|
Chris, your human Paladin of Torag is just a reincarned Darven Paladin if Torag that does not know it.
The Calistrian Temple in Egorian would be a hard thing to Pull of because the Hellknights would find out about it and go and smite the crap out of it and would not care in theslightest if the temple had a corupt noble patron as the Hellkninghts would root him or her out and put them to a public painful death for their blastfaous actions and they would not suffer any diety of chaos to take root in Egorian.
|
goodness - LazarX, you seem to be very negative today. I figure it would be fun challange to build a character that was very useful, and vital part of a team (and I am always a team player).
Part of being a team is doing your job well. If you're a cleric and you can't cast spells, heal, channel energy, or use domain abilities you're going to suck at it.
If you're making yourself into a meat shield or melee combatant you will be horrible at it compared to a fighter or even a rogue.
|
|
part of my original post was the question of just what cleric abilities a cleric of a dead god has
What would a cleric of a dead god loose - exactly?
I would have responded better to posts listing the issues with being the cleric of a dead god would be more helpful than just one giving an evaluation of my abilities to be a team playe
This is a list of the issues-----> if you're a cleric (without a god) you can't cast spells, heal, channel energy, or use domain abilities
That leaves you with a 3/4 bab, d8 Hit dice , Light and medium armor proficiency, simple weapon proficiency, 2 measley skill points per level and proficiency with your deities weapon. I don't think you can make a decent character out of that.
It might be fun to try to build (and maybe even run) one of these clerics.
I think it would be too, but i think Cleric is the wrong class to do it with.
Many of my characters are unusual builds. This would just be another. And very much in the setting.
I can sympathize. My rogue is a druid.
I don't think its enough to make a build interesting or effective. I think a build should be BOTH.
nosig,
For PFS play you cannot have any levels as a cleric of Aroden because he is a dead god and not legal for play. What you could do is say your character was maybe in training to be a cleric of Aroden when he died BEFORE your character became a 1st level adventurer. But there is no such class as "former cleric of a dead god", so there is no way to have any levels in that, especially since all characters are started at 1st level and everything has to be current.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with Enevhar. While there are characters who still worship Aroden, and there's even a trait for them, if someone showed up to my table claiming to have a "cleric of Aroden" or a "cleric of Razmir" or a "cleric of Curchanus", I'd ask him what class the character really was, because cleric wouldn't be a legal choice.
If the player were new, and didn't understand the world, I'd explain that Aroden hasn't been granting spells for over a century now, and we'd find a legal deity for the character to worship.
And, nosig, to your questions:
1) No. An ex-cleric is a character who has broken a relationship with a legitimate deity. An cleric of a dead god is something else.
2) Not without UMD, because there are no spells on the character's spell list
3) No.
|
|
I agree with Enevhar. While there are characters who still worship Aroden, and there's even a trait for them, if someone showed up to my table claiming to have a "cleric of Aroden" or a "cleric of Razmir" or a "cleric of Curchanus", I'd ask him what class the character really was, because cleric wouldn't be a legal choice.
If the player were new, and didn't understand the world, I'd explain that Aroden hasn't been granting spells for over a century now, and we'd find a legal deity for the character to worship.
And, nosig, to your questions:
1) No. An ex-cleric is a character who has broken a relationship with a legitimate deity. An cleric of a dead god is something else.
2) Not without UMD, because there are no spells on the character's spell list
3) No.
This seems to be factually correct on all three for PFS PCs. As far as NPCs go, though, I don't think it would be impossible to see an elven Ex-Cleric of Aroden in a scenario or other Paizo product who was a cleric since before Aroden's death and refused to switch over to Iomedae, with the same lost class features as a cleric who grossly violated her deity's code.
nosig,
It has been mentioned before in past threads, but a paladin of Aroden is legal because a paladin does not have to get his powers directly from a deity. It would also be an interesting concept to play an oracle who believes he gets his powers from Aroden and that Aroden is still secretly alive, maybe because he has "looked into the future and seen Aroden there." Heh, a multi-class of the two could be really wacky. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Some faiths, however, are forbidden under pain of torture and execution. These include the worship of any god of chaos..."
