Creative Director
|
The Godclaw...
The order of the God Claw is still in the game; it's talked about on page 266 of the Inner Sea World Guide. Their members worship Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag, but it's unclear which one of those five actually REALLY support the group. There are clerics of all five deities active in that order, and they don't always see eye to eye, but they get along by adhering to the laws of their order. The fact that all five of these clerics function in the same order and get along is pretty unusual, and certainly would give rise to rumors that there's something else going on there, but the clerics themselves get their spells and powers from one of those five.
(Which means that, yes, we've revised things slightly from the way they originally worked in the original article in Pathfinder #27. But we also revised that same articles 15-level Hellknight prestige class down to a 10 level class. We were just getting used to the new rules with Council of Thieves, and some of the decisions we made in those first few months we've changed our minds on.)
(ALSO: The entry about the Godclaw in Pathfinder #27 is interesting in that it could be modeled in the rules today as a cleric archetype—take the Godclaw Cleric archetype and gain access to a specialized set of domains or something like that...)
See that, for a game is just wrong. You should never take out something cool to make it just like everything else.
Concepts worthy of devotion? Domain clerics are good enough for the core rules, for beta, for 3.5, where going through single godly middlemen to the domains--to the power is not required. That is good and worthy in my book.
Why only allow square pegs into square holes? Why not allow newly designed interesting shapes (the Godclaw)? Or allow more shapes (clerics of domains, clerics of grouped divinities and domains)?
Has the polytheist clerics in Elves of Golarion also been branded non-canon?
Yep the elves as well. Cleric= One god. Oracle= many gods.
The Godclaw...The order of the God Claw is still in the game; it's talked about on page 266 of the Inner Sea World Guide. Their members worship Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag, but it's unclear which one of those five actually REALLY support the group. There are clerics of all five deities active in that order, and they don't always see eye to eye, but they get along by adhering to the laws of their order. The fact that all five of these clerics function in the same order and get along is pretty unusual, and certainly would give rise to rumors that there's something else going on there, but the clerics themselves get their spells and powers from one of those five.
(Which means that, yes, we've revised things slightly from the way they originally worked in the original article in Pathfinder #27. But we also revised that same articles 15-level Hellknight prestige class down to a 10 level class. We were just getting used to the new rules with Council of Thieves, and some of the decisions we made in those first few months we've changed our minds on.)
(ALSO: The entry about the Godclaw in Pathfinder #27 is interesting in that it could be modeled in the rules today as a cleric archetype—take the Godclaw Cleric archetype and gain access to a specialized set of domains or something like that...)
That is a bit of a change. So the clerics formerly of law and discipline, now don't agree, because they all come from different single gods now, and not the Godclaw religion. So much for obedience to the doctrine that gave power previously.
@ Kain, It says "divine concept worthy of devotion" A Divine concept itself can not grant power. Devotion to that concept does. You skipped the Devotion part. The concept of strong can not grant you spells, but devotion to that concept can.
I didn't skip any part. You however (bolded for emphasis), provided your own personal interpretation of how that devotion works.
Unless strong is a being that can grant spells, then yep devotion does it. I bolded that part as you keep leaving it out.
Anyhow you are taking a GM options anyhow, feel free to rule it as you like. To me you are simply leaving things out you don't like so it can work the way you want it to.
Edit: I am pretty sure you have the same thoughts about me :)
Unless strong is a being that can grant spells, then yep devotion does it. I bolded that part as you keep leaving it out.
Anyhow you are taking a GM options anyhow, feel free to rule it as you like. To me you are simply leaving things out you don't like so it can work the way you want it to.
Edit: I am pretty sure you have the same thoughts about me :)
I provided the entire quote, you bolded from my own quoted words. How do you figure that I left it out?
I have no issue with someone taking what is in the Core Rules and working it anyway they choose. Adding anything they like to it. If you were running a game, your 'any concept can be worshiped because it is just your own faith, not the concept itself' idea flies fine.
But to accuse people who say "these are the only concepts in my world that can grant divine blessings" of somehow altering what the rules say to better fit their own vision is disingenuous. Or wrong.
The rules do not, as a matter of fact, spell out whether it is the devotion to the concept or the concept itself that is granting the divine power. The quote leaves that entirely up to the GM discretion.
The domains are what are truly significant. By the rulebook, a cleric can get their cleric powers from domains. Worshipping a being and following the imposed code of that being (and their created religion) is not required. Then in the setting it has started to change, because of Jacobs influence, and now the setting is going against the rules and saying, no, you must follow one to get access. It all seems very restrictive to me.
@ kain, you just seem to skip it, you quote it but always leave it out. It comes down to you feel it is not the important part of that sentence and I feel it is. And I disagree with what I feel is your arbitrary and rather heavy handed picking of what counts as a concept. I don't like how say "War" could be a concept as you like it, but "peace" couldn't because you do not.
@ 3.5 Golarion is more open then FR for instance. In FR all divine classes had to have a god. James has always stated he meant for the setting to be this way, but in the early days alot of stuff was in flux and got put though that have now been changed and edited out ( Massive elf donkey ears anyone?)If you look at the 3.5 setting book it makes it clear you need a god, it just never says it, drops a ton pof hints but never comes out right and says it. Which is why it was more clear in the new one.
So the setting is not changing, they are just catching more errors.
Including good, interesting material for a setting, is never an error. It is an error to remove it.
The setting is indeed changing, I wonder for the better given how confused the Godclaw now sound. Pffft, monastic hellknights who now can't even agree as to their own philosophy, because they are from separate gods now, and not the same belief system.
The order is the same, the clergy of that order is all that has changed. That got pushed though, same with paladins of the Big A and nature clerics in the sagava books and none evil undead in the ju ju oracle.
They are the anomalies that did not match the rules of the setting. So yes they were errors. Since the 3.5 setting book it was always meant to be a god only setting.
We arrive back at an earlier criticism I have made. The removal of new and different situations for clerics and domains, to make it all the same; and that this really creates unstable and unlikely situations as you ram the pegs in, whether they fit or not.
