Okay, p22 of the Beta rules (very bottom left of page) states that if a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, they can pick two domains. The rules also say, in multiple places, that channeling energy is done through a holy symbol.
So, what does a cleric with no deity use? A non-denominational symbol?
Be a DM call and up to the setting. I myself never allow a cleric without a god.
But humm if it needs a holy symbol that could be filled by an item you have a great attachment to. A symbol of your convection .
So, what does a cleric with no deity use? A non-denominational symbol?
The default holy symbol is a Sun, but can be what ever the player decides is important for his character.
The default holy symbol is a Sun, but can be what ever the player decides is important for his character.
So, what does a cleric with no deity use? A non-denominational symbol?
Is that in the rules, or your is it your own thoughts?
|
Well, I THINK it said somewhere clerics can follow philosophies as well. SO that would imply to me that a cleric is not REQUIRED to have a deity.
Though I think I would probably tweak the class a bit and make it slightly different, maybe a spontaneous caster of divine spells.
And I might alter it so the default for turning is maybe fiends instead of undead.
Just to give it something special and different.
|
I would not be hot on a cleric without a diety in my game.
What if he wants to use divination? Who is going to supply the answers?
All spells come from a divine source - a philosophy is not a divine source.
But if you had a cleric that did not have a diety I assume they could channel energy - although I also might rework the class like Krome said - I would have to look that one over a bit and decide which way to go.
In Golarion, the philosophies do not preclude belonging to another way of thinking, and three of the four listed in the Campaign Setting have religions associated with them.
It does say specifically that: "In the theocracy of Razmiran, only the worship of Razmir is allowed. The false god has no power to grant spells: his priests are sorcerers and other spellcasters."
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.
Is that in the rules, or your is it your own thoughts?The default holy symbol is a Sun, but can be what ever the player decides is important for his character.
So, what does a cleric with no deity use? A non-denominational symbol?
Its in the core rules and assume its the same in PRPG as its made from 3.5 and no reason to change it. The quickest place I can reference is actually Weapons of Legacy for the "Divine Spark(pg72)" which is a holy symbol for those without gods. It makes the reference to the fact that the default holy symbol is the Sun. Its also somewhere very obscurely listed in the DMG also, but can't find it now.
I am not sure why it matters as its just fluff and the player should be able to describe their characters or holy symbols any way they want. I have had plenty of non-god worshiping clerics in my games and it causes no big issues. They get the benefit of building the character they want and get the draw back that they have no large organization behind them.
While those that play clerics to the setting gods are more restricted to how they play they gain the benefit of a large organization behind them. Seems to be a fairly balanced in my mind and not having a god is part of the core rules and I see no fun gained by removing such a rule.
....
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.
Thats in interesting house rule, but it sure is not core to either 3.5 or PRPG. You remove a major class ability because the character does not have a name listed under the God section of the character sheet? How is that even remotely game balanced as Channel-Energy or Turn Undead is a pretty major ability of the class. Are you giving them some equally major class ability to compensate?
I am totally confused on how creating such a house-rule makes the game better?
|
In Golarion, the philosophies do not preclude belonging to another way of thinking, and three of the four listed in the Campaign Setting have religions associated with them.
It does say specifically that: "In the theocracy of Razmiran, only the worship of Razmir is allowed. The false god has no power to grant spells: his priests are sorcerers and other spellcasters."
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.
i heartedly agree with you Gamer Girrl
|
|
....
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.Thats in interesting house rule, but it sure is not core to either 3.5 or PRPG. You remove a major class ability because the character does not have a name listed under the God section of the character sheet? How is that even remotely game balanced as Channel-Energy or Turn Undead is a pretty major ability of the class. Are you giving them some equally major class ability to compensate?
I am totally confused on how creating such a house-rule makes the game better?
well said player already striped a class from its general concept... is like talking about a druid who revered civilization instead o nature or
not putting a name under deity for a cleric would be as saying you are specialty wizard without chosing your specialty... yeah I would strip the cleric...if a player won't RPG his cleric to the point of saying "i follow this god" I don't believe they should be playing a cleric... a sorcerer or a bard would be ok
why? simple... a cleric is a servant of a gods, who recieve its power through divine inspiration
if a player just want to take 2 domains that no good use toguether and had 0 responsabilities to a deity, I won't acept such character... if others do, is cool for them.
if someone has problems roleplaying a character who serves an imaginary god... well I don't understand why woudl ever care to roleplay a cleric AT ALL. ahh yeah... the diluted magic, and the fabled CoDzilla :P, forgot that
....
