with a martial aspect. More like Pelor than like Apollo. Originally a Roman god.

Cernunnos, the Horned King - nature god from Gaulish/Celtic origin, with antlers. Not super friendly.

Summanus the Thunderer - an obscure Roman god. I'm less likely to go with the "god of xxx" kind of thing; in real mythology, gods were just characters, and they didn't necessarily belong to domains and spheres of influence as much as we like to make them be. Thor, for instance, was never once called the God of Thunder, or even the Thunderer in any Norse text. He did have a hammer that thundered when he smote with it, but he was just an adventurer Norse god with a quick temper who was very strong, heroic, and featured in more stories than most. But I agree that for D&D there probably needs to be some element of that. 

Mithras - another late-appearing Roman god, famous for his mystery cult that was popular among the legions and the foederati, so he's often considered a martial god.

Chernavog, the Dark One - a Slavic god, although I've spelled it slightly differently than normal, who also happens to be the character from the "Night on Bald Mountain" sequence of Fantasia. I consider him a pretty typical dark lord style figure. 

Veles, the Sly Mage - both a trickster figure, and a god of magic of sorts; Veles is also a Slavic god originally.

Tellus, the Earth-Mother - an old Greek or Roman spelling of Terra. Pretty typical Mother Earth type of goddess.

The Gray Sisters: Wyrd, Verthand, and Skuld - The Gray Sisters is usually a literal translation of the Graeae, which were Greek (famous for their interaction with Perseus, if you've watched Clash of the Titans lately) but I've used names that are more similar to Anglo-Saxon versions of the Norse Norns. Obviously they are both old Indo-European reflections of the same idea anyway, since the Graeae and the Norns are almost identical. Goddesses of fate, divination, etc. but with a darker, edgier tone than some might have had otherwise. 

Nodens, the Silver-Handed; Lord of the Hunt - A Celtic British god, also known by his Irish name Nuada or Nuadha, although the name Nodens itself is familiar to many gamers from Lovecraft. A huntsman and fisherman, he's kind of like the iconic ranger, maybe.

Brigantia, the Mistress of Victory - a poorly attested Celtic goddess. Well, actually she's fairly well-attested in terms of figurines, but we know little about her. Not unlike Nike, the Greek Goddess of Victory, and also often conflated with the Romans with Minerva (Athena). I'd probably see her as the unlikeable girlboss of the gods that the other gods either are annoyed by, or are constantly putting in her place, although she's lacking in self-awareness enough to realize it.

Epona - Gaulish goddess of horses. Maybe some elements of Artemis too; a weird, wandering loner of a girl who prefers the company of animals, especially horses, to anyone else.

Sirona, the Healer - another poorly known Celtic goddess (I'm using lots of them, if you didn't notice) but I'll call her the pretty stereotypical Florence Nightingale goddess that D&D pantheons seem to always have.

Tzovinar, Daughter of the Seas - an Armenian goddess. I just like the name and the title that came with her. I was thinking of using Thetis, a Greek chthonic goddess of the seas, and the bad guy from Clash of the Titans, but I like this name better. I need to mix up a few more goddesses, because I'm wont otherwise to ignore them and make the whole pantheon a big ole sausage party.

Mokosh, the Swamp Mother - I can't even remember where I got this name. But a hag goddess in a swamp sounded kind of cool.

Volturnus, the Father of the River - I thought about using Father Ren, or Father Rhine from the Germanic tribes, but I relented and went with this more "generic" Roman name. An aquatic god, obviously, and maybe someone who's frequently irritated by Mokosh and Tzovinar.

Ceres - a Roman goddess of the hearth, agriculture, marriage and domesticity in general, often equated with Demeter, and who picked up the same story of Demeter and Persephone and Hades, except the names were Ceres and Proserpina and Dis Pater in those roles to the Romans.

Dagon - a dark god of the ocean, who borrows more from the Lovecraft and D&D demon lord stuff than from mythology per se.

Orcus - another name for Pluto to the Romans, but of course, he's got a long history in D&D which I'll also be borrowing; a dark demon-god, associated with undeath. He may be more like Orcus as Tenebrous, though—an undead thing. Maybe like Nagash from Warhammer in fact.

Thanatos - another alternate name for either Hades or his realm to the Greeks, although in D&D of course, this is Orcus' layer of the Abyss. I'll call him a dark god of night and murder, maybe not too unlike Zon-Kuthon of Golarion; corrupted by the Dark Tapestry, or Far Realm, or Outer Darkness, or Void Beyond, or whatever I want to call it. Conceptually, they're all the same thing. 

Zaltys, the Serpent - a snake god. The name comes from Lithuanian, and refers to the home snakes that they used to keep for whatever reason. The Teutonic crusaders who brought Christianity with the sword to the Baltic peoples killed a lot of their snakes. Elements of Yig, Ydersius, Sertrous and more

Nwt, the Sky-mother - an Egyptian goddess of the night sky.

Ashtar of the Sacred Groves - A Semitic goddess, usually known as either Ishtar or Astarte depending on the language, but I've split the difference. Infamous for her sacred groves and temple heirodules, or "sacred prostitutes" in real life. 

The Old Men of the Sea; Manann, Thaumant, and Halios Geron - odd spellings of Greek gods and one Irish god of the Sea. I thought it'd be cool to have them be a trio rather than just one. 

I've also got all my Lovecraftian entities from earlier posts, but I won't propose them as part of the pantheon that PCs could conceivably worship.