Hey all.
Simple question. In PFS does my Inquisitor need to name a god he follows?
I know Clerics do, but I was not sure on this one.
Thanks all.
Right I new clerics did, but for some reason I thought Inq and Oracles did not have to.
Thanks for the info.
My understanding is that in golarion, only clerics and inquisitors need deities.
Druids don't, paladins don't, and according to Bulmahn, Oracles aren't powered by gods at all.
I would assume that the language in the guide is a bit more expansive than they originally meant...
|
The bit in the guide is there on purpose. It is ambiguous and could use some cleaning up to clarify, but the point is…
There are traits, feats, and spells that can only be taken by those that worship a specific deity.
Any game mechanics tied to worship should require that they adhere to cleric –style alignment restrictions.
And then the point isn't that druids, paladins, and oracles necessarily need a deity?
|
Like a cleric’s deity, an inquisitor’s deity influences her alignment, what magic she can perform, and her values. Although not as tied to the tenets of the deity as a cleric, an inquisitor must still hold such guidelines in high regard, despite that fact she can go against them if it serves the greater good of the faith. An inquisitor can select one domain from among those belonging to her deity. She can select an alignment domain only if her alignment matches that domain. With the GM’s approval, an inquisitor can be devoted to an ideal instead of a deity, selecting one domain to represent her personal inclination and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
Sounds like to me you must pick a deity. You don't have to be as indentured to their beliefs but you still must pick one.
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
The bit in the guide is there on purpose. It is ambiguous and could use some cleaning up to clarify, but the point is…
There are traits, feats, and spells that can only be taken by those that worship a specific deity.
Any game mechanics tied to worship should require that they adhere to cleric –style alignment restrictions.
The Guide is ambiguous and will be cleaned up in 4.3. In short, yes an Inquisitor needs a deity.
|
|
It says in the inquisitor domain section "With the GM’s approval, an inquisitor can be devoted to an ideal instead of a deity, selecting one domain to represent her personal inclination and abilities."
So I dont think they need one.
Except for Mike's clarification above. In the Pathfinder Society, Mike is the GM, and his discretion is that an Inquisitor needs a Deity.
It's also a golarion thing. "clerics / inquisitors of philosophies" don't really exist in the canonical setting, if I remember correctly.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what the new text will look like in Guide 4.3. This should give people ample opportunity to adjust accordingly.
Page 10: Added the following sentence under the religion entry, “Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, cavaliers (of the Order of the Star) and samurai (of the Order of the Star) must choose a deity as all classes in Golarion that receive spells and abilities from a specific divine source receive their powers from a deity. Druids, oracles and rangers are the exception to this rule. The list is not exhaustive, and any future classes added as additional resources to the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign, will require a deity be chosen unless otherwise specified. Otherwise…”
I'd be curious to learn why Paladins need a deity, as I've only seen clarifications that state otherwise. I thought Sacred Servants were the only ones who needed one. Great catch on the cavaliers though.
|
I'd be curious to learn why Paladins need a deity
Honestly, because IMO it makes absolutely no sense that a paladin doesn't need to declare a deity. They are perhaps the 2nd/3rd most divine class behind only the cleric and maybe the inquisitor. Now, in general PF play, I would be okay with them declaring a concept, but since PFS does not allow that, so they should be required to declare a god. Personally, I think that clerics, inquisitors, paladins, and anyone who receives domain spells/powers, including any archetype that grants domain powers or specifically references a specific god (like order of stars cavaliers or sacred servant paladins) should be required to declare a specific deity as well as anyone who selects a specific spell or magic item and requires the worship of a specific deity.
|
|
Page 10: Added the following sentence under the religion entry, “Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, cavaliers (of the Order of the Star) and samurai (of the Order of the Star) must choose a deity as all classes in Golarion that receive spells and abilities from a specific divine source receive their powers from a deity.
Poor Bob and his Drunken Paladin..;)
It's not even declaring a concept. It's already been declare for them, and it's Lawful Goodness. Not all Golarion Paladins have deities.
It'd be interesting if the Paladin codes for specific deities were opened up. I checked the additional resources and didn't see anything about the codes in faiths of balance, but I'd need to double check that book.
|
|
I'd be curious to learn why Paladins need a deityHonestly, because IMO it makes absolutely no sense that a paladin doesn't need to declare a deity. They are perhaps the 2nd/3rd most divine class behind only the cleric and maybe the inquisitor. Now, in general PF play, I would be okay with them declaring a concept, but since PFS does not allow that, so they should be required to declare a god. Personally, I think that clerics, inquisitors, paladins, and anyone who receives domain spells/powers, including any archetype that grants domain powers or specifically references a specific god (like order of stars cavaliers or sacred servant paladins) should be required to declare a specific deity as well as anyone who selects a specific spell or magic item and requires the worship of a specific deity.
