|
Also, dude, Beckett, this thread is totally for you!
Now I see. I had kept wondering why you pointed me to a thread I was in, but now I see it isn't the same one (by the date). Not to long ago, the same issue came up (Juju Zombies = not evil undead, which was then stomped on), for pages and pages, and James' responce didn't really answer anything there either except it was his preference, (though the issue was inconcistancies with alignment and Undead = Evil so Palidans don't cry going way back to 3.0).
First: by virtue of its polytheistic nature, Pathfinder inherently prohibits a true Monistic and accurate Monotheistic belief structure. These are things it denies already just by being itself. I wouldn't worry too much about it denying a few other "real world" things, too. That happens.
Not sure how you mean this, but within the setting, the Church of Razmiran is completely monotheistic. They teach that all the other "gods", are false and liers, they don't exist, or are outsiders just duping people. (not in the super powerful outsiders that also immortal and also happens to have the power to grant magic and pull off miracles at will Outsiders, just normal celestial and fiendish beings).
A few other places or occurences of the happen. I think Nadar is also almost completely strictly monotheistic.
Re: PFS, well... yes, it does. But there are many, many things that are prohibited in PFS, and this, by far, is one of the least. Prohibiting things is pretty much what PFS does, so that everyone is relatively balanced for the challenges faced.
True. The big difference I think is that PFS is fairly conscistant with their rules and for the most part pretty evenly amongst classes and the purpose is balance (mechanical) which is very much more important than most other games.
Also, dude, Beckett, this thread is totally for you!
Now I see. I had kept wondering why you pointed me to a thread I was in, but now I see it isn't the same one (by the date). Not to long ago, the same issue came up (Juju Zombies = not evil undead, which was then stomped on), for pages and pages, and James' responce didn't really answer anything there either except it was his preference, (though the issue was inconcistancies with alignment and Undead = Evil so Palidans don't cry going way back to 3.0).
Got it! Yeah, the thread I linked was the one I was talking about.
EDIT: and yes, now I remember that other one, I think. I believe you and I both came away feeling similarly about the answers, though, of course, I'm in support of a published Golarion being its own creature (now... I might have even changed position since then!). :)First: by virtue of its polytheistic nature, Pathfinder inherently prohibits a true Monistic and accurate Monotheistic belief structure. These are things it denies already just by being itself. I wouldn't worry too much about it denying a few other "real world" things, too. That happens.
Not sure how you mean this, but within the setting, the Church of Razmiran is completely monotheistic. They teach that all the other "gods", are false and liers, they don't exist, or are outsiders just duping people. (not in the super powerful outsiders that also immortal and also happens to have the power to grant magic and pull off miracles at will Outsiders, just normal celestial and fiendish beings).
A few other places or occurences of the happen. I think Nadar is also almost completely strictly monotheistic.
What I mean is that, while Razmiran claims everyone else is a bunch of liars, they are not accurate. They, themselves, are the liars. That's why I said "true... and accurate", though I admit my wording could definitely be better.
Basically, if people are "correct" in their beliefs, they are prohibited from being either monists or monotheists in Pathfinder. In the same way, any religion other than polytheism in PF is semi-incorrect at the very least. So, I'm not too concerned about PF being "too Judeo-Christian" in its presentation... 'cause it's not in the slightest.
Re: PFS, well... yes, it does. But there are many, many things that are prohibited in PFS, and this, by far, is one of the least. Prohibiting things is pretty much what PFS does, so that everyone is relatively balanced for the challenges faced.
True. The big difference I think is that PFS is fairly conscistant with their rules and for the most part pretty evenly amongst classes and the purpose is balance (mechanical) which is very much more important than most other games.
I suppose, yes. But again, this is just one more facet of that, in relation to how you play things in Golarion. You're literally signing up to play in someone else's game. I don't beg to go over to my friends' house to play their games and then fuss at him when he's got Uno because it's his favorite game. It might not be my favorite game, but I play it and enjoy everything else about it (because it's still a game I enjoy).
PFS is published Golarion, so, you know, your (in a generic, non-specific sense) basically saying, "hey, let me come over and play" and them saying, "yes, please", and then we play what they have. It's a bit more complicated, what with the whole pay-for-service stuff, but it's still more or less what it amounts to.
I think it's totally valid (and I wholly support!) putting our personal spin and opinions on the boards. That way Paizo can look it over and come to a conclusion on their own. But I really don't think they should change it just because I've a few disagreements with their favorite game (read: Campaign Setting or RAW).
