I always kind of liked both Heretic of the Faith and Servant of the Fallen, provided the GM does his due devious diligence when using them.
I don't think that just anyone that worships a dead god should be able to get powers from them, or else there isn't much point in a god dying, since all of his followers will continue on as if nothing happened. The Servant of the Fallen feat really shows that one really rare, connected, probably fanatic, follower of a dead god that has managed to tap into the fading power left in the corpse of their god.
Or to mix sourcebooks, the character with Servant of the Fallen has managed to tap into the fading demiurge of a god as described in Requiem for a God from Malhavoc. Someone should not gain Servant of the Fallen after their god has just died. It should be some kind of weird, scary vision quest that lets the follower go beyond what a normal mortal could.
In fact, I can see other "worshipers" of that fallen god seeing the the Servant of the Fallen as a bit of a freak, and performing what amounts to heresy, as they are pulling power from the "corpse" of the fallen god.
Just wondering where in the beta rules it says you have to worship a god?I know the both the game and default d20 state that clerics can follow either a god or an ideal, but when we talk about separate campaign settings, each setting has its own rulings on particular subjects, like FR, where even -rangers- had to forcefully follow a god (I hated that soooo much).
I loved that, also druids must worship a god in FR and almost all known monks do as well
|
Alizor, there's a feat in FR ('Servant of the Fallen') that lets you worship a dead or slumbering deity and receive your spells normally. If I was your DM, I would probably do it that way.That is one feat I Banned. However it should be noted the gods it list in the feat are NOT dead. They are forgotten, depowered mere shadows of gods, yet are not dead. They have no worshipers, and very little real powers something less then a demi-god at times but NOT dead.
Why? It's not "broken", at least from what I recall. And FR deities rarely die "for real", although I would certainly rule Bhaal as being more or less permanently dead.
I have to recheck that feat.
Alizor, there's a feat in FR ('Servant of the Fallen') that lets you worship a dead or slumbering deity and receive your spells normally. If I was your DM, I would probably do it that way.That is one feat I Banned. However it should be noted the gods it list in the feat are NOT dead. They are forgotten, depowered mere shadows of gods, yet are not dead. They have no worshipers, and very little real powers something less then a demi-god at times but NOT dead.Why? It's not "broken", at least from what I recall. And FR deities rarely die "for real", although I would certainly rule Bhaal as being more or less permanently dead.
I have to recheck that feat.
To me it brakes setting so yeah I find it broken. Bhaal's power is still around in his children , he is gone but it is still there, I would never allow that feat for him even if I allowed the feat
Those are some good ideas, the kind that could make for an interesting module or even a mid-high level mini-AP.
My thoughts exactly, Iron Sentinel. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just out of curiosity, why can't you serve a dead god? It is fantasy...
And since you can serve ideals, why can't you serve the ideals of a dead god? As far as lying to himself, it is simpler to say "I am a Paladin of Aroden," than to say "I am a Paladin to the ideals of the dead god Aroden." If the character understands the difference how is it lying?
It is like calling the sky blue... the sky is not blue, it is cyan, there is in fact a distinct difference, yet no one complains about lying when someone says the sky is blue.
That being said, I would not allow it in my game, only because I have already made some plans concerning Aroden.
I'll tell you why, his faith comes from Aroden, his power comes from his faith. His power is a lie, he is diluted and based off false hope, off a lie of his own making.
He can say he is a paladin of the teaching of fallen aroden but saying e is a paladin of aroden is a lie. He lies by showing "power" of something that is not there.
So to me I would never allow it.
Switch to decaf. He may be "deluded" but that doesn't make him a liar. In fact, belief is necessary for delusion, which pretty much precludes him from lying. In a zone of truth spell for example, he'd be fine saying "I'm a paladin of Aroden" because he believes it to be true. Anyway, in MY games worshipers directly correlate to life for gods. You kill off their faith base, you kill off the god and that's the preferred method of warfare between gods; letting their churches blow each other up. Which is why in my games and in those of most DMs I know, you get enough belief going on and you either resurrect a god or make a new one. There's plenty of backing for that in fluff, too. Some of the relatively new Dragonlance books specifically involve a god made due to the lack of old gods. (That Mina chick.) Lots of Forgotten Realms stuff backs this too. During the Time of Troubles gods fought directly and sucked the life out of their peons to do it; which ultimately weakened the gods in question. Sure, you can argue that there are greater gods who are divorced from the belief-dependence, but for the most part it's the worshipers that make everything go.
[Edit]
Also, point of order, if an Ur-Priest can nab bits of divine power without worshiping anything; surely a cleric can do it unintentionally during the process of revering a departed patron. And without being evil, which was always a lame and judgmental requirement for Ur-Priests... =P
...The best examples I could define for it would involve another divine being stepping in. For instance:
1) Iomedae - Although she's picked up much of Aroden's portfolio and claimed it as her own, she could still be granting the divine energy necessary for clerics and paladins who continue to revere Aroden.
2) The Empyreal Lords - Presumably one of these angelic beings could have adopted Aroden's clergy, dispensing spells and guidance without seeking to replace Aroden's name with their own. One of these lords may even be guiding Aroden's faithful to try and resurrect him. Andoletta or Ragathiel seem best suited for it.
3) Pharasma - The goddess of death supposedly knew something about Aroden's passing, but has not seen fit to share that information. Why? And, is it possible that in Aroden's absence, the Lady of Graves now shepherds his faithful while his divinity hangs in the balance?
4) Milani - This goddess is slightly less well known than Iomedae, but she too was a minor saint associated with the Last Azlanti. So I think she could have picked up Aroden's followers in an attempt to perpetuate the hope of his return. After all, "hope, devotion and uprisings" are all part of her portfolio. So championing something like that would make complete sense for her. She's a Chaotic Good goddess, as well, so operating "outside the rules" seems like something she'd favor. She also has the Healing domain as a major part of her portfolio, so caring for the spiritual wounds of Aroden's priesthood might resonate well, too.
5) Asmodeus - For a more sinister approach, why not say that Aroden truly is dead, but Asmodeus has seized this opportunity to delude his priesthood into thinking he's still alive. Asmodeus could be the one granting their spells and abilities in an attempt to develop an entirely new line of followers.
I think that gives you five good surrogates for how and why a paladin or priest of Aroden could continue to exist and still keep their abilities. Some of the other gods may even be cooperating to support such a thing...perpetuating a lie to Aroden's followers, but doing so for a potentially good reason...
But that's just my nickel's worth,
--Neil
I'll take that nickel, and give you back a dime change!
