You'd think that such an obvious cornerstone of the class would have been alarmingly self evident, but as you suggest, the number of players that miss this is surprising.As a DM I have always applied an no-rule yet basic-to-me system to clerics that will probably not fit here:
You have to worship a deity and/or follow a faith.
I guess it's the "it has no number" principle that makes it incoherent to character class value for most evaluation.
To me (and most of my gang) these things are big. The "These aren't YOUR powers but those of your deity" situations are good RPG sources to us.
|
In real life, I do have a religious issue with playing a character with a patron deity. I don't have one with playing a Cleric of a faith, philosophy, or principle, (such as good). So that is my only beef with that. Just like I would have a problem with playing a rapist, or thief, or murderer, etc. . . (and that is not me saying they are all equally evil in my eyes, just rather they are not something I wish to do).
But, it makes me wonder, why is this such an ingrained issue with this Class. In the generic sense, I understand the reasoning in Dragonlance and FR, (and that is a different topic). Why are Clerics required to be stuck with the alignment and/or deity issues? It does nothing to improve the class or concept, (it would if it were optional only), but it does do a lot i bad things for the game itself.
For one, it disallows certan kinds of creative thinking (the answer is no, absolutely, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are, you do it, you lose yourclass abilities.)
It also makes it particularly difficult for the types of classes it effect to have any true moral issues in action. ("If I cast a blatantly evil spell, like raise dead I can save the village, hum???" vs "No, I'll automatically lose all my power regardless, so never going to happen. It is appearantly more Good to let the town die than to make a zombie.")
Tertiarily, and a bit of a side issue, but linked, it kind of screws the party. Clerics, and classes with similar restrictions tend to have abilites that affect certain alignments, even if said alignments make no sense. If I am playng, for example, a LG Cleric, there is a good portion of my spell list, my true firepower spells, too, when it comes to Demon/Devil/Undead huntng that will seriously destroy any CG party members.
Thoughts? And this is purely hypothetical and philisophical. I do not expect WotC or Paize to ratify this issue anytime soon, (read: ever).
Clerics, and classes with similar restrictions tend to have abilites that affect certain alignments, even if said alignments make no sense.
Alignments make perfect sense and it's a snap to tell them apart. *chuckle*
|
|
For example, it makes much more sense for a Lawful Good Paladin to oppose a Lawful Evil tyrant that can actually do a lot of damage to a society, (legally). Chaotic Evil though, typically do the work for the Paladin and get thmselves killed. That is the sort of thing I mean. Classes that have some sort of lignment component usually have abilites that affect opposite alignments even if it does not make perfect sense, (in my opinion).
I think about it like this, in the star wars movies, the true treat to the Jedi heroes are the Palpatine and Vader, both patient, organized, and disciplined villians. If the major threat was a raving Sith that ran through the streets and lightsabered alien babies in half for fun, some commoner npc would get lucky and roll a crit and kill them with a rock, for just being chaotic-evil-dumb. Not a fun movie.
I know what you mean. I was just poking fun at my thread about alignment that got nuked earier today.
The big thing with the cleric and, indeed, most casters, is the ability to bypass 'needed gear' with spells, and so leverage themselves into superior situations.
A GMW cast on a +1 Weapon can make it +5. If that +1 weapon had +9 of enhancements, that's like handing the Cleric a free Weapon of Speed.
Ditto the effect on armor. Almost free Heavy Fortification, anyone?
And shields.
No need for Rings of Prot, I'll wear something else. Shield of Faith FTW.
Hey, +3 th/dmg all the time is nice, too. And since I have full BAB and +6 Str, don't really need a Str booster, and I do size L dmg for more of a dmg boost.
And I still have access to basically the spell list that I want, with my choice of what killer domain spells I can take that aren't on the main list. Clerics don't have a tighter spell list then the arcane, they just have to pick what they want to cast, really.
Just the above represents Hundreds of thousands of GP in gear savings, that a cleric can pour into other gear. A Melee simply cannot compete with that much of a gear advantage.
Persistent Spell merely makes the situation clear. Persistent spell is largely broken because of the ability to break the metacap. Nobody serious allowed Nightsticks to stack, but even two Persistent spells a day could quickly turn the tides, especially if used on group buffs.
