Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that while it's allowed rules wise for campaigns, I am curious if that's the case here in Golorian. I know as the DM I could just rule against it and be a tight ass. But the fact is I'd prefer some back up. Thank you.
Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
|
I know that while it's allowed rules wise for campaigns, I am curious if that's the case here in Golorian. I know as the DM I could just rule against it and be a tight ass. But the fact is I'd prefer some back up. Thank you.Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
That's all I needed James! :) Thank you!
That's all I needed James! :) Thank you!I know that while it's allowed rules wise for campaigns, I am curious if that's the case here in Golorian. I know as the DM I could just rule against it and be a tight ass. But the fact is I'd prefer some back up. Thank you.Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
I quote from the Cleric entry in the Core Rulebook
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/cleric.html#cleric
I can be a Cleric with no deity. I don't get a favored weapon and based off of my choice of philosophy (the protection of friends and family) the domains are decided by the DM.
James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are missing the distinction between the core rules and the additional specifications of the Golarion setting.
You are missing the distinction between the core rules and the additional specifications of the Golarion setting.Exactly. The rulebook is just about THE RULES! Golorian is different.
Except that nowhere i can find in the Inner Sea Guide does it state my cleric has to have a diety. I admit to possibly overlooking it and if so would like it pointed out for my own use.
I have a character concept for one of those Deity-Free clerics that was a devotee of Razmir(sp?) who thought his power was coming from ol Masky. Not that Golarion doesn't have some cool godtypes, but I thought it'd be a fun mix of fluff and mechanics.
Don't have that one with me sadly but thanks. Is there anyreason it didn't get reprinted for the PF conversion of the book? (Which I thought is what the ISWG was)
While yes it could and should have been more clear. You most have a god in Golarion to be of the cleric class.Golarion would have to have a major rework of several nation an massive chunk of the written history to allow godless clerics.
The setting as written simply can not work with godless clerics. And the man in charge of those choices for the setting has told you in the second post ( and about 800 others) Golarion demands you have a god to be of the cleric class.
You want to be godless, the class yyou are looking for is called an Orcale.
@Bob, sorry, no false, dead or made up gods can't have clerics in golarion. Ol' Raz does however have priests and a few feats for those to hide that fact as well as an sorcerer archetype for his priests to hide the fact from the magicless that they are not really clerics..
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled. Possibly because that's the way it was in 3.5, and we were too timid to make that change to Pathfinder for backwards compatibility reasons.
That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.
There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
Here's why (spoilered in case someone still doesn't know the truth about one of Golarion's "deities")...
James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled.
That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.
There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
James if you have time could i get page reference for a slightly problem player i have to deal with for the time being.
|
|
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
We managed a compromise. He's doing a 2 page character write up on his cleric. I'm letting him go with no god.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James if you have time could i get page reference for a slightly problem player i have to deal with for the time being.James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled.
That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.
There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
If you're the GM and your player's not taking your word as the rule, that's unfortunate.
Also unfortunate: I don't know if there IS a page number I can turn you to for this purpose. I'm not sure what frustrates me more—the fact that that silly clause is in the Core Rulebook for clerics in the first place, or the fact that I didn't plaster the "Clerics must have a deity" phrase into the Inner Sea World Guide.
In any event, if a messageboard post from the creative director isn't enough for your player, I doubt an entire book of the phrase "Clerics must have a deity" will change his mind.
|
Creative Director
|
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.We managed a compromise. He's doing a 2 page character write up on his cleric. I'm letting him go with no god.
And that's 100% fine; a perfect solution to the problem. (The 2 page character write up, frankly, is even unnecessary—if you as the GM want godless clerics, have at it! It's just not part of the baseline assumption of Golarion.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True on that note whats the heaviest book you guys sell? That might work better.
|
|
And that's 100% fine; a perfect solution to the problem. (The 2 page character write up, frankly, is even unnecessary—if you as the GM want godless clerics, have at it! It's just not part of the baseline assumption of Golarion.)Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.We managed a compromise. He's doing a 2 page character write up on his cleric. I'm letting him go with no god.