Great candidates and motivations, Neil. It hasn't come up for me yet, but I had been planning on having Iomedae take over the granting of spells/abilities. I feel that she would replace Aroden's role out of respect and duty to her former mentor, and pity for his followers clinging to their worship. My only niggling difficulty was that I didn't feel that it would be appropriate to have her "lie" or actively deceive Aroden's followers that their powers were still coming from him. I was trying to rationalize a "don't ask, don't tell" but not outright deceiving. Your ideas regarding Milani work excellent to fill that role, and I will gleefully steal them. Thanks :)
Switch to decaf. He may be "deluded" but that doesn't make him a liar. In fact, belief is necessary for delusion, which pretty much precludes him from lying.
His god is dead, his god does not grant his power yet he says it does. so yeah he is a liar even if it is to himself.
Paladin of Aroden is a paladin of a dead god hince he gets nothing. He is not a paladin of Arodens ideals as they have been taken by other gods. I just said how I would do it in my game and no paladin can base his powers off a lie
|
I'd have to say that you have to worship a specific idea, not a set. So a cleric could worship the Absalom idea, or the law idea, or the human idea, or the prophesy idea, or the freedom idea, or the Azlant idea. But they can't worship a specific entity unless that entity grants spells. And they can't worship the complex idea of "Aroden," because he can't grant spells now that he's dead. Sure, they can believe in him, but it has to be something in their very gut that they are devoted to. Aroden is dead. They can't devote themselves to something that has been dead for a century and have no contact with.
You could also say that Pharasma "owns" Aroden (Echo of Lost Divinity, in her entry in Gods and Magic), so the cleric cannot worship him when he worships Pharasma.
I think what clinches it is that Aroden's clerics can't get spells from him.
Paladins don't need gods. It even points out in the campaign settings that most paladins don't have a personal god they follow.
In addition there are several points where the campaign settings point out a philosophy that gives domains... such as the Hellknight order of the Godclaw.
In short gods are unnecessary, always were always will be and we are better off without them.
I'd have to say that you have to worship a specific idea, not a set. So a cleric could worship the Absalom idea, or the law idea, or the human idea, or the prophesy idea, or the freedom idea, or the Azlant idea.
On Golarion they must worship gods not ideals. You can rule them usable in homegames as always but officially it seems you must have a god
|
|
The setting always trumps rules. In the setting godless clerics are out....
Clergy, however, is another matter entirely, as golarian clerics require a functional, specific god so yeah, like Gamer Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl said, the remains of Aroden's clergy are nowadays powerless and resorting to arcane trinkets.Just wondering where in the beta rules it says you have to worship a god? Page 22 under spells for clerics says nothing about a specific god. Also on page 22 it says "If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations."
This seems to match the core 3.5 rules of not having to worship a specific god. So what I am missing in the PRPG beta rules that requires a cleric to worship a specific god?
Thanks
Are not.
|
|
The way I look at it, the faithful of dead god's don't get their spells.. unless another god is granting them their spells without them knowing it.
The reason, the nature of divine magic. I don't see them as having a written formula for every effect like a wizard does.
"Please Aorden, protect me from my foes." *divine shield*
"Grant me the power to repel the abominations that stands before your humble servant." *sunburst*
"Make these fools cower before your awesome might Lord." *cause fear*
Are not.[
The setting always trumps rules. In the setting godless clerics are out.
From what I can see yes they are. Every book talks of gods and clergy not once does it say godless clergy , no where If you find where It says there are godless clergy that cast spells I will say I am wrong but so far no one has found this.
I'd have to say that you have to worship a specific idea, not a set. So a cleric could worship the Absalom idea, or the law idea, or the human idea, or the prophesy idea, or the freedom idea, or the Azlant idea.On Golarion they must worship gods not ideals. You can rule them usable in homegames as always but officially it seems you must have a god
Not true. Look again at the paladin page, and the druid page. The philosophy section in religion while you are at it. Several places in the campaigns settings specifically point out you can get spells divinely without following a god.
Not true. Look again at the paladin page, and the druid page. The philosophy section in religion while you are at it. Several places in the campaigns settings specifically point out you can get spells divinely without following a god.I'd have to say that you have to worship a specific idea, not a set. So a cleric could worship the Absalom idea, or the law idea, or the human idea, or the prophesy idea, or the freedom idea, or the Azlant idea.On Golarion they must worship gods not ideals. You can rule them usable in homegames as always but officially it seems you must have a god
Not for a cleric. The paladin section d druid section point it out, the cleric section does not cover it and indeed makes sure you know about the gods. Not one unlike the other two does it say anyone has ever heard of a godless cleric
If you look the philosophy's do not grant spell casting or domains and are fallowed by members of godly faiths. They are ideal to live by not Gods or powers they do not have clerics other then those from gods who also fallow that way of thinking. so still zero examples of godless clerics
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His god is dead, his god does not grant his power yet he says it does. so yeah he is a liar even if it is to himself.
A delusion is an erroneous belief. Meaning that while he might be wrong, he's not a liar because he believes what he's saying. Lots of roleplay potential.
Paladins don't need gods. It even points out in the campaign settings that most paladins don't have a personal god they follow.
In addition there are several points where the campaign settings point out a philosophy that gives domains... such as the Hellknight order of the Godclaw.
In short gods are unnecessary, always were always will be and we are better off without them.
/high five!
|
How about instead play a paladin/binder that binds Aroden's vestige (assuming he is now available as a vestige and not floating in the astral). There is a PRC in Tome of Magic that is perfect for this, Knight of the "something", that allows you to become more closely tied to a particular vestige. This relationship allows you get greater benefit from the vestige than you normally could. You could then easily worship and strive to maintain the ideals that Aroden stood for. The vestige abilities come directly form the Last Son of Azlant and your paladin abilities come from you worshiping his ideals and philosophies and stiving to live up the his standards.
I like it. I could see a whole order of these "Knights of Aroden". All we need is to create a vestige for Aroden. Shouldn't be too hard, I will get to work on it tonight.
Tam
Knight of the Sacred Seal. I believe that is the name of the PRC. One of the few classes that allow you to advance in it and continue as a paladin afterward.
Unfortunately, after looking into it more, I don't think we know enough about Aroden to make an appropriate vestige for him.
Tam
A delusion is an erroneous belief. Meaning that while he might be wrong, he's not a liar because he believes what he's saying. Lots of roleplay potential.
His god is dead, his god does not grant his power yet he says it does. so yeah he is a liar even if it is to himself.