That one's easy. Calistria is a goddess and is thus exempt. :)
More seriously, a cleric of Calistria in Egorian is asking for trouble from some chaos detecting and smiting Hellknights. Honestly, guaranteed conflict like that sounds like fun.
A cleric of Calistria in Westcrown is likely ignored unless they create a disturbance. Also, no one would dare bother with them since the temple priestesses, if they're savvy (and you can bet that they would be), have enough blackmail material on any number of influential nobles so as to make their continued existence tolerated. Hell hath no fury like a Calistrian scorned.
Another thing about Westcrown is that it has laws that forbid secular groups from harming temples. Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing. That's sufficient to keep the dottari and Hellknights away as they have easier, lower hanging fruit to fry.
Characters who do not receive powers from
a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no
deity at all.-I think that means that paladins, who do require a divine source, need a deity.
Nope, paladins on Golarion are not required to pick a deity. I will have to dig out the quotes from the ISWG again, but it has also been posted many times by James Jacobs, the creator or Golarion, that it is legal for a paladin to not follow a deity. There is even a paladin archetype that requires a paladin to choose a deity, and that would not exist if that was already a requirement of the class.
|
|
Huh. you're right.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/campaignSet ting/general/whichGodsHavePaladins&page=3&source=search#126
In any event, paladins receive their powers not from a deity, but from their own convictions in their code. They often WORSHIP a deity simply because many deities have paladin orders that specifically serve them, but unlike clerics, paladins do not actually receive their powers directly from their deity.
_______
More directly
Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.
Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.
I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.
__________
I think this is the quote that causes the confusion
Paladins don't have to worship deities... but since they cast divine spells, they can't be atheists.Linky
|
|
I agree with Enevhar. While there are characters who still worship Aroden, and there's even a trait for them, if someone showed up to my table claiming to have a "cleric of Aroden" or a "cleric of Razmir" or a "cleric of Curchanus", I'd ask him what class the character really was, because cleric wouldn't be a legal choice.
If the player were new, and didn't understand the world, I'd explain that Aroden hasn't been granting spells for over a century now, and we'd find a legal deity for the character to worship.
And, nosig, to your questions:
1) No. An ex-cleric is a character who has broken a relationship with a legitimate deity. An cleric of a dead god is something else.
2) Not without UMD, because there are no spells on the character's spell list
3) No.
Just curious, would a character introducing himself as a "priest of Aroden" rather than a "cleric of Aroden" be ok at one of your tables, such as the ranger priest of Aroden mentioned earlier.
Would you accept a non-cleric character describing themself as a "priest of X", or would you try to pull the "No, you are actually Y and everyone except you knows it." I'm really not sure what the problem is with this since you can desrcribe your character as something that is not literally your class. A barbarian can call themself a "warrior" or "mighty fighter" even if they belong to neither class, likewise a cleric call call themselves a "humble monk", even if they do not have levels in the monk class. I'm not sure why this case is different and you are forced to describe your character literally.
Of course I tend to think that some people take the no reskinning or reflavoring rule way too far and unnecessarily impede people's creative and fun ideas with it. Obviously many people think differently. On the other hand, I might have just misunderstood what you mean.
|
|
I agree with Enevhar. While there are characters who still worship Aroden, and there's even a trait for them, if someone showed up to my table claiming to have a "cleric of Aroden" or a "cleric of Razmir" or a "cleric of Curchanus", I'd ask him what class the character really was, because cleric wouldn't be a legal choice.
If the player were new, and didn't understand the world, I'd explain that Aroden hasn't been granting spells for over a century now, and we'd find a legal deity for the character to worship.
And, nosig, to your questions:
1) No. An ex-cleric is a character who has broken a relationship with a legitimate deity. An cleric of a dead god is something else.
2) Not without UMD, because there are no spells on the character's spell list
3) No.
Just curious, would a character introducing himself as a "priest of Aroden" rather than a "cleric of Aroden" be ok at one of your tables, such as the ranger priest of Aroden mentioned earlier.
Would you accept a non-cleric character describing themself as a "priest of X", or would you try to pull the "No, you are actually Y and everyone except you knows it." I'm really not sure what the problem is with this since you can desrcribe your character as something that is not literally your class. A barbarian can call themself a "warrior" or "mighty fighter" even if they belong to neither class, likewise a cleric call call themselves a "humble monk", even if they do not have levels in the monk class. I'm not sure why this case is different and you are forced to describe your character literally.