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.Thats in interesting house rule, but it sure is not core to either 3.5 or PRPG. You remove a major class ability because the character does not have a name listed under the God section of the character sheet? How is that even remotely game balanced as Channel-Energy or Turn Undead is a pretty major ability of the class. Are you giving them some equally major class ability to compensate?
I am totally confused on how creating such a house-rule makes the game better?
First, I did not say that I houserule that, please do not add words to my electronic mouth :)
I was responding as others had on my opinion, and was making the point that the listed information from the Campaign Setting for Pathfinder does imply connections to a diety in three of four cases.
For my campaign, which is NOT 3.5 but is Pathfinder, you want to be a cleric, you need a diety, or you need to talk to me about what it is you are worshipping that gives you the divine connection to get your abilities. I am not stripping anything away from anyone, but it must make sense to my view of the world as the GM.
I can see how someone that worships "nature" could be a druid without referring to a specific god. I could also see how someone that is a believer in law and goodness (to use the reference from 3.5) would worship ALL the dieties of Golarion that fit that profile without taking one specific diety ... but you need to work it out with me as the GM, not just presume it. Because the base presumption from my chair is a cleric worships one diety specifically, and gains all her powers from that worship and devotion.
I favor Shadow Chemosh's view on this. You can have gods as the source of divine power for a cleric, of course, but in 3.X you certainly can have a cleric who follows a philosophy. The benefits of having a god? Plot hooks, an organization you can (probably) turn to for help, and a grounding in the campaign setting. I'd probably require a cleric following a philosophy to spend some time detailing that philosophy-until it looks like the entry for a deity from a book such as Faiths and Pantheons. Since these clerics can gain spells-divine magic-from their philosophies, why wouldn't they gain the ability to channel energy? They have sufficient force of will to tap into a universal force to cast gate, but not turn undead?
For those that then wonder who they contact for divination or summoning magic, one could rule that not every single celestial or demon or whatnot of the outer planes is subservient to a deity. These "independent operatives" might well show up to answer a planar ally spell or listen to the call of a cleric's commune and choose to field the questions themselves. This is presuming you care about such things, of course.
I would suggest that a cleric with no god still be bound by some code of behavior inherent in their philosophy or whatnot, or else they lack sufficient faith and will to draw divine magic from the cosmos. A cleric without spells is a 2nd-class warrior with fewer weapon proficiencies. At no time do I advocate penalizing the player for trying to do something different. Many interesting adventures could be based around the cleric interacting with established religions of the world.
I favor Shadow Chemosh's view on this. You can have gods as the source of divine power for a cleric, of course, but in 3.X you certainly can have a cleric who follows a philosophy. The benefits of having a god? Plot hooks, an organization you can (probably) turn to for help, and a grounding in the campaign setting. I'd probably require a cleric following a philosophy to spend some time detailing that philosophy-until it looks like the entry for a deity from a book such as Faiths and Pantheons. Since these clerics can gain spells-divine magic-from their philosophies, why wouldn't they gain the ability to channel energy? They have sufficient force of will to tap into a universal force to cast gate, but not turn undead?
For those that then wonder who they contact for divination or summoning magic, one could rule that not every single celestial or demon or whatnot of the outer planes is subservient to a deity. These "independent operatives" might well show up to answer a planar ally spell or listen to the call of a cleric's commune and choose to field the questions themselves. This is presuming you care about such things, of course.
I would suggest that a cleric with no god still be bound by some code of behavior inherent in their philosophy or whatnot, or else they lack sufficient faith and will to draw divine magic from the cosmos. A cleric without spells is a 2nd-class warrior with fewer weapon proficiencies. At no time do I advocate penalizing the player for trying to do something different. Many interesting adventures could be based around the cleric interacting with established religions of the world.