Wow, that is a dramatic change of opinion.
|
|
Poor Bob and his Drunken Paladin..;)
Nope, he has had a declared god since inception. Its just that, at some point, *they* decided that my god was no longer good enough for paladins :eyeroll:. My pally refuses to accept that decision and continues to worship Cayden Cailean. He is just careful to watch for the rules-lawyers and PFS police. When they come snooping around he just says, "I am an equal opportunity, non-denominational paladin who reveres the ideals of all the goodly gods. Now, can I pour you a drink. I have some really good ale right here..."
Wow, that is a dramatic change of opinion.
Actually not so much. My opinion has always been that paladins SHOULD have to declare a god, but since the rules/designers/developers said otherwise, I supported their ruling. Now, if Mike wants to change that, I will support it. The fact that it aligns better with my personal opinion, more the better. Still doesn't change my pally. :-P
|
|
It's not even declaring a concept. It's already been declare for them, and it's Lawful Goodness. Not all Golarion Paladins have deities.
That exactly right, it was declared for them. The reason few paladins have declared a specific deity is because the rules didn't require it. I just happen to disagree with that concept.
|
It'd be interesting if the Paladin codes for specific deities were opened up. I checked the additional resources and didn't see anything about the codes in faiths of balance, but I'd need to double check that book.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The "codes" in Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Balance are descriptions of what paladins of each deity should hold as central tenets. They don't really make a mechanical difference other than determining if a paladin is holding true to their beliefs. One of the reasons for the decision that paladins have to have a deity is so a GM can decide if a paladin is holding true to her code. In home play you can write out a concept and determine if it's being held to but it's a lot trickier when you may play six sessions and have six different GMs in PFS. There is a little bit of leeway but a paladin of Shelyn that goes around charging and attacking anything that looks suspicious is going to be losing her powers quite quickly while a paladin of Iomedae needs to be the first one into a brewing battle.
|
|
Additionally, what this does is shut down the ambiguity in the campaign rule, that allows for someone to say they worship a neutral goddess (as a "lay" worshiper) and say they are a Paladin of Goodness. It removes table variance from allowing a "Paladin of Pharasma" as fluff at some tables, and causing hurt feelings at other tables because a GM would rather play the way he sees the rules.
Simply put, it closes the loophole and clarifies all the ambiguity.
|
|
Additionally, what this does is shut down the ambiguity in the campaign rule, that allows for someone to say they worship a neutral goddess (as a "lay" worshiper) and say they are a Paladin of Goodness. It removes table variance from allowing a "Paladin of Pharasma" as fluff at some tables, and causing hurt feelings at other tables because a GM would rather play the way he sees the rules.
Simply put, it closes the loophole and clarifies all the ambiguity.
Unless your name is Bob... ;)
Nope, he has had a declared god since inception. Its just that, at some point, *they* decided that my god was no longer good enough for paladins :eyeroll:. My pally refuses to accept that decision and continues to worship Cayden Cailean. He is just careful to watch for the rules-lawyers and PFS police. When they come snooping around he just says, "I am an equal opportunity, non-denominational paladin who reveres the ideals of all the goodly gods. Now, can I pour you a drink. I have some really good ale right here..."
|
|
Additionally, what this does is shut down the ambiguity in the campaign rule, that allows for someone to say they worship a neutral goddess (as a "lay" worshiper) and say they are a Paladin of Goodness. It removes table variance from allowing a "Paladin of Pharasma" as fluff at some tables, and causing hurt feelings at other tables because a GM would rather play the way he sees the rules.
Simply put, it closes the loophole and clarifies all the ambiguity.
While shutting down that particular argument is actually good, I am generally wary of PFS "clarifications" and rules that contradict RAW. While I am all for clarity and house rules are great and sometimes necessary, even the PFS ones, lets keep that sort of thing to a minimum.
|
|
Wow, that is a dramatic change of opinion.Actually not so much. My opinion has always been that paladins SHOULD have to declare a god, but since the rules/designers/developers said otherwise, I supported their ruling. Now, if Mike wants to change that, I will support it. The fact that it aligns better with my personal opinion, more the better. Still doesn't change my pally. :-P
Wouldn't it mean you have to take a non-Cayden patron though? (of course it wouldn't mean you couldn't respect Cayden's beliefs too)
Anyways, I'm certainly in favor of this new clarification in the Guide.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While shutting down that particular argument is actually good, I am generally wary of PFS "clarifications" and rules that contradict RAW. While I am all for clarity and house rules are great and sometimes necessary, even the PFS ones, lets keep that sort of thing to a minimum.Additionally, what this does is shut down the ambiguity in the campaign rule, that allows for someone to say they worship a neutral goddess (as a "lay" worshiper) and say they are a Paladin of Goodness. It removes table variance from allowing a "Paladin of Pharasma" as fluff at some tables, and causing hurt feelings at other tables because a GM would rather play the way he sees the rules.
Simply put, it closes the loophole and clarifies all the ambiguity.