Until melees get cheap and easy access to what casters can do with spells, and abilities that casters simply cannot duplicate, casters will have an advantage. that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
|
|
The big thing with the cleric and, indeed, most casters, is the ability to bypass 'needed gear' with spells, and so leverage themselves into superior situations.
A GMW cast on a +1 Weapon can make it +5. If that +1 weapon had +9 of enhancements, that's like handing the Cleric a free Weapon of Speed.
Ditto the effect on armor. Almost free Heavy Fortification, anyone?
And shields.
No need for Rings of Prot, I'll wear something else. Shield of Faith FTW.
Hey, +3 th/dmg all the time is nice, too. And since I have full BAB and +6 Str, don't really need a Str booster, and I do size L dmg for more of a dmg boost.
And I still have access to basically the spell list that I want, with my choice of what killer domain spells I can take that aren't on the main list. Clerics don't have a tighter spell list then the arcane, they just have to pick what they want to cast, really.
Just the above represents Hundreds of thousands of GP in gear savings, that a cleric can pour into other gear. A Melee simply cannot compete with that much of a gear advantage.
Persistent Spell merely makes the situation clear. Persistent spell is largely broken because of the ability to break the metacap. Nobody serious allowed Nightsticks to stack, but even two Persistent spells a day could quickly turn the tides, especially if used on group buffs.
Until melees get cheap and easy access to what casters can do with spells, and abilities that casters simply cannot duplicate, casters will have an advantage. that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
While true, it is better for the Cleric to just drop the money for these items and forget about needing to worry about Disple Magic ruining your day or the duration running out.
Also, imagine a Cleric without those spells. Not a whole lot of fun. Clerics have a lot of money they have to invest in their spellcast. Reread all the resurection type spells, Restoration and Greater Restoration, most Scrying/Divinations past 2nd (ish) level, and more. Many spells require expensive components. They simply can't afford to both buy needed gear and also be able to cast those needed spells.
And that is BEFORE the Cleric starts buying Scrolls, Wands, and Staffs for those spells they need more than once a day or "just in case".
Lastly, Casters also have another catagory of Magic gear that nonCaster do not. Things like metamagic rods, or Rings of Wizardry. Pariapt of Turning. Prayer Beads. Etc. . .
Like I said before, you have to look at the bad before you say Clerics are so great, and that bad usually overweighs the "I'm so broken". Now, on the other hand, most nonCasters simply have to focus on getting 3 or 4 good items and a few minor ones. Who really has it better off?
Clerics don't have to get metamagic rods, rods, scrolls, staves, or whatnot. Furthermore, those expensive material components are often hand-waved away, or shared as a party expense, because the Cleric isn't going to be resurrecting himself, is he?
The rote things in a game are a weapon, armor, stat buffs, save buffs. The Cleric can get away with not spending hundreds of thousands of gold on those things. That means they CAN go out and buy the metamagic rods, wands, scrolls and staves that would normally be a luxury. Or he can spend on them and have massively superior items to a normal Fighter. I mean, really, a cleric can have a +5 Mace of Speed and Disruption, or a +5 Vorpal Sword of Greater Wounding. Or whatever. +5/+9 is a lot of +'s!
And the only real way to shut the cleric down is dispelling, which can be countered, or has to overcome the +4 levels from a bead of karma worn during the buff process. And another +1 for orange ioun stone, maybe. there's ways to stop dispelling, which leaves you MDJ, which screws EVERYONE...and those with gear moreso. Fry everyone's magic gear, and tomorrow the cleric just buffs his again, and the Fighter is SOL.
Lack of gear dependency is one of the strengths of the cleric, nto a weakness.
==Aelryinth
In real life, I do have a religious issue with playing a character with a patron deity.
Why? That's what a Cleric is and has always been.
|
|
In real life, I do have a religious issue with playing a character with a patron deity.Why? That's what a Cleric is and has always been.
What I am saying is in real life, it is against my religion. But that realy isn't the point.
And no it hasn't. There are a lot of examples of "white mages", or generalist priests of the light, pantheonistic priests, or other things. Even in real life, there are various religions that do not have a deity. Buddism, various Native American beliefs and Satanism (not the holywood type) spring to mind. Hinduism venerates multiple deities, but it is less common for any single "patron deity", or even "worship".