Of course I tend to think that some people take the no reskinning or reflavoring rule way too far and unnecessarily impede people's creative and fun ideas with it. Obviously many people think differently. On the other hand, I might have just misunderstood what you mean.
I actually had a similar discussion with a fellow GM the other day. While it is true that for generically named martial classes like "fighter" or "warrior", it would be hard to claim that those of that particular class have ownership over the term, it does seem with spellcasting classes that there is precedent for the terminology being used in-world for the purpose of reasoning about fellow casters. You can even see this in Prince of Wolves, when Varian Jeggare holds his tongue on the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer to avoid a faux pas with his Ustalavic host.
The discussion in question was about a time when the Wizard and Bard PC, on encountering an NPC that ignorant villagers had called a "witch", asked her what her patron was in an effort to see if she could be trusted (i.e. to determine if she had a sketchy patron). She indicated that she had no patron and knew her spells innately, at which point the PCs (not the players but the characters) turned to each other and said "Ohhh, she's not a witch, she's a sorcerer!" The debate was whether they were acting appropriately in-character or not. I referenced the Jeggare quote there as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just curious, would a character introducing himself as a "priest of Aroden" rather than a "cleric of Aroden" be ok at one of your tables, such as the ranger priest of Aroden mentioned earlier.Would you accept a non-cleric character describing themself as a "priest of X", or would you try to pull the "No, you are actually Y and everyone except you knows it." I'm really not sure what the problem is with this since you can desrcribe your character as something that is not literally your class. A barbarian can call themself a "warrior" or "mighty fighter" even if they belong to neither class, likewise a cleric call call themselves a "humble monk", even if they do not have levels in the monk class. I'm not sure why this case is different and you are forced to describe your character literally.
Saint Caleth, your character can call herself a cleric of the living room furniture, but I'm still going to read the character sheet, and if she's taking class levels in Cleric, then she needs to worship a legitimate deity. In the same way, if your character wants to describe herself as "a Duskblade", I'm going to want to see the mechanical underpinnings of that.
This isn't an issue of re-skinning or anything like that. Your character can lie to her fellow pathfinders or hide things from them; you can't do the same to the GM.
You phrased your question as my 'trying to pull' something, and that baffles me. I'm not 'trying to pull' anything at all. I just want to make sure that people at my table are playing legal characters.
Having said all that: there are feats that clerics can take, to be subtle about their prayers, devotions, and spells. (See the Taldor Player's Companion.) Without those feats, a cleric's actual patron deity is obvious to anyone who cares to make a knowledge (religion) check. So, yeah, if your cleric presents an unholy symbol of Urgathoa, most everybody at the table knows whom your PC serves. The same is true of any NPCs your party fights, right?
|
|
I actually had a...
Interesting note from the novels, I have not actually read any of the Golarion fiction. I first thought of this because of the Sorcerer achetype Razmiran Priest, which blurs the line of "priest" always implying a divine spellcaster. I would always let a character use pretty much whatever terms they want to describe their character
This isn't an issue of re-skinning or anything like that. Your character can lie to her fellow pathfinders or hide things from them; you can't do the same to the GM.
You phrased your question as my 'trying to pull' something, and that baffles me. I'm not 'trying to pull' anything at all. I just want to make sure that people at my table are playing legal characters.
Sorry, that did come out more combative than I intended. There was a thread a while ago where someone was basically saying thatthey would not allow a character to describe themselves in different terms than it literally said on their character sheet in the interest of following the no reskinning rule. I think the specific example was a pantheist Elven cleric, who obviously has to pick a single god on their character sheet in PFS. This person would essentially make sure to out that character to the other characters as what it said on the sheet, which I feel is completely inappropriate.
Another example of this is the perennially contentious Paladin of Pharasma. If a paladin has no deity written on their sheet (which I don't think they actually need according to the rules) and they follow the strictures of the Pharasman faith in their roleplaying, would you make them write a legal deity down and then would you follow up by calling them out for not following the code of the deity they have on their sheet? That is the sort of thing that I would absolutely let slide, but I understand that not everyone does.