Understood.
James if you have time could i get page reference for a slightly problem player i have to deal with for the time being.James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled.
That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.
There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
If you're the GM and your player's not taking your word as the rule, that's unfortunate.
Also unfortunate: I don't know if there IS a page number I can turn you to for this purpose. I'm not sure what frustrates me more—the fact that that silly clause is in the Core Rulebook for clerics in the first place, or the fact that I didn't plaster the "Clerics must have a deity" phrase into the Inner Sea World Guide.
In any event, if a messageboard post from the creative director isn't enough for your player, I doubt an entire book of the phrase "Clerics must have a deity" will change his mind.
Actually, I don't see it as silly. 3.x wanted clerics as a form of super follower that deities would compete with each other for (and also for world where no objectively verifiable group of gods existed). Now the oracle pretty much fills those two roll.
|
I know that while it's allowed rules wise for campaigns, I am curious if that's the case here in Golorian. I know as the DM I could just rule against it and be a tight ass. But the fact is I'd prefer some back up. Thank you.Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
Thank you for taking the time to come onto these boards and answer our questions.
I appreciate that you took the time to answer some of my silly questions such as "where is the impact creator for "Earth fall", or "Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between Sarenrae being the patron Goddess of Qadira, and there is slavery all over the country.
I appreciated your answer for that question, that the church was not in control of the state, there were different digrees of "abolishonist" ferver among the faithful, and they were in a tough position, support the state and compramise your morals, or go agains the state and spark a civil war.
you of course said it much more Eloquently.
I have another silly question for you. How might a Priest (cleric, oracle, or priest {tome of mysteris}} of Pharasma who is an adventurer, find a way to "justify" the usuall behavior of an adventuring party? namely enter the toomb kill the guardians, pop open the sarcophagus and dust off the magic sword entombed with in, to use on their next adventure?
Thanks
I really like Pharasma, and I think it would be interesting to play a cleric of Pharasma, thanks
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't require clerics to have a patron deity, you can have a setting like Eberron, where there's a fair amount of in-universe uncertainty about the existence and identity of the gods.
One of many reasons I wasn't a fan of Eberron, truth be told.
|
Creative Director
|
I have another silly question for you. How might a Priest (cleric, oracle, or priest {tome of mysteris}} of Pharasma who is an adventurer, find a way to "justify" the usuall behavior of an adventuring party? namely enter the toomb kill the guardians, pop open the sarcophagus and dust off the magic sword entombed with in, to use on their next adventure?
We just did an article about Pharasma in the second Carrion Crown AP installment, I believe, so that's one place to go for inspiration.
As for how a priest of Pharasma could function as an adventurer who goes tomb robbing... first of all, if said tomb has no undead, why is it an adventure? And if there's undead, that's reason in and of itself for a worshiper of Pharasma to head on in and adventure; destroying undead is a big thing. Whether or not robbing tombs is on the agenda depends on the tomb, really... but if your GM wants to run a tomb robbing adventure and he has worshipers of Pharasma in the party, he'd do well to remember that and try to make sure that the tombs he sends the PCs into are from enemy faiths (such as Zyphus or Urgathoa), or that the church gives its worshipers permission to "confiscate" the magic items, even if it's only to return them to the church for more proper internment for a reward.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus if Golarion clerics didnt have to worship a god, Cheliax might not have happened when Aroden died. His clerics could have just gone solo and kept getting their spells and abilities, all the while proclaiming that Aroden was "just sleeping" or "pining for the fjords".
@Bob, sorry, no false, dead or made up gods can't have clerics in golarion. Ol' Raz does however have priests and a few feats for those to hide that fact as well as an sorcerer archetype for his priests to hide the fact from the magicless that they are not really clerics..
