Do Shamans need a deity?


Pathfinder Society


9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do Shamans need a deity?

guide to society play:

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
divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are
added as additional resources will be required to choose
a deity unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, characters
who do not receive powers from a divine source may
choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.

It seems like, as divine spell caster not given a specific exception, shamans are required to have a deity. I ask this question because it seems contrary to their flavor. Shamans gain their spells from a communion with their spirit animal. Perhaps these spirits gain their powers in turn from deities. I am not sure, but it would seem to me that they would be in the same category as Druids. Perhaps this has already been clarified or perhaps it has been too small an issue to get much attention. Any thoughts?

Sovereign Court 5/5

It's probably fair to ask for a FAQ.. but I'd suspect that if Druids don't have to have one, then neither should/will Shamans.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

deusvult wrote:
It's probably fair to ask for a FAQ.. but I'd suspect that if Druids don't have to have one, then neither should/will Shamans.

I think the closer correlation would be Oracles.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deusvult wrote:
It's probably fair to ask for a FAQ.. but I'd suspect that if Druids don't have to have one, then neither should/will Shamans.

I believe that Druids do need a diety in the Golarion setting.

5/5

LazarX wrote:
deusvult wrote:
It's probably fair to ask for a FAQ.. but I'd suspect that if Druids don't have to have one, then neither should/will Shamans.
I believe that Druids do need a diety in the Golarion setting.

They do not, or they would be called out like clerics as part of the Golarion divine casters that need a deity in the Guide...


That and Druids are specifically called out as being one of the exceptions to the rule that divine casters need deities.

guide to society organized play wrote:

Druids, oracles, and rangers are

the exception to this rule.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD wrote:
While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing.

Seems to me that that would qualify as "unless otherwise specified"...


James, I agree with you. As it currently stands, shamans require a deity. I am merely pointing out that it is contrary to their flavor, and it could be easily fixed. It seems the exception was designed with the idea that more exceptions may be added in the future. It is my hope, that the shaman will be added to this list of exceptions.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

James Wygle wrote:
PRD wrote:
While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing.
Seems to me that that would qualify as "unless otherwise specified"...

I agree with this.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

MichaelCullen wrote:
James, I agree with you. As it currently stands, shamans require a deity. I am merely pointing out that it is contrary to their flavor, and it could be easily fixed. It seems the exception was designed with the idea that more exceptions may be added in the future. It is my hope, that the shaman will be added to this list of exceptions.

I helped write the text of the rule. So I can speak to its intent.

The intent was to write a rule that could accommodate new classes based on how those new classes were written.

The Shaman is specifically written that they don't worship a deity.

Therefore, they clearly fall under the "or otherwise specified" classification of the rule.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

I helped write the text of the rule. So I can speak to its intent.

Therefore, they clearly fall under the "or otherwise specified" classification of the rule.

No offense, but that make no sense. PFS utilizes broad, inconsistent rules for the sake of balance, so that someone can go from one game to another.

"Or otherwise Specified" means, in a practical sense with PFS, "Unless there is a ruling that says otherwise".

The actual ruling as written is all classes that utilize a Patron deity are required to have a singular Patron Deity, unless WE SAY OTHERWISE, (kind of a read our minds if you want to understand the intent situation).

Since they have not said otherwise, to PFS in general, that means despite the flavor of the Shaman, it does require a Patron Deity, because no official ruling has specified otherwise. (Please note, common sense and GM discretion has no place in PFS), so I think you kind of have it backwards. If the intent was to only require specific classes to require a Patron Deity, it should be written so that no class requires you to list a Patron, unless specifically called out as such.

:)

Personally, I'd rather just ditch that entirely, even and specifically for the Cleric/Paladin/Inquisitor and maximize fun and interesting concepts, but that's another topic.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

DM Beckett wrote:
(Please note, common sense and GM discretion has no place in PFS)

Strongly disagree, without those two bits PFS can't really work, and GMs quite often have to use their own discretion when players wander outside the description of the adventure or use unusual tactics.

Without common sense a pretty big number of builds are almost unworkable and the rules do expect a certain degree of common sense from the players and GMs.

Shadow Lodge

MichaelCullen wrote:
James, I agree with you. As it currently stands, shamans require a deity.