So, if you wanted to play a Godclaw cleric, true to the setting, you cannot be a cleric of the faith of the Godclaw. No, you can be an affiliate or a member, in it, but you still must worship a god/goddess, and you cannot be a pure worshipper of its ideas and the old domains. So now you are not actually a cleric of the Godclaw, you are a cleric in the Godclaw with a god. Problems begin to emerge.
What happens if the organisation's acts or its beliefs go against one of the gods one day? There are five in play. Do all the clerics of one of the five leave? Do they lose their spells if they stay? It just doesn't fit and work anymore. Whereas before, their being mountain mystics (Dinyar) and religious hellknights with their own belief system worked. There was the idea that this could continue without just falling apart due to bickering. Five lawful gods across the good, neutral and evil alignments are not the same, and the clerics would not be able to work together properly, certainly not as a firm and steadfast, perhaps fanatical association. Bah!
It falls apart, trying to tidy up and homogenise the setting after removing all the differing elements.
Now what is this about nature clerics and non-evil undead? Got rid of nature clerics as well? Yeah, nature clerics only make perfect sense for polytheists, fey, or followers of Gozreh and the fey and nature (almost druids, but not quite, healing and nature/elements but not like the druid). Yeah, take it all away, take it all.
The thing is new material needs to fit the setting. The Godclaw stuff as written in the AP broke setting rules. James has used the very same reason I give for why clerics of no one can not work in the setting as written. I know Kain and others disagree with that, but the setting is built upon those assumptions.
So while the god claw was a neat write up, it broke the rules of the setting. They reworked it to fit the rules of the setting. You can be a true worshiper, but you would lean toward one god over the others. Nothing in the Godclaw really breaks any of the rules of any of the five gods. It still works just fine. You are building an issue where one really does not exist. You see it different, cool. I just am not seeing the issue.
On the nature clerics. Yes its in the svaga book god-less nature clerics. The writer knew the stance but said he put them in any how and got them past james because he disagreed with the Official stance. As soon as it was spotted it was rule they are druids or oracles not clerics unless they have a god.
The second thing was the JuJu oracle mystery. It allowed you to make non-evil undead. That was also ruled a mistake. Stuff gets though, have you looked at the sheer amount of stuff that gets put out?
|
The Campaign Setting does talk about multiple "philosophies" (page 176-177) such as the Green Faith, Diabolism, etc. In just one example at a glance, there are specific references to druids who follow the Green Faith, which means they don't worship a specific deity, but rather a tenet or philosophy of reverence to the natural world. And that's official.
In fact, this listing also confirms the existence of pantheism on Golarion, which, as pointed out above, is one means of playing a cleric not devoted to a specific deity, in that the PC worships an assortment of gods, drawing power from their various spheres of influence through supplication and prayer. Need to memorize cure light wounds? Pray to Sarenrae, or Pharasma if she's not answering the phone. If you need a flame strike, you might look up Iomedae.
I really dig pantheism, and many of my PC clerics are. I imagine them as chaplains in the army, able to administer rites of most faiths that are at least somewhat compatible with their alignment.
Hmmm.... do you really dig 'Pantheism'? Or did you mean 'Polytheism'? (There IS a difference, and the belief in/worshiping of many gods/goddesses (instead of just worshiping one) is Polytheism... Pantheism, basically, is the belief that "God/The Divine" is inherent in everything in the universe AND everything in the Universe is part of "God/The Divine" (also, sometimes further explained as "God is the universe and all the life within it" or, the Creator IS his/her/its Creation, there is no separation of parts).
Although, the Green Faith actually does seem to be a Pantheistic Faith (involving genuine heartfelt belief in something that, in this magical world, really does have power to be granted/drawn upon), which is probably why it works even in a setting that normally requires that Clerics should have Gods.... I'll have to check and see whether the other actually mentioned philosophies in the setting books have similarly clear ties to power-sources for a cleric's magic (Diabolism, for starters, obviously does...).
And, not that the game needs to reflect historical practice, but in societies that believed there were many Gods/Goddesses (which fits Golarion), most people not only believed in the existence of all of the Gods/Goddesses, they also generally honored and worshiped multiple Gods/Goddesses (just as in your post above, they'd go and make offerings at the temple of the God(s) they needed help from and/or particularly felt thankful to, or didn't want to piss off-- based on that God's presumed attributes and/or spheres of control and influence)-- people in such societies were usually NOT monotheists in personal practice.
That would be a point. Pantheism with some attachment to specific domains, is also against the new orthodoxy. Let there only be one I draw upon and worship. How unfortunate.
The Godclaw is polytheistic, Taoism and Buddhism say, are more Pantheism. Search for enlightenment etc. Shinto which I know a little more about is certainly Pantheistic, with kami everywhere.
It is a really interesting system of deities and powers, but the new rules say no cross-over, no having your cleric spiritual expert attuning to the powers instead of individuals. With all that wisdom you would think a cleric could realise that following any figure absolutely can be un-wise, and buying into one religion amongst many competing religions is to be dragged into vain struggles. Nope, no pantheist, balanced polytheist, element/domain worshippers.
They were around before, in quite interesting little associations, fringe groups, could be big in areas to be uncovered later (Sargava, Tian, Vudra) but they are gone now. What was unusual for the areas first covered, but which makes perfect sense for territories precisely like Tian Xia or Vudra is taken out as possible.
Why can't the creative director just let the ideas for clerics and their worship proliferate, and not just quash them? Let's leave our western ideas about true clergy only being of one god out of it.
|
|
Minor apology: my post was a reply to an ooooollllllldddddddd post in this thread, then I realized this one's been going on for a long time. I think I'm still leaving it in place, because there seem to be more than a few people who are confused on the difference between polytheism and pantheism.
and a question-- should I ever play a cleric in PFS: I'm getting the impression that, for game mechanics purposes, I must pick one deity... but for role-playing purposes, my cleric can still be a polytheist, who honors and to some extent follows multiple deities (all generally along the same alignment/more or less allied points of view) while having one particular patron that I honor above all the rest (that being the one I picked to satisfy mechanics purposes? (example: patron/source of spells and domains is Sarenrae, but does also worship/honor Iomedae, Desna, Milani, and Shelyn; with some reverence for Pharasma)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a point. Pantheism with some attachment to specific domains, is also against the new orthodoxy. Let there only be one I draw upon and worship. How unfortunate.