Agreed. I have no issue with a cleric worshiping a concept (Good, Law, Chaos, Evil, Neutrality (True Neutrality, like the original druids), Honor, etc). It gives him some freedom (less restrictions on his actions based on his god's creedo) but also limits him some (religious clerics, generally, are going to react negatively, because he eschews the gods themselves, some restrictions on what he can summon (independents as suggested above), and having to worry that maybe that entity that answered his commune spell wasn't actually a good creature, just someone that intercepted it, since he has no god to stop that).
I would, however, not allow a Favored Soul without a deity, since a Favored Soul is channeling a deity's power directly (due to blood line or special status).
I would suggest that a cleric with no god still be bound by some code of behavior inherent in their philosophy or whatnot, or else they lack sufficient faith and will to draw divine magic from the cosmos. A cleric without spells is a 2nd-class warrior with fewer weapon proficiencies. At no time do I advocate penalizing the player for trying to do something different. Many interesting adventures could be based around the cleric interacting with established religions of the world.
The next question would be (and this is relevant to the Pathfinder Chronicles): "Would the existing Pantheon allow such a thing?"
If not, then it is a Campaign issue (resulting from the existing Deities roles as NPCs), not really a rules issue.
|
|
....
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.Thats in interesting house rule, but it sure is not core to either 3.5 or PRPG. You remove a major class ability because the character does not have a name listed under the God section of the character sheet? How is that even remotely game balanced as Channel-Energy or Turn Undead is a pretty major ability of the class. Are you giving them some equally major class ability to compensate?
I am totally confused on how creating such a house-rule makes the game better?
There is more to a cleric having a diety than abilities. It is there reason for being and it gives (at times) a motivation for taking on certain quests or taking certain actions. It can be a great role playing tool - not often but powerful when used. And like a Paladin a cleric can be stripped of their cleric abilities for taking actions in contradiction to their god's will. A philosophy just does not provide all those opportunities.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Howdy, ShadowChemoth.
Folks here are used to their house rule "clerics need a deity". As you point out, that runs counter to both the 3rd Edition rules and the Pathfinder Beta rules, but it's a very common -and some would say, common-sense- house rule.
It is also, as I understand it, a world law specific to the Golarion setting. (And not only clerics; paladins in Golarion need to be attached to a god, too.)
The advantage. you ask? Flavor, for the most part, and story hooks. And, in Golarion, it's a big deal that the clerics of Aroden lost their powers when the god died. That's a central facet of the setting's history. If his clerics could have devoted themselves to Aroden's portfolio themes and retained their powers, then the Inheritor wouldn't have attracted as many followers.
|
I am open to PC clerics that follow ideals instead of gods, especially in worlds where gods have fallen, disappeared, mortals have ascended, et cetera. A symbol representing that PC's ideals/domains should function just fine to channel divine energy. Some may wonder where this power comes from, if the cleric or paladin or ranger doesn't worship a god? The power could be given by any single god or any number of gods who believe that PC is serving their interests, if not in their name. I see this option as especially strong when power is given by gods of deception and trickery.
Hmmm, I have to say this is actually a personal thing for me, religion has been a significant factor in my life right up to my present belief that one doesn't need some organized faith, singular deity, pantheon or any other specific entity in order to have strong spirituality. That being said, Pathfinder Chronicles have established that divine classes do not require a deity to have divine power as demonstrated by their philosophies section.
If you need an answer to how a PC gets divine power if not from their deity, then it's simple: the soul.
As stated in the Great Beyond book, not even the gods truly understand the nature of the soul, which makes it the perfect explanation for the divine spark to their magic. The cleric believes so strongly in their philosophy they draw upon their inner spiritual strength to give the magic they channel the divine positive or negative spark. Magic is magic in the Pathfinder universe whether it comes from a wizard manipulating the energies about him, or a deity channeling it to his followers or (according to the psionics discussion thread) drawn upon mental discipline. So it's not a stretch really.
That being said there is concern about abuse. That, as well, is quite simple, a DM who suspects his player is simply using that for some power build has that wonderful word "No." However, if they have a good RP reason behind it then I can see no real way for it to break a game. *shrug*
Just my two bits.
To answer the original question, I think you should allow channeling if you allow clerics without a god. If the player has a nice cleric concept involving no deity, then there is no reason to make the his character weaker than standard clerics. I would allow deity-less clerics, as long as the players reason isn't "this way I won't be punished if I don't crazy stuff".
