How many roles in a multi-class character?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows by now that you can train up in pretty much whatever skills and roles you want and swap them out and such, but how many roles can a character embody at one particular time?

Could I have a Greataxe wielding, lock-picking, magic missile shooting character? Are there enough 'slots' to equip the required spell casting item, lock-picking tool and the greataxe?

It's clear that you can mix and match at least 2 roles, but what is the maximum?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

  • 10 active abilities, first six bound to weapon, the other four "refresh slots"
  • up to 3 weapon sets to switch between at higher levels
  • spell book uses 1 "refresh slot"

    ->22 active abilities available through weapon switching for any character. 4 of those will not be bound to weapons. Greataxe + spellbook + lockpicking would still leave 2 free "refresh slots" and 2 free weapon sets if I understand it correctly.

    You could have greataxe, crossbow, quarter staff, a set of spells, lockpicking, turn undead & barbaric rage all on the same character if I understand it correctly but that would be the upper limit.

    Now there are also the passive slots, I don't know how many of those we will get but from my experience of a similar system (Secret World) the passive feats are very important in boosting effectiveness of the active ones and one passive can boost several actives that belong to the same role so if you have a setup of such disparate abilities as in my example you will suck due to lack of synergy. It will also be hard to get keywords that benefit all of the active abilities.

    Edit: source - "GW Blog: A Three Headed Hydra"

  • Goblinworks Executive Founder

    I read eight. One for each refresh slot, one for each weapon, and one role slot.

    I expect that you will be bad at all of them, unless a surprising synergy exists.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    A Three Headed Hydra wrote:

    The first six slots on the action bar are weapon slots, tied directly to the weapon (or weapons if dual-wielding) you have equipped. (In this context, the term "weapon" includes staves, wands, holy symbols, and other magical implements.) Each weapon has one or two basic attacks associated with it that any character who can use the weapon can take advantage of; the remaining slots are used by the player to slot in abilities the character has learned that are compatible for that weapon.

    ...
    Characters can have up to three weapon sets and switch between them in combat, so a cleric could switch between her mace with shield and her holy symbol with shield. Lower-level characters will have fewer weapon sets; this flexibility comes with character experience.
    ...
    Most combat abilities that are not tied to weapons are Refresh abilities, and they're placed in slots 7–10. These are things like spells, rage abilities, etc. If a character has a spellbook equipped, it can go into one of these slots; activating the spellbook turns all weapon slots into spell slots determined by the spellbook. Wizards will have to find and equip different spellbooks to get access to different spells, with some books being more valuable or rare than others.

    Utility Slots

    The F1 and F2 slots are utility slots, used for abilities that are less combat-focused than those placed in the 1–10 slots. These include things like the Paladin's Detect Evil ability.

    As I read it, 10 slots for active combat abilities (6 of those determined by equipped weapon, 2 of those 6 are hard-coded and not customizable, 4 are selectable by the player). I assumed that weapon switching would not be done through the action slots but through some other control. 10 is also the number of slots in the action bar in the latest video. As a note to my earlier post, lockpicking would probably be a "Utility Slot" ability, leaving room for one more active combat ability in my example.

    Goblinworks Game Designer

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    As the slots are currently conceived, theoretically 27. Not that we'll have 27 different roles for a long time, and that's presuming a role-specific feat for every type of slot (which is likely in the long run, but, still, 27).

    And, yeah, it will probably be nearly impossible to make a strong build doing that. But, hey, you've already given up your dedication bonus for the second role and been playing the game for over a decade to get a decent chunk of 27 roles, presumably with this exact end game in mind... so why not experiment? ;)

    Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    My count is:

    Role feature (1)
    Utility (2)
    Consumable (2)*
    Defensive (2, passive)
    Reactive (2, passive)
    Aura (2, passive)
    Attacks (6 x 3)
    Refresh (4)

    Total = 33 (31 if we exclude consumables) (27 if we only count actives)


    Yea, I think they said you could presumably reach level 20 in every single role, but it would take like, 20 years or something. Though that doesn't take into consideration the roles they'll be most likely adding post launch, so, theoretically, you could never max out on every role on one character.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Stephen Cheney wrote:
    As the slots are currently conceived, theoretically 27. Not that we'll have 27 different roles for a long time, and that's presuming a role-specific feat for every type of slot (which is likely in the long run, but, still, 27).

    I would very much like to see a blog on the present conception for slots, their relation to one another, and the thinking behind how and when they would be used in play. This would give us a chance to get a feel for the mechanical aspects of game play without needing the specifics of the GUI.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Oh this is brilliant, thank you! I thrive off of taking broken concepts and making them work in surprising ways. I may end up ditching my pure Fighter idea and multi-role after all. It's fun enough to play a simple powerful character but the possibilities you've just highlighted have instilled a new excitement for PFO.

    Woohoo! Happy Thanksgiving all!

    Goblin Squad Member

    Hmm. It is interesting using blog search feature on the blog page. Search for "slot".

    Lam

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    MVP 'Core Four'
    Cleric
    Fighter
    Rogue
    Wizard

    Core Classes. Complete
    Barbarian
    Bard
    Druid
    Monk
    Paladin
    Ranger
    Sorcerer

    I think those which are more like the 'core four' with few additional or complex abilities are likely to be added first. For example, a barbarian is made up of fighter and rogue abilities plus rage and DR, while a druid or monk has a lot of unique powers.

    Base Classes
    Alchemist
    Cavalier
    Gunslinger
    Inquisitor
    Magus
    Oracle
    Summoner
    Witch

    Again, some are going to be simpler than others, so while an oracle is mostly a 'charisma cleric', the summoner would require an entire creature-building subsystem along the lines of Spore to really represent the eidolon, though they could just do a cheap version up front that has a few pre-built looks and customizations that don't require different art.

    Alternate Classes & Archetypes
    Antipaladin
    Ninja
    Samurai

    These are replacements for core & base classes which have varying amounts of altered class features. They could be added just by determining which skills replace which other skills, and not allowing both to be slotted together. They may be easier to add than many on the 'base' list.

    Advanced Class Guide (Currently in playtest)
    Arcanist - combines the arcane knowledge and
    flexibility of the wizard with the eldritch might of
    the sorcerer.
    Bloodrager - fuses the bloody frenzy of the barbarian
    with the blood-based magic of the sorcerer.
    Brawler - merges the fighter and monk together
    into a vicious, no-holds-barred pugilist.
    Hunter - takes the martial danger that is the ranger
    and pairs it with a druid’s animal companion.
    Investigator - mixes the focus of the alchemist and
    the resourcefulness of the rogue into a master of inquiry.
    Shaman - intertwines the divine magic of the oracle
    with the arcane magic of the witch into a master of spirits.
    Skald - blends the ferocity of the barbarian with the
    utility of the bard into a leader who can make others rage.
    Slayer - combines the ranger and rogue’s individual
    combat prowess into a being of devastating fury.
    Swashbuckler - marges the gunslinger and the
    fighter to make a daring and dashing melee combatant.
    Warpriest - turns the divine nature of the cleric into a
    raw weapon that fuses with the fighter’s battlefield mastery.

    Like alternate and archetype classes, in PFRPG these hybrids have restrictions against multiclassing with their 'parent' classes, so in PFO there would likely be restrictions against slotting skills from both paths.

    If it's still projected to take 30 months of experience to 'complete' a role, then it would take 47.5 years to train just the core and base classes, let alone the side-branch skills of alternate, archetype, or hybrid classes. Then add in the crafting and administration roles. Well, hopefully roles which are more similar to one another will share many prerequisites, so for example training heavy armour proficiency as a fighter would not need to be repeated as a paladin. Even if training time per class were about 12 months and there was an increasing degree of overlapping prerequisites as you trained more of them, it would still take 20+ years to complete. During that time Paizo will have likely released many more options but we probably can't predict anything useful about what tabletop or computer gaming will be like at that point.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Harad Navar wrote:
    I would very much like to see a blog on the present conception for slots, their relation to one another, and the thinking behind how and when they would be used in play.

    Thank you for the current blog.


    Keovar wrote:

    Hunter - takes the martial danger that is the ranger and pairs it with a druid’s animal companion.

    Shaman - intertwines the divine magic of the oracle
    with the arcane magic of the witch into a master of spirits.

    Skald - blends the ferocity of the barbarian with the
    utilityof the bard into a leader who can make others rage.

    Those three classes are straight out of Midgard.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Qallz wrote:
    Keovar wrote:

    Hunter - takes the martial danger that is the ranger and pairs it with a druid’s animal companion.

    Shaman - intertwines the divine magic of the oracle
    with the arcane magic of the witch into a master of spirits.

    Skald - blends the ferocity of the barbarian with the
    utilityof the bard into a leader who can make others rage.

    Those three classes are straight out of Midgard.

    The Skald is, but not necessarily the other two.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Midgard in DAoC had exactly those three. Well... the Shaman used disease and poisons, but given that...


    Banesama wrote:
    Qallz wrote:
    Keovar wrote:

    Hunter - takes the martial danger that is the ranger and pairs it with a druid’s animal companion.

    Shaman - intertwines the divine magic of the oracle
    with the arcane magic of the witch into a master of spirits.

    Skald - blends the ferocity of the barbarian with the
    utilityof the bard into a leader who can make others rage.

    Those three classes are straight out of Midgard.
    The Skald is, but not necessarily the other two.

    I was originally just going to post the Skald and the Hunter, but really... "A Ranger with an Animal Companion" doesn't sound like the Hunter to you? lol

    The Shaman is a bit more vague, but still closely resembles the Mid Shammy from DAoC, honestly, the other two are spot on... so much so that I think it's reasonable to assume that they were the inspiration for those classes.

    Goblin Squad Member

    All three class ideas have been around since the 80's (Dragon magazine and/or White Wolf magazine) and AD&D. In fact, Leiber even described Fafhrd as the Skald of his Barbarian tribe, so it's possible that idea is from as early as the 1930's.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that DAoC (and others) have simply used common class archetypes that have existed since the fantasy genre was invented.

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    In another d20 game, the 'bardarian' mix was represented by a prestige class by the name of 'Skald'. Pathfinder has focused on more 20-level classes rather than adding prestige classes, trying to make them more interesting all the way through and ending in a huge 'capstone' ability to reward sticking with it.
    In Golarion, the Ulfen (Norse-analog humans) speak a language called 'Skald', and the name comes from a term for a real-world Norse poet, historian, & lore-keeper.
    DAoC didn't invent the names or ideas, it borrowed from the same sources.

    There's also a 3rd-party Pathfinder campaign called Midgard, which apparently borrows from the Norse cultures & mythos too.
    Hell, even "Middle Earth" is just an English translation of Midgard.

    I have nothing against younger people or electronic gaming (obviously), so don't take this as a curmudgeonly "kids these days" gripe, but I wonder if this apparent culture gap is an artefact of generations having grown up with computer versions of fantasy games always being around. With the main interest so readily available, maybe fewer ended up digging in various world mythologies to find out more about where the ideas in their fantasy fiction & games came from? Or maybe I'm just an anomaly: I grew up in the southern US during the stupid 'satanic panic' era, so access to fantasy fiction & gaming material was limited, but the library had mythology...

    Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

    I'm right there with you, Pax. I always thought it was relatively common knowledge that a skald was a real word referencing Viking culture. It kind of surprised me that people thought it was a fictional word.

    But it might be like you said. Seeing all these borrowed terms used right alongside fictional words in most modern games can make them difficult to distinguish when it's been around for years.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Pax Keovar wrote:
    I have nothing against younger people or electronic gaming (obviously), so don't take this as a curmudgeonly "kids these days" gripe, but I wonder if this apparent culture gap is an artefact of generations having grown up with computer versions of fantasy games always being around. With the main interest so readily available, maybe fewer ended up digging in various world mythologies to find out more about where the ideas in their fantasy fiction & games came from? Or maybe I'm just an anomaly: I grew up in the southern US during the stupid 'satanic panic' era, so access to fantasy fiction & gaming material was limited, but the library had mythology...

    In the crazy decade before the web appeared, our gaming group actually went out and purchased books like 'Bulfinch's Mythology' and books about Norse Runes and Viking history and the like. Prior us deciding to go with the Greyhawk pantheon, we invariably were worshipper of the Norse pantheon. When you couldn't simply throw something into google and get a result in seconds, you had to rely on much more detailed sources of information and in cases where the local library didn't have those sources, you had to buy them.

    Like you, I don't want to rail against all the young whippersnappers, but in this case I think it is simply a matter of knowledge of such trivia now not being bothered with for various reasons.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Human beings have always had character archetypes. The old gods generally were so: Loki the trickster, Jupiter, Apollo, Mercury, Aphrodite... and classical literature as well: Odysseus was a trickster. The seeker Dante. Inexorable Ahab and the Great White Whale.

    It is toward amusing that we moderns, in our sophistication, think we have risen above such humanity when Lo: Our Myths and Arts manifest in games.

    Something to think about when next we play Left 4 Dead, eh?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Virtually none of the names used in any of the Final Fantasy games were coined for them. "Esper" dates from the 1950s, for example.

    Goblin Squad Member

    The fighter archetype was actually invented ca 10,000 BCE near the Euphrates River. But it's not the world's oldest profession.

    That's hunting and gathering. Go commoners!


    Proxima Sin wrote:
    The fighter archetype was actually invented ca 10,000 BCE near the Euphrates River. But it's not the world's oldest profession.

    The Barbarian role is even older... Then came fighters, then came sorcerers and wizards.

    Goblin Squad Member

    But when did the thief--I mean, rogue--come?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Nobody's sure when the first rogue was, but the first reported rogue sighting came long after the core classes were established.

    Goblin Squad Member

    If you're going to use the best evidence anthropology has to offer the roles happened:

    Commoner - ca 200,000 BCE (gathering, before that wasn't exactly human)
    Cleric - ca 40,000 BCE (symbology in burials and cave paintings that align to solstices)
    Expert, then Fighter - ca 10,000 BCE (goes along with the invention of cities)

    Rogues I'm sure were invented later that afternoon of the invention of cities.
    We don't know Rangers because we don't know when bows were invented because they decompose. The tracking was already around so if you count atalatals it might go back 30-40,000 more years.
    Is Paladin a warrior with any code of honor or a religious code or?.. It's hard to tell a code before history but I'm sure it didn't take long after fighters were around.
    Arcane magic (as opposed to magic coming from another sentient source) seems like a European invention so I'll put Mage ca 500CE in the Arthurian era.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Proxima Sin wrote:


    Arcane magic (as opposed to magic coming from another sentient source) seems like a European invention so I'll put Mage ca 500CE in the Arthurian era.

    Have a look at chinese Taoist sorcerors.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Per wikipedia the Taoist wu sorcerers were in the shamanistic tradition and were 500 to 1200 CE.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Proxima Sin wrote:


    Arcane magic (as opposed to magic coming from another sentient source) seems like a European invention so I'll put Mage ca 500CE in the Arthurian era.

    Boundaries between Mage/druid and mage/demonologist are blurred.

    Alchemy is "scientific" magic though and could be placed around 300 BC in egypt/hellenic world.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Drakhan Valane wrote:
    But when did the thief--I mean, rogue--come?

    after sunset on the day gatherers built the first food storage.

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Jewish scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann proposed a concept called the "metadivine realm" which seems similar to the Greek gnostic concept of the 'pleroma'. He used it to describe a pagan concept of gods which exist within a spiritual reality greater than themselves. They have a lot of influence on the natural world, but ultimately the difference between them and mortals is one of power scale. Mortals could petition gods to influence things their way, but they could also tap into the MDR themselves. He said the fundamental difference in a monotheist perspective is that 'god' is itself the totality of spiritual reality. Somewhat ironically, this brings monotheism close to and blurs definitions with pantheism and panentheism. Also, I think there's sufficient evidence to indicate that the monotheistic version of Yahweh developed out of a monolatrist or henotheistic system. Farther back still, Yahweh appears to have been the war god of a full polytheistic pantheon. I guess when you're living in the crossroads of much bigger empires, the lord of hosts/armies (Sabaoth) would become a very important concept to your culture.
    (Note: I'm looking at all of this from a Joseph Campbell-ish sort of perspective, appreciating the concepts & metaphors as expressions of the cultures which developed them. I'm a scientific-skeptic in terms of assessing reality, a humanist in terms of morality, and an atheist in terms of whether I think supernatural beings have anything to do with either.)

    Anyway... back to Golarion!

    Pathfinder magic does indeed seem to be sourced in a sort of metadivine realm. The deities are not the ultimate source of the power, they're conduits for it. They don't define their domains or alignments, but are defined by them (if Sarenrae starts promoting torture, that changes her, not the definition of what Good means). Clerics are generally henotheists: recognizing a wide pantheon while following a primary divine patron. Druids may follow the henotheistic model by following a personification of nature like Gozreh, while those druids of the 'Green Faith' are more like pantheists, revering life & elemental forces themselves. Arcane spellcasters of various sorts are tapping into the MDR directly.

    Goblin Squad Member

    @keovar: I'm a visitor from mars.

    Thanks for the description on magic in pathfinder. Is that orthodoxy or likely speculation or is the system deliberately vague?

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    @Keovar I am deeply skeptical that you think the concepts humans have of deity have not had any effect on either reality or morality.

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pax Keovar wrote:
    Farther back still, Yahweh appears to have been the war god of a full polytheistic pantheon.

    I am utterly fascinated with Immanuel Velikovsky. The following is from his book, Worlds in Collision:

    Theophany

    As the children of Israel encamped at the foot of mt. Sinai and witnessed the law-giving, the comet, according to Velikovsky, once again approached the Earth. The arc of the Earth's orbit had intersected the course of the comet at two points some distance apart in space. At this time, there was smoke, fire, vapor, thunder and lighting. Of course, we have seen what each of these signs entails.

    Unlike the first approach, however, the second was accompanied by voices. The Bible tells us that the children of Israel heard the voice of the Lord, but apparently they were not alone in doing so. In China, the emperor Fang-heun took the name Yahou. The Indians of Puget Sounds have a sacred word of exclamation: Yahu. mexican Indians say Yao or Yaotl. In Indonesia there is a oath: Ju Ju huwe (the 'j' is pronounced with a 'y' sound.) In other cultures the word is variously Jo or Jove (the 'v' is pronounced with a 'w' sound. Iao, Yo, etc. The children of Israel heard Yahweh (written jhwh). The similarity of all these words from many cultures indicates that apparently the voice of the Lord was heard by more than just the Israelites alone.

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    Being wrote:
    @Keovar I am deeply skeptical that you think the concepts humans have of deity have not had any effect on either reality or morality.

    I didn't say the concepts haven't an effect on us.

    I don't think our perception of reality changes reality itself, except in the limited sense that we have some ability to affect our local environments, and doing so requires that we perceive them to some degree.
    I also think the idea that we must - or even should - attribute our values to an external source is damaging, since it robs us of some degree of agency. If we're on our own, as I think is the case (lack of credible evidence otherwise), then recognizing & exercising our inherent capacities for empathy & reason is vital. Nothing outside of us is likely to swoop in and clean up our messes, and if we manage to screw up badly enough, the wider universe isn't likely to even be capable of caring.

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    Nihimon wrote:
    Pax Keovar wrote:
    Farther back still, Yahweh appears to have been the war god of a full polytheistic pantheon.

    I am utterly fascinated with Immanuel Velikovsky. The following is from his book, Worlds in Collision:

    Theophany

    As the children of Israel encamped at the foot of mt. Sinai and witnessed the law-giving, the comet, according to Velikovsky, once again approached the Earth. The arc of the Earth's orbit had intersected the course of the comet at two points some distance apart in space. At this time, there was smoke, fire, vapor, thunder and lighting. Of course, we have seen what each of these signs entails.

    Unlike the first approach, however, the second was accompanied by voices. The Bible tells us that the children of Israel heard the voice of the Lord, but apparently they were not alone in doing so. In China, the emperor Fang-heun took the name Yahou. The Indians of Puget Sounds have a sacred word of exclamation: Yahu. mexican Indians say Yao or Yaotl. In Indonesia there is a oath: Ju Ju huwe (the 'j' is pronounced with a 'y' sound.) In other cultures the word is variously Jo or Jove (the 'v' is pronounced with a 'w' sound. Iao, Yo, etc. The children of Israel heard Yahweh (written jhwh). The similarity of all these words from many cultures indicates that apparently the voice of the Lord was heard by more than just the Israelites alone.

    Or perhaps there's a basic phoneme which traces back to a proto-language, which itself may have developed from brain architecture that links certain sounds to certain emotions. It's also widespread in many disparate languages to express confusion via a noise that sounds like "huh?". An expression of awe or wonder isn't too far from and expression of confusion or curiosity, and many god-concepts are supposed to be ineffable "great mysteries".

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    @Nihimon: Apparently the universal linguistic word is: "Huh?" :D

    edit: Keovar ninja'd

    Goblin Squad Member

    Velikovsky's research indicates that this form - "yahu" - is a new global form appearing at a particular point in history.

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    Nihimon wrote:
    Velikovsky's research indicates that this form - "yahu" - is a new global form appearing at a particular point in history.

    So basically, the various similar words are onomatopoetic renderings of an astronomical event that affected the atmosphere? Interpreting it as a 'voice' could be a case of audio pareidolia.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Pax Keovar wrote:
    So basically, the various similar words are onomatopoetic renderings of an astronomical event that affected the atmosphere?

    Yep.

    Goblin Squad Member

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Huh?

    Goblinworks Executive Founder

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Great scientific discoveries typically sound like "that's odd."

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pax Keovar wrote:
    I also think the idea that we must - or even should - attribute our values to an external source is damaging, since it robs us of some degree of agency.
    I believe because I choose to believe. This does not rob me of any agency. It actually empowers me in many ways that disbelief cannot.
    Quote:
    If we're on our own, as I think is the case (lack of credible evidence otherwise), then recognizing & exercising our inherent capacities for empathy & reason is vital.
    This remains true even if this is not the case.
    Quote:
    Nothing outside of us is likely to swoop in and clean up our messes, and if we manage to screw up badly enough, the wider universe isn't likely to even be capable of caring.

    Except in the Galorion of Pathfinder; the Marks of Pharasma being a prime example. I do not equate real life beliefs with the beliefs held in Galorion. However, for myself as a role player, my belief still has more power than disbelief regardless of which I or my character are in.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Harad Navar wrote:
    Pax Keovar wrote:
    I also think the idea that we must - or even should - attribute our values to an external source is damaging, since it robs us of some degree of agency.
    I believe because I choose to believe. This does not rob me of any agency. It actually empowers me in many ways that disbelief cannot.

    If I am a devotee of science I will also reject any decision that what we do not know also does not exist.

    I must recognize that a characteristic of most, if not all, major cultures, living or dead, is to have a concept of deity.

    But 'belief' is a most suspect emotion. It is covered in humanly political fingerprints. Yet if all peoples point in the same direction, in this case toward a concept of deity, it may be of interest to glance that way.

    A concept of deity might just be a product of how we reason, just as the evolutionary representations in Darwin's theory may be more a product of how we think and categorize than what the evidence actually reveals.

    The concept of deity may well be no more than a reflection of how humans collectively perceive and explain, but, I would venture, we must school ourselves to not eliminate any possibility out of intellectual discomfort, nor reactionary impulse.

    Probability is useful, but it does not displace possibility.

    I agree that humans must not rely on any deus ex machina to get us out of the messes we make for ourselves.

    Goblin Squad Member

    It is possible - easy, even - to be a devotee of Science and still understand that there are things beyond our understanding. Just yesterday I was reading a news story about how the discovery of an exoplanet with 11 times the mass of Jupiter orbiting at some 650 AU from its parent star was challenging all the current theories of solar system and planet formation.

    Science gives us a very good way to determine if something is false. I very strongly agree with those who say that, in order to be a "scientific" statement, the statement must be falsifiable. Yet, there are a host of statements we can make which are recognizably true, but which are untestable. I love my Father being a simple one.

    And while it's reasonable not to rely on deus ex machina to save us, it's also manifestly true that acknowledging something greater than ourselves has "saved" a great many people.

    Goblin Squad Member

    It may well have, and that may be why it has survived to this day: cultures tend to preserve historical solutions. This does not mean the concept of a thing is more than a concept, but only that a concept can be a survival mechanism in the culture's intellectual genome.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Just because the believer cannot yet imagine a test for a line of inquiry does not establish that line of inquiry is not subject to science. That whole thing looks to like an artifice, an attempt to rope off what is believed from the rigors of inquiry.

    Everything should be subject to questioning , science, the will to methodically know whether it makes us uncomfortable or not. Perhaps especially if it makes us uncomfortable.

    This attitude is so irritating to the Vatican, or once was, that they banned those who argued that reason is a valid path to understanding the deity. Branded 'deists', those who sought to better understand the apple tree by tasting of its fruit were excommunicated.

    Goblin Squad Member

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    My point is that Science can never prove a theory to be true, it can only prove it to be false. Therefore, something that cannot even theoretically be proven false cannot be addressed by Scientific means. It is a tautology to say that it is impossible to disprove that an omnipotent God is hiding from us.

    That is not to say there is valid reason to believe such a thing. Only that Science will never give a convincing proof that it is false.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Don't worry. I am God. There. Argument over. :P

    1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / How many roles in a multi-class character? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.