EDITED ADDENDUM: ALSO, this completely affects balance. Being able to play a cleric of a Concept (though not the Divine Idea With Limited Scope/Small Pantheon, as you've championed) really does allow one to choose any two domains. This is one thing that completely prohibits that in a non-arbitrary way for the sake of PFS balance. There are other solutions, of course, but I think that's one more reason here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, Golarion had their personal spin published, and then later went back and said all these things ne er happened or don't actually work. As a matter of opinion, I much prefer all the other things to the retconned inconscistant Golarion.
Some of these books are fairly recent too, so the issue has been going on for a long, long time.
The thing is, Golarion had their personal spin published, and then later went back and said all these things ne er happened or don't actually work. As a matter of opinion, I much prefer all the other things to the retconned inconscistant Golarion.
Some of these books are fairly recent too, so the issue has been going on for a long, long time.
Very true, and I understand your point. The thing is, Paizo is very much an "in house" publisher - they are professionals, but at the same time, they are kind of a family. They (seem) kind of strained to do all the things they do with the (apparent) numbers on their staff and quick publishing schedule. And communication between authors can be a bit of a limited deal, it seems, at least on occasion.
All that leads to things that James has referred to as "slip through" - something that wasn't really intended, but got in there anyway. The Juju Oracle is a totally perfect example of this.
Now, does such a thing mean that these mistakes are bad? No. In fact, I totally approve of Paizo (purposefully or not) allowing such "slip throughs" to happen. Because it opens up new vistas and worlds unexplored. I also totally approve of Paizo (and James in particular, considering it's kind of his job) of "going back" on such things, and FAQing/Errataing those suckers out of existence... in Golarion as a published setting. But not in all Golarions (like yours or mine).
ALSO: I edited a thing in my last post. It's a weak point, by all counts, but it's something that bears consideration.
One concept that this does not allow, and that I don't think any other class could really pull off either is the Dualist Cleric (priest).
A Cleric with say the Sun and Darkness Domains, or Sun and Moon in 3E.
The separatist archetype from Ultimate Magic would work, although admittedly the "heretical domain" is weaker than the domain shared by other clerics of the separatists's deity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I persoanlly just don't like the way Oracles or Druids play. Like TMZ mentioned I wish they'd just combine Cleric and Oracle.
Oddly enough, I don't much like the way Clerics, Druids, and Wizards usually play. I wouldn't mind seeing some of these classes rolled up into one with archetypes or options to provide different tracks (although I don't expect it to be done in official PF anytime soon), but I really prefer spontaneous casters to the 'prepared' casters in play (other than the limitation of delays in when you get each higher level of spell). Oh, and the Oracle's revelations are much cooler than the Cleric's domain powers. :)
But that is personal preference, not that either one of us is wrong.
One I love is a secret 4th faction of the Eagle Knights of Andoran, specifically priests without deities, that focus on watching out for corruption within Andoran, but also that Andoran's higher ideals do not become a form of tyrrany against any form of faith. That their crusade against superstition doesn't destroy the good things that come from such (home remedies, culture, beliefs, a Lich's favorate hiding spot, or whatever riddles might come into play). The deitiless part is because the society would not want to show favor to a deity/faith over others.Good Necromancer Cleric similar to the Juju Oracle. A Cleric that raises the fallen to continue the fight a little longer, or invests corpses with the souls of trusted allies and ancestors, or something along those lines.
The idea of Clerics of a Faction. Andoran, the Silver Crusade, and Osirion scream that to me. That is to say individual so fanatical about the ideals of their faction that that is their power source.
Many religions that either do not have any deities, or that deities are not pertinent to the faith. Buddism, is a prime example. Many eastern faiths. Many "primitive" faiths.
I don't mind, for example Oracles or Druids also being able to be priests of these things with Clerics. Sometimes that makes perfect sense. It's the "instead of" that causes problems for me.
Also note, I completely agree. The official ruling, dispite how much I hate it and how many issues it raises, is not going to affect me or my home games one bit. It does, however, affect things like PFS.