The Godclaw is polytheistic, Taoism and Buddhism say, are more Pantheism. Search for enlightenment etc. Shinto which I know a little more about is certainly Pantheistic, with kami everywhere.
Nice post. I agree with pretty much all of it, with a few extra clarifications: in game, the Green Faith appears to essentially be a pantheistic faith, that does grant divine spell-casting powers (but unfortunately only seems to power Druids, not Clerics).
Out of game: Buddhism is as much philosophy as it is religion: depending on which sect and which other beliefs are involved, in practice it can be pantheistic, polytheistic, or even agnostic-- it's very difficult to reconcile Buddhism with atheism though, since Buddhism very specifically involves a belief in reincarnation, cycles of death and rebirth, etc, that involve some sense of 'the divine'-- but it does not require a belief in any God, nor the belief that God exists at all as something separate from the universe (yes, I've studied religions somewhat). Taoism is usually pantheistic in outlook, at least as far as I've seen it practiced. Shinto is, in its own way, both pantheistic and polytheistic (many Gods & Goddesses, many many more divine spirits - the Kami, and at the same time, the divine is inherently part of everything and everything is part of the divine... it's a very interesting faith-system).
That sounds just awful. i don't think I've ever played a cleric without a deity, but to tell people they can't is pretty narrow minded. Just because you can't wrap your head around the idea, doesn't mean your players can't and wouldn't enjoy it immensely. Clearly a druid gets divine power without a deity, why is it so incomprehensible then?
In my home campaigns, I've never allowed them. And never will.
In my worlds, the Druid's diety is either an expression of Nature itself or a diety who has Nature in her portfolio.
And when I say I can't wrap my head around it it's not about not being able to understand the concept but finding it aesthetically offensive. Cleric by definition means service to a divine being. Removing that cuts out the essential flavor of a class and reduces it to cherry picking mechanics.
Heaven forbid you allow the player to explain why their cleric type class -that they could call a parcheezy class if the name would offend you so- has no deity. Cleric by definition means whatever that player needs it to mean to play the character they want. You having a hangup over a word just makes you a stick in the mud. Other people view it differently than you, why force your viewpoint onto them? What does it benefit anyone to box them in? You seem to have some kind of a religious hangup about it.
If it reduces it to cherry picking mechanics that have been prebalanced and put into the core rulebook as a class, and it works for what they want to do then it's not really cherry picking.
To put it another way: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ESSENTIAL FLAVOR IN A GAME OF IMAGINATION.
Sorry it took me a few pages to reply, this thread is really truckin'
Actually... yeah. I lost sight of one of the MOST IMPORTANT reasons why in Golarion clerics must have gods:
** spoiler omitted **
I don't really follow this.
If I could potentially pray to a piece of chalk and get spells, that doesn't mean I could pray to Aroden or Razmir and still get spells from the chalk.
Anyone worshiping either of those entities would still fail to be granted spells. And anyone who fake worshiped something else to try and get spells would surely be denied by whatever entities that grants spells to non deity worshiping divine casters. Likewise to anyone fake worshiping Aroden and trying to get spells from the Chalk at the same time.
I just really don't see this as an issue, especially not the most important one. But some of your other points are very understandable.
Davick, his point was: it's a piece of chalk. It doesn't grant anything. In this case, you're the one doing the granting... to yourself (just using that as a focusing tool). If that's true, then it really doesn't matter if you're talking to Aroden or Razmir... because ultimately it's you who's doing the granting (even if you truly believe it's the other guy). Now, again, I've explained one way this could function (even though I mostly agree with James), so, you know, there are reasons why you could allow things like concept clerics and have them be limited in various ways. (I - for once! - disagree with Set that it makes no sense, though I do see he makes good points.)
Also, Davick, there is totally such a thing as essential flavor in a specific story (any specific story). Which an RPG is a game and a group story-telling exercise at the same time. Some groups emphasize one more than the other. That's fine. Someone ruling something at their table as rules for their table is totally fine. For them, it's essential. Whatever you want at your table is great. But Laz, as oft as I disagree with him, is in the right here, insomuch as he's saying at his table, that's the way things are run. 'Cause, you know, it's his table. He's incorrect insomuch as he claims no one else should run it any other way.
3.5 Loyalist (and everyone here, really): DUDE, PLAY THE GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY. IT'S FINE. ALLOW CONCEPT CLERICS. Look, like I said: I'm going to allow good undead via the Juju Oracle mystery, even though that's been deemed non-canon. I'm going to allow finite (highly limited) polytheistic systems to function, even though that's been deemed non-canon. I'm going to require all divine casters except oracles to choose a patron (in certain cases, like druids, more than one is possible), even though that's been deemed non-canon (and oracles still have a patron... they just don't know it). Unless and until we get a great story reason for why not, Desna's going to be a "reformed" Great Old One, even though that's deemed non-canon. I'm going to do all these things... in my game. It's not canon. That's fine. It doesn't have to be. BUT CANON IS WHAT IT IS. You've got your answers. You don't like them. OKAY. That's fine. You've made your points (multiple times). Telling James he's a stupid-face* because you don't like what he's saying isn't going to make things go well for you (no matter what The Guild** says).
ON THAT NOTE: seekerofshadowlight. Dude. Sometimes, I don't even know. I mean, I agree with you, in principle (and often in practice), but there are times... man. Okay. Look, your most recent posts in this thread have been much better, but yeesh, sometimes, it's just hard to accept what you're saying because you're so harsh about it. Bend sometimes - even stop and consider what the other person is saying. You'll probably get more traction that way.
