Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it depends on the relationship between the gods. I don't think there's any reason listed in the rules text.
Haha This one I had never thought about it. I would probably go with what Quest said but also you got to consider perhaps the game balance. Maybe Allowing such combinations might be something bad.
Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?
Why should that be allowed?
In PFS, there is definitely a rule that you can only have one patron deity; outside of PFS, it is up to your GM.
But what are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Paladins have very few if any abilities that are deity dependent.
|
Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?Why should that be allowed?
In PFS, there is definitely a rule that you can only have one patron deity; outside of PFS, it is up to your GM.
But what are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Paladins have very few if any abilities that are deity dependent.
All of their abilities are deity dependant, Violate your deities dogma and you can kiss all of you class abilities good bye until you have completed an act of atrition and had an atonement spell cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, you're only one person. You should have only one alignment. OK, that's flavor, not RAW (so far as I know), but what sort of backstory would you use to explain it?
I don't think he's suggesting multiple alignments, but instead working for two (presumably L/G) gods.
As for a backstory -- well, YMMV and all that, but I could easily see a cleric of Shelyn (who is a very nice person and all that, but something of a wuss) feeling a call to serve her in a more aggressive role, and asking Torag for help.
But what are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Paladins have very few if any abilities that are deity dependent.
The story is this:
In our homebrew campaign, my hard-drinking, ether-addicted bard recently launched a bit of a personal crusade against those who would commit the crime of insurance fraud. We had finally corned the big bad, who among numerous other things, was in the act of insurance fraud - Markos wasn't offended that the BBEG plotted to kill him and his friends but was somehow incensed that he would betray the trust of innocent insurers trying to make some honest gold. We gain a new level and Markos has a terrible dream that he had been chosen by Adabar, who apparently has trouble finding paladins interested in rooting out insurance fraud.
Markos now finds himself confined to the Paladin's code, even in respects that Adabar doesn't care about (drinking) or even actively supports (prostitution). Having had this brush with the divine Markos has become keenly interested in all matters religious but doesn't feel particularly bound to Adabar, who was admittedly somewhat presumptuous in choosing Markos as a paladin in the first place. Now Markos is looking to Iomedae (the patron god of the party's other paladin) and thinking that he really could devote his life to spreading her word, even though he'd still technically be a paladin of Adabar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you can be a paladin of no deity at all and or a paladin that venerates an entire pantheon I don't know why you couldn't be a paladin of one deity and a cleric of another as long as the deities don't conflict. Ultimately it is a GM call.
Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?
In a polytheistic universe I fail to see why this should be a problem. Not all deities are the jealous type. As has been mentioned, the relationship between deities should be a very important factor.
Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?
Unless the gods are seriously tight allies and would not mind such division of loyalty I would assume they would not grant their powers to someone who would not be loyal to only them.
While a person who worships a pantheonistic religion can venerate many deities, I would assume someone who rose to the rank or Paladin or Cleric would only be granted power by that deity to do THAT deities will.
So the better question is why would the deities give you power if your not going to do their bidding and theirs alone? It would be like working for two different goverments at the same time in real life. You may want to but they may not want you.
First off, just want to point out that there is nothing, anywhere, even HINTED AT in the Code that prohibits drinking or prostitution. Feel free to get drunk and whore to your heart's content.
Second, as long as the deities are aligned, I see no issue. Worshiping multiple gods is something that should be common in a world with hundreds of them.
Really, it depends on the setting and the deities. If they're jealous and petty like the gods of old were, then they probably wouldn't share. If they're the kinder, fluffier deities worshipped now days then it probably wouldn't be unheard of, but would likely be extremely rare. After all, if you had an entire world (or worlds) worth of the population to choose a very small scattering of people from, don't you think you could find people that would be entirely faithful, rather than having split loyalties?
I didn't realize that deities were allowed only a fixed number of clerics and paladins. Is there an exchange rate? Can one give up three inquisitors for an extra cleric?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the better question is why would the deities give you power if your not going to do their bidding and theirs alone? It would be like working for two different goverments at the same time in real life. You may want to but they may not want you.
This would be a much more potent example if I didn't know several actual real-life people who are in that exact situation. One of them, for example, is a scandinavian university professor who also works on a military research project for the US Air Force. Another is a university professor in both the UK and Brazil (and hence a civil servant in two systems at once). A third is a state-level official who also holds a commission in the US Army reserve, and hence works for both the state and Federal government.
As to why they would want you,.... it's because you do something they want done, and they recognize your ability to do it. Merely doing a god's bidding isn't enough. Ideally, most gods want someone who will do their bidding intelligently and skillfully.
In fact, it actually makes sense that a god would want to share people with their nominal allies, if only to make sure that they can work effectively together "on the ground." If Torag and Iomedae want the same thing to happen, they can send a coordinated group to ensure its happening. And the best-coordinated group is a single person.