No, the character wouldn't be getting his spells from Razmatazz, he'd have been one of the deity free ones(per the core book, but noth e setting apparently) brainwashed by Razmir's followers into believing his powers were from the Living God. Discovering the truth would be the development of his character.
Ah well, maybe i'll just make a cleric of Kurgess seeking endorsements for local merchants and cobblers.
Anxiously awaiting the "Hope" and "Futility" spheres.
Just remember, whether it is this situation or another, specific always trumps general. Specific setting rules either supplement or outright replace general non-setting rules. If the Inner Sea World Guide says one thing and the Core Book says another, then the Guide wins, so long as you are playing on Golarion and are going strictly by the book. The same is true when comparing D&D rules of any edition versus setting-specific rules for Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc.
Just remember, whether it is this situation or another, specific always trumps general. Specific setting rules either supplement or outright replace general non-setting rules. If the Inner Sea World Guide says one thing and the Core Book says another, then the Guide wins, so long as you are playing on Golarion and are going strictly by the book. The same is true when comparing D&D rules of any edition versus setting-specific rules for Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, etc.
I think thats where the problem comes from is that there isn't an actual point that says they have to even James wasn't completly sure. And while some people will abide by him saying you have to have one others will argue that point till you want to use the core rulebook in a use that gives you a -4 penalty.
From page 235 of the Inner Sea World Guide:
False gods and dead gods cannot grant spells to clerics, but other divine spellcasting classes (such as druids or oracles) who gain their power from other sources, rather than directly from the gods, can serve these forces as champions or cultists.
and from page 236:
Clerics who follow a philosophy must select a patron deity among the philosophy’s associated religions (they gain no additional benefits from adherence to a philosophy).
While not absolutely saying that clerics on Golarion must follow a deity, though the second quote seems pretty definite to me, it is inferred pretty strongly and common sense should agree.
|
|
I have another silly question for you. How might a Priest (cleric, oracle, or priest {tome of mysteris}} of Pharasma who is an adventurer, find a way to "justify" the usuall behavior of an adventuring party? namely enter the toomb kill the guardians, pop open the sarcophagus and dust off the magic sword entombed with in, to use on their next adventure?
We just did an article about Pharasma in the second Carrion Crown AP installment, I believe, so that's one place to go for inspiration.
As for how a priest of Pharasma could function as an adventurer who goes tomb robbing... first of all, if said tomb has no undead, why is it an adventure? And if there's undead, that's reason in and of itself for a worshiper of Pharasma to head on in and adventure; destroying undead is a big thing. Whether or not robbing tombs is on the agenda depends on the tomb, really... but if your GM wants to run a tomb robbing adventure and he has worshipers of Pharasma in the party, he'd do well to remember that and try to make sure that the tombs he sends the PCs into are from enemy faiths (such as Zyphus or Urgathoa), or that the church gives its worshipers permission to "confiscate" the magic items, even if it's only to return them to the church for more proper internment for a reward.
James,
These are good ideas. The church giving permission to "confiscate" magic items to return them to the church for a more proper burial...going after tombs of Urgathoa, or ZyphusThank you
Elyas
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.We managed a compromise. He's doing a 2 page character write up on his cleric. I'm letting him go with no god.
Does the player actually want no god, or does he just want to select domains that aren't available from the core deities? Another simple compromise is to work with the GM to create a minor deity that fits the player's concept.
For example, I worship Bort, Scion of thieves and delicatessens. Domains: Trickery, Luck, Chaos, and Gluttony. Favored Weapon: short sword.
|
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
This is a great way to form a rapport with your GM at the start of a new campaign, lemme tell ya. :3
Dig the whole Pharasman tomb/graveyard purifiers idea - been wanting to take a psychopomp familiar for an arcanist idea I've been floating for a while. Take your nosoi on a tour of the world's most corrupt graveyards, recover some knowledge, burn some undead baddies, get Pharasma brownie points!
|
You are missing the distinction between the core rules and the additional specifications of the Golarion setting.