Finally. March 12, 2010. That's when this thread started. MARCH 12, OF THE YEAR 2010. That's more than one and three-quarters years ago. We're slightly less than two months away from having this argument for two years. TWO YEARS. Guys. We get it. Some people love the canon. Some don't. COME ON. I don't even think anyone's really listening or paying attention in the slightest to the other side's arguments except to plan the best way to make their argument look stupid. I shouldn't have to say this, but: CAN WE BEHAVE LIKE ADUL-... wait, no, I've seen how adults behave. Let me amend: CAN WE BEHAVE LIKE REASONABLE PEOPLE? There's nothing wrong with debate, but what's happening here isn't debate. What's happening here is us saying:
1) "you're wrong"
2) "no, you're wrong"
1) "no, you're wrong"
2) "no, you're totally wrong"
1) "you're face is wrong"
2) "no, you're face is wrong"
1) "you're mom's face is wrong"
2) "you're stupid"
1) "you're stupid"
2) "you're wrong"
etcetera ad-nausem
For two years.
Anyone remember the most important rule? The one right down below the post box? Here, I'll quote it:
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.
Yeah, let's do that. Please.
I propose for this thread (though I have absolutely zero in the way of official power):
^ IF we have a point that's already been addressed, let's not post it more than once on a single page. If someone dismisses it, oh well. Don't call them stupid, but if they're rude, we flag and ignore ourselves. If someone asks to clarify, then we clarify.
^ IF we have something new to add, let's post that. "New" does not mean "the exact same thing as before plus bolding my own post", nor anything in which you could copy and paste and get the exact same result. Edit your earlier one instead (but not you did so), if you must.
^ IF we make a mistake in a post and it's too late to edit it, then we own up to it, explain what our mistake was, and clarify what we meant.
^ IF two or more people just aren't getting what the other part(y/ies) are saying, someone else can try and clarify. Politely.
^ Feel free to post your opinion. Once. Take your time. Make it clear. Then let the post stand on its own merits. If you make a mistake, own up to it.
^ Let's also be polite at one another when we do so. We can disagree, but let's agree to disagree agreeably. 'Cause that ain't what we're doin' here.
^ Actually consider what the other position has to say. Not just in the "THAT MAKES NO SENSE!" way, but take some time. Ruminate. Mull it over. Then, when you're done, do so again. The thread moves on without you? That's okay. Respond to the part you want when you've worked on your response for a bit. If something makes no sense to you still, ask, politely, to clarify and explain why you can't understand it. Hopefully someone will come along and use different words to better facilitate your discussion.
Does that sound decent to everyone here?
Anyway, I apologize if I come off as harsh. But two years, and most of what we're getting is "Man, if only that Jacobs wouldn't be so stupid!" or "What is wrong with you people, why won't you just listen?!" There are some exceptions, but we're teetering on the border of insults instead of reasoned arguments.
Besides, we've gotten our official answer. I mean, James has taken this all incredibly well, considering he's given the same answers for the last two years and been ignored or called out by so many.
Regardless, may the Lord bless you all with wisdom, peace, and grace. :D
* Maybe at some point a well-reasoned argument will suddenly sway him. That is unlikely, however, it is far more likely that than saying, "Dude, that's lame, come on, stop making lame things". Especially since I like them, even though they're lame.
** Yes, I watch it. No, I don't play WoW. It's a great show nonetheless, I recommend it.
EDIT: added the line about Desna and the line about editing your older posts.
Davick, his point was: it's a piece of chalk. It doesn't grant anything. In this case, you're the one doing the granting... to yourself (just using that as a focusing tool). If that's true, then it really doesn't matter if you're talking to Aroden or Razmir... because ultimately it's you who's doing the granting (even if you truly believe it's the other guy). Now, again, I've explained one way this could function (even though I mostly agree with James), so, you know, there are reasons why you could allow things like concept clerics and have them be limited in various ways. (I - for once! - disagree with Set that it makes no sense, though I do see he makes good points.)
Also, Davick, there is totally such a thing as essential flavor in a specific story (any specific story). Which an RPG is a game and a group story-telling exercise at the same time. Some groups emphasize one more than the other. That's fine. Someone ruling something at their table as rules for their table is totally fine. For them, it's essential. Whatever you want at your table is great. But Laz, as oft as I disagree with him, is in the right here, insomuch as he's saying at his table, that's the way things are run. 'Cause, you know, it's his table. He's incorrect insomuch as he claims no one else should run it any other way.
3.5 Loyalist (and everyone here, really): DUDE, PLAY THE GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY. IT'S FINE. ALLOW CONCEPT CLERICS. Look, like I said: I'm going to allow good undead via the Juju Oracle mystery, even though that's been deemed non-canon. I'm going to allow finite (highly limited) polytheistic systems to function, even though that's been deemed non-canon. I'm going to require all divine casters except oracles to choose a patron (in certain cases, like druids, more than one is possible), even though that's been deemed non-canon (and oracles still have a patron... they just don't know it). Unless and until we get a great story reason for why not, Desna's going to...
Let me reiterate: There is no essential flavor in a game of imagination. You're right when you say it's a group experience, if your essential flavor steps on someone else's, then yours probably needs to go.
And that's as far as I read, cause the rest of it looked irrelevant to the topic. Also, you could replace chalk with Nature spirits or Hinduism, that wasn't the point.
Well the chalk doesn't have the juiciness of the domains behind it. That is what I've tried to bring up before. What you worship has to be two domains or control said domains (a deity). If nature spirits had the power, had the connections, whispered the mysteries, then yeah, that would be a way of attaching to some domains via the let's just look at the class argument. Perhaps the nature spirits would be death and earth domains. Hinduism doesn't quite work with clerics so well, but if all those gods and all those beliefs solidify into a message involving two domains, then it can become more plausible and represented through the class.
Tacticslion, I take your points, but your reduction of the arguments to this:
1) "you're wrong"
2) "no, you're wrong"
1) "no, you're wrong"
2) "no, you're totally wrong"
1) "you're face is wrong"
2) "no, you're face is wrong"
1) "you're mom's face is wrong"
2) "you're stupid"
1) "you're stupid"
2) "you're wrong"
etcetera ad-nausem"
Is really quite wrong. There have been many points in play, criticisms, examples etc. Truly there is bickering, but it is a forum. Saying no side is saying anything of worth, we are just opposing each other with you're wrong seems like you just want it to end, and not really add to what's here. After reading all this, I've learned quite a bit about very small sections of the cleric class and how it changes across settings. Bonus.