In games, there are plenty of examples of priests without any connection to deities. WoW has one known deity, and almost no priest (outside Night Elves) much care. In Planescape and Dark Sun there are no deities (for different reasons). In Ravenloft and Eberron, (for the most part) no one knows if there even really are deities. It is a matter of faith, and having that true faith is what grants Divine Spells.
Dead and buried, for better or worse.I know what you mean. I was just poking fun at my thread about alignment that got nuked earier today.Yah, I figured it was joking from the *chuckles*, but figured I would explain it better anyway.
Where is your alignment post?
For better. I wasn't even reading 90% of the posts in my own thread, it was getting so out of control and off topic.
Of course there's a for worse as well. I was about to tell the events that followed and the direction I was taking my character and re-ask the same question. Better I leave it be now.
The rote things in a game are a weapon, armor, stat buffs, save buffs. The Cleric can get away with not spending hundreds of thousands of gold on those things. That means they CAN go out and buy the metamagic rods, wands, scrolls and staves that would normally be a luxury.
Yeah, if the Cleric wants to spend the entire battle buffing and not actually doing anything. Maybe our game is different than most but we tend to either get surprise attacked or have one round to buff. It's rare to have the opportunity to prebuff before many battles.
|
|
Clerics don't have to get metamagic rods, rods, scrolls, staves, or whatnot.
No, they don't have to, in the same sense that a Fighter doesn't HAVE to buy a weapon. But, realisticly they had better or the game starts to break down.
Furthermore, those expensive material components are often hand-waved away, or shared as a party expense, because the Cleric isn't going to be resurrecting himself, is he?
We are obviously playing a very different game. I've never played in a game that we hand waved expensive components. Very closest thing was to allow a Material Component pool, (essentually I put away 5,000 gp that can only be used for expensive components for spellcasting, rather than 1,000 gp Silver Dust, 2 1,000 gp Black Pearls, 20 Holy Waters, etc. . .)
Not sure what you mean about resurecting themself. You understand that the Cleric has to have that material component on them if they raise the Fighter midfight? Unless your trying to say that when the Cleric dies, there isn't anyone in the group to bring them back. It sounds more like your group can hit the temple for resing any time, though. Again, might just be that we have a different style of play here.
The rote things in a game are a weapon, armor, stat buffs, save buffs. The Cleric can get away with not spending hundreds of thousands of gold on those things. That means they CAN go out and buy the metamagic rods, wands, scrolls and staves that would normally be a luxury. Or he can spend on them and have massively superior items to a normal Fighter. I mean, really, a cleric can have a +5 Mace of Speed and Disruption, or a +5 Vorpal Sword of Greater Wounding. Or whatever. +5/+9 is a lot of +'s!
They can, but it doesn't often work that way. Casters need to have scrolls and wands for when they need a spell that they do not have prepaired. No, they don't need them, but that is an option to increase their basic abilities, that, again, isn't really represented to other classes.
And the only real way to shut the cleric down is dispelling, which can be countered, or has to overcome the +4 levels from a bead of karma worn during the buff process. And another +1 for orange ioun stone, maybe. there's ways to stop dispelling, which leaves you MDJ, which screws EVERYONE...and those with gear moreso. Fry everyone's magic gear, and tomorrow the cleric just buffs his again, and the Fighter is SOL.
I guess? When a temporary buff gets dispelled, it is gone. When a Magic Sword gets dispelled, it come back in a few rounds. That is why it is better to get the gear than to depend on buffs. Also, like I mentioned earlier, it all depends on how many encounters you have in a day. Those later encounters will find a Cleric without any Buffs, (save Magic Armor and Weapon).
Dispelling can be countered, but what can't be? And who is to say that the Dispeller doesn't also have +4 from Prayer Beads. They probably have a higher caster level (to be a challenge).
while wielding a great sword of destructionI'm a fossil and have a hard time with the above :p I think I am stuck in the age of Blunt only weapons - Clerics with swords is just all wrong.
Gorum frowns on your opinion.