For most people, there is no distinction. Pathfinder as a setting and as a completely different set of rules that are unrelated to the setting by the same name (from the same company, by the same writers, etc. . .) is pretty odd.
<I understand the difference (and ignor it) (and minus the obvious fluff of the setting not in te Core), but it is not nearly as clear as some people think it is. The only to things I can think of that really seperates the two is 1.) Clerics need deities and 2.) Pharasma is totally against undead, neither of which appear in the Core books>
Specific always trumps general, unless you are house ruling it. The Pathfinder Core Book and it's supplements are setting-neutral, general rules books. The Golarion setting detailed in the Inner Sea World Guide and in the Campaign and Companion books are more specific and centered on a setting. So if you are playing in Golarion, and not using any house rules, then when encountering any differences between setting-specific material and setting-neutral material, the setting-specific material is always the correct version.
|
How might a Priest (cleric, oracle, or priest {tome of mysteris}} of Pharasma who is an adventurer, find a way to "justify" the usuall behavior of an adventuring party?We just did an article about Pharasma in the second Carrion Crown AP installment, I believe, so that's one place to go for inspiration.
Ooh, just noticed that, and it's probably the perfect place for that article, since, it appears that the premise of the second chapter of Carrion Crown is utterly incompatible with Pharasman doctrine, and could lead to a Pharasmin siding with the 'bad-guys.'
|
|
James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled. Possibly because that's the way it was in 3.5, and we were too timid to make that change to Pathfinder for backwards compatibility reasons.
That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.
There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
Here's why (spoilered in case someone still doesn't know the truth about one of Golarion's "deities")...
** spoiler omitted **
Mr. Tyrannosaurus,
Now that PFRPG has been out for a while, is there enough consesus between "yous peoples" regarding this subject to errata this in the CRB (or, perhaps more properly, errata the offending line out)?
For the record, I feel that allowing clerics (and paladins) to not worship a diety is a cheap cop-out.
Or, since he said up-thread that he basically got out-voted where it concerned the Core Rulebook and non-specific rules, it could be errata on the (Golarion-specific) Inner Sea World Guide?
My understanding is that Inner Sea World Guide is also potentially evergreen?
Failing that, other books that reference deities and/or worship should mention it.
The necessity of clerics to have divine patrons in Golarion could be mentioned in books concerning the worship of outsiders, books discussing the planes, and Golarion-based books addressing new cleric archtypes or sub-domains.
For my two cents, I believe paladins and inquisitors should have specific divine patrons as well.
Personally I prefer the "divine classes must have patrons" way of doing it, but I understand oracles are different on Golarion and get to serve concepts, and I guess druids and rangers can worship aspects of nature? I'd prefer they stuck with nature gods.
I'm in a Golarion campaign right now where the GM just hand-waves deity stuff. We've got a cleric/ninja whose player just made-up his own god and a paladin who shrugs when his patron is asked. As a Golarion fan-boy, I find it very frustrating.
|
|
For my two cents, I believe paladins and inquisitors should have specific divine patrons as well.
While I don't like that having a Patron deity as a rule, I do agree that if Clerics must, so should Druids, Paladins, and any Divine Class minus Oracle (sort of). It should either be all or none.
I'm in a Golarion campaign right now where the GM just hand-waves deity stuff. We've got a cleric/ninja whose player just made-up his own god and a paladin who shrugs when his patron is asked. As a Golarion fan-boy, I find it very frustrating.
I don't mean this as an arguement or antagonistic, but I just can't understand this. Why is this frustrating for you? That sounds great, I think (assuming that the faith is not just a few sentences of RP that never actually comes up and allows the player to do anything they feel). Why is the Cleric held to a double standard, I assum you don't hold for other classes? Do you require all Bards, for example, to go to an established college (and also to restrict feats and spells based on the choice), or Fighters to have trained in a Golarion published warrior school, (again also restricting Feat choices)? Do Wizards have to have a special mentor or train at a tower?
