Regarding the guy playing the cleric in your game who seems to be making a character at odds with the rest of the group. I would be very concerned about this as a GM. I see my main job as GM to make sure everyone is having fun, the only real way to have bad fun is to be having your fun at the expense of the other players fun. The comments about this guy make me think that might be the road he is going down.
I would explain this to him and explain that while he has a very cool character concept it doesn't fit with this group so he will need to come up with one that does work with the group and story being told. It isn't mean to do this as it will make everyone have more fun in the long run (including him), though he may be resentful at first. Still... nip probs in the but early and you don't have to deal with things like him getting mad at the other players for killing his PC or him hindering them at every turn (things like the Pally can't hang with someone doing evil things like raising dead even if the caster retains his neutral alignment).
Sean Mahoney
Interestingly enough he seems to have come to this conclusion on his own...either that or he realized he wouldn't be able to do any actual necromancy until level 6 or 7 as a cleric. He basically decided that he did want to be a cleric and the party was going to be in desperate need of a healer so he was switching concepts until Skull and Shackles comes out.
What the party has ended up being is this
1.) LG Human Male Paladin of Erastil
2.) LN Human Male Ronin Samurai
3.) N Human Male Blade Bound Magus
4.) LN Human Male Wizard of the Univeralist School
5.) ? ? ? Cleric of (probably Abadar or Erastil but could be Desna)
6.) ? ? ? Oracle or Martial Artist Monk
As you can see the necromancer (FOR SCIENCE!) cleric as we were calling it colloquially wouldn't have lasted long so its all for the best.
Most of the time my group is pretty amicable with each other but every so often one of them gets the bright idea they want to screw with the party, those characters normally never make it to the table unless the entire group agrees and conseqences of stupid actions are well known to all.
Currently most of them are more worried about what that black blade is going to want to do if it takes over the Magus...
Creative Director
|
But the concept of a cleric thinking they're worshiping Deity 1 when in fact they're actually getting spells from Deity 2 is relatively nonsensical in my mind.You should totally google "Pelor of the Burning Hate."
Heh...
Yeah, I might actually have been one of the first folks to publicly point out that when they captioned the picture of Jozan casting a symbol that it was a symbol of pain that he was an evil cleric. That's a good example of someone captioning a picture without actually bothering to look at the rules connotations of what they're saying, unfortunately.
I'm not ready to reverse my stance based on an error in a caption, though!
Actually, this brings up a point - does the cleric (PC) have to know which deity his spells come from? I was going to convert over some Kalamar adventures, and Norgorber looks just like the sort of deity who would fake being another to lead an errant cleric further astray...
[edit]
In the sense that the cleric gets cut off from their spells, and Norgorber starts granting them. The cleric goes "it must be cool, I'm still getting spells", and continues their behavior until their alignment changes. Norgorber gets a good laugh, and takes a soul phone picture of the surprised look on the cleric's face and posts it on the deity-astral-web, or whatever they use.
[/edit]Yes, a cleric knows where his spells come from.
The best option to play a divine spellcaster who isn't sure where their spells come from is, again, an oracle. In fact, this is a PERFECT choice for this type of character, since oracles get things called "mysteries" in the first place.
But the concept of a cleric thinking they're worshiping Deity 1 when in fact they're actually getting spells from Deity 2 is relatively nonsensical in my mind.
Aslan, to a Calormene knight who had dedicated himself to the service of Tash, in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle: "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any mans swear by Tash and keeps his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves, and by Tash his deed is accepted."
But the concept of a cleric thinking they're worshiping Deity 1 when in fact they're actually getting spells from Deity 2 is relatively nonsensical in my mind.Aslan, to a Calormene knight who had dedicated himself to the service of Tash, in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle: "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any mans swear by Tash and keeps his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves, and by Tash his deed is accepted."