I apologize though, since I'm pretty sure it was not you that said that and I should not have gotten heated about that in response to you.
|
|
Interesting note from the novels, I have not actually read any of the Golarion fiction. I first thought of this because of the Sorcerer achetype Razmiran Priest, which blurs the line of "priest" always implying a divine spellcaster. I would always let a character use pretty much whatever terms they want to describe their character
It seems that priests don't have to be divine casters at all. The deity articles included in the back of the 2nd and 5th volumes of each AP often list the typical sorts of priests of various deities, and they sometimes list classes like Bards (for real deities too, not just Razmir).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding pantheist clerics -- Golarion has people who worship the Empyreal Lords as a unit, and people who worship the Four Horsemen, as a unit. The Order of the Godclaw is a Hellknight order that worships a collection of five lawful gods and draws clerical power from either all five of them, or something masquerading -- even to the Order -- as all five of them.
Regarding pantheist clerics -- Golarion has people who worship the Empyreal Lords as a unit, and people who worship the Four Horsemen, as a unit. The Order of the Godclaw is a Hellknight order that worships a collection of five lawful gods and draws clerical power from either all five of them, or something masquerading -- even to the Order -- as all five of them.
Sorry Chris, but James Jacobs has specifically posted that all clerics must select a patron deity, even if they follow one of the groups you listed. There are no pantheist clerics in Golarion. There is also this quote from page 236 of the ISWG:
Clerics who follow a philosophy must select a patron deity among the philosophy’s associated religions (they gain no additional benefits from adherence to a philosophy).
And here is one of James' many posts about the subject:
Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
So even if your cleric is part of one of those Orders or Philosophies, he still gets his powers from one specific deity.
|
|
Regarding pantheist clerics -- Golarion has people who worship the Empyreal Lords as a unit, and people who worship the Four Horsemen, as a unit. The Order of the Godclaw is a Hellknight order that worships a collection of five lawful gods and draws clerical power from either all five of them, or something masquerading -- even to the Order -- as all five of them.Sorry Chris, but James Jacobs has specifically posted that all clerics must select a patron deity, even if they follow one of the groups you listed. There are no pantheist clerics in Golarion. There is also this quote from page 236 of the ISWG:
Clerics who follow a philosophy must select a patron deity among the philosophy’s associated religions (they gain no additional benefits from adherence to a philosophy).And here is one of James' many posts about the subject:
So even if your cleric is part of one of those Orders or Philosophies, he still gets his powers from one specific deity.Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
I would strictly speaking say that only in PFS is there a hardline against clerics who do not map their worship onto a single deity, since in your own home game you can do whatever you want, and it does not matter what the official fluff of Golarion is.
There actually are pantheist clerics of the Elven gods mentioned in Elves of Golarion though, so maybe they went back on that later, I'm not sure. There are also all of the pantheistic spells from Dwarves of Golarion, which are legal in PFS.
Fortunatly the separatist archetype helps out a little bit, so that people can make pantheist/philosophical clerics in all but name now.
Regarding pantheist clerics -- Golarion has people who worship the Empyreal Lords as a unit, and people who worship the Four Horsemen, as a unit. The Order of the Godclaw is a Hellknight order that worships a collection of five lawful gods and draws clerical power from either all five of them, or something masquerading -- even to the Order -- as all five of them.Sorry Chris, but James Jacobs has specifically posted that all clerics must select a patron deity, even if they follow one of the groups you listed. There are no pantheist clerics in Golarion. There is also this quote from page 236 of the ISWG:
Clerics who follow a philosophy must select a patron deity among the philosophy’s associated religions (they gain no additional benefits from adherence to a philosophy).And here is one of James' many posts about the subject:
Clerics in Golarion must select a patron deity.
Oracles are the class that primarily fills the role of a divine spellcaster who doesn't serve a specific deity.
Does Mr. Jacobs actually have the "authority" to directly make rulings for the Pathfinder Society Organized Play?