Yet it bugs you that the Cleric player can make their own faith up, (for their own character)? That generally means tht the player is both going out of their way to create an aspect of their characters backstory, and also introducing something new to the game, leaving their mark on the setting. Out of game, this is also an excellent way for a group to get around real world religous issues without it affecting their game.
James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.
Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.
You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled. Possibly because that's the way it was in 3.5, and we were too timid to make that change to Pathfinder for backwards compatibility reasons.
That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.
There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.
Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.
Here's why (spoilered in case someone still doesn't know the truth about one of Golarion's "deities")...
** spoiler omitted **Mr. Tyrannosaurus,
Now that PFRPG has been out for a while, is there enough consesus between "yous peoples" regarding this subject to errata this in the CRB (or, perhaps more properly, errata the offending line out)?
For the record, I feel that allowing clerics (and paladins) to not worship a diety is a cheap cop-out.
Golarion is a specific campaign setting which is mostly under the control of Mr.Jacobs. The core rules are not campaign setting specific. I am thinking the line is there(CRB) to leave it as an optional rule for GM's.
|
|
[spoiler=Here's why (spoilered in case someone still doesn't know the truth about one of Golarion's "deities")...]In Golarion, there is a region called Razmiran, led by a false god named Razmir. The fact that he cannot grant spells to his clerics is pretty much the core concept of that nation. If a cleric could say "I'm a cleric of Razmir" and get spells anyway, we'd have to pretty much completely reconcept or even remove the nation of Razmiran from the setting, and that's not something I want to do.[/spoiler]
Golarion has changed a lot since the 3.0 days. Back then, this sort of made sense as a way to give Bards that little something special, (able to cast arcane Cure spells, nice social skills). But sice then, a great meany non-divine classes can do the same thing, that this really isn't even an issue, not to mention Oracles (which could easily be "priests of Ramir" and be better than the others. Don't take this as an insult, which it's not, it just seems kind of odd reason to hamstring a class, nd really doesn't hold to the logic it once did, anymore.
So how about paladins in Golarion specifically?
I'll fully admit I'm not big on the whole, "Got to have a god" thing but knowing how it goes for paladin's in Golarion would be nice too.
The thing is Razmiran is not the only nation that would have to be reworked, it would also change the whole last 100 years of history. Aodens death would have been near meaning less, no civil war, No grand upheaval...just the "god" stopped talking with zero other in world effects.
The whole setting would be different if godless clerics were possible. It is one of the key features of the setting.
So how about paladins in Golarion specifically?
I'll fully admit I'm not big on the whole, "Got to have a god" thing but knowing how it goes for paladin's in Golarion would be nice too.
Officially they do not need them, but if they have a god it must be one step.
Core rules - General rules you can choose from when designing your world or adventures. The DM can choose to play "vanilla" Pathfinder, or the DM can allow/disallow anything in the books to fit his story (no monks, lost spells, etc.)
Campaing setting rules - Rules that tweak and supercedes the core rules when playing in that setting.
It has been the case since AD&D - Take a look at the way Ravenloft tweak all classes, for example, or Planescape or Krynn have their own restrictions on magic.
Seems clear to me.
|
|
The thing is Razmiran is not the only nation that would have to be reworked, it would also change the whole last 100 years of history. Aodens death would have been near meaning less, no civil war, No grand upheaval...just the "god" stopped talking with zero other in world effects.
The whole setting would be different if godless clerics were possible. It is one of the key features of the setting.
Razmiran didn't need reworked with the introduction of Oracles, so why would this change? The church of Aroden and the church of Razmir still hold a lot of political power either way, having godless clerics doen't mean that the existing faiths go away or change any mor than they do with the idea of Bards casting healing spells, Oracles having all the powers of a Cleric without a belief system, or anything. Aroden's death would not change in anyway, no would it's importance or aftermath. As soon as the world found out he was gone, everyone's faith in hm would have been shattered, meaning no more divine spells, until they all found another system of belief.