I disagree. The Guide says future divine casters must choose a deity "unless otherwise specified". The shaman class explicitly states that they do not gain their power from a god, therefore they fall under the "unless otherwise specified" clause, and thus are not required to worship a deity.

Please, let's use some common sense, here.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
(Please note, common sense and GM discretion has no place in PFS)

Strongly disagree, without those two bits PFS can't really work, and GMs quite often have to use their own discretion when players wander outside the description of the adventure or use unusual tactics.

Without common sense a pretty big number of builds are almost unworkable and the rules do expect a certain degree of common sense from the players and GMs.

Because then you will have things where one PFS DM okays something which they are okay with, and then the play takes it to another game and that DM smacks it down. One of the biggest selling points of organized play is being able to take your legal character and jump into any game anywhere that has PFS going on.

I can say that based on common sense, the Undead Lord Archetype is perfectly fine, but it's still illegal.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

James Wygle wrote:
MichaelCullen wrote:
James, I agree with you. As it currently stands, shamans require a deity.

I disagree. The Guide says future divine casters must choose a deity "unless otherwise specified". The shaman class explicitly states that they do not gain their power from a god, therefore they fall under the "unless otherwise specified" clause, and thus are not required to worship a deity.

Please, let's use some common sense, here.

And what does the Cleric say on that front?

Core Ruebook wrote:
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)

I am not arguing that a Shaman should or should not be required to follow a Deity in PFS. All I am saying is that by the PFS rules, regardless of what the class fluff says, they are. Common Sense has nothing to do with it.

That is to say that the rule is "Divine casters, unless otherwise called out, require a Patron Deity." Shaman is not called out.

It is contrary to the flavor of the Shaman, but then again it is also contrary to the Cleric, Inquisitor, and Paladin as well. Someone wanted to hamper Cleric's flavor options in choosing Domains, the intent of Inquisitors was originally that they could serve organizations or nations (specifically Rahadoum and Andoran where called out), and Paladins gained their powers not from any god, but the planar and universal forces of good and purity. So it' not about intent or the very misleading RAI either.

So, if PFS wants to rule that Shamans are an exception, that's cool, but it does need to be an exception.

PFS Guide wrote:
Druids, oracles, and rangers are the exception to this rule. The list is not exhaustive, and divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are added as additional resources will be required to choose a deity unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

The "or otherwise specified" is referring to the fluff written into the classes. The rule was designed to be forward compatible with new classes.

Was it perfect wording? Maybe not.

But if you don't accept the word of someone who "HELPED WRITE IT!" then I don't know what will convince you.

Shadow Lodge

DM Beckett wrote:

And what does the Cleric say on that front?

Core Ruebook wrote:
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)

First, a class that's usually deity-based, but has an option to do otherwise, is vastly different from a class that is never deity-based.

Second, they already have an exception, and has been pointed out:

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:
The list is not exhaustive, and divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are added as additional resources will be required to choose a deity unless otherwise specified.
Shaman wrote:
While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing.

The class explicitly specifies that they don't get their powers from a god, which quite clearly would qualify for the "otherwise specified" clause.

I mean, we even have a VC who helped write the freaking rule in here saying that the "otherwise specified" rule was intended to allow classes to opt themselves out, based on how they're written. The only problem here is if we have GMs insisting there's a problem where there isn't one.

Campaign leadership shouldn't have to spend all of their time ruling on every little corner case just because someone gets it into their head that there's something that needs clarifying when no one else does. You know shamans don't get their powers from a deity, you've been told that the "unless otherwise specified" clause is intended to prevent classes that say they don't use deities to be forced into choosing one. That should be enough.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

If the general rule is that divine casters need to worship a deity, the specific language of the Shaman means they do not have to have one.

In Pathfinder, specific beats general.

The class itself exempts it from the rule.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:

If the general rule is that divine casters need to worship a deity, the specific language of the Shaman means they do not have to have one.

In Pathfinder, specific beats general.

The class itself exempts it from the rule.

And the rule itself supports that exemption.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Yes, the rule itself couldn't be clearer on that point.

I agree with you - I mean, even if I didn't think the intent was important, the language of the rule is more than clear enough.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mark Stratton wrote:

Yes, the rule itself couldn't be clearer on that point.

I agree with you - I mean, even if I didn't think the intent was important, the language of the rule is more than clear enough.

That's what I thought. But since I am somewhat personally invested in what was written, I didn't want to sound all pompous like I'd written the perfect wording or something.

That being said, the intent was so that the campaign staff didn't have to re-explore the wording everytime some new class came out. That the rule would cover the new class based on how the new class was written.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

DM Beckett wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
(Please note, common sense and GM discretion has no place in PFS)

Strongly disagree, without those two bits PFS can't really work, and GMs quite often have to use their own discretion when players wander outside the description of the adventure or use unusual tactics.

Without common sense a pretty big number of builds are almost unworkable and the rules do expect a certain degree of common sense from the players and GMs.

Because then you will have things where one PFS DM okays something which they are okay with, and then the play takes it to another game and that DM smacks it down. One of the biggest selling points of organized play is being able to take your legal character and jump into any game anywhere that has PFS going on.

I can say that based on common sense, the Undead Lord Archetype is perfectly fine, but it's still illegal.

Rules should be clear, but so often they are not. While I wish it to be different, quite often the GM has to make the call when an ability is badly worded.

Whenever I have to mention " expect table variation", well I am not particularly happy about that.
I hope, that one day Paizo will be able to give us clarifications in a shorter timeframe.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

The "or otherwise specified" is referring to the fluff written into the classes. The rule was designed to be forward compatible with new classes.

Was it perfect wording? Maybe not.

But if you don't accept the word of someone who "HELPED WRITE IT!" then I don't know what will convince you.

James Wygle wrote:

I mean, we even have a VC who helped write the freaking rule in here saying that the "otherwise specified" rule was intended to allow classes to opt themselves out, based on how they're written. The only problem here is if we have GMs insisting there's a problem where there isn't one.

Campaign leadership shouldn't have to spend all of their time ruling on every little corner case just because someone gets it into their head that there's something that needs clarifying when no one else does. You know shamans don't get their powers from a deity, you've been told that the "unless otherwise specified" clause is intended to prevent classes that say they don't use deities to be forced into choosing one. That should be enough.

Mark Stratton wrote:

If the general rule is that divine casters need to worship a deity, the specific language of the Shaman means they do not have to have one.

In Pathfinder, specific beats general.
The class itself exempts it from the rule.
Mark Stratton wrote:

Yes, the rule itself couldn't be clearer on that point.

I agree with you - I mean, even if I didn't think the intent was important, the language of the rule is more than clear enough.

Ok, lets break this down a bit.

First, lets assume that some random DM has an issue with this come up. Now, obviously, the first thing they are going to do is check out the PFS specific rules on the subject.

PFS Guide wrote:
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 divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are added as additional resources will be required to choose a deity unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.

So, according to this, all Divine casters require a patron deity, including classes from future products. However, there are some exceptions give. The three exceptions listed are the Druid, Oracle, and Ranger.

So a Common Sense reading of the rule says that classes not called out as an exception fall under this specific rule. We have the exceptions listed, and Shaman is not on that list. Let me reiterate. The rule says there are exceptions and that includes for all future books. A list of exceptions is given. Shaman is not on that list of given exceptions. Anybody disagree with this?

Now, let keep the fact that this random GM probably has not just happened to stumble on this thread, which so far has not be actually been called out as an Official Legal Clarification, so are unaware of the "intent".

They are going to first think, "well, okay, the Guide has been out for a while. And the Shaman has been legal for a rather long time as well, with the Playtest already, so obviously if PFS intended to include the Shaman on that list, they would have been listed as an Exception already."

"Obviously, it is not, so I guess that means that Shaman, regardless of the fluff needs a Patron Deity. Hum that's kind of odd, but hey, this is PFS."

They might even think something like "hum, this s probably one of those corner cases and maybe it just slipped through the cracks", (after having checked out the specific rules on the subject and realizing that both the guide and the class has been out for a while), "so lets take a look at some other examples"

So they read up on the flavor of the Cleric vs the Druid, compare them to the Paladin, Ranger, Oracle, and find no logical or consistent rational. (This comes up a lot, especially in regards tot he Cleric and Paladin which specifically call out they do not require a Deity in the book.) And in the case of the Paladin and the Inquisitor, Paizo very specifically stated that they where intended to not require a deity at all, actually getting their power from a the spiritual forces of the group they served, so a Rahadoum Inquisitor trying to infiltrate religions in the atheist nation was an inspiration and goal for the class.

"Well, I guess, I mean this is PFS after all, and in order to be consistent across the globe, sometimes what seems like it should make sense or should work just don't."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, with all that being said, if for PFS the INTENT is to allow classes, based on their flavor and book write up to be an exception rather than being called out as an exception, that' fine. And I DO AGREE with that. However, the point I am trying to make is that is not what the PFS rules actually say. So please, edit what the guide says to something like.

    "In PFS, all Divine classes are required to pick a Patron Deity. A few specific classes that do not cast Divine Spells, but are tied in strongly to a church or faith, such as the Cavalier or Samurai of the Order of the Star, or any class that takes a Feat, Trait, or similar option listed as being tied to a specific deity also are required to pick a Patron Deity, and loose access to the Feat, Trait, or Class Features if they ever cease being a follower of that Patron Deity.

    The exceptions to this rule are Divine Spellcasting classes such as the Oracle or Druid, where the theme and written presentation of the class specifies that they do not require a Patron Deity."

Again, what it should be and what people here are insisting it currently is are two different, mutually exclusive things. This is important because in PFS we are all required, by the nature of organized play, to abide by what is written and our best interpretation of it, not what we individually think something should be, or what we are comfortable with. Table variation is uniformly a bad thing.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

@DM Beckett: I think noone actually objects to a tigher language in the next edition of the guide.

Dark Archive 3/5

If you own Inner Sea Gods, every one of your characters should have a deity just because of the flavor and mechanics of that book, excepting specific reasons not to (Ezren for example). In a world where you can literally ascend to godhood yourself, it would be really hard to be an atheist, the people who do so probably being conspiracy theorists (no, you see, it is not really the gods granting the clerics the spells, the clerics know something we don't and are trying to cover it up!) While in all actuality, those characters would be closer to agnostic, the principle still stands that there is nothing to be gained from not having a god.

Sovereign Court 5/5

i would like to point out the the shaman is a oracle/witch hybrid, niether of these clases are req'd to worship a god, it also states in the shaman class that their oracle retrieves their spells for them it does not say that a god grants them.

Sovereign Court 5/5

I think this is not only a fairly clear case of RAI trumping RAW, it's apparently safe to say there's considerable consensus that this is the case.

So looking to where the rubber meets the road:

If you have a shaman, I think it's fairly safe to assume you'll be fine if you leave the "Deity" block blank on your character sheet. If you do end up with a GM who insists the RAW trumps RAI on this issue, just shrug and write in any god you like that's within one alignment of your character's. In pencil, so you can easily erase it again after that session, if desired.

Another thought: There's a post on the forums somewhere where the difference between "revering" and "worshipping" is spelled out for the purposes of PFS. (that's an invite for someone with stronger search fu than mine to link it..)

The gist of that ruling: You can revere whoever you want, so long as you're not gaining mechanics. Anything that grants divine mechanics entails "worship" and requires the alignments to match within 1 step.

Grand Lodge 4/5

ARGH! wrote:
If you own Inner Sea Gods, every one of your characters should have a deity just because of the flavor and mechanics of that book, excepting specific reasons not to (Ezren for example). In a world where you can literally ascend to godhood yourself, it would be really hard to be an atheist, the people who do so probably being conspiracy theorists (no, you see, it is not really the gods granting the clerics the spells, the clerics know something we don't and are trying to cover it up!) While in all actuality, those characters would be closer to agnostic, the principle still stands that there is nothing to be gained from not having a god.

Actually there are traits and feats that require not having a deity, like the Godless Healing feat. And don't forget that if your background says you are from Rahadoum, having a deity is probably not a good idea...

2/5 *

kinevon wrote:
And don't forget that if your background says you are from Rahadoum, having a deity is probably not a good idea...

Or a Brilliantly Bad Idea...


Or an Animist Shaman, who wants to be an.... animist.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Do Shamans need a deity? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society