On the other hand, neither Tash nor Aslan granted the knight spells. And C.S. Lewis's stance only makes sense in a theology where there is only one true God. Everything either belongs to Christ or the Devil. I'm not certain that applies to a world where there are many Gods with overlapping domains of authority. You can't say that all war belongs to the war god when there are four or five legitimate war gods.
Aslan, to a Calormene knight who had dedicated himself to the service of Tash, in C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle: "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any mans swear by Tash and keeps his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves, and by Tash his deed is accepted."
Hmm... its an interesting comparison but not necessarily valid, a cleric in pathfinder by definition is someone who directly communes with their deity to gain the ability to work magic, perform miracles what have you.
The Calormene Knight who had been taught that Aslan was evil and Tash was good due to his society, he literally did not know any better he also gains no power or ability from the deity he chooses to follow. He also had no direct contact with them until the end unlike a cleric who is in touch constantly with their deity.
In Narnia the only persons who ever explicitly derived authority of any kind from a diety were the Kings and Queens of Narnia and Archenland who were placed on the thrones by Aslan personally (which would be Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, Caspian and his Son as well as Frank the Cabman and his wife from Magicians Apprentice. All of whom had frequent direct contact with Aslan.
(edit: due to long winded response ninja'd by deinol)
|
First I think you fail to understand the differences between Pantheons and the gods of Galarion. A Pantheon is a group of gods that are strongly connected to one another and usually related by blood or marriage. The Gods of Galarion are not - they have rarely reasons to cooperate in any meaningful way, they most certainly don't live together in a place and are not a family. There is no father that keeps them from killing one another, and some gods wouldn't hesitate to do just that, if given a chance. So your players would try to worship something that doesn't exist.
Second, I have to disagree; it's certainly easier to expand something than to restrict it. Especially in the case of gods, since a) gods can ascend at any time and so you could add a new god to fill whatever role/domain combination you need easily and b) there are many additional gods that are just not worshiped to a significant degree in the Inner Sea region - and you're very likely to meet a lot of those faiths as this campaign goes on. It does force players to 'bow to the preconceptions of the designers concerning how gods, domains, alignments and such must interact', but that's why you buy campaign settings and such in the first place! If you wanted to design all that for yourself, you'd play a home-brew world and only import certain parts of adventures that you'd think would fit and be interesting.
I understand your take on this but I do not completely agree with it.
Even if the gods themselves have deep-seated hatreds, the common peasant of the Inner Sea just has to live his life in a world where every one of the Great Gods can influence his life. Thus he will pray to the Good Gods to get their favor and propitiate the Evil Ones just so that they don't decide to inflict their brand of misery on him and his loved ones. In fact, he might sometimes ask the same Evil Gods to harass his enemies.
But as a peasant, he does not know how to properly pay respects to all the Gods. Which is why a Cleric of all Gods, who knows the proper way to adress all of them does have a place in Golarion IMO.
After all, which is better for a God ? A faithful peasant who believes in their power, even if he also respect the power of their divine enemies or a faithless one who does not truly worship anything ?
Moreover I get your remark on the campaign settings, but I was talking about the proposed change in the CRB itself.
And my problem with it is not if I am the GM. But when I am a player and the GM does not feel like putting time in accomodating my wishes, I will have a far easier time convincing him to at least consider it if it is explicitely allowed by the CRB (as it currently is) than if it is explicitely forbidden.
Just having a look at how many people are censuring PC's concepts on these very boards (such as the proposed Cleric of the Whispering Way / Urgathoa in the above posts) due to what is in the RAW is enough to convince me that explicitely allowing a possibility in the CRB is far better for the diversity (and fun) of the game than forbidding it.
A further note is that he would prefer a deity who's favored weapon would be a bludgeoning type (just a personal preference I think).
Doesn't Apsu favor the quarterstaff in those few cases that his cleric doesn't have a breath weapon? I liked draconic deities a lot in 3.5, and as a LG deity he should have paladins, I think. A draconic-themed paladin could be an interesting fit for that adventure.