Trust me, we mulled on it long and hard before we decided to go this route. Like an unassisted triple play in baseball, this is one of the rarest things you will see in PFS.
|
|
Wouldn't it mean you have to take a non-Cayden patron though? (of course it wouldn't mean you couldn't respect Cayden's beliefs too
Of course it does! I am just having fun with the topic since my pally has been the target of hate and ridicule (kidding) ever since Care Baird announced that he was illegal. Officially, he cannot worship Cayden and I understand that, but it has become a schtick for him to skirt the boundaries between worshiping Cayden and not. The only reason stems from his creation during the "dark times" when even paladins of Asmodeus were legal. Telling a player that his/her PC is no longer legal and has to be adjusted to remain playable is always an emotional event. Rather than get all whiny about it, I just chose to have fun with it. I guess I would do the same thing if I had created a polearm wielding ape animal companion or an undead lord. Its only a game, the rules are ever changing. I understand that, embrace it, and don't allow it to deter from my fun.
It's not even declaring a concept. It's already been declare for them, and it's Lawful Goodness. Not all Golarion Paladins have deities.That exactly right, it was declared for them. The reason few paladins have declared a specific deity is because the rules didn't require it. I just happen to disagree with that concept.
Hmmn. But godless Oracles don't give you a problem? Lol, no real heat in this point, just feeling that if the Oracle -- practically oozing divine power out of its ears/pores/orifices -- can operate sans deity, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch for the Paladin -- who does, granted, have some divine power, but nothing on the order of the Oracle -- to gain that power through simple dedication to the ideals of Law and Good.
YMMV, obviously, and your opinions are your own; not really trying to change your mind... maybe easing the dissonance of the godless Paladin for you?
Cheers
|
|
It's more a viewpoint on what the class represents and doesn't have to align with what others think. Personally, I don't see oracles as generally being granted powers by illiciting notice from a specific deity. I see them more akin to witches that gain their powers through strength of will and an innate ability to tap into a source of ambient divine power. Since their powers are not granted by a god/s, their powers are not at risk of being revoked if they fail to adhere to some code or edict. They typically don't follow the actions of clerics or other dedicated followers nor promote the worship of said god.
Paladin powers, OTOH, are 100% granted. The pally is rewarded with them for being ultra-devoted to the portfolio of a specific god, and their continued access to said powers is tightly tied to their ability and willingness to remain focused and not perform any acts that would be abhorrent to said god.
Now, before anyone picks this apart and tells me I am badwrongfun, this is MY opinion and has been cultivated through vast gameplay and multiple RPG games and rule sets. There are differing opinions and I both accept and respect them, even if they oppose mine. All I am saying is that requiring a paladin to declare a god aligns with the way I see their role in the world, hence I am happy to support it. OTOH, if they are allowed to continue to be non-denominational, I will support that position as well. Too many people dislike paladins because of the way they have seen them displayed-as single-minded, zealotous, automatons, force-feeding some god's interests and sense of morality. Do those types of pallys exist? Sure, but that is a very limited view of what I believe is one of the most fun character classes to play and explore.
|
I for one am happy to see this clarification.
The Pathfinder Core Rule Book, has been written for the Pathfinder game as a whole, and having the possibility there for clerics/paladins/inquisitors there to worship an ideal is there to offer another option so people can shape their campaign world as they would like to.
But James Jacobs is the creative director for Golarion I believe,d I believe he has expressed that a cleric gets his spells and abilities from some sort of a divine entity a god something, where as an Oracle not necessarily so.
Michael Brock is the "Game Master" for the Organized campaign...and he is the one who gets to figure out what fits the Organized Play Campaign and what doesn't.
So there we are.
Again, this is a clarification I am happy to see.
On an aside note, I have often thought paladins were similar to a "jedi Knight" they are there in part to help and defend those who cannot otherwise defend themselves.
One of my favorite paladins was Priam Agrivar.
@ Bob:
I guess I don't see Paladins as necessarily god-chosen. Which doesn't make your view invalid or anything; we just don't happen to have the same view.
If I were going to play a Paladin (about as likely as my ever choosing an Animal Companion class feature option... that is, not gonna happen) it wouldn't scuff me up if my GM insisted on a patron deity for it. Depending on the pantheon... sometimes worshippable deities are thin on the ground. :)
And as my favorite Paladin in fiction (Paksennarion, care of Elizabeth Moon) DID have patron deities, this is sort of a nullish, moot point. I'm just often interested in probing other peoples' thoughts on matters of this ilk.
|
|
To paraphrase an old adage:
Just because you don't believe in a deity doesn't mean a deity doesn't believe in you.
A divine character may not believe in a specific deity or any deity but he/she is clearly getting their powers from somewhere. Most likely one of the almighty has taken a shine to the character based on their actions and granted them the deity's favor.
My personal opinion is that from a PFS standpoint where there is generally no party continuity or story arc beyond 4-5 hours of game play, why worry about such semantics and just have fun.