It could be but once he learns his god is dead ..so goes his faith and with it his powers.
But to each his own I just wouldn't all it. Which is cool if you would.
It could be but once he learns his god is dead ..so goes his faith and with it his powers.But to each his own I just wouldn't all it. Which is cool if you would.
Ah, but that's the beauty of delusion. It's a firm belief that remains despite all evidence to the contrary. It's not as simple as willful ignorance either, it's a real belief that the "facts" that disprove your belief are somehow flawed or false. And it's everywhere, even today.
Yeah, I'm not really trying to talk you into doing things my way; I just find the idea interesting.
In traditional D&D, yes, but it seems in PF gods well and truly die just like any other entity.
Lends some credence to the Athar point of view, doesn't it...
Lends some credence to the Athar point of view, doesn't it...
In traditional D&D, yes, but it seems in PF gods well and truly die just like any other entity.
Whats really scary is ...Gods normally do not die. So just what is out there that can kill one...even one who's fate has done been written?
Whats really scary is ...Gods normally do not die. So just what is out there that can kill one...even one who's fate has done been written?
Sure they do. They just don't die unless they're killed on their home plane. Otherwise, you kill them on some other plane and they essentially reform on their home plane. There might be some lingering after-effects of having "died" elsewhere that could require some recovery time. But, in general, I think that's the best way to perpetuate a god in Pathfinder. You're killing an avatar on any other plane. But you're killing the real thing when you face them on their home turf. And, if you can pull off killing a god on his home plane, more power to you...
With regards to Aroden, though, I personally go with the theory that he's true and fully dead because his home plane was the Material Plane of Golarion. And somehow, someway...someone or something managed to kill him there.
Or...if you want to go with the theory that he isn't dead yet...to me, that would mean he's either imprisoned on some other plane (but not yet killed because that would have allowed him to reform on the Material Plane again)...or, he's still on Golarion, but trapped and/or not yet fully recovered from whatever prevented his foretold appearance.
You can go multiple directions with this...or, as I call them, there are many doors through which the story could go. As a GM, you open one and take it. Paizo has taken the door that says Aroden is truly and fully dead. So be it. Now what about the continuing devotion of his followers? That's a whole different set of doors. And that's why I tried to outline some possibilities earlier for surrogate gods who might have picked up Aroden's portfolio...or, at least, are paying attention to Aroden's faithful in an effort to support (or dupe) them.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
Your ideas regarding Milani work excellent to fill that role, and I will gleefully steal them. Thanks :)
You're welcome! :-)
I've always had this thing about diving into campaign setting material and finding all these little bits and pieces and then trying to make further connections out of them. It's one of my favorite past-times. :-)
What do people think? Complete disaster, or potentially fun?
I think that turn of events would be a lot more difficult to credibly pull off. Arazni used to be a warrior-goddess and Herald of Aroden in her former life. She was summoned by the Knights Ozem to aid (and lead) their fight against Tar-Baphon the Whispering Tyrant during the Shining Crusade. When she died, the knights interred her in a tomb in Lastwall. Later, Geb stole away her remains and reanimated her as a lich so he could take her as his Harlot Queen.
In the PFCS, Arazni is now described as a "debased lich"...which, to me, implies she's wholly evil now. And the generally-accepted SRD write-up on the lich template states:
The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.
So, presumably when Geb reanimated Arazni, she would have had to willingly agree to return as a lich. That makes her evil. Therefore, even if Aroden did attempt to impart his divine spark to her, I'd find it hard to believe it would take hold...i.e., that Arazni would accept it. She now serves as the de facto governor of all Geb...a land where necromancy and undead rule the day (and the night). So, her current incarnation doesn't jive very well with Aroden's legacy anymore. I wouldn't see him entrusting his spark to her. Iomedae or Milani would be far more likely candidates.
Now, maybe a different way to spin it would be a campaign-shaking event whereby someone slew Arazni in her lich form...i.e., destroyed her phylactery...and by so doing, some spark of divinity imparted by Aroden finally found its way to her released spirit. Then, if she could be resurrected as something other than a lich, perhaps she could become a full goddess that takes over Aroden's mantle.
Given that Arazni was once a warrior-goddess, however...and that she was slain on Golarion...I think that implies she's another dead god, just like Aroden. The only reason she's still kicking is because Geb used necromancy to bring her back as an undead. That in itself poses an interesting theological question, though. If dead gods can become undead...who's to say Aroden can't come back? Someone would need to find his remains. Unless they were destroyed by some resurrection-denying power, presumably he too could return. But would he return as a god? Probably not. Arazni, for instance, isn't defined as a goddess anymore. She's just a lich. A potent lich, no doubt, since she's supposed to retain all the class abilities she had in life as a "warrior." But she'd no longer be a divine being. And, if she had levels in paladin as the Herald of Aroden, I would assume she'd be an ex-paladin now, due to her fall from grace.
Interesting thought exercise, though...
--Neil
...The best examples I could define for it would involve another divine being stepping in. For instance:
1) Iomedae - Although she's picked up much of Aroden's portfolio and claimed it as her own, she could still be granting the divine energy necessary for clerics and paladins who continue to revere Aroden.
2) The Empyreal Lords - Presumably one of these angelic beings could have adopted Aroden's clergy, dispensing spells and guidance without seeking to replace Aroden's name with their own. One of these lords may even be guiding Aroden's faithful to try and resurrect him. Andoletta or Ragathiel seem best suited for it.
3) Pharasma - The goddess of death supposedly knew something about Aroden's passing, but has not seen fit to share that information. Why? And, is it possible that in Aroden's absence, the Lady of Graves now shepherds his faithful while his divinity hangs in the balance?
4) Milani - This goddess is slightly less well known than Iomedae, but she too was a minor saint associated with the Last Azlanti. So I think she could have picked up Aroden's followers in an attempt to perpetuate the hope of his return. After all, "hope, devotion and uprisings" are all part of her portfolio. So championing something like that would make complete sense for her. She's a Chaotic Good goddess, as well, so operating "outside the rules" seems like something she'd favor. She also has the Healing domain as a major part of her portfolio, so caring for the spiritual wounds of Aroden's priesthood might resonate well, too.
5) Asmodeus - For a more sinister approach, why not say that Aroden truly is dead, but Asmodeus has seized this opportunity to delude his priesthood into thinking he's still alive. Asmodeus could be the one granting their spells and abilities in an attempt to develop an entirely new line of followers.