Why can't the creative director just let the ideas for clerics and their worship proliferate, and not just quash them?
Because he disagrees with you, maybe?
There's also a cute argument in which you've just painted yourself into a corner by railing against the changes to settings once they're in print (a la the Godclaw). By your own argument, Paizo can hardly go back and declare godless clerics acceptable, right? Not after so clearly ruling them out all this time.
That last bit is more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. The first point is the relevant one. Creating settings is a creative process - there's no right or wrong answer about what's "cool" and James gets to decide. He likes the idea that clerics have to have a God and hence, in Golarion, clerics have to have a God.
Another defender. There is nothing creative about taking away options. It is the opposite of creativity to say, only this, when you could allow this as the main (deity clerics), and this little bit of new material over here (Godclaw), and this and that over there (domain clerics, polytheistic cults, pantheism with domain focus).
We should consider where we stand on this, and whether we are on the best side--whether changes will ultimately occur in our favour or not (it is unlikely Jacobs will fold, what's in it for him? He gets to cut out what he doesn't particularly like). What the official line is, is clear. I don't think it is even close to being a good choice. Jacobs likes the idea of clerics only of one god or goddess (with no other options allowed), but what do YOU think Steve? do you think it is a good idea, a creative idea, an idea fit for a really complex and deep fantasy world? My additional question to you, is do you think removing more options for the cleric should be defended? Because people seem to be doing that, and it is very easy to side with authority without considering authority's position.
More of the same is not creative to me, there is far too much being cut away when it has only just started being explored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't about trendiness, this is about the real faults behind eliminating alternatives for clerics.
The Godclaw barely holds together as a unity anymore, since they no longer contain domain clerics with shared polytheism. Anything else like this, is no longer canon or even possible by the setting. A lot of flavour has been drained to be streamlined. The streamlined flavour doesn't work with the East (Tian, Vudra, etc).
There is also the old cults of the Great Old Ones in Gods and Magic. On page 51, it says "Mortal who worship these alien beings believe they shall one day return to the Material Plane and unmake the world... Clerics of Old Cults typically have access to the domains of Chaos, Knowledge, Madness, Rune and Void".
So there is another polytheistic possibility for clerics now declared wrong and non-canon. It used to be canon to be a cleric of the old ones, a cleric of the "Old Cults" drawing power from multiple slumbering entities. It did not say anything about worshipping one singularly, but put the clerics together as followers of the Old Ones and a group with shared interests (madness, awakening, destroying the world) and shared domains. Something else cool from old canon, that new canon goes against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ON THAT NOTE: seekerofshadowlight. Dude. Sometimes, I don't even know. I mean, I agree with you, in principle (and often in practice), but there are times... man. Okay. Look, your most recent posts in this thread have been much better, but yeesh, sometimes, it's just hard to accept what you're saying because you're so harsh about it. Bend sometimes - even stop and consider what the other person is saying. You'll probably get more traction that way.
I do not mean to come off as harsh, I guess I just do. I do think what others are saying. I just often simply disagree with what they are saying.
Here is the gist of it. Some folks see concept clerics as devotion driven. Others see concept clerics as getting powers without devotion but in some unknown way. Now the second makes no sense to me. The first brakes the setting in large ways, I know folks disagree, but if devotion is enough to power a cleric then a god or a concept are the very same thing. It simply matters not what you worship if you have devotion to it.
Now 3.5 is unhappy as he sees the setting being changed. But nothing has changed in the setting itself, it has always been built around the idea of clerics must have a god. He is pointing to something that came out in an Ap, that was a mistake.It was an error that did not work in the setting that saw print. It flew in the face of what the setting had established as the way things worked. Just like paladins of the Big A. ( Also a mistake) Some stuff got printed in other books that simply did not match the setting book. So they got ruled as errors.
You do not have to like it. But that is the way it is. Mistakes happen. Play however ya like at home.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the gist of it. Some folks see concept clerics as devotion driven. Others see concept clerics as getting powers without devotion but in some unknown way. Now the second makes no sense to me. The first brakes the setting in large ways, I know folks disagree, but if devotion is enough to power a cleric then a god or a concept are the very same thing. It simply matters not what you worship if you have devotion to it.
Now 3.5 is unhappy as he sees the setting being changed. But nothing has changed in the setting itself, it has always been built around the idea of clerics must have a god. He is pointing to something that came out in an Ap, that was a mistake.It was an error that did not work in the setting that saw print. It flew in the face of what the setting had established as the way things worked. Just like paladins of the Big A. ( Also a mistake)
I'm going to disagree. My assumption has always been that Clerics do not require a deity, and various Pathfinder and Golarion specific books had details of things like this that confirmed it. It seems that even other Paizo employees and creative talents also assumed this, and it does not break or change the setting. It actually has nothing to do with it altering how the setting works. The contradictions that are pointed out are already problems of contention regardless of Clerics, but usually have to do with discrepincies between divine magic, or just magic principles.
And I think Loyalist is making a valid point. Changing that does in fact ruin many great opportunities, not only for Clerics, but for the entire principle of how the divine works. The Godclaw really doesn't work now. Various cultures that are not the norm do not work now, except because people want to force them to. I would even venture that realistically, changing the official answer to Clerics need a deity, (something I will point out that Paizo did not do for a very long time after this issue was raised), actually changes a lot more of the setting than saying concept Clerics are allowed. It sets a presedent that cuts out huge possibilities for future products, and there is absolutely no reason to try to force this personal preference on players. That's just my opinion.
There is also the old cults of the Great Old Ones in Gods and Magic. On page 51, it says "Mortal who worship these alien beings believe they shall one day return to the Material Plane and unmake the world... Clerics of Old Cults typically have access to the domains of Chaos, Knowledge, Madness, Rune and Void".
Inner sea world guide page 235 man.
Clerics of the Old Cults typically have access to the domains of Chaos, Knowledge, Madness, Rune, and Void, but these choices can vary depending upon the specif ic Great Old One worshiped
That has been addressed. Maybe not the way you want but they did put it in the book.