My understanding of the Cleric class is that it is squarely set up to act as an agent of their deity. Whilst there are a range of Shamanistic traditions that you cite, they are more in keeping with Druids.
Like the Paladin, there is and always has been the assertion that these people had a much more significant and direct relationship with their patron deity, not just 'faith', but as the conduit of that Divine power - sure that may be a Patheistic approach (Calling on the Gods of Mount Olympus, or by Odin, Thor, and the Hall of Valhalla) or monotheistic.
The whole 'faith in a concept' notion was brought about to appease various cliques, and has really helped move the class away from what it has been there to represent for decades - and in my estimation this has been to the loss of the class. I really can't understand how my 'faith that people are really really super and nice' translates into a pillar of fire sent from above to smite my foes dead. Wheres the Hellfire and Brimstone cast upon my enemies in that?
I wont touch the WoW argument, as although I enjoy the game, it is all fluff and has the story depth of a postage stamp. They wouldn't say or do or include anything that would offend anyone, as Blizzard is in the market of mass selling a commodity to the widest possible audience - its is the McDonalds of fantasy lore. No Clerics in Lord of the Rings - thats a lack of compromise that shows some solid integrity.
You have a religious reason for not playing the class, and I respect that, and if you need to amend what the class is at your tabletop to make that roll then fair enough - the great joy of RPG's is that we can tailor them to ensure inclusiveness for peoples beliefs and ideals.
Gorum frowns on your opinion.
Gorum is a Johnny-come-lately upstart of a deity, and can gain my respect when he has been around long enough for people to mention his name in stories that start "I remember long ago when...".
Until then, bad guys worship Lolth, and every Ranger worth two cents worships Meiliki...Oh that's the other thing that changed - back in the day just about EVERY character had a deity. In these more modern, -ism times, no deity is the new black.
You had THAC0s?
Noob
We had about a bazillion different to-hit charts spread all over the DM's screen. DnD was for geeks because only geeks could do the math fast enough to play.
Hehe. DM screen? Luxury. When *I* played D&D (first the colored boxes, then Cyclopedia, then purely from memory) we always copied the to-hit numbers from AC 9 down to -2 or -3 down on our loose-leaf hand-drawn character sheets. And by loose-leaf I mean we went out into the neighbor's yard (didn't have one ourselves) and gathered loose leaves. Had to pay 'em to do it, too. Then we flipped chits to generate the random numbers. God help you if someone sneezed.
Zo
It is not that at all. But there are times when the Cleric (and usually specifically the Cleric), must hold off attacking in order to do something. Sure I can swing my Mace and let the fighter run away for 2+ rounds from Fear, or I can cast Remove Fear and move to block them.
Healbot or not (and I personally hate healbots), sometimes the Cleric has to do some party healing/cureing/removing/buffing, or the party fails.
This is all I was trying to say really, I apologize if I came off snarky or whatnot. I've made fightery clerics before, but when I get up into combat and start crushing stuff, the rest of the party usually suffers. If you happen to have another healer in the party, or if everyone is doing ok, then I have no problem with the cleric mixing it up in melee. I prefer it honestly. It's just that from my personal experience, as soon as the other players hear "I'm playing a cleric", there's a level of assumption that I'm taking care of the healing/buffing/supporting role. Unless you explicitly inform them you are going for a melee role, you will be assumed to be "the healer".
I did go out on a limb and made an Ordained Champion(PrC, Complete Champion) once, and while I was absolutely crushing monsters in combat, the party complained the whole time about not getting buffed or healing them, because I was too busy in melee. I did get to see for myself how potent clerics really can be in combat, but the party did suffer because of it. If you can juggle healing, buffing, and fighting pretty well, then my hats off to you. All too often, there's just not enough rounds in a given combat to do all at once.
So, I'm not saying a cleric should only be support. I'm just saying that 9 times out of 10, when the party is counting on you to support and you ignore that to go outshine someone else, there's a price.
|
|
This is all I was trying to say really, I apologize if I came off snarky or whatnot. I've made fightery clerics before, but when I get up into combat and start crushing stuff, the rest of the party usually suffers.