I think that gives you five good surrogates for how and why a paladin or priest of Aroden could continue to exist and still keep their abilities. Some of the other gods may even be cooperating to support such a thing...perpetuating a lie to Aroden's followers, but doing so for a potentially good reason...
But that's just my nickel's worth,
--Neil
When I first saw this thread the Goddess of trickery came to mind.
1) Calistria - What could top any form of trickery than by tricking those into believing that they are receiving spells from thier dead God.
|
|
What if the Paladin's (or Cleric's) spells were being granted by either a god of trickery/deceit or by a greater demon or devil of that persuasion?
It might be a long term plan to corrupt the paladin's soul - granting more and more power until he or she is faced with the decision - give up everything you have acquired or embrace the darkness you have been unwittingly serving the entire time.
|
Neil, thank you so much for all of your insight! I especially liked your thoughts on Milani (which I think several other people did)
Right now, I am of the opinion that you can be a paladin of Aroden. You honor his ideals, pay your respects to Iomedae, but you know that he is dead. However, you are pledged to him by faith. Or you could play it as you are of the hope that he will return. Or you could play it as being a little deluded. All of those things I think are valid for play.
As for being a Cleric of Aroden, I think I'm going to just plain stick to them not getting spells. I have always felt that spells are granted by a god's divine will. I agree with a previous poster, a cleric does more of a channeling of his god, aka "Sarenrae, let your holy fire purge this evil from your sight!". I also will not accept the explanation that the "Cleric of Aroden" is getting his spells from the ideals or philosophy he worships, purely for the fact that I have not yet seen an example of this ANYWHERE in Golarion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think all the ideas about a cleric of Aroden getting their spells by proxy, either though deceit or hope, is very evocative. However, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise there'd be a whole ton of Aroden's faithful running around with proof of his existence. I think it'd be fantastic for a home brew campaign! But right now I'm specifically thinking more along the lines of following Paizo cannon, like for PFS or an AP. Anywho, I think the "spells by proxy" thing, as a PC specific character idea, would be fine.
But absolutely no "real" clerics of Aroden running around and casting spells.
Ok. That's my 2cp. :-)
Ok. That's my 2cp. :-)
I'll see your 2cp and raise you 1sp. ;-)
Right now, I am of the opinion that you can be a paladin of Aroden....As for being a Cleric of Aroden, I think I'm going to just plain stick to them not getting spells. I have always felt that spells are granted by a god's divine will.
I think if you go with that interpretation, you still open yourself up to more questions. After all, paladins get spells, too. And they're divine in nature. So they have to come from somewhere. Is Iomedae providing them? If so, do Aroden's paladins know it?
If you answered "yes" to those questions, the next one will be..."Well, why can't a cleric of Aroden do the same thing?" Perhaps he too acknowledges Aroden is dead. But he continues to espouse and live out the tenets of Aroden's faith. And when it comes to divine spells, what's stopping him from entreating Iomedae to honor Aroden's memory by granting him her favor? That's essentially what a paladin would be doing if he's following Aroden, but counting on Iomedae to answer his spells.
So, it's a slippery slope, I think. Personally, I think it's hard to say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. If it's possible for one, it should be possible for the other. Obviously, there would be concerns about how Iomedae could grant access to domain powers that aren't part of her portfolio (i.e., the only domains she and Aroden share are Glory and Law). So, I think your options break down along these lines:
- Clerics of Aroden can only get access to the Glory and Law domains courtesy of Iomedae
- Clerics of Aroden cannot access domain powers and bonus domain spells, but Iomedae grants all other spell slots as "generic" spells
- Clerics of Aroden cannot access domain power and bonus spells, and they cannot cast any other cleric spells higher than...oh, say, 5th level...as that's as far as Iomedae is willing to respond to etreaties from Aroden's faithful
- Clerics of Aroden cannot access any domain powers or any cleric spells whatsoever...and then, give them ranks in Use Magic Device...have the church of Iomedae gladly sell or otherwise provide wands, potions, scrolls, and holy relics of Aroden for their use...and maybe invent a new prestige class for a determined follower of Aroden such that it grants some kind of abilities that help make up for their lack of domains and spells
I think all the ideas about a cleric of Aroden getting their spells by proxy, either though deceit or hope, is very evocative. However, I think it would be the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise there'd be a whole ton of Aroden's faithful running around with proof of his existence.
I agree 100%. Every cabal of priests still devoted to Aroden shouldn't immediately gain access to spells again by a proxy deity. It should only be a particular sect that's incredibly devoted and hopeful enough that Milani or Iomedae would want to take them on as their hidden patron. Or, they should be incredibly gullible and desperate enough that they don't realize Asmodeus (or maybe Calistria) have done the same thing for some bit of trickery that serves their own purpose. The bottom line is that by saying it's only a select few, it sets up further division among Aroden's remaining priesthood, as well as those who threw in their lot with Iomedae's church. There's nothing like petty jealousy (even among a mostly good-aligned priesthood) to stir up great roleplaying fodder.
1) Calistria - What could top any form of trickery than by tricking those into believing that they are receiving spells from their dead God.
I started to suggest Calistria...but, to me, she's more about "trickery in pursuit of revenge"...not simply "trickery for trickery's sake." It turns out Asmodeus also grants access to the Trickery domain. His persona has always featured "lies" and he's Lawful Evil. So, to me, he's the prime suspect for pulling off that kind of deception, because he'd be doing it with a specific purpose in mind and not just as part of some petty revenge motive.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
|
I also will not accept the explanation that the "Cleric of Aroden" is getting his spells from the ideals or philosophy he worships, purely for the fact that I have not yet seen an example of this ANYWHERE in Golarion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
To be fair, I believe that the developers have only shown us *one* ex-Cleric of Aroden, and he indeed did lose his powers.
The sample may be 100%, but since the sample size is *one,* I'm not feeling too tightly shackled by this canon quite yet.
There used to be all sorts of gradations, where 1st and 2nd level Cleric spells could be granted by faith in anything, 3rd and 4th could be granted by angelic servitors of the dieties (devas and the like), 5th could be granted by demigods, 6th by lesser gods and 7th by greater gods, but that stuff is long gone. In Golarion, Demon Lords, Archdevils, Daemon Horsemen and Empyreal Lords can grant all the way up to 9th level spells, and it seems that some classes, per the official write-ups, like Paladins, Rangers and Adepts, can gain divine spells with no diefic patron at all.
I wouldn't allow Clerics of Aroden to still function, but I would allow a Cleric of Iomedae (or whomever) to still pray to Aroden, and have his prayers answered by the Inheritor. Paladins, I'd allow to function normally. Aroden may not be around to answer their prayers, but perhaps he *never did,* and it was one of his Empyreal cohorts who handled 'the light work.'
