Canonically, clerics are required to have a deity in Golarion. A non-dead deity too.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons we put the oracle into the game was precisely so there could be divine full casters who don't have to worship a deity.
If I had a time machine, I would have made that clear in the Core Rulebook as well—the whole point of the cleric class is that you serve a deity, and I would have had the core rules say as much. The concept of a cleric who doesn't worship a deity is a bit of 3.5 that crept in to Pathfinder and didn't get scrubbed out.
Because some people play clerics without a deity in non-golarian settings, I would guess?
|
Because not every option in the rules has a place in Golarion.
I'm just curious, because I can't think of any off the top of my head, but what other option in the core rulebook is not allowed in golarion?
And I don't know exactly where it's mentioned.
To my knowledge, it isn't. It was sort of unofficially retconned in by James and others, even removing printed materials (for golarion) that showed otherwise.
|
And I don't know exactly where it's mentioned.To my knowledge, it isn't. It was sort of unofficially retconned in by James and others, even removing printed materials (for golarion) that showed otherwise.
its mentioned in the pathfinder society guide to organized play, the pathfinder society field guide and in a roundabout way in the inner sea world guide (as soon as Aroden died, all of his followers lost their spells, for they no longer worshiped a god)
|
If I were doing it, (like in a home game) I'd have give some of the philosophies (Green Faith, Whispering Way etc) specific domains, but I'd only do it if someone came up to me asked to run say, a Green Faith Cleric.
As per what James said above, I'd just suggest that an oracle might be more appropriate to their play style. And considering the sheer number of archetypes that are available for play at the moment, I'm sure they could find a suitable match.
Is there a specific reason you'd want to play cleric without a deity? Because I'm sure you could find a different class/archetype that achieves that you're hoping to achieve.|
|
If I were doing it, (like in a home game) I'd have give some of the philosophies (Green Faith, Whispering Way etc) specific domains, but I'd only do it if someone came up to me asked to run say, a Green Faith Cleric.As per what James said above, I'd just suggest that an oracle might be more appropriate to their play style. And considering the sheer number of archetypes that are available for play at the moment, I'm sure they could find a suitable match.
Is there a specific reason you'd want to play cleric without a deity? Because I'm sure you could find a different class/archetype that achieves that you're hoping to achieve.
1) It's a home game, so I can ignore what James said.
2) There are many RW religions that lack deities, like Taoism or Buddhism (technically). There are organized religions like Shinto, which while having some major dieties they are also effectively animistic. And all of these faiths have more clerics/monks 'class wise' then they do Oracles. Druids, the historical ones, not the game ones, could be seen as an order of clerics serving a semi animistic philosophy rather then specific clerics of say, Brigid or Lugh though I will admit the history is sketchy.Basically, there are a lot of RW precedents.
4) There are some cool philosophies that are kinda pushed to the side world wise, because they lack clerics.
5) It's not something I would do personally, but if it were in another setting or as a GM I had a player wanting to play, say, an 'old ones' cleric and had a cool concept, I would probably allow it.
6) I love the Oracle. However, I also see it as a rarer class. Basically, there are institutions that train and pop out clerics by the dozen. On the other hand Oracles are more like the Blues Brothers, Joan of Arc, a whole lot of shamans (but not all) etc. They were called, rather than doing the calling.
One of the reasons we put the oracle into the game was precisely so there could be divine full casters who don't have to worship a deity.
If I had a time machine, I would have made that clear in the Core Rulebook as well—the whole point of the cleric class is that you serve a deity, and I would have had the core rules say as much. The concept of a cleric who doesn't worship a deity is a bit of 3.5 that crept in to Pathfinder and didn't get scrubbed out.
If that's the case, then worshipping a dead deity should also be acceptable. It was allowed in Forgotten Realms, but the would-be Cleric of someone like Myrkul (who died way before the 3.5e storylines began) had to take a feat to draw on whatever remnants of his power were left in the cosmos. Making Clerics completely banned from not requiring a deity (despite things like the Green Faith and Godclaw existing) sounds like "change for the sake of change", and I fail to see how that would be a good thing for the game.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) It's a home game, so I can ignore what James said.
2) There are many RW religions that lack deities, like Taoism or Buddhism (technically). There are organized religions like Shinto, which while having some major dieties they are also effectively animistic. And all of these faiths have more clerics/monks 'class wise' then they do Oracles. Druids, the historical ones, not the game ones, could be seen as an order of clerics serving a semi animistic philosophy rather then specific clerics of say, Brigid or Lugh though I will admit the history is sketchy.
Basically, there are a lot of RW precedents.
4) There are some cool philosophies that are kinda pushed to the side world wise, because they lack clerics.
5) It's not something I would do personally, but if it were in another setting or as a GM I had a player wanting to play, say, an 'old ones' cleric and had a cool concept, I would probably allow it.