Not a problem, I didn't think you were being rude or man or anything. I agree with what you said, a Cleric can go combat focused, but the party sometimes pays.
|
|
Like the Paladin, there is and always has been the assertion that these people had a much more significant and direct relationship with their patron deity, not just 'faith', but as the conduit of that Divine power - sure that may be a Patheistic approach (Calling on the Gods of Mount Olympus, or by Odin, Thor, and the Hall of Valhalla) or monotheistic.
But, then why does the class not have a mechanical reason to show his? For example, why do they not have clas features that tie them in with the established church, or allow them to act beyond the local government? If the class is suppossed to be the spokesman of a deity, why do they not get a bonus to all social related skills when they talk with their deities authority. Things like that. What I mean is, that is fine as far as fluff goes, but it really isn't represented in game.
You have a religious reason for not playing the class, and I respect that, and if you need to amend what the class is at your tabletop to make that roll then fair enough - the great joy of RPG's is that we can tailor them to ensure inclusiveness for peoples beliefs and ideals.
It is less that I amend the class, and just play it without specific aspects. I have no problem playing a Cleric of a philosophy, or other people playing with a patron deity. I guess what I am asking, though, is why are a lot of people so adamant about Clerics needing a patron deity, when there are plenty of examples in both fantasy and real life of them not? It is less because of the above reason and more that it just got me thinking.
I prefer this setup much more, though I'm on the record for saying that I think the Cleric class should be done away with entirely and replaced with a feat.
In Conan d20, the religious types get their magic because they are, essentially, wizards and no god is known to exist.
This opens up the fact that a church which appears good-aligned will have, within its ranks, priests which aren't so good - and maybe even evil. It also makes it much more understandable that two branches of a church could be in conflict.
This adds a dimension to the game which the traditional d20 rules simply miss.
Or you can make a world where people with true faith in a god, the kind that can move mountains, are very rare. There will be lots of religious types who make claims, and use trickery to produce fake miracles. These types will fight each other for the dregs of power left over from the memories of a true believers.
My DM is doing a homebrew in a world like this. 99.9% of the worlds religious types are faking miracles to keep the flocks happy. They have no connection to their god they claim to serve because it is faith not dogma that moves mountains. My cleric is pro-faith while being actively anti-religious. I love being a cleric in that world, because I get tons of crazy RP out of it. These religions nuts work hard and spend tons of money to arrange fake miracles. I can perform real miracles. Think about Dragonlance and how the world reacted when the companions showed up and started performing real divine magic.
It is less that I amend the class, and just play it without specific aspects. I have no problem playing a Cleric of a philosophy, or other people playing with a patron deity. I guess what I am asking, though, is why are a lot of people so adamant about Clerics needing a patron deity, when there are plenty of examples in both fantasy and real life of them not? It is less because of the above reason and more that it just got me thinking.
The diety requirement is part of the balance of the class IMO. Without, the cleric becomes a lot easier to cheese.
Example: I follow the philosophy of smashing things in the face with my <Insert exotic weapon for free profiency here>. I pick liberation domain because my philosophy is that nothing should be able to stop me from smashing them in the face and the magic domain because my philosophy would want me to have a magic weapon and to always be able to reach the foes I want to smash. Finally, I can do anything I want spellwise as long as it lets me smash faces.
By forcing players to pick a god, it gives them a much more limited framework that they have work within. They can cherry pick their god, but they cannot just pick any 2 domains. They can have their spells denied if they do something that would anger their god. Their god gives them a specific, and well defined philosophy to follow.
TLDR: Philosophy based clerics are a lot easier to cheese IMO.
Have any of you claiming the cleric is overpowered ever actually tried playing one without trying to look for every single way to break it? Every class can be broken by those looking to do so, and the cleric is no different, but as someone currently playing a cleric with a dm that works to make sure everything stays relatively balanced, I can safely say that my experience thus far is that the cleric, as written in the core rules with only a few spells from other sources, is most definitely not broken.
Okay, tell me how to make a Fighter broken? I'm curious. Because no one has figured out yet how to do it.