All of the above ideas are interesting. The problem with each of them in Golarion is that in Golarion, the power of a Cleric does not come from personal faith and devotion, it comes from the Patron that is granting you a small portion of her power. For a Cleric of the Eagle Knights, a Cleric of one of the Factions, or for that matter, from a "Deity-less" Religion-- if the way the particular setting/world works is that a conscious, active personality-power (aka, one of the Deities) grants the Cleric's power-- what Deity is really behind the power of Clerics of each of the above organizations? And why is the deity giving power to Clerics who don't give her homage?
Or, should Clerics really be just like Arcane casters-- the power actually comes from within, so, as long you're devoted enough, it doesn't matter if there's an actual Deity in existence to grant you your powers? These are the problems with 'official' Golarion, that need to be answered.
Of course, it's also occurred to me, that it doesn't matter if Inquisitor, Oracle, and Paladin characters do not have a Patron Deity-- the way Golarion seems to work, one or more Deities is actually behind their powers anyway, whether the character knows it or not, in Golarion (not that that has any direct effect on play though). Druids are different in that, somehow, Druids derive their magic by being able to draw on the power of Nature itself (which is, in the game universe, a real and potent existing source of magic-- Druids do not get their magic from nowhere. This says to me that in Golarion ALL Druids are essentially members of the Green Faith, whether they admit to themselves or not (or even if they use different terms than 'Green Faith' to describe their beliefs and their ties to Nature-- a Druid with a Patron Deity is still really calling on Nature, not the Deity, for his power even though he may not recognize that fact).
I have observed (from comments in other threads) that you can still be a Godclaw Cleric-- you have to pick one of the Deities that supports the Godclaw as your Patron, but you can still offer homage to all five, and can still serve the order as a whole. Mechanically it's a difference-- gotta pick one deity, use their domains (in play it may affect your alignment and divine instructions a little, depending on which one you pick)-- but in play and as far as the character is concerned, it should be similar in execution to the polytheistic Godclaw priest you originally envisioned. If the Eagle Knights specifically require that you cannot be personally sworn to a Divine Patron in addition to being an Eagle Knight, I guess that does rule out Eagle Knight Clerics in official Golarion.
Personally, I don't disagree with your ideas-- this is a recap of where the conflict is with official Golarion's/PFS play's view of how the Divine powers (particularly Clerical ones) work.
One thing I'd really like to see (and I think someone else has already mentioned it) would be some more archetypes for the Cleric class-- perhaps a few that modified the class to make a polytheist with multiple patrons, a pantheist, or a 'concept' Cleric. I think you could probably write some archetypes that would set in particular flavor and requirements such that it wouldn't disrupt the 'official' course of Faiths in Golarion.
One concept that this does not allow, and that I don't think any other class could really pull off either is the Dualist Cleric (priest).
A Cleric with say the Sun and Darkness Domains, or Sun and Moon in 3E.
I remember those. Sun and Moon Clerics were pretty cool... on the other hand, there is that 'story' based problem (not just mechanical) in official Golarion: who is granting them their powers?
|
|
The Greco-Roman comparison is also a bit off, especially with the Roman one, because in Rome the head of every household was a minor priest who would lead the worship of whatever gods the household worshiped even if it was some minor figure whose only identity was that it was the figurine over the door inherited from your grandfather or great-grandfather. There were some cults that enjoyed a dose of popularity over others, by Christ's time, the classical Gods had been largely bypassed in the military rank and file by the Cult of Mithras who would be Early Christianity's only significant competitor during the First Century, the classical gods having long fallen out of general favor, but still invoked every now and then, their temples being maintained mainly from cultural inertia.
I think other faiths still persisted among the general population for longer than you think-- especially the cult of divinity of the Emperors (yes, that sort of thing was happening in Rome). However, while each Head of Household was a minor priest as you say... the Priests who still presided over significant Temples (not just household shrines) were each dedicated to the God or Goddess of the Temple. I may still be off here-- I'm a lot more solid in my studies of Norse/Germanic and Celtic Pagan religions than I am on Greco-Roman beliefs).
(although a lot of Roman Cults of the later but still pre-Constantine Empire were rather monotheistic in practice-- Mithras sometimes among them)
|
|
I think the trouble your having is that "priest" (and similar titles/social classes/groups) have awide variety of meaning and import (in the real world). Many politheistic cultures would simply either combine or add to their own faiths, and from what we know, a priest to a single sources (in the sence that it relates to the cleric = 1 god) is very uncommon.