Director of Brand Strategy
|
To be fair, I believe that the developers have only shown us *one* ex-Cleric of Aroden, and he indeed did lose his powers.
The sample may be 100%, but since the sample size is *one,* I'm not feeling too tightly shackled by this canon quite yet.
Do you mind citing this source? I don't recall who this individual is. (Good thing this wasn't a question on the trivia challenge!)
Do you mind citing this source? I don't recall who this individual is. (Good thing this wasn't a question on the trivia challenge!)To be fair, I believe that the developers have only shown us *one* ex-Cleric of Aroden, and he indeed did lose his powers.
The sample may be 100%, but since the sample size is *one,* I'm not feeling too tightly shackled by this canon quite yet.
Father Basri, p21 of Taldor: Echoes of Glory, Pathfinder Companion is the gentlemen in question I think :)
Are not.
Are too
Are not.
Are too
Are not.
Are too
Are not.
Are too
...
...
...
|
I also will not accept the explanation that the "Cleric of Aroden" is getting his spells from the ideals or philosophy he worships, purely for the fact that I have not yet seen an example of this ANYWHERE in Golarion. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So, ironically enough, Nani and I were talking again tonight. We ended up pulling out the Campaign setting book and Gods and Magic to flip through the gods. We ended up on page 176 and came upon "The Four Philosophies." I still am not quite certain why a cleric in Golarion can't worship an idea to gain his powers. In fact we all agree that a cleric can gain his powers through the following:
- Gods
- Demi-Gods
- Powerful Angels/Demons/Devils/Daemons
- Nature (Druids/Rangers)
- Heaven/Nirvana (Paladins who do not worship a god must get their spells somewhere)
From this reasoning we can separate these into Divine Beings (Gods, demigods, Angels/Demons/Daemons), a place (Heave/Nirvana), and an indescribable force (Nature). At this point we're left with the question of whether Nature or Heaven/Nirvana is in itself a philosophy that a cleric can worship, or whether these forces can only give powers to Druids, Rangers, and Paladins. I personally believe that because nature, or some divine essence that grants druids their powers, is simply just as strong as a philosophy that is mentioned in the campaign setting. Once there are enough people that believe in that philosophy and that this philosophy is somehow represented in the Great Beyond someplace, then the divine power can be given to the character.
So, in short: Paladins can/should be given powers without having a god (it is written in the campaign setting). Druids have access to great powers / spells (9th level spells in fact) without the aid of a god. So therefore a cleric should be able to have access to these same powers through the magic essence present in the Great Beyond without the aid of a god. Is this called a true Cleric of Aroden by the rules (I.e. he receives his powers from Aroden himself)? No. But he in a "cleric" of Aroden in the sense that he worships Aroden, follows his practices, and still receives the powers from somewhere nebulous. That being said, from a DM standpoint I would have to say that this cleric or anyone following a philosophy like this should truly live their life to a code much harder than a Paladin's code. If he strays once from the path... the divine/magical essence granting him power will probably revoke it.
Note: After reading a little more on Aroden in both books, I came up with a separate question (Does it count as derailing a thread if the OP derails it?). What class was Aroden?
|
|
Are not.The setting always trumps rules. In the setting godless clerics are out....
Clergy, however, is another matter entirely, as golarian clerics require a functional, specific god so yeah, like Gamer Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl said, the remains of Aroden's clergy are nowadays powerless and resorting to arcane trinkets.Just wondering where in the beta rules it says you have to worship a god? Page 22 under spells for clerics says nothing about a specific god. Also on page 22 it says "If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations."
This seems to match the core 3.5 rules of not having to worship a specific god. So what I am missing in the PRPG beta rules that requires a cleric to worship a specific god?
Thanks
Oh, and while I do believe that clerics can truly not have a god... PFRPG beta is a generic setting with only the Golarion gods in place, whereas the true canon about the world comes from the PFCS book. That being said, PFRPG book saying that it can happen does at least let us argue about it!
|
|
I'll see your 2cp and raise you 1sp. ;-)I think if you go with that interpretation, you still open yourself up to more questions. After all, paladins get spells, too. And they're divine in nature. So they have to come from somewhere. Is Iomedae providing them? If so, do Aroden's paladins know it?
If you answered "yes" to those questions, the next one will be..."Well, why can't a cleric of Aroden do the same thing?" Perhaps he too acknowledges Aroden is dead. But he continues to espouse and live out the tenets of Aroden's faith. And when it comes to divine spells, what's stopping him from entreating Iomedae to honor Aroden's memory by granting him her favor? That's essentially what a paladin would be doing if he's following Aroden, but counting on Iomedae to answer his spells.
So, it's a slippery slope, I think. Personally, I think it's hard to say "yes" to one and "no" to the other. If it's possible for one, it should be possible for the other. Obviously, there would be concerns about how Iomedae could grant access to domain powers that aren't part of her portfolio (i.e., the only domains she and Aroden share are Glory and Law). So, I think your options break down along these lines:
I'll raise you to a full gold crown, Neil!
I'm going to spew two quotes from the Campaign Setting first.
Page 47 "...paladins who serve no specific god are actually more common"
Page 170 "True clerics of Aroden no longer have any divine magic..."
I've actually referred to the pally quote before...um...somewhere in this thread. Anyway, my reasoning that there can now be Paladins of Aroden, but not Clerics of Aroden is thus:
1) Paladins cast divine spells. However, they do not need a patron deity in order to do so. My interpretation of the source of their power is that is comes from within. Their paladin vows and outward trappings are only a faint sign of who Paladins truly are. It is their inner discipline, righteousness, and faith in themselves that gives them divine power. While paladins dedicate themselves to gods, the thing that drives them the most comes from within. For example, a paladin may dedicate himself to a Neutral Good or a Lawful Neutral god, but will still always uphold both components of his own alignment above all else. In addition, I think that the change in PFRPG to make pallies dependent on charisma only, and not wisdom, reflects this. Lastly, paladins do not atone for misdeeds against their patron deity, they atone for misdeeds to their vows or alignment aka what THEY said they would do.
2) Clerics are absolutely dependent on having a God. I thought I had made a mistake when I saw in the campaign setting, "The Four Philosophies" page 176. I thought, whoops, there goes my argument that no clerics worship philosophies. However, upon closer reading, I realized that these philosophies have associated religions. It sounds like you can't be a Cleric of Diabolism. You have to be a Diabolic Cleric of Asmodeus (aren't they all?). If you are a cleric (in Golarion), you MUST have a god. Period. You channel your god. You are his/her representative, an emissary.