You might be the lucky guy since you said yourself: "Every class can be broken..."People have broken in Core only games: Wizard/Sorceror/Druid/Cleric/Bard
But no one has yet to break a Fighter even with everything goes (usually they attempt to break a Fighter by not using the Fighter class since the less Fighter levels the stronger one is: thus the Fighter is unbreakable. Same for the Monk)
Pathfinder screwed up by not adjudicating what happens to the weapon proficiency when you don't have a patron deity or when your patron deity is a pantheon or abstract cause, but getting one weapon proficiency isn't gamebreaking at all.
I just assumed that if you had no deity, you didn't get a an extra weapon proficiency. At least half of deities favored weapons are ones that every cleric already has access to or aren't any better. If you get to cherry pick your two domains (which I don't have a problem with), you don't get a weapon proficiency. At least, that's my take on it.
If you can only balance the class by taking away their powers randomly, the class is imbalanced.
It's not 'random', its a case of 'if they make poor choices in conflict with their faith'.
3e specifically discarded the making-the-paladin-fall BS from previous editions with regard to the cleric, and rightly so.
Yeah don't you just hate it when you have your behaviour restricted? ;p
Seriously though guys, the continual watering down of the harder elements of D&D is pretty annoying - and all aimed at making the game as soft as possible and more like an MMO without the constraint of a 'faction' system.
Then again, the great thing about MMO's is that they can be played different ways - and at your table its obviously one way, and at my table that Paladin WILL have a Code, and the Cleric WILL have Faith - and the Druid shall NOT be raping the forest for personal gain :p
The diety requirement is part of the balance of the class IMO. Without, the cleric becomes a lot easier to cheese.If you can only balance the class by taking away their powers randomly, the class is imbalanced. 3e specifically discarded the making-the-paladin-fall BS from previous editions with regard to the cleric, and rightly so. Now, I don't think clerics are gamebreaking without one or more of a very limited set of radioactive class abilities, but just randomly slapping down clerics based on the idea that their gods hate powergaming is retarded. Plus, it just encourages players to seek out and pick the god of smashing people in the face.
Pathfinder screwed up by not adjudicating what happens to the weapon proficiency when you don't have a patron deity or when your patron deity is a pantheon or abstract cause, but getting one weapon proficiency isn't gamebreaking at all.
I use the word cheesy for a reason. Cheesy is not the same as broken. In my experience, players who do this kind of crap are the same ones that grumble anytime they think the group is spending too much time out of combat. "Stop RPing and lets get to the next fight guys" is the quote that springs to mind...
How is making spells fail when the cleric is working against their diety's will random? The diety gives the cleric a coherent set or rules or ideals to follow, and is much better than "I follow this set of random rules I just made up"
I am not against clerics following a set of ideals, but I wouldn't let some of my more munchkin player do it, and I have no problem with not allowing it in some campaign settings.
I prefer this setup much more, though I'm on the record for saying that I think the Cleric class should be done away with entirely and replaced with a feat.
In Conan d20, the religious types get their magic because they are, essentially, wizards and no god is known to exist.
This opens up the fact that a church which appears good-aligned will have, within its ranks, priests which aren't so good - and maybe even evil. It also makes it much more understandable that two branches of a church could be in conflict.
This adds a dimension to the game which the traditional d20 rules simply miss.You don't even need a house rule for this. Clerics and paladins are magical champions, empowered by their fervor (and not by a divine agent). The spellcasters of the organized religions are all monkish wizards.
There you go. Nobody has to have a personal-relationship-with-the-deity sort of cleric or paladin.
\
That puts you in a position where you can determine the will of the god by seeing whose spells work. That's okay if you like that sort of game, but if you want less certainty, it doesn't work.
Maybe. Some of a diety's followers may be hedge wizards using arcane magic to fake miracles. Honestly, would the average peasant know the difference?
Bob the peasant makes his untrained spellcraft check, "Hey that is arcane magic Mr. Fake Priest!!!"
Mr. Fake Priest cast magic missle at Bob, Bob dies, and Mr. Fake Priest exclaims "Hark, <insert diety> has struck down the unbeliever. Repent of your wicked ways and you will be spared the same fate! Donation box is over there."
I use the word cheesy for a reason. Cheesy is not the same as broken. In my experience, players who do this kind of crap are the same ones that grumble anytime they think the group is spending too much time out of combat. "Stop RPing and lets get to the next fight guys" is the quote that springs to mind...Except that that's perfectly reasonable for the cleric of Ares/Kord/Tempus/Dol Dorn. In fact, it's even in character for that guy!
So just stop. You're not encouraging people who don't want to RP to RP by making them choose a deity. You're just making it so that the only people who play clerics are people who want a personal relationship with #DEITY and who don't mind the GM's play-how-I-say-or-I'll-take-your-character-sheet-away Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
No, I am encouraging players who don't want to RP a personal relationship with a god to play something other than a cleric. Last I checked there are still plenty of other character choices out there.
|
|
That is the thing though. A Cleric of a philosophy can also lose their powers by betraying their own beliefs or acting immoral. It is also still completely in the DM's hands.
When I say a philosophy, I am assuming it is understood that the philosophy will have just as many goals, motives, beliefs, and restrictions as any other religion. That the Cleric will still be just as spiritual and devoted to it. (That is the type I am asking about, why do so many people automatically dislike/disallow it?)
I would not allow a Cleric of "I smash faces", but on the other hand, a player that wants to create, or co-create an in depth belief system both encourages RPing far beyond what any printed deity based faith can allow for, (because it is manditory in it's creation), but also offers options that the player might want to do that simply are not existant in the game.
some commoner npc would get lucky and roll a crit and kill them with a rock, for just being chaotic-evil-dumb. Not a fun movie.
And that goes straight to wounds!
Even if the average peasant wouldn't know the difference, the average group of PCs would and, for the sake of the story, that's nearly just as bad.
Maybe. Some of a diety's followers may be hedge wizards using arcane magic to fake miracles. Honestly, would the average peasant know the difference?
Not really, it all depends on the story and the situation.
Yes, the PC will most likely easily see through the deception, but what if they are dealing with an entrenched establishment. Sure, you go ahead an call out the priest(who is really a wizard) in the temple in front of the temple guards(who's sword are most definately NOT fake) and all those innocent level 1 followers. Let me know how that works out for you, I'll be back at the inn.
Calling out the head priest could very well lead to a blood bath as many of the commoners will take up arms to defend their beliefs and probably get killed by the PCs. So, basically, the PC just provoked a fight which lead to the death of many innocents just to call out a wizard who was using his magic to give these people hope(and make a little money on the side).
Moreover, many believers want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Unless the PCs give them an alternative to fill that vacuum, they will be right back in another temple a month later, so what good would the PCs really accomplish?
The whole thing sounds like a situation full of lots of interesting moral choices.
When I say a philosophy, I am assuming it is understood that the philosophy will have just as many goals, motives, beliefs, and restrictions as any other religion. That the Cleric will still be just as spiritual and devoted to it. (That is the type I am asking about, why do so many people automatically dislike/disallow it?)
Because so many of us play a fantasy game in which the cleric is NOT modelled after an interpretation of the Christian faith, but is rather a ruder, more pagan-like cleric of "X." And since there aren't a lot of historical sources for complex philosophies (and none at all, for outright fantasy gods), what you recommend results in the player and DM just sort of making things up on the fly.
what you recommend results in the player and DM just sort of making things up on the fly.
God forbid.
In my experience, players who do this kind of crap re the same ones that grumble anytime they think the group is spending too much time out of combat. "Stop RPing and lets get to the next fight guys" is the quote that springs to mind...
I have to agree here completely.
It all just smacks of I want a whole pile of mechanics that support my dungeon crawl, but I don't want the external limitations on my class due to faith and the gods.
Thats cool, both of our groups of PF are rolling WITHOUT clerics - and so far all has been just peachy. Don't want to deal with 'gods'? Play a Druid or roll a Bard.
Don't want to deal with Gods AND a Code? Don't roll a Paladin, just put your Fighter on a Horse and he can still be a Knight - oh no, wait, real Knights had Codes...
Even Pirates had Codes - though maybe they were sometimes just 'guidelines'...
Because so many of us play a fantasy game in which the cleric is NOT modelled after an interpretation of the Christian faith, but is rather a ruder, more pagan-like cleric of "X."
Which is cool, and hopefully your GM has put in place a system covering it for your milieu, or has yanked out some other source material to reference.