This will be campaign specific, so mostly it boils down to "ask your GM".
I think in most campaigns you will have problems - mostly from the Cleric side. In many mythoi deities draw power from their worshipers, so it makes no sense to share.
My view: Gods tend to be a little selfish with their worshipers. Like girlfriends and wives very few are willing to share. Offering obeisance to another deity would normally be considered a gross violation of your deities code of conduct in all but the most unusual of circumstances. The only exception I can think of is if you worship a pantheon or concept rather than an individual deity.
The question boils down to how deities handle divided loyalties. Most don't take such things too well. Note that saying a prayer to a deity other than your patron is not a rejection of your patron in a polytheistic system -- but having two patrons is more problematical.
In this case, your GM created the issue by having Abadar be the deity to approach your character, even though that character had no inclination to serve Abadar. Since he created the problem, he should solve it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the character was already committed to another deity that was not hostile to Abadar, the GM screwed up -- he had Abadar making an offer that the PC had to refuse and unnecessarily creating a crisis with another deity.
On the other hand, if the PC previously had no patron deity, the PC's choices are to accept or reject the offer from Abadar. Becoming a divine spellcaster follower of another deity at that point would be an insult to the deity that actually offered him the power. In this case, the PC would be the one unnecessarily creating a crisis between two (presumably) non-hostile deities. The fact that the PC is considering such an option indicates that Abadar seriously misjudged the PC.
The problem with the dream scenario is that it seriously constrains the player's choices in an unrealistic way. I am assuming that the GM and not the player presented the dream and thus had Abadar make what was essentially an unforced error. The only way to fix this problem is via a discussion between player and GM.
But what are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Paladins have very few if any abilities that are deity dependent.The story is this:
In our homebrew campaign, my hard-drinking, ether-addicted bard recently launched a bit of a personal crusade against those who would commit the crime of insurance fraud. We had finally corned the big bad, who among numerous other things, was in the act of insurance fraud - Markos wasn't offended that the BBEG plotted to kill him and his friends but was somehow incensed that he would betray the trust of innocent insurers trying to make some honest gold. We gain a new level and Markos has a terrible dream that he had been chosen by Adabar, who apparently has trouble finding paladins interested in rooting out insurance fraud.
Markos now finds himself confined to the Paladin's code, even in respects that Adabar doesn't care about (drinking) or even actively supports (prostitution). Having had this brush with the divine Markos has become keenly interested in all matters religious but doesn't feel particularly bound to Adabar, who was admittedly somewhat presumptuous in choosing Markos as a paladin in the first place. Now Markos is looking to Iomedae (the patron god of the party's other paladin) and thinking that he really could devote his life to spreading her word, even though he'd still technically be a paladin of Adabar.
It sounds to me like you should retrain your level of Paladin into something else. Like maybe an Inquisitor of Cayden Cailean. I think beer inspector sounds right up Markos's alley.
Dwarves of Golarion specifically suggests that clerics worship more than one of the dwarven pantheon. It's explicitly encouraged. So assuming that the gods get along OK, you could be a paladin/cleric/oracle/inquisitor with 4 different gods. You could even be a druid/warpriest/shaman/inquisitor/ranger with gods of five different alignments. Probably not a very powerful build, though. And maybe a bit schizophrenic.
The question boils down to how deities handle divided loyalties. Most don't take such things too well. Note that saying a prayer to a deity other than your patron is not a rejection of your patron in a polytheistic system -- but having two patrons is more problematical.
In this case, your GM created the issue by having Abadar be the deity to approach your character, even though that character had no inclination to serve Abadar. Since he created the problem, he should solve it.
Why should all problems be solved? Maybe the DM wants the character to have a problem. If that's the case, getting out of it by serving two deities will give them lots of opportunities to play with you. Such as always having the wrong deity show up at the crucial moment.
After all, a dragon in the caverns is your problem. A good DM shouldn't kill you, quite, but toying with you is just fine.
That's exactly what I'm going for - I want my character to be conflicted. After his unfortunate revelation that he's a paladin he's spent a lot of time shouting at the sky "Fine! We'll have it your way!". Now, when he's shouting at the sky I want him to look in a different direction and be able to shout, "You too? Gods damn it.".
Have you considered a Possessed Oracle?
Having a god hijacking another gods paladin could be interesting.
I disagree with this point of view. A cleric is a devout follower of a diety and I feel most dieties will object to the cleric worshipping another diety and recieving powers of that diety. The combination cleric and inquisitor is possible only if the same diety and even the same domain or subdomain is chosen. Going by that analogy I would not allow a cleric, inquisitor, oracle, druid, shaman or paladin to be allowed to recieve powers from different dieties.