It's all good man. I'm just a bit annoyed at how much is being taken out or edited from the setting. I like clerics of the great old ones, in their madness and paths of insanity, tapping in to sleeping elder things. Not one, not just like everyone else, they were different.
"But nothing has changed in the setting itself, it has always been built around the idea of clerics must have a god."
Incorrect. How many examples of published material do I have to provide Seeker? We have the polytheist Godclaw, the nature druids, the Clerics of the Great Old Ones (who do not worship in the singular, they have domains, but aren't even watched like the clerics of other faiths, how they use their powers is not regulated, another difference to the normal setting rules). James' recent changes are not what the setting has always been, because the changes and editing is recent.
"Here is the gist of it. Some folks see concept clerics as devotion driven. Others see concept clerics as getting powers without devotion but in some unknown way. Now the second makes no sense to me."
Seeker, you don't have to be a monotheist and attend something like a Catholic church with the full ritual, to be a spiritual person or a member of a religion. Being a domain cleric does not mean there is no devotion, attunement or understanding, just because one great sky god is not prayed to.
Why should we try and force all religions in Golarion to be the same? It is an idea that doesn't make sense give how diverse Golarion is, how large, how different the cultures are. That worship is all the same everywhere, only the symbols and tenets are different, is un-exciting.
I'm going to disagree. My assumption has always been that Clerics do not require a deity, and various Pathfinder and Golarion specific books had details of things like this that confirmed it. It seems that even other Paizo employees and creative talents also assumed this, and it does not break or change the setting. It actually has nothing to do with it altering how the setting works. The contradictions that are pointed out are already problems of contention regardless of Clerics, but usually have to do with discrepincies between divine magic, or just magic principles.
We have went over this many, many times. The 3.5 book does assume you must have a god. James confirmed that many times as well, saying he wished they had made it more clear but thought it was clear enough at the time. The 3.5 book did not come out and say it, but dropped so many clues about it you had to ignore them not to understand it to be blunt. The 3.5 class write up for example only 1 divine class did not cover you not having to worship a god, the cleric. Every other one told you you did not need a god.
Incorrect. How many examples of published material do I have to provide Seeker? We have the polytheist Godclaw, the nature druids, the Clerics of the Great Old Ones (who do not worship in the singular, they have domains, but aren't even watched like the clerics of other faiths, how they use their powers is not regulated, another difference to the normal setting rules). James' recent changes are not what the setting has always been, because the changes and editing is recent.
And I'll point out the setting book itself does not allow it. James felt at the time it was clear, it was only after it was in print did it become clear it was not as clear as it should be. Every class write up in the 3.5 book that was divine got a nice section talking about them not worshiping gods, that is all divine classes but a cleric. Some major things in the setting are not possible with god-less clerics, the fall of Arodens church and false gods chief among them. And yes some early 3.5 stuff does have godless clerics. It was idea's like that that lead to the oracle, it was made for those ideas. The setting was in flux in the early days, it existed as one small place to run Ap's. By the time the setting book came out however it was always meant to not allow god-less clerics.
Devotion is what powers concept clerics. That is my stance as it is how the book reads, it seems to be James stance as well. If that is the case, then yes the setting falls apart, false god and dead gods have no real meaning, Gods/concepts have no meaning. Devotion to a thing is simply enough. You do not agree with that and its fine.
Why should we try and force all religions in Golarion to be the same? It is an idea that doesn't make sense give how diverse Golarion is, how large, how different the cultures are. That worship is all the same everywhere, only the symbols and tenets are different, is un-exciting.
This I do not understand. Each and every god and each and every faith is different. Clerics of one god have vastly different view and faith then those of another. Not allowing God-less clerics does nothing to change this.
I am talking about the previous setting books, I am talking about the previous setting material, adventure paths, gods and magic, what was written on the Godclaw. Years of many contributions. Before James took away and edited out all the different opinions on clerics and the origins of their power.
I don't care what the setting orthodoxy is now on clerics, because I have already thoroughly criticised its direction and what it has cut away and disallowed. It was better before when there were more options and more unknowns.
When you say the "3.5 class write up" you make it sound like you are confusing the 3.5 cleric, which allowed domain clerics, non-deity clerics, polytheists, and the cleric of the Golarion setting as of very recently, which is now deity-bound.
Seeker, you are ignoring the arguments of the earlier pages. Where contributors have pointed out how Golarion can still work without all clerics being deity followers. Please do not ignore what has been written.
You keep leaning on the setting book, do you realise the setting as a whole is the combination of its products? There has been years of ideas, but now some, while coming from paizo through their books, are now being altered or declared not canon. So we arrive at simplicity which limits possibility.
I see things that do not match the setting book and it assumptions errors. So yes I ignore them. I was talking about the class write ups in the 3.5 setting book. Each class got a page or so write up. Those pages covered druids, paladins and rangers not needing gods. Those are all missing in the cleric write up.
And I am not Ignoring those arguments about concept clerics. I disagree with those assumptions. Those are all built off devotion not powering clerics but some unexplained thing doing it, upon it working more like random chance. They are built upon a wobbly ladder just so it can work in the setting. Even if it makes no sense.
You think it makes sense. I do not. It really is that simple.
Edit: I think I like your old avatar better.I get so used to folks avatars, its a bit jarring when they change them.
This long and circular argument would, for most of us, be put to rest if Paizo would just add something to the FAQ that covers all this.
But regardless of that, I and many others seem to prefer the setting the way James says it should be, and for Golarion that means that a cleric must worship a specific, chosen deity. If I want a setting that allows Concept clerics, then I will either find a setting that does that or house rule it for a setting that does not, so long as the house rule does not upset the balance of that setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can have a cleric of an ideal, but if that Ideal is Aroden it's verboten?
You seem to be misunderstanding what it means to gain spells from your ideal.
You don't simply say, "Fire is cool, so bam I can cast fire spells."
You actually draw your power from fire- or, to be more specific, the concept that is fire grants you spells. If something happened and fire no longer existed in the universe, you would no longer be able to be granted spells by fire.
It's the same when you worship a deity. You don't just say, "Aroden is cool, so bam I can cast spells." If you worship Norgorber, Norgorber himself is granting you a small piece of himself that lets you channel his power. When you worship Desna, Desna chooses to grant you your spells. When you worship Fire or Evil, the primal forces of Fire or Evil, however you need to visualize that, grants you spells. Like I said, if the concept of Evil no longer existed, it wouldn't be able to grant you spells. If you simply worshipped the idea of a deity, instead of the deity themselves, you could be any alignment and you could use your spells granted by that deity to fight directly against that deity's teachings, because by that logic the deity has no say in the matter. But that's not how it is.
You're not worshipping the idea of fire, you're worshipping fire. You can't be a Cleric of Aroden (at least not one who gets spells from him) because he is dead, and cannot choose to grant you spells anymore.
so long as the house rule does not upset the balance of that setting.
And since there's basically no way for it to unbalance a setting, that won't be a problem.
I'm not forcing anyone to do or exclude anything. It is among the choices that it is my right to make as a GM. Just as much it's another GM's right to allow such in a game that I'm playing in. We all make such choices just as you might refuse to allow someone to play an Apollo Astronaut in Greyhawk. I suppose you'd call me a stick in the mud if I refused that as well. The nature and character of a campaign is defined as much by what it excludes as well as what is included. Boundaries set structure and definition.That sounds just awful. i don't think I've ever played a cleric without a deity, but to tell people they can't is pretty narrow minded. Just because you can't wrap your head around the idea, doesn't mean your players can't and wouldn't enjoy it immensely. Clearly a druid gets divine power without a deity, why is it so incomprehensible then?
In my home campaigns, I've never allowed them. And never will.
In my worlds, the Druid's diety is either an expression of Nature itself or a diety who has Nature in her portfolio.
And when I say I can't wrap my head around it it's not about not being able to understand the concept but finding it aesthetically offensive. Cleric by definition means service to a divine being. Removing that cuts out the essential flavor of a class and reduces it to cherry picking mechanics.
Heaven forbid you allow the player to explain why their cleric type class -that they could call a parcheezy class if the name would offend you so- has no deity. Cleric by definition means whatever that player needs it to mean to play the character they want. You having a hangup over a word just makes you a stick in the mud. Other people view it differently than you, why force your viewpoint onto them? What does it benefit anyone to box them in? You seem to have some kind of a religious hangup about it.
I don't really get how banning something isn't forcing someone to exclude something.
Regardless of what it is I would hypothetically disallow, if a player can compel me with their story, I'd allow it, astronauts included. If someone wanted to play a dragon deityless cleric astronaut, and they had a good reason why, I'd allow it. I'd also make sure they aren't overpowered. Honestly, I'm not big on people playing summoners (seen it done illegally way too many times), I recommend that they don't. But if someone wants to, I'll sit down with them and we'll make sure his eidolon is built properly and stays that way as he levels. Heck, they can be an astronaut too, and their eidolon can be a monster they found on the moon and created some kind of spiritual link with.
Another defender.
Not really. I'm of the view that every DM's "Golarion" is unique, so I dont see any problem with you and James both being correct. As I said, there is nothing objective about what's "cool" - I can't defend one position or the other. You and James just disagree.
There is nothing creative about taking away options. It is the opposite of creativity to say, only this, when you could allow this as the main (deity clerics), and this little bit of new material over here (Godclaw), and this and that over there (domain clerics, polytheistic cults, pantheism with domain focus).
Personally, I think you should rethink this. I think it has it backwards. If you are entirely permissive (if everything is allowed) then all setting will be identical from a rules perspective. Within this context, creativity is very much defined by what core rules aren't available. Not just by allowing everything. For example - a defining feature of the Dark Sun setting is that divine casters don't exist. That's a creative decision entirely based on a restriction.
We should consider where we stand on this, and whether we are on the best side--whether changes will ultimately occur in our favour or not (it is unlikely Jacobs will fold, what's in it for him? He gets to cut out what he doesn't particularly like).
I think you are misframing the argument. It's an aesthetic one, predominantly and thus is not about 'whose side are you on?' It's about 'which assumption do you prefer?' and there's no right or wrong when it comes to preference.
What the official line is, is clear. I don't think it is even close to being a good choice. Jacobs likes the idea of clerics only of one god or goddess (with no other options allowed), but what do YOU think Steve? do you think it is a good idea, a creative idea, an idea fit for a really complex and deep fantasy world?
I think James Jacobs is far, far better at making intelligent, interesting and entertaining choices about world design than I am. That's why I pay him to do it for me. If I ever have a player tell me he wants to be a "Cleric of Justice" or some kind of pantheistic cleric then I might suggest he consider being a deluded cleric (who is unaware who his divine patron is). However, if that doesnt appeal to him, I'll let him play the character he wants to in defiance of canon (because I generally favor letting players play characters they want to - there are dragonborn in my Golarion, since my brother has a particular fondness for them, even though I dont like the race particularly).
.I dont really see a problem here. I run Golarion the way I like it with no cost. Why do you think it's important that the canon be adjusted to meet your preferences?
My additional question to you, is do you think removing more options for the cleric should be defended? Because people seem to be doing that, and it is very easy to side with authority without considering authority's position.
I'm not going to speak for other people, but since you responded to me by incorrectly labelling me a "defender", I'm going to suggest that you might be miscontruing those who are responding to you. I dont think there's a right or wrong answer, so I'm not defending one or the other. I acknowledge that, in creating a world, James has to make decisions about what's in and what's out. I'm not going to like all of them, you're not going to like all of them and I even suspect that James isnt going to like all of them. The nature of creative work is that it's always imperfect. It's always open to interpretation and critique - it's just not a matter of objective fact.
.2+2 always equals 4 but settings with unrestricted clerics are not always better than settings with tighter restrictions.
More of the same is not creative to me, there is far too much being cut away when it has only just started being explored.
Then add it back. Your Golarion is your Golarion. I think if you're casting around for a published, well supported setting which matches your preferences so closely then you are setting the bar too high.
.Don't mistake these comments as 'taking the other side' though. I'm rejecting your entire formulation of this as an issue of right and wrong - it's just a matter of how much you like the canonical Golarion, how much you prefer bits which used to be canon but have now been rescinded and how much you prefer a modified version. In my view, that's an essential part of using any published RPG flavor material.
|
|
I get the rationale and campaign reasons why each Cleric must have a deity that is granting his/her spells and powers. I also see the point, for game mechanics and tracing power-sources, why each Cleric has to choose a single, specific patron deity.
However, in practice (social roles and organization, behavior, etc), I'm not sure why you can't play a Cleric who is polytheistic in faith (actively honors/worships/serves more than one specific deity; presumably this is self-limiting anyway by the provision that the deities themselves must be at least somewhat aligned with each other), other than by creator fiat. Are there some specific rationales for why this cannot work in Golarion? (maybe because even the good deities are just so jealous of each other?) Or is this something you can do with a Cleric, within the official campaign setting, with the aforementioned point that you must select a single patron deity as the actual source of your spells and domains, but can still honor the others you also choose to follow?
(BTW-- I think this would still be a better solution for explaining Clerics who belong to the GodClaw order, than the idea that Clerics within the order are strict monotheists in their personal practice-- although one still has to understand why five such different deities tolerate such a close relationship between their worshippers)
Well seeker, in 3.5 it gave the choice of clerics having a deity they worshipped or not. To quote the players handbook:"Some clerics devote themselves not to a god but to a cause or a
source of divine power. These characters wield magic the way clerics
devoted to individual gods do, but they are not associated with any
religious institution or any particular practice of worship. A cleric
devoted to good and law, for example, may be on friendly terms with
the clerics of lawful and good deities and may extol the virtues of a
good and lawful life, but he is not a functionary in a church
hierarchy." (page 30, under religion)
Besides, What if its a tribe of kobold clerics in a frozen wasteland who worship fire and protection to keep themselves warm and trade with their monstrous counterparts. Who knows what the history of the tribe has been to begin or maintain something like this. In this sort of situation, how would the kobolds learn about individual deity worship? The gods send images and messages to them from out of the blue? I'm sure being gods is alot to handle despite being all powerful and all that jazz. Can't see any of them relaxing or taking a break in celestial beach paradise. Deity says:"I'm going away for just a month. Need a break and all that." Divine spell-casting for that particular religion goes wonky for thirty days. Church of opposing religion realises this in the second week and goes on massive spring cleaning activites. The consequences. Yeowtch.
Well seeker, in 3.5 it gave the choice of clerics having a deity they worshipped or not.
Has nothing to do with anything I said. The 3.5 Pathfinder Chronicle setting book was what I was talking about. That book has class entries for each class talking about how they are dealt with inside the setting. The cleric is the only divine class in that book which does not talk about god-less options. The 3.5 PHB class entry has nothing to do with setting rules or what I was talking about.
Another sweet one, Vudra has thousands of gods. Check what has been written, it is heavily influenced by polytheistic India, but in a land with thousands of gods, and a polytheistic people, polytheism gives no power to clerics.
-_-
Borrow a polytheistic culture, borrow from the real world religion of Hinduism, but only say monotheism works. These decisions on the game world are starting to feel very western and a little racist, i.e. clerics must worship one god or you get nothing as a cleric.
:(
Each of the thousand gods have clerics or oracles or ya know priest (which can be any class) or druids or inquisitors.
Cleric as it stands in pathfinder is not a Hindu concept anyhow. A cleric is a servant of a single god.
|
|
Another sweet one, Vudra has thousands of gods. Check what has been written, it is heavily influenced by polytheistic India, but in a land with thousands of gods, and a polytheistic people, polytheism gives no power to clerics.
-_-
Borrow a polytheistic culture, borrow from the real world religion of Hinduism, but only say monotheism works. These decisions on the game world are starting to feel very western and a little racist, i.e. clerics must worship one god or you get nothing as a cleric.
:(
Last time I checked, Greece and Rome were part of the West.
And I'm no Expert (intellectual).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is exactly it, you have polytheistic cultures, polytheistic organisations, but no polytheistic clerics allowed by canon now.
In 3.5, absolutely in beta (check it if you want), you could have a Hindu polytheistic cleric. They could come from Vudra. In core, yes with a caveat, in the setting now no. And this is with an Indian country right in the setting.
???
It makes very little sense. The rule simplification doesn't work with the cultures of Golarion in play.
Seeker you do know this is like arguing with a wall 3.5 is great at getting entrenched in his side and is hard to dig out. And its becuase he believes in his position whole-heartedly.
3.5 you have to realize that sometimes the guys who write follow up stuff dont realize exactly how stuff works. Remember there was at least on NPC in early pathfinder who used vital strike+sprind attack even though it was assumed everyone knew it wasn't legal.
|
|
That is exactly it, you have polytheistic cultures, polytheistic organisations, but no polytheistic clerics allowed by canon now.
In 3.5, absolutely in beta (check it if you want), you could have a Hindu polytheistic cleric. They could come from Vudra. In core, yes with a caveat, in the setting now no. And this is with an Indian country right in the setting.
???
It makes very little sense. The rule simplification doesn't work with the cultures of Golarion in play.
You're still assuming that Golarion is meant to be a mirror reflection of the real world.
It is not a valid assumption. Vudra =! India.
Thats exactly it. "A cleric is a servant of a single god." I'm trying to point out why allowing the option of not being monotheistic should still be an option. Religious settings of certain nations/cities/military organisations etc, don't actually work unless polytheism is allowed. You could try and stream-line the issue to the extent of only one god for each cleric is allowed and thats it. I am inclined to agree that most clerics wuld tap into their divine power that way. However, there are those who do not go by what is orthodox. Examples of which nation or military organization depending on his option of flexibility to function have been raised. To just deny it and say monotheism is the only option but works for everyone just doesn't make sense. It becomes the issue of "it works for most but how is it working out for the minority?" I remember in earlier third ed where the option of not worshipping a deity was extrapolated to the paladin. Hence giving rise to the paladin of tyranny/freedom and so on. Divine servants who devoted their lives to a cause, not an all powerful god or goddess. Good times. Cool times.