*heated debate with Alizor* There is no evidence in any Golarion book suggesting otherwise. While paladins say SPECIFICALLY that they can worship no god, no such exception is made for Clerics. Alizor on the other hand, is arguing the exact opposite...since the book does not SPECIFICALLY say clerics need a god, he says it means they can worship a philosophy. Eh. That's what DMs and heated discussions are for :-)
Regardless, that is why I support Paladins of Aroden and not Clerics of Aroden. Yes, he's dead. But pallies channel their own faith in his teachings, and clerics can merely wait spell-less or convert. While I love the idea of spells by proxy (especially in select NPCs), I have a hard time justifying that a cleric really wouldn't know who he is channeling. Laypeople can be fooled by a charlatan, yes, but when a cleric is in the intimate embrace of divine communion, can he really not know deep in his heart?
Btw everyone on this thread.../hug for getting the chance to be so...philosophical about this whole thing with you! I need to think really hard about where my paladin of Sarenrae in Crimson Throne gets her spells from now :-P
Oh, and while I do believe that clerics can truly not have a god... PFRPG beta is a generic setting with only the Golarion gods in place, whereas the true canon about the world comes from the PFCS book. That being said, PFRPG book saying that it can happen does at least let us argue about it!Are not.The setting always trumps rules. In the setting godless clerics are out....
Clergy, however, is another matter entirely, as golarian clerics require a functional, specific god so yeah, like Gamer Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl said, the remains of Aroden's clergy are nowadays powerless and resorting to arcane trinkets.Just wondering where in the beta rules it says you have to worship a god? Page 22 under spells for clerics says nothing about a specific god. Also on page 22 it says "If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations."
This seems to match the core 3.5 rules of not having to worship a specific god. So what I am missing in the PRPG beta rules that requires a cleric to worship a specific god?
Thanks
Was not talking of the rules but the setting. In the setting it talks no where of godless clerics even pointing out clerics of a dead god do not gain spell. Same with paladins of a dead god.
The rules allow it as they are generic and some settings allow this. However Golarion has none. Don't you think they would have pointed that out in the cleric section. They did for paladins after all.
Still if you want to allow it in your home game cool.
One note on the The Four Philosophies. While clerics are welcome among there ranks the way it is written and the fact clergy come from other gods service seem to point to the fact that believing in a Philosophies is not enough. You may live your life by them they do not however grant cleric ability.
your game however
Edit: I should read all the posts before I post
Regardless, that is why I support Paladins of Aroden and not Clerics of Aroden. Yes, he's dead. But pallies channel their own faith in his teachings, and clerics can merely wait spell-less or convert. While I love the idea of spells by proxy (especially in select NPCs), I have a hard time justifying that a cleric really wouldn't know who he is channeling. Laypeople can be fooled by a charlatan, yes, but when a cleric is in the intimate embrace of divine communion, can he really not know deep in his heart?
See this is an issue I still have. A paladin does not need a god, true. However, If a paladin has a god his power comes from that god, not his beilif alone. He was chosion by that god.
So if you say I am a paladin of Iomedae, Well then SHE grants you your power. If however your a self made paladin of pure virtue and righteousness then no god grants your ability . Or rather all gods do.
So if you say I am a paladin of Aroden your either 1> powerless or 2. Living a lie. I just have real issue with a paladin based off a lie. Sure he can be powered by the teaching but calling himself a paladin of Aroden is a lie.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
See this is an issue I still have. A paladin does not need a god, true. However, If a paladin has a god his power comes from that god, not his beilif alone. He was chosion by that god.
So if you say I am a paladin of Iomedae, Well then SHE grants you your power. If however your a self made paladin of pure virtue and righteousness then no god grants your ability . Or rather all gods do.
So if you say I am a paladin of Aroden your either 1> powerless or 2. Living a lie. I just have real issue with a paladin based off a lie. Sure he can be powered by the teaching but calling himself a paladin of Aroden is a lie.
Maybe not a lie...Rather the topic of IC philosophic debate.
|
|
To me it brakes setting so yeah I find it broken. Bhaal's power is still around in his children , he is gone but it is still there, I would never allow that feat for him even if I allowed the featAlizor, there's a feat in FR ('Servant of the Fallen') that lets you worship a dead or slumbering deity and receive your spells normally. If I was your DM, I would probably do it that way.That is one feat I Banned. However it should be noted the gods it list in the feat are NOT dead. They are forgotten, depowered mere shadows of gods, yet are not dead. They have no worshipers, and very little real powers something less then a demi-god at times but NOT dead.Why? It's not "broken", at least from what I recall. And FR deities rarely die "for real", although I would certainly rule Bhaal as being more or less permanently dead.
I have to recheck that feat.
I checked it and it gives only two benefits: +1 bonus on a single roll (once/day) and you receive spells normally from a forgotten or dead patron deity. Note that while Bhaal's *power* may not be gone or absorbed by another deity, Bhaal himself is pretty much as "dead" as deities in FR tend to get. And this feat, to my understanding, lets you tap into his power/essence (which still resides in his children), even if the deity himself is "gone". Moander, for example, is not a true deity anymore -- his power was claimed by Finder, and yet in 'Power of Faerun' it's said that the remaining semidivine spark of Moander that still survives (the abomination lurking in Tsornyl, or Darkwatch) might yet "evolve" into Moander. Therefore, I don't see anything "setting-breaking" or contradictory to FR canon in it.
To me it is. I find it kinda jarring so do not allow it, I was not meaning I found the feat it's self broken. It just not fit in my view of the setting is all. But I see an augment for it with some gods I just don't like it. There are a few gods who are well and dead with nothing to tap into however
I think Aroden would be such a god, nothing left.
I'll raise you to a full gold crown, Neil!
Well, what the heck...I might as well go "all in" then... ;-P
I'm going to spew two quotes from the Campaign Setting first.
Page 47 "...paladins who serve no specific god are actually more common"
Page 170 "True clerics of Aroden no longer have any divine magic..."
Then I would also like to direct your attention to the last statement on the first column of pg. 22 in the Pathfinder RPG Beta rules under the section on Domain Powers...
"...If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still
select two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations."
This would seem to imply that you can have a cleric who is not associated with...or devoted to...a particular deity. Rather, they would be devoted to a certain "spiritual inclination," they would still get to select two domains, and they would still be able to cast spells.