Not saying they didn't happen, but typically the pantheon or a group of deities is worshiped equally, and attributed worthiness based on what they have power over. It is very rare that a priest<ess> is devoted to a single deity, but there are examples that stand out, like the virgin temples of Apollo and Artemeties, but these are generlly more of an asthetic choice rather than I worship this deity specifically. More like, I join this monastic order which happens to be dedicated to a patron.
The Cleric class itself is based on a divine-style (ie religious or faith based) warrior, not a single diety worshiping priest.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trouble your having is that "priest" (and similar titles/social classes/groups) have awide variety of meaning and import (in the real world). Many politheistic cultures would simply either combine or add to their own faiths, and from what we know, a priest to a single sources (in the sence that it relates to the cleric = 1 god) is very uncommon.
Not saying they didn't happen, but typically the pantheon or a group of deities is worshiped equally, and attributed worthiness based on what they have power over. It is very rare that a priest<ess> is devoted to a single deity, but there are examples that stand out, like the virgin temples of Apollo and Artemeties, but these are generlly more of an asthetic choice rather than I worship this deity specifically. More like, I join this monastic order which happens to be dedicated to a patron.
The Cleric class itself is based on a divine-style (ie religious or faith based) warrior, not a single diety worshiping priest.
What I was thinking is that a Roman head of household was not a good example for Clerical practice in game, even though said head of household is a minor priest of sorts.
I think the trouble we are all having in this discussion is that it is all very well to discuss real-world beliefs and religions, and real historical religious practices; and we can discuss the various things drawn from history that had some influence on the game designers who created the Cleric (and have pushed its development throughout the game's history); but there is no real-world example (not now, not in history) that actually lines up with what a Cleric is supposed to be in the game.
The Cleric is a fictional construct-- it's not exactly a priest quite like any modern or historical priest of any real world religion (though it's not entirely unlike that), it's loosely based on "certain religious orders of knighthood" (as stated in AD&D 1E-- the original little booklets don't explain what it's from) but does not precisely match any religious fighting order; and (to the best of my knowledge anyway) no religion, faith, or presumed deity has been able to empower any of its believers with such strong and flashy magical powers to heal the sick and wounded and smite the unholy.
We keep dragging in historical concepts and usages, but none of it's really going to fit. That doesn't mean it's pointless to discuss the ideas, or look to them for inspiration-- just that it's useless for any of us to reach to a real-world example as something usable as proof for how Clerics (or any other divine casters) should or should not work in the game.
|
|
It's like saying the 300 spartans didn't actually exist in any fashion like the movie, so lets not let people play a Fighter based off of them.
There are real world fantasy basis though, for both. There are no Witchs or Gunslingers in the real world, no grit, etc. . .
So we are left with what should make the most sense and allow for the most fun and options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like saying the 300 spartans didn't actually exist in any fashion like the movie, so lets not let people play a Fighter based off of them.
That wasn't what I meant. Sorry if it came off that way.
There are real world fantasy basis though, for both. There are no Witchs or Gunslingers in the real world, no grit, etc. . .So we are left with what should make the most sense and allow for the most fun and options.
I think it's good to draw on both real world sources and fictional ones for inspiration. However, I was pointing to the way the discussion was going, as several different people (including me) were pointing to real-world examples (that aren't exact fits) and saying something like "it should work this way in game", as if the real-world example provides proof for some sort of 'one-true-path' interpretation to apply to game reality-- when we're discussing fiction/fantasy within a game, so there is no "one right way" to do it, and the real-world examples neither prove nor disprove the concepts each of us has for how Clerics should or should not work in our games. The ideas are worth discussing, but a lot of it is still going to boil down to matters of opinion and preference, rather than right or wrong ways to play the game.
More often than not in a game, I'm in agreement with your final point here, doing what makes sense and allows for the most fun. I do however, also buy James Jacobs's point (expressed much earlier in the thread and also expressed elsewhere-- as I understand it), that a particular setting is also defined by what it excludes as much as by what it includes-- so I can see your points about expanding the options available to clerics, but I can also see the counter-points for limiting them in Golarion.
"Official" Golarion has already set the way it's going to be, and I don't think we're going to influence them much-- although I've found enough room in their interpretations to not have any problems with it.
I would like to clarify something: when I speak of (and point to) "real-world" things, I do not, in any way, intend to show that's "the only way". Point in fact, that is the opposite of what I am doing: I am showing why the game world can have the strictures and limitations that it does, not why it must.