6) I love the Oracle. However, I also see it as a rarer class. Basically, there are institutions that train and pop out clerics by the dozen. On the other hand Oracles are more like the Blues Brothers, Joan of Arc, a whole lot of shamans (but not all) etc. They were called, rather than doing the calling.
1) Absolutely.
2) Worshipers of a religion include more than just clerics; a religion can exist with no clerics as part of it. And anyway, real-world religions don't have clerics who cast healing spells and channel energy to blast undead, so this is a flawed argument from the start.
3) There is no 3.
4) They're not pushed to the side because they lack clerics. We've actually done a LOT with philosophies in several of our adventures, adventure paths, and campaign settings. There are certainly FEWER philosophies detailed in the Inner Sea World Guide than deities, but any one philosophy gets about the same amount of word count as any one deity.
5) Clerics of the Old Ones (assuming you speak of the Lovecraft deities) exist in Golarion.
6) Just because clerics have been in print longer than oracles doesn't mean that, in game, they're "trained and popped out by the dozen."
|
|
There are many RW religions that lack deities, like Taoism or Buddhism (technically). There are organized religions like Shinto, which while having some major dieties they are also effectively animistic. And all of these faiths have more clerics/monks 'class wise' then they do Oracles.
If I can add but a drop to the wisdom of the campaign setting guru, I think you are getting too fixated on the cleric class, as opposed to designing the fluff of the character you want first and then looking at different ways to build that.
Besides the fact that the RW analogy falls apart when you breath gently on it (can you really say there is a "class" equivalency between a Brahmin, a Catholic priest, a Protestant minister, a Shinto priest, and a rabbi, other than at a very superficial level?) in Golarion a "priest" doesn't equate to levels in cleric. For example, Faiths of Balance mentions that senior priests in the Church of Nethys can be high levels wizards with no levels of cleric. If one of my players built a druid who called themselves a priest of the Green Faith, I'd have no problem with that. A rogue could probably pass themselves off as a priest of Desna. Cleric is just one of many classes that could all fulfil a particular function.At the end of the day a Golarion cleric has about as much in common with a RW cleric as a Golarion bard has in common with a RW bard.
|
|
1) It's a home game, so I can ignore what James said.
2) There are many RW religions that lack deities, like Taoism or Buddhism (technically). There are organized religions like Shinto, which while having some major dieties they are also effectively animistic. And all of these faiths have more clerics/monks 'class wise' then they do Oracles. Druids, the historical ones, not the game ones, could be seen as an order of clerics serving a semi animistic philosophy rather then specific clerics of say, Brigid or Lugh though I will admit the history is sketchy.
Basically, there are a lot of RW precedents.
4) There are some cool philosophies that are kinda pushed to the side world wise, because they lack clerics.
5) It's not something I would do personally, but if it were in another setting or as a GM I had a player wanting to play, say, an 'old ones' cleric and had a cool concept, I would probably allow it.
6) I love the Oracle. However, I also see it as a rarer class. Basically, there are institutions that train and pop out clerics by the dozen. On the other hand Oracles are more like the Blues Brothers, Joan of Arc, a whole lot of shamans (but not all) etc. They were called, rather than doing the calling.1) Absolutely.
2) Worshipers of a religion include more than just clerics; a religion can exist with no clerics as part of it. And anyway, real-world religions don't have clerics who cast healing spells and channel energy to blast undead, so this is a flawed argument from the start.
3) There is no 3.
4) They're not pushed to the side because they lack clerics. We've actually done a LOT with philosophies in several of our adventures, adventure paths, and campaign settings. There are certainly FEWER philosophies detailed in the Inner Sea World Guide than deities, but any one philosophy gets about the same amount of word count as any one deity.
5) Clerics of the Old Ones (assuming you speak of the Lovecraft deities) exist in Golarion.
6) Just because clerics have been have been in print longer than oracles doesn't mean that, in game, they're "trained and popped out by the dozen.
1) Cool.
2A) True. 2B) Maybe sometime I'll get you in a room with some drunk anthropologists I know. 2C) That doesn't mean a religion like Daoism doesn't have clerics in RL, and since the game is partially modeled on RL, it's reasonable to base something in game on something that exists in RL. 2d) Arguably, though it may be my interpretation of canon, that you do this already w/ Druids. It seems that many, thought not all, are simply variant 'clerics' of the Green Faith.3) Yes,three exists.
4) Which modules etc, because I'd like to see them. Still, the philosophies seem to come up less among players IMHO.
5) I pulled the old ones out the air as an example. How about a Green Faith Cleric who is not a Druid?
6) RW perhaps experience clouding my game view. I know more priests, pastors, Rabbi's etc IRL, all of whom I would classify as Clerics. People who claim to be divinely inspired and who get results are rarer. To me it's like the difference in the number of rabbis versus the number of biblical prophets. Of course in a fantasy world, I could see how this might be different. I also freely acknowledge that Oracles may represent shamans and other variants. However, I could see times that I'd use Clerics and Druids to fill the 'shaman' role just as well.
7) Nice talking to you.
If I had a time machine, I would have made that clear in the Core Rulebook as well—the whole point of the cleric class is that you serve a deity, and I would have had the core rules say as much. The concept of a cleric who doesn't worship a deity is a bit of 3.5 that crept in to Pathfinder and didn't get scrubbed out.
I think it's a good thing it crept in, even though I'm perfectly fine with the cleric=deity worshiper overall. Reason why, it's an option I can choose to use in a home campaign or alternate published setting (Neoexodus comes to mind, though I'm not a fan) any time I wish. It is also in keeping with what you've done overall and what is one of the keys to your success. In many more cases than not, you've expanded options for players and GMs. There are many more viable character concepts in Pathfinder than there are in 3.5 or 4e. This is to your credit. Keeping a crack open to a 'godless' cleric, even though it's not an option you support personally or in your published works is in keeping, overall, with a big part of what has made Pathfinder successful.
Keep up the good work.
Inquisitor might work for that. They still get the domain powers from one domain (and you could easily homebrew a second domain in in place of something), and they apparently aren't tied to a deity in Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist (Chiurgeon archetype) would be useful for that character. I've suggested to my players that an alchemist's extracts could be delivered by hypodermic needle, making them easier to use on others.
|
Creative Director
|
4) Which modules etc, because I'd like to see them. Still, the philosophies seem to come up less among players IMHO.
5) I pulled the old ones out the air as an example. How about a Green Faith Cleric who is not a Druid?
(omitting the other numbers since they weren't questions)
4) Peacock Spirit: Rise of the Runelords AP
Green Faith: Wrath of the Righteous AP (coming soon), Kingmaker
Diabolisim: Council of Thieves AP
Whispering Way: Carrion Crown AP, several modules
Those are the ones off the top of my head.
5) The vast majority of the worshipers of the Green Faith who have any amount of class levels are druids... but there are clerics who follow the Green Faith. They would also need to select a Green Faith appropriate deity. Gozreh, more or less, but most of the Eldest work too.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait huh? Peacock Spirit is a philosophy, not a deity? That's news to me, but actually... it sort of makes sense too. So much mystery and obscurity.4) Peacock Spirit: Rise of the Runelords AP
I threw that bit in there just to rile folks up and make them wonder.
We still haven't actually revealed what the Peacock Spirit is. It could well be a philosophy. But it could be a deity, or a demigod, or a person, or a ghost, or all sorts of things.
Some day we'll have more to say about it. Until now, I'll keep folks guessing! ;-D
what about clerics devoted to an individual dragon, shinigami, pit fiend, balor, rakshasa maharaja, solar or similarly powerful creature?
i mean the 6 listed creatures could prove a case of being near divine. at least enough to produce clerics.
what about things like Miko or Shamans, whom while functionally (and mechanically) similar to clerics, don't devote themselves exclusively to one main deity, but either to an animistic religion, or a massive alternative pantheon such as the many that appeared in history?
|
Creative Director
|
what about clerics devoted to an individual dragon, shinigami, pit fiend, balor, rakshasa maharaja, solar or similarly powerful creature?
i mean the 6 listed creatures could prove a case of being near divine. at least enough to produce clerics.
what about things like Miko or Shamans, whom while functionally (and mechanically) similar to clerics, don't devote themselves exclusively to one main deity, but either to an animistic religion, or a massive alternative pantheon such as the many that appeared in history?
Unless that singularly powerful creature has the ability to grant spells (like, for example, Treerazer, Nightripper, Lorthact, or Zelishkar), nope, no cleric. Those worshipers of the singularly powerful creature can be any other class though.
Miko or Shamans are best represented either by oracles or adepts or druids (likely with archetypes—we have a LOT of druid shamans to choose from, for example).
Mythic Adventures, if I recall correctly, has a way for singularly powerful creatures to gain the ability to grant spells to clerics, though... so once that book's out, that's a great way to allow clerics of non-deities.
does the Terrasque or Jabberwocky have the ability to produce it's own clerics? because i noticed the other creatures you mention that could, are similarly unique and similarly powerful.
|
|
If you guys are interested, here's the idea my player provided me:
We're doing Skull & Shackles and he wants to play a doctor-type character who relies on surgeries (and suggested being able to use the "treat injury" skill from D20 modern, maybe as a feat). I think he wanted Cleric because of a couple domain choices that were available. He said he wouldn't use cure spells, though and that he was really interested in playing an off-beat character who isn't designed for being a killing machine, as he always likes to Min/Max in 3.5
There are a few different non-Cleric healer options in Pathfinder. The Chiurgeon (Alchemist) that Alliriyallin mentioned might be closest to what your player wants.
Other options include an Inquisitor with the Healing domain, Hospitaler (Paladin - although this requires a chosen deity too), Monk of the Healing Hand, Songhealer (Bard), and Hedge Witch. A Sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline could also be made to work in a pinch.