So, if that's the case, who's to say a cleric of the former god, Aroden, hasn't fallen back into this interpretation? He could still follow Aroden's "spiritual inclination"...select two domains from Aroden's portfolio...and continue to get domain powers (and spells) as a result of his faith. Where does the divine energy come from to power his spells? Who knows? But, if you can have godless clerics (as this section seems to imply)...why not also have clerics who lost their god, still have the means to continue that philosophy?
Now, just for argument's sake, I'll go ahead and counter my own point. On that same page in the Pathfinder RPG Beta rules, it also says...
"Each cleric must choose a deity."
The original SRD never said that. And, if that's the case, then how can there also be clerics that are "not devoted to a particular deity"...? These two statements seem at odds with one another. But the notion of godless clerics who just follow a "spiritual inclination" has existed since the original D&D 3.0 SRD, where it also says...
"If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities."
So, that language probably still exists in the Pathfinder RPG Beta rules for compatibility reasons. I also agree with one of the earlier posters, that that language probably existed in the SRD in the event players didn't want to put specific pantheons of actual gods into their game. Or, maybe they wanted to define a clerical monk whose sheer philosophy powers his spells and abilities rather than a god. It doesn't really matter that much, though. The underlying foundation, here, is that godless clerics can exist. There's room within both the SRD and the Pathfinder Beta rules to allow it.
But, even if you accept that (and you don't have to...as it's your game, after all)...there's still the question of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, any previous rulings or canon laid down by Paizo, and how much you want to adhere to all that. Clearly, Paizo has said Aroden is irrevocably dead. They've also printed up a spell-less cleric of Aroden in the Taldor supplement. So, they seem to be indicating no cleric of Aroden can cast spells now.
However, as I said earlier, I'm pretty disappointed with that approach. I think it closes a door that didn't need closing. I think it would have been more awesome to give these clerics of Aroden another source for their power...or an outlet for their faith...besides just converting over to Iomedae. Aroden and Iomedae don't even share the same domains, portfolio, or alignment. So I don't really see their philosophies as similar enough to warrant a wholesale theological migration to her. Thus, I think it would have been cooler to keep Aroden's flock in the game somehow...and make them playable as PCs. From a design perspective, there are all kinds of ways to achieve that rather than just saying, "Aroden's dead. His clerics are now completely powerless...forever."
...Paladins cast divine spells. However, they do not need a patron deity in order to do so. My interpretation of the source of their power is that is comes from within. Their paladin vows and outward trappings are only a faint sign of who Paladins truly are. It is their inner discipline, righteousness, and faith in themselves that gives them divine power. While paladins dedicate themselves to gods, the thing that drives them the most comes from within.
Personally, I prefer paladins drawing their abilities (and spells) from the same source as clerics. Especially if they're both worshipping the same deity. Having a holy knight dedicated to Aroden somehow be able to cast bless weapon and perform miracles like lay on hands just seems out-of-place to say that power is coming from within. It's the holiness of his faith...and his god's power...that should be providing that kind of miracle. Not the man himself, because that would elevate the individual over the god he or she follows. To me, a paladin doesn't have "faith in themselves" nearly as much as "faith in their god." And the same goes for clerics.
Now, that's just my personal preference. And, the campaign setting does obviously indicate there are paladins "who serve no specific god." Okay. If the setting wants to indicate that, I think it's fine. Normally, I would have interpreted that to mean they wouldn't profess Aroden's faith either...as they "serve no specific god" and not just "serve a dead god." But even then, if you accept the possibility of godless paladins who still have access to their abilities, why nix the notion clerics can also serve "spiritual inclinations" in lieu of gods and access their class abilities? Why not let clerics of Aroden do the same as what you're implying a paladin of Aroden can also accomplish? As a player, I'd be looking for more internal consistency within the faith of Aroden...and not just the rules delineation of paladins can exist without serving a god, but all clerics must.
Now here's my next point. Setting aside the individual quote from the campaign setting that says you can have paladins "who serve no specific god"...I think it's actually more important to examine the one that says "True clerics of Aroden no longer have any divine magic."
Okay. But what's that word true doing in front of "clerics of Aroden"...? Is it possible for a "false" or "misguided" cleric of Aroden to have access to divine magic? Is it possible for a cleric of Aroden to just follow the "spiritual inclination" of Aroden's philosophy, principles, and faith and still have access to divine magic? I think there's a case that could be made there. You just wouldn't call such a cleric a "true" cleric of Aroden anymore. He's a guy who's still got access to divine magic, but it's based on the same interpretation as a cleric who is "not devoted to a particular deity" anymore...because his deity is dead. But the philosophy and "spiritual inclination" can live on.
That's how I'd probably spin it if I still wanted to give "clerics" of Aroden access to spells. Or, as I suggested earlier, I might say there's another divine being (e.g., Milani, Iomedae, one of the Empyreal Lords, etc.) serving as a proxy.
Clerics are absolutely dependent on having a God. I thought I had made a mistake when I saw in the campaign setting, "The Four Philosophies" page 176. I thought, whoops, there goes my argument that no clerics worship philosophies. However, upon closer reading, I realized that these philosophies have associated religions. It sounds like you can't be a Cleric of Diabolism. You have to be a Diabolic Cleric of Asmodeus (aren't they all?). If you are a cleric (in Golarion), you MUST have a god. Period. You channel your god. You are his/her representative, an emissary.
Well, firstly, I think the Pathfinder RPG Beta rules do seem to indicate clerics aren't absolutely dependent on having a god...as I outlined above. There's also nothing under the campaign setting's writeup on clerics that says they have to have a god. I think people have a tendency to mostly infer that. And I think the writer merely assumed they all do. And, in fact, it's natural for all GMs and players to assume they all do as well.
But it isn't necessarily so. If you can accept the rules saying certain clerics can follow a "spiritual inclination" as opposed to an actual deity, then the "Four Philosophies" (as well as a fifth one you could make up to address Aroden's lingering faith/philosophy) could become such a "spiritual inclination" for a godless cleric to follow. He or she would then pick two domains that seem in keeping with that particular philosophy and you're good to go.
As for the "associated religions" aspect of the Four Philosophies, I think it's important to note that the opening paragraphs of that section in the campaign setting says, "Followers of philosophical ways of thought can (and usually are) of varied classes." Thus, the individual philosophies are probably indicating their "associated religions" as a guide for which clerics might also hold to these philosophies (whether they follow a deity or otherwise). You then get advice on how some religions and philosophies are incompatible...such as the Diabolic priest of Desna. And, as you pointed out, some religions are tailor-made to go along with certain philosophies...such as the Diabolic priest of Asmodeus.