I disagree with this point of view. A cleric is a devout follower of a diety and I feel most dieties will object to the cleric worshipping another diety and recieving powers of that diety. The combination cleric and inquisitor is possible only if the same diety and even the same domain or subdomain is chosen. Going by that analogy I would not allow a cleric, inquisitor, oracle, druid, shaman or paladin to be allowed to recieve powers from different dieties.
You are still caught up in the monotheistic paradigm. In a polytheistic society most people will call upon multiple deities throughout the day; much like many Christians call upon multiple saints. They grant power, in the form of granted prayers, to people who pray to multiple gods, so why would they balk at granting power to those who know the even more complex prayers of spells?
The combination cleric and inquisitor is possible only if the same diety and even the same domain or subdomain is chosen.
Is this a rules-text quote you can link for me? I'd be greatly interested.
EDIT:
Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?The one patron per PC rule.
As above, is there a rules-text quote you can link for me? I'd be greatly interested.
|
As someone mentioned before Paladin don't need to worship a deity to gain their powers...but well because it doesn't sit well with most people, they do.
There is nothing against it in the mechanics, but you will probably need to argue with your DM about it on the fluff side, which might not be worth the effort.
The combination cleric and inquisitor is possible only if the same diety and even the same domain or subdomain is chosen.Is this a rules-text quote you can link for me? I'd be greatly interested.
EDIT:
As above, is there a rules-text quote you can link for me? I'd be greatly interested.Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?The one patron per PC rule.
I believe it's from Society rules. The Society also bars clerics from worshiping an ideal like is explicitly spelled out in the core rule book. Both of these rules are due to the lack of a GM who can adjudicate these sorts of long term character quirks.
This is not a problem for the OP, and therefore can be happily ignored.
There's a lot of weird assertions in here based on people's conceptions about how deities might think. It's weird how assured people can be, especially providing no support.
This is a game of imagination and creativity, why are people so dead set on restricting character fluff. This strikes me as purely GM territory and depends entirely on the nature of the campaign, though it'd be best to try and make it work.
Because we don't consider it "Fluff". We consider it an important element in how both characters and the world interact with each other.
A world is not only defined by what's inside it but by it's limits which give it form, structure, and character.
Why it is it considered "overly restrictive" when limits are set in place for these very reasons? I don't treat these details as "fluff" for unlike the term implies, to me they are extremely important and they matter.
Pitt already said it was a DM's decision in his opinion. He agrees with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, just want to point out that there is nothing, anywhere, even HINTED AT in the Code that prohibits drinking or prostitution. Feel free to get drunk and whore to your heart's content.
Second, as long as the deities are aligned, I see no issue. Worshiping multiple gods is something that should be common in a world with hundreds of them.
Re prostitution: theoretically, yes, but the details matter. I agree that the moral currency of paying for a friend could be the same as that of paying someone to mow your lawn or clean your teeth. But in practice that transaction is often dishonorable, exploitative, if not downright abusive.
|
Re prostitution: theoretically, yes, but the details matter. I agree that the moral currency of paying for a friend could be the same as that of paying someone to mow your lawn or clean your teeth. But in practice that transaction is often dishonorable, exploitative, if not downright abusive.First off, just want to point out that there is nothing, anywhere, even HINTED AT in the Code that prohibits drinking or prostitution. Feel free to get drunk and whore to your heart's content.
Second, as long as the deities are aligned, I see no issue. Worshiping multiple gods is something that should be common in a world with hundreds of them.
In places where prostitution is illegal, then it doesn't stop; it just ends up being run by criminals. Therefore, all the exploitation you mentioned.
In places where it's legal, it is also taxed, licenced, inspected, and the workers have rights.
We've had a big thread about Paladins and whores/one night stands. As long as you're both honest about what's going on and how long-standing (or not) it's supposed to be, there's no violation of the code. Some gods will be less than enthused about it, and some players refuse to accept a Paladin indulging in such things, but if you follow what the actual code says, it's fine.
The combination cleric and inquisitor is possible only if the same diety and even the same domain or subdomain is chosen.Is this a rules-text quote you can link for me? I'd be greatly interested.
He's conflating two things that don't necessarily go together. There's nothing stating the same deity is required, but there IS something restricting an Inquisitor with Cleric levels or who takes Cleric levels to having the same Domain as he had as an Inquisitor. So you'd be limited to gods with similar portfolios and therefore at least one of the same Domains.
"If the inquisitor has cleric levels, one of her two domain selections must be the same domain selected as an inquisitor. Levels of cleric and inquisitor stack for the purpose of determining domain powers and abilities, but not for bonus spells."
As above, is there a rules-text quote you can link for me? I'd be greatly interested.Is there any reason why a PC couldn't be a paladin of one god and a cleric of another?The one patron per PC rule.
This is a PFS houserule he's referring to, not an actual rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone mentioned before Paladin don't need to worship a deity to gain their powers...but well because it doesn't sit well with most people, they do.
There is nothing against it in the mechanics, but you will probably need to argue with your DM about it on the fluff side, which might not be worth the effort.
I'd agree that many GMs will not allow a paladin without a patron deity, but I don't think I'd say that "most" GMs don't like it or that a player would "probably need to argue." It's not just that the mechanics don't forbid it - James Jacobs has stated at least twice that the paladin usually but not always has a deity, and he's usually pretty conservative about paladins so it can't be that radical of an idea.
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.
In Golarion, most paladins worship a deity but they don't have to. Their powers are "fueled" by their faith, and that doesn't have to be faith in a deity. It could be faith in an idea, a philosophy, a cause, or whatever. They need something to believe in. And if that belief isn't lawful good, it'd better be lawful neutral for the paladin to focus harder on the law than the good, or neutral good for the paladin to focus harder on the good instead of the law. The paladin herself remains lawful good, so in a way, its her ALIGNMENT that is the source of her power.
The OP's situation is a little weirder and honestly what would break believability in my game is the idea that Abadar could call someone as a paladin without their consent on some level (even subconscious). But if we allow that, the character turning to another deity makes plenty of sense. Even if you do see deities as inherently competitive entities who don't like to share, why not have them compete for the worship of a particularly valued mortal?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JJ does not believe in being a Cleric of one god and another divine class (paladin, inquisitor) of another deity here.
Can a character worship different gods (while respecting the alignment rule) and use these to qualify for different classes (base or Prestige).
For example, can a LG character be simultaneously a Paladin of Iomedae, an Inquisitor of Erastil, a Cleric of Abadar and a Mystery Cultist of Ragathiel ?
Depends on your GM.
I would not allow it, though, because devotion to one deity implies that you're following that deity's rules and ethos and all that, and if you're doing that with multiple deities, you're not following any one deity's teachings well enough to deserve to gain power from that deity.
If you want to worship, say, Erastil, Abadar, Iomedae, and Ragathiel, that's fine... but you have to worship them all more or less equally. That means you could be a paladin and inquisitor and even a mystery cultist... but you could not be a cleric.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't commenting on whether JJ thought you could be a paladin of Abadar and a cleric of Iomedae at the same time, just on whether he thought paladins needed a deity.
It's interesting (and consistent) that he thinks the only class that can't be polytheistic is the only one that needs a deity - the cleric.
That said, he also does agree that it depends on the GM. I personally like a bit of polytheism, but usually in established polytheistic churches (like the dwarven pantheon) rather than a priest worshipping two normally independent deities.
People keep trying to claim that polytheism allows people to worship multiple gods so this is allowed. Well, yes and no. I never heard of anyone being a priest or priestess of more than one god no matter how many they may have sacrificed to. A cleric is -exactly- this sort of thing.
I'm pretty sure this is common among modern pagan priest-equivalents.
First and foremost, a priest (or a priestess – I’ll use the masculine because I’m primarily talking about myself) is a servant of the gods. And if you’re going to serve them, you have to know them. So the first duty of a priest is to spend time in communion with your patron deities.
...
In our rituals we speak of the gods as our most honored guests, and we invoke them in accordance with the ancient laws of hospitality. Another duty of a priest is to make the gods feel welcome and honored with offerings and praise.
More stuff from the same priest on what being a pagan priest means to him and his relationship with the gods, plural.
As a polytheist I recognize all gods, I honor many, and I work with and for a few. But I have a very close relationship with two: Cernunnos and Danu. They claimed me as theirs and I serve them as priest.
|
From the fluff side as Abadar is lawful neutral rather than Iomedae's Lawful Good... As they share a lot of the same ideals I could see it being okay if you used your separate powers to help others separately(IE used your paladin powers to follow Abadar's ideals while using your cleric powers for Iomedae's)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep trying to claim that polytheism allows people to worship multiple gods so this is allowed. Well, yes and no. I never heard of anyone being a priest or priestess of more than one god no matter how many they may have sacrificed to.
Actually, every Roman priest was typically a priest of at least three gods. As a householder, he was automatically (and by law) priest to both the Lares and Penates of his own householder, plus of course his day job.
My understanding is that multiple deities per priest became commonplace in the later Roman empire, as Christianity became the dominant religion, and so it became harder and harder to find pagans to fill the necessary jobs. Roman religious life was very calendrical; it was very important to propitiate each god(dess) at the proper time, but it didn't matter much who did what. (In that regard, it's not unlike celebrating St. Stephen's Day in the Church of SS. Peter and Paul today.)
Similarly, even in modern Shinto (Japanese traditional religions), priests are expected to venerate both their ancestral kami as well as the kami to which their shrine is dedicated as well as the village kami as well as the rest of the kami.
That you've not heard of this practice doesn't mean it didn't exist, or even that it wasn't widespread.