Other than that, I really like Krome's idea of making it a spontaneous caster. I makes sense for a cleric, who draw his spells from his own inner power instead of a deity granting them. It won't change much, and you could still make him loss his cleric spells and abilities if he acts againts his beliefs. This way he might just lose faith in his own purpose, or his ability to fulfill it.
To answer the original question, I think you should allow channeling if you allow clerics without a god. If the player has a nice cleric concept involving no deity, then there is no reason to make the his character weaker than standard clerics.
I second that. If you allow clerics without deities, allow them all the way. If you think it shouldn't work, say it doesn't work at all.
I'm all for role-playing, but IME clerics without deities do so primarily so that they can cherry pick their domains to make themselves the most uber character possible. So I think it's risky to not house-rule, unless the cleric does take a firm stand on an ideal like law or chaos and pick domains and holy symbol appropriately.
....
Since Channeling positive or negative energy is a divine ability, I would say that unless you are a cleric of a diety, or possibly pantheon (depending on the campaign world and your GM), you cannot channel energy. The same way that a devote but non-cleric worshiper does not gain the ability to channel and cast divine spells, a cleric must have a tighter connection to her religion to gain those abilities.Thats in interesting house rule, but it sure is not core to either 3.5 or PRPG. You remove a major class ability because the character does not have a name listed under the God section of the character sheet? How is that even remotely game balanced as Channel-Energy or Turn Undead is a pretty major ability of the class. Are you giving them some equally major class ability to compensate?
I am totally confused on how creating such a house-rule makes the game better?
See that's not a game rule or a house rule that is a setting rule. Same as say forgotten realms where as cleric or a paladin MUST have a god. Now the 3.5 rules says he does not, however the FR setting book stats that in FR you MUST have a god. So setting rule over rides core rule
The rule system is setting neutral so allows non-god worshiping clerics.
The setting does not. Unless your DM allows it.
|
|
See that's not a game rule or a house rule that is a setting rule. Same as say forgotten realms where as cleric or a paladin MUST have a god. Now the 3.5 rules says he does not, however the FR setting book stats that in FR you MUST have a god. So setting rule over rides core rule
The rule system is setting neutral so allows non-god worshiping clerics.
The setting does not. Unless your DM allows it.
agreed and Golarion looks like this... but I need to check the aprt of philosophies...
|
From the earliest days, clerics have not required deities. The class makes perfect sense being either a follower or an ideal, or serving a pantheon. Also, there are multiple settings that do not have deities, or that the deities are effectively nonexistant. Eberron (are a myth), Dark Sun (if they ever existed, are long dead), Planescape (Sigil, they are not allowed), Dragonlance (basically has clerics that draw divine power from their emotions and convictions, and because there is an actual contrast between this class and Clerics there is a good reason that Clerics most have a deity). Ravenloft is basically mute on it, though as you can come from anywere, you also have free reign to make up a religion. Greyhawk, (not the PHB not even close thing), allows either option freely.
I love the concept of Clerics. The Holy Warrior. Paladins as well, though I often go for the nonLawful Good. However, I personally have real life religious problems with playing with a game were I have to worship a deity, so I will not play if that is a requirement. I don't try to push it on anyone, or even say that others are wrong. But personally, I think that the concept of Cleric=Deity needs to be removed from the game as a basic playstyle or requirement. Instead think of them as miracle workers that can do their thing because they study miraculous and spiritual things.
But at it's base, there is no problem with non-deity Clerics, unless you are playing in a game like FR which try to force some nonlogical restriction on you, and there really should be no mechanical difference between a cleric, paladin, or whatever, that followes a specific belief rather than a deity, for whatever reason, (so long as it is not an excuss to cheat the rules).
However, and I play Clerics all the time, being able to choose what Domains you want, really isn't all that Broken. Some work pretty well together, but how is that any different than a Wizard that chooses what Spells they want to learn so that they can use them to better effect together.
In fact, there are a lot of neat concepts that D&D has just never done, or done well. Like playing a dualistic cleric, with the Sun and Moon/Darkness Domains, or something like that. And it is typically the people that play a belief that have the more in depth characters, as D&D has never gone very far into different D&D religions. Even in the deities books, Complete Divine/Champion, Faiths of Eberron/Faerun, are all very vague about actual details. Holy Order of the Stars, the Dragonlance book on the Divine is a notable exception.