Saint Caleth, your character can call herself a cleric of the living room furniture, but I'm still going to read the character sheet, and if she's taking class levels in Cleric, then she needs to worship a legitimate deity. In the same way, if your character wants to describe herself as "a Duskblade", I'm going to want to see the mechanical underpinnings of that.
This isn't an issue of re-skinning or anything like that. Your character can lie to her fellow pathfinders or hide things from them; you can't do the same to the GM.
So you would allow a "Cleric of Razmir" per the rules on p. 38 of Inner Sea Magic?
Spoiler:Which for the uninitiated is a type of Sorcerer.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So you would allow a "Cleric of Razmir" per the rules on p. 38 of Inner Sea Magic?
You mean the "Razmiran Priest" archetype? Well, let's take a look at the Additional Resources:
... Other: all magical tattoos on page 16, both the spellscar and outer rifts oracle mysteries on pages 30–31 (the spellscar oracle does not gain access to the eldritch scar, primal mastery, or trigger primal magic event revelations), , with the following restrictions: only elves may be spire defender magi, a tattooed sorcerer may only use her create spell tattoo power during days spent in play (ie. not between scenarios), a vampire hunter inquisitor does not gain the silversmith ability, instead replacing detect alignment with detect undead; the Varisian Pilgrim does not replace her 8th-level domain power with Blessing of the Harrow.
So, it's included in the Additional Resources. What would be the problem?
---+---
Having said that, the archetype has some unaddressed problems in PFS play. One is mechanical: PFS does not distinguish between a divine scroll and an arcane scroll, and the same is true with wands. But Razmiran priests get a bonus to their UMD check if they're trying to use a spell trigger or spell completion item that uses a divine spell. The other is more serious: all Razmiran Priests are agents of Razmir. If you wanted to play a missionary servant of the Living God who spreads his will wherever you go, I'd want to check whether that fervor was going to keep you from completing your Society assignments.
|
|
I think that the achetype operates even without that distinction. The intent is obviously to give a bonus on the activation of spell completion and spell trigger items of divine spells not on the sorcerer spell list, which works whether or not the distinction between divine and arcane items exists.
Also, you don't have to play a zealot if you want to be a priest of Razmir. How about a former priest of Razmir who is growing disillusioned with the church but still has their training in the form of the archetype. I'm not sure why you automatically say that a Razmiran would have to be a fanatic. There is nothing in the PSFOP guide that says someone with the Razmiran Priest archetype has to still be a loyal follower of Razmir, and exceptions can make for very interesting characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also, you don't have to play a zealot if you want to be a priest of Razmir. How about a former priest of Razmir who is growing disillusioned with the church but still has their training in the form of the archetype.
That's fine. Sounds like a terrific character. As a matter of fact, I would love to run that character through "Masks of the Living God".
I'm not sure why you automatically say that a Razmiran would have to be a fanatic. There is nothing in the PSFOP guide that says someone with the Razmiran Priest archetype has to still be a loyal follower of Razmir, and exceptions can make for very interesting characters.
Why would something like that be in the PFS OP Guide? It's right there in the archetype. I "automatically" say it because I'm quoting Inner Sea Magic, word for word.
Saint Caleth, have you never sat down at a PFS table at a convention and had someone try to derail the party? I have, maybe half-a-dozen times. This is the kind of character that these folks use: hang the faction mission, ignore the venture-captain; he's acting as an agent of Razmir. "The archetype is legal, and this is the description straight from the book. You have to let me play my character this way."
If you sit down at my table, I want to do everything I can, to make sure you have a fantastic time. And part of that is making sure that the guy two seats to your right, who's planning to sabotage the session, understands that his PC is an agent of the Pathfinder Society, first and foremost.
You are in Cheliax and are an elf openly sporting a Calistrian holy symbol making no effort to hide it. Many NPCs would turn you in just to see you tortured.Ok, but how many source books would you have to have read to know that calistrian worship was outlawed there? I don't see anything about it in the inner sea world guide, and its not self evident that Asmodeous would outright ban calistria worship.
I would hope that scenarios that take place in a potentially troublesome locale would mention any local restrictions. E.g. hopefully a scenario that takes place in Rahadoum mentions something about divine casters, a scenario that takes place in Cheliax mentions something about chaotic gods, a scenario that takes place in Taldor mentions something about Sarenrae, etc.
If there's pertinent information that's not in the "core assumption", it belongs in the scenario, IMO.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No sig
For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between
an arcane and divine scroll or wand in Pathfinder Society
Organized play. Thus a bard and cleric may both use the
same scroll of cure moderate woundspage 19 Guide to PFS OP
thanks BNW...
I guess I learn something new every day (or re-learn it different...). Has it always been this way (in PFS?), as this is not the RAW right? (this is a change for the campaign? - "a PFSOP house rule" - like we do for XP).(change of subject: not that it matters but the nosig is actually nosi g. - that's my name backwords g. ison - so it would be better pronounced "Nosi G" not "No Sig").
This is a campaign "house rule". In Core Rules, for instance, you need UMD to activate a scroll if you're arcane and it's divine, even if the spell is on your list.
I have not actually found this to be true. It should be, but often isn't. (Often/sometimes the Judge doesn't even know it).I would hope that scenarios that take place in a potentially troublesome locale would mention any local restrictions. E.g. hopefully a scenario that takes place in Rahadoum mentions something about divine casters, a scenario that takes place in Cheliax mentions something about chaotic gods, a scenario that takes place in Taldor mentions something about Sarenrae, etc.
If there's pertinent information that's not in the "core assumption", it belongs in the scenario, IMO.
I would at least hope the Heresy of Man series says something about Rahadoum!
|
|
I would at least hope the Heresy of Man series says something about Rahadoum!I have not actually found this to be true. It should be, but often isn't. (Often/sometimes the Judge doesn't even know it).I would hope that scenarios that take place in a potentially troublesome locale would mention any local restrictions. E.g. hopefully a scenario that takes place in Rahadoum mentions something about divine casters, a scenario that takes place in Cheliax mentions something about chaotic gods, a scenario that takes place in Taldor mentions something about Sarenrae, etc.
If there's pertinent information that's not in the "core assumption", it belongs in the scenario, IMO.
Yes, it takes up more of the VC's briefing in Part 1 than the actual mission does.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Kyle, don't be a bully.
While this thread may not be entertaining to you, there are still real issues that we are politely discussing and resolving.
---+---
Some times, part of the issue comes from players who have a, well, a sort of static idea about their PCs. They take the kernel of their character ("I'm a cleric of Besmara, her voice and hand among the world.") and have a limited imagination, or limited experience, as to how that character might respond in different circumstances. They're playing a characature, if you will.
Another factor might be that some characters just don't work in some scenarios. Let's say that your cleric of Sarenrae has a birthmark or a tattoo of her holy symbol on her face. "Among the Living" or "Dalsine Affair" will be very difficult scenarios to play, and I'm surprised that the venture captains would send her on such a mission.
Part of my job as table GM is to get a sense about whether the player is deliberately putting his PC in a difficult situation, to see how he handles it (I'm sending my paladin to Geb!) or whether the difficulties would be a rude awakening, and emphasize or downplay the divviculties accordingly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, I'll contribute and say what really needs to be said.
The job of the GM in this situation is do their best to educate their players to the world of Golarion. If a particular concept doesn't fit the world, explain why to the player, but accept that it's their concept. Do your best as a GM to incorporate their character's concepts into the story without being a jerk or having a significant impact on the success or enjoyment of the entire table.
If a certain scenario actually has a mechanical consequence for their concepts, make sure the chracter(s) are fully aware of it, and allow them to make their own choices.
Also, using Thea as a blunt instrument is not being a bully. It's called superior tactics.
edit: Oh crap, only 5 posts left!
|
|
The job of the GM in this situation is do their best to educate their players to the world of Golarion. If a particular concept doesn't fit the world, explain why to the player, but accept that it's their concept. Do your best as a GM to incorporate their character's concepts into the story without being a jerk or having a significant impact on the success or enjoyment of the entire table.
This. Entirely this.
Also, four posts left. I, for one, welcome our GnomeBunny overlords.
The other is more serious: all Razmiran Priests are agents of Razmir. If you wanted to play a missionary servant of the Living God who spreads his will wherever you go, I'd want to check whether that fervor was going to keep you from completing your Society assignments.
I do agree with this.