But Beckett? There are totally witches and gunslingers in the real world. They don't have classes, like the game world, but the reason those names are iconic is because they are terms used by a group or type about itself or by society about a group or type. They did (and do) exist, even now. Just not in game terms.
The thing is: the way they function in the game, does not line up with the way they function in real life, which I think is your point. But this kind of aligns with what I'm saying: as opposed to the "but you're cheesing off real-world religions!", I'm indicating, "nothing in the game perfectly aligns with real-world religions/functions/philosophies/etc - stuff can be inspired by such things, but still be different from them; that means in your home game, change stuff as you like, but in the published Golarion, it functions the way it's been stated."
|
|
But Beckett? There are totally witches and gunslingers in the real world. They don't have classes, like the game world, but the reason those names are iconic is because they are terms used by a group or type about itself or by society about a group or type. They did (and do) exist, even now. Just not in game terms.
The thing is: the way they function in the game, does not line up with the way they function in real life, which I think is your point. But this kind of aligns with what I'm saying: as opposed to the "but you're cheesing off real-world religions!", I'm indicating, "nothing in the game perfectly aligns with real-world religions/functions/philosophies/etc - stuff can be inspired by such things, but still be different from them; that means in your home game, change stuff as you like, but in the published Golarion, it functions the way it's been stated."
I was referring to this portion from Mr/Mrs Finn K. . .
The Cleric is a fictional construct-- it's not exactly a priest quite like any modern or historical priest of any real world religion (though it's not entirely unlike that), it's loosely based on "certain religious orders of knighthood" (as stated in AD&D 1E-- the original little booklets don't explain what it's from) but does not precisely match any religious fighting order; and (to the best of my knowledge anyway) no religion, faith, or presumed deity has been able to empower any of its believers with such strong and flashy magical powers to heal the sick and wounded and smite the unholy.
Same goes for Witches and Gunslingers, (just pulled two up, could have been Wizrads and Druids, Spellcasting Rangers, whatever). They also don't exist, but there are some things in the real world that they are based off of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good point is being made by Finn that the cleric (and all classes) are a fictional construct. So if fictional priests of one god can have the powers of the cleric, why can't the fictional priests of many gods have the powers of a cleric? The oracle is not the same thing, it doesn't have the right fluff or exactly represent what we are talking about. The oracle is not even a mountain-mystic or contemplative of the many divines or specific domains, they are simply chosen, juiced up, slightly damaged by the encounter. They could be a clerical sub-class, it doesn't even need or especially deserve to be a whole new class. The fluff is very wishy-washy I was chosen, stuff which we have heard before. It gets away from the worshipper and honest devotee which we are discussing.
I especially don't like the push of the Great Old One clerics to being followers of one now and not the collective. The Great old ones are slumbering, not active and awake like other gods, and it even states they don't care how their power is used, or by whom (they certainly have a hands off approach to dictating what their followers do or do not do, and this makes sense with them being asleep), so they are not as opposed to blending their powers with other old ones, through clerics as the other gods. The cultists, as we shall call them, were of one apocalyptic doom and gloom belief system, with multiple gods within it, which led to it having more than a few domains, and much potential for the facets to expanded out. However, as it was presented, the sleeping old ones were in a sense allied, their worshippers did not worship just one, they want the end to come and the old gods to awake, so these small forces of evil were not cast as separate or competing. The clerics of this were united by the idea of the end, of awakening the great alien gods, and not being just like the other main golarion faiths, followers of one, pretty strictly controlled, watched and active in politics and communities. The clerics of the multiple old ones, were different.
This fiction, these fictional clerics had their situation described, who they were, what they stood for. Then because of a rule change, they can no longer be like that, and the clerics of the slumbering old ones, get broken up into followers of this or that old one. But this wasn't what they were before, and the powers that sustain them are not like what is common in golarion--they don't seem to be competing with eachother at all, the old cults are a hidden power, but not so fragmented as the religions of golarion. Maybe if they woke up fully, this would change, but the clerics of the old ones were worshippers of alien powers and forces, a number of great sleeping deities in the dark tapestry, with a number of domains to draw upon. This got changed to worshippers of one sleeping god, but, not a great deal of new material has been presented on the old cults and the clerics of each old one. It got changed, but doesn't yet really work, because it hasn't yet added or replaced the back-story it is trying to move beyond.
It was the same with the godclaw. Change how it works, change the clerics and how it is put together, go against the backstory. To make everything cleric-related, the same.