But, again, if you can accept that some clerics can pick two domains and follow a certain "spiritual inclination"...that means, to me, that you could very easily have a godless cleric following these philosophies. There's nothing that precludes it. And, for instance, I think it would be entirely possible (and the Pathfinder campaign setting would support) a generic priest of Diabolism who consorts with the powers of Hell...but doesn't worship Asmodeus or any of the other Archdevils. Same thing for the Whispering Way. I could easily see a cleric of the Whispering Way with access to the Death and Destruction domains, who doesn't worship an actual god at all.
There is no evidence in any Golarion book suggesting otherwise.
I don't think there has to be. Campaign settings (Golarion, included) paint a certain picture of a world in which you can play your game. But the picture is never going to be complete. It's up to each GM (and future designers) to keep adding to it. So, I see no harm in the establishment of a new philosophy that certain disenfranchised clerics of Aroden could follow...which allows them access to domain powers and spells...in keeping with the original tenets of Aroden's faith. Are these "true" clerics of Aroden? No. He's dead. But they've found a way to keep the spirit of his philosophy alive. And there's actual power...i.e., divine spells and domain abilities...in that.
While I love the idea of spells by proxy (especially in select NPCs), I have a hard time justifying that a cleric really wouldn't know who he is channeling. Laypeople can be fooled by a charlatan, yes, but when a cleric is in the intimate embrace of divine communion, can he really not know deep in his heart?
Myths, legends, and even modern-day real-life religious leaders demonstrate plenty of examples of that situation playing out. Misguided evangelists who truly believe they're in harmony with a particular god's teachings...even when others point out a variety of hypocrisies in their behavior...already exist. And they've existed since the beginning of religion. Many of them are self-deluded, and that leads them to unwittingly delude others who are weak-minded or weak-willed or desperate enough to follow them and place their faith in them. And the guy leading the whole thing might not even realize he's a charlatan. He might really believe it as well.
So, I think it's entirely possible to justify a cleric not knowing...or realizing...his prayers are being answered by someone other than the deity he believes himself to be following. In fact, I think including something like that in a game can majorly enhance the roleplaying opportunties for a cleric PC. How does he know he's in keeping with his god's teachings? How does he know his prayers are being answered by the divine being in which he placed his faith? He doesn't. He never does. He takes it on faith. He always has.
As a GM, I love playing with that. I love putting clerics in situations where they might be caused to doubt their faith...or doubt whomever is bringing divine intervention on their behalf. It's a great story element to explore. And it could lead to them falling from grace to become an ex-cleric (or ex-paladin)...or (and perhaps more importantly), it can make their faith stronger as they come through on the other side even more convinced that it's their god answering their prayers.
Btw everyone on this thread.../hug for getting the chance to be so...philosophical about this whole thing with you!
No problem. I enjoy discussing stuff like this...both in relation to the rules and especially for a campaign setting. Good luck with your game and whatever fuel I may have just thrown on the fire of your "heated discussion" with Alizor. None of what I've posted above is meant to be argumentative. It's a useful thought exercise on what to do with players who are inspired by the concept of playing a cleric of the dead god Aroden. Mechanically, you've just got to find a way to either deny or accept that request...and then it's game on!
--Neil
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Neil,
First off, thank you for the careful attention you've given this subject. It strikes me as a very important aspect of the Golarion setting, and it's nice to read the results of your thought-provoking analysis.
Second, I'm not going to be able to quote any official sourcebooks at all. All I'm going to be able to do is reference, without citation, posts that James Jacobs has made on these boards. As such, I'm asking you to trust that I've understood the man correctly.
To my understanding, the Campaign Guide says one thing about paladins in Golarion (they can draw powers from philosophies) and James has purported another (they need gods, just as clerics do, and those gods must be within one step of the paladins' alignment, just as with clerics).
So neither cunning Lawful Evil gods, nor enigmatic True Neutral goddesses, nor sympathetic Chaotic Good goddesses, could provide powers to a LG paladin.
First off, thank you for the careful attention you've given this subject. It strikes me as a very important aspect of the Golarion setting, and it's nice to read the results of your thought-provoking analysis.
No problem. I actually enjoy this kind of thing. And yes, I know that makes an even bigger gaming nerd than usual, but I got over any concerns about that a long time ago. ;-)
To my understanding, the Campaign Guide says one thing about paladins in Golarion (they can draw powers from philosophies) and James has purported another (they need gods, just as clerics do, and those gods must be within one step of the paladins' alignment, just as with clerics).
It's interesting to hear Jacobs feels paladins need gods just as clerics do...especially considering the campaign setting itself says that it's actually more common for paladins not to follow a specific deity. So, maybe he just meant he felt that way for his home campaign, as opposed to what they've chosen to define for Golarion? Regardless, I prefer paladins and clerics needing gods, as well. So, if he's made that statement, I'd certailny support that interpretation.
So neither cunning Lawful Evil gods, nor enigmatic True Neutral goddesses, nor sympathetic Chaotic Good goddesses, could provide powers to a LG paladin.
If that's the case, I would imagine Jacobs meant gods within one step of a paladin's necessary alignment (i.e., LG), could have paladins serving them. Thus, the following deities can have paladins among their followers:
Major Gods:
Erastil (LG)
Iomedae (LG)
Torag (LG)
Sarenrae (NG)
Shelyn (NG)
Abadar (LN)
Irori (LN)
Lesser Known Gods:
Aroden (LN)
Kurgess (NG)
Empyreal Lords:
Andoletta (LG)
Ragathiel (LG)
Arshea (NG)
Korada (NG)
Thus, any of those deities could easily have paladins already...and could easily take on Aroden's faithful. But, even so, I don't think that precludes other gods from hearing (or even responding to) the prayers of a lost paladin of Aroden. There are plenty of trickster gods that should be capable of such an act. And there are well-meaning gods who could certainly do the same. The important thing is that they won't have any paladins inherent to their specific faith...i.e., their own theology doesn't include such a holy warrior. But I think that's separate from the notion of such a god purposefully responding to a paladin or cleric of Aroden, keeping their identity secret from such followers, and simply allowing them to think that Aroden still lives...or that some power in the universe still values Aroden's goals enough to support those that continue to be faithful to him.
If you look through the Four Philosophies in the campaign setting, there's even the notion of "...pantheism (veneration of all the deities as warranted by the situation at hand)..." which could be used to justify other gods supporting one another's followers, if you wanted.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil