Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 716 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Beckett wrote:


. . .Oracles.

Not the same thing and you know this. Notice the lack of rules to follow.

Actually, I was asking. The logic doesn't seem right to me. The deities will not share their most devout and sincere worshipers, keepers of their estates and missionaries of their word to the world, but have no problems investing random people, who don't even care about them (or don't have to) whom they are going to share with deities completely against their ideals and who actively work against them?

I'm not sure what you mean by lack of rules?


@Finn, don't worry I have thick skin and often come off way harsher then I mean to.

@ Beckett, The role is different, an Oracle does not represent a god or his teaching, but a more "Universal" idea. And it is not simply a god or gods but many types of divine beings that may contribute to the power base. And oracles do not represent the god, so there is no conflict between gods on if he broke a rule or something. They are but a reflection of one small part of something shared by many gods and divine beings.

As for rules, each cleric has a strict code much like a paladin he must follow.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn K wrote:
However, the point most folks seem to be following here, is that "concept" clerics do not fit the setting (certainly not as written/developed currently). Your argument in favor of allowing someone to jam a character into the game that just does not fit the world at all, because that's what you want to do, seems rather selfish and unreasonable.

The thing is, Concept Clerics work just fione in Golarion. In fact, most of the issues that the setting presents has absolutely nothing to do with Clerics with or without a deity. The reason this exact topics come up so often is because many people come into the setting assuming that Concept Clerics are allowed. Someone tells them they are not, and there is absolutely no proof in any book that they are not, but there is proof throughout the setting and a lot of implication as well, that Concept Clerics, or Pantheon/Polytheistic/etc. . . Clerics do exist.

The point here is, that fore the most part, people come in assuming that Clerics can exist without a patron deity, and the setting doesn't break, and in fact is not altered in any way. Because the issues (Aroden, Cheliax, Razmiran, based on 3E classes/flavor than no longer work that way, etc. . ., have nothing to do with Clerics, but rather are "broken" (not functional) on their own. So, basically the whole tyrrant DM thing is the only actual reason so far, (except we can see that there are samurai in the setting after all).

Silver Crusade

Beckett wrote:


The thing is, Concept Clerics work just fione in Golarion. In fact, most of the issues that the setting presents has absolutely nothing to do with Clerics with or without a deity. The reason this exact topics come up so often is because many people come into the setting assuming that Concept Clerics are allowed. Someone tells them they are not, and there is absolutely no proof in any book that they are not, but there is proof throughout the setting and a lot of implication as well, that Concept Clerics, or Pantheon/Polytheistic/etc. . . Clerics do exist.

The point here is, that fore the most part, people come in assuming that Clerics can exist without a patron deity, and the setting doesn't break, and in fact is not altered in any way. Because the issues (Aroden, Cheliax, Razmiran, based on 3E classes/flavor than no longer work that way, etc. . ., have nothing to do with Clerics, but rather are "broken" (not functional) on their own. So, basically the whole tyrrant DM thing is the only actual reason so far, (except we can see that there are samurai in the setting after all).

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, I think the argument that Clerics *in* Golarion must have a patron deity is convincing as a world/story point. Everything in the world that has magical powers of a divine nature is supposed to be drawing it from something, not just out of thin air. What makes a Druid a Druid, instead of a Cleric, is that they are able to draw their power directly from Nature through their dedication to Nature, but nature isn't just a concept-- it is a real source of magical power in and of itself in the game. Oracles get their power from one or many sources, but as far as I can tell, never just a concept. Oracles just don't know who it is who gave them their powers, or why-- but it's not just a concept or idea. The thing that bothers me now is, how can an Inquisitor or Paladin get their powers without a Patron to grant them.... and my answer to that (for now, unless someone's got a better one) is that, when a Paladin or Inquisitor is simply following a philosophy or concept, that some Patron deity or force is still behind their powers, but the Inquisitor or Paladin does not consciously recognize which divine force is supporting him/her.

Now, a clearly established point in all this is that divine casters, especially clerics, cannot simply draw the force from within him/her-self. Devotion alone is not enough in Golarion. So, who/what is this concept in Golarion, and why, while seeming to be an abstract concept, is it a real-enough thing/being/whatever that it can actually grant power to a cleric? Answer that question to people's satisfaction and the GM's (or in official Golarion, the Design team's) acceptance, and you'll have the working solution for concept clerics in Golarion.

Part of the proof that devotion, and devotion to a concept, is not enough IF the concept cannot grant power to its devotees-- really are the Aroden and Razmir cases. If devotion were enough, Aroden wouldn't be "dead" because his clerics, who were presumably fanatically devoted, never would have lost their powers in the first place. It was loss of their powers that caused their loss of faith; not the other way around. Razmir, well, he's not actually a god-- but if concept was enough, he'd be just like Vol in Eberron-- a mortal/immortal whatever, whose followers are clerics and have divine powers, but it's not really Vol herself who's granting them-- it's their devotion to Vol and the concepts for which she stands. It's not so much that concept clerics break the game, as that concept clerics don't exist-- because if they did, we'd see them still preaching Aroden's gospel and casting spells in his holy name, living or not.

Pantheon clerics-- did exist in the setting, once upon a time, and have gone away. I've found the reasons why they were written out, within the conditions discussed on this thread, reasonably compelling. BTW-- if it's not sufficiently obvious yet, I'm much more concerned with reasons why things should or should not work the way they do based on story/background/"the way the world works" rather than "that's just because the crunchy rules read that way-- there's no logical/consistent/'makes sense' story reason for it". To me, yes, if there's a conflict, I value story over mechanics, and I'll usually keep working away on an idea or concept, or keep at an argument, until I've found a way to reconcile the two, or exhausted all thoughts and options with the conclusion on all sides that there is no way to reconcile the two (in which case in any game I run, I'm gonna house-rule it). Because I do keep an open mind, it's possible for others to convince me to their point of view, if they have a good argument and can back it up with supporting evidence.

Oh, and Samurai weren't allowed before, but exist now?! All of a sudden, we've discovered there is a "Japanese/Chinese/East-Asian" type of area in the world? Ain't a damn thing I can say to that... :)


I think something does grant a paladin his power or they really could not fall. My bet is on the Eym lords.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn K wrote:
Oh, and Samurai weren't allowed before, but exist now?! All of a sudden, we've discovered there is a "Japanese/Chinese/East-Asian" type of area in the world? Ain't a damn thing I can say to that... :)

Not sure if your joking here or not, but yes, Samurai, Ninja, and even Gunslingers are all available in Ultimate Combat, and Paizo's next big push is and will be for Tien, the "oriental" section of the world. The current Adventure Path takes the characters (as outsiders) into the orient, as it where, and the next setting materials will be a Gazeteer and suppliments for The Dragon Kingdoms, or whatever. They are also releasing an adventure about a massive tourniment, sort of Mortal Kombat meets Blood Sport meets Best of the Best, which takes place in Tien.

That is the issue Loyalist was trying to bring up, as it seems he/she is very much a oriental fan. The restricted "western" idea of Clerics (and some other classes, too) either ruins the mood of an oriental setting, or the oriental setting will have to gloss over thing to try to make it work, which will probably offend people by basically bastardizing it to generic standards.


Beckett wrote:


That is the issue Loyalist was trying to bring up, as it seems he/she is very much a oriental fan. The restricted "western" idea of Clerics (and some other classes, too) either ruins the mood of an oriental setting, or the oriental setting will have to gloss over thing to try to make it work, which will probably offend people by basically bastardizing it to generic standards.

See I just do not get that. Paladin is no more Asian then there cleric yet we do not get the "Oh no I can't make an Asian paladin" Same with druids really and Inquisitors and prob a few more classes. Clerics having one god no more ruins "The mood" then paladins.

Silver Crusade

Beckett wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Oh, and Samurai weren't allowed before, but exist now?! All of a sudden, we've discovered there is a "Japanese/Chinese/East-Asian" type of area in the world? Ain't a damn thing I can say to that... :)
Not sure if your joking here or not...

Yeah, I know. I was kind of both joking and not joking... 'cause I've seen it many times before in other game worlds over the years.

(Scene from way-back when in gaming history....)
Cue GM screaming: "No Samurai! There are NO Samurai in D&D!"
Player rushes in from game store with brand new copy of Oriental Adventures, whispers in GM's ear.
GM:"You have got to be f***in' kidding me... they didn't...."(looks through book) "F*** me!!!!!!! They did!"

(the existence of the Dragon Empires in Golarion is specifically what I meant with "Ain't a damn thing I can say to that..." 'cause obviously the Gazetteer is out now, and more books are on the way) :)

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
See I just do not get that. Paladin is no more Asian then there cleric yet we do not get the "Oh no I can't make an Asian paladin" Same with druids really and Inquisitors and prob a few more classes. Clerics having one god no more ruins "The mood" then paladins.

I actually pointed this out a while ago. I don't see as much an issue with the Paladin, but I do with Druids, which are very much Western based. It basically takes the place of the Monk in the proverbial joke (there are no Monks in my world), but hasn't had the years of tolerance/acceptance that the Monk in the westen genre has.

The problem with asian themed priests is that many of them specifically do draw from non-deity sorces. Not the warrior priest part, which is perfectly fine, though the flavor might change to ancestor "worship" and other things, but specifically the sorces. Requiring a Patron deity is just a very wrong feel, in my optionion, and that's what Loyalist was saying.


Well thematically it is a bad fit for the cleric. Which is fine, not all classes fit all area's. A witch honestly is a much better fit for the Asian based "Priest", and adapt fits as well, so would an oracle.

The issue is still you guys thinking priest=cleric.

Shadow Lodge

Not exclusively, no, but no other class, especially Oracles and Witches, do either, really. There is nothing about either class that really says priest, including their skills. Witches, by flavor and maachanics are the opposite of priests, while Oracles typically lack the wisdom or understanding for the job. They also really do not have any class features whatsoever (besides base Divine spells) that says priest.


Witch pardon mechanic is very close in flavor really. What mechanics say priest? Healing? That is all the cleric has is channel, domains do not say "priest" spells do not say "Priest".

Oracle is really a good fit, it needs some Asian themed "curses" but it is a good fit as is the witch. A simple archetype that removes the familiar would work very well. The cleric is just a poor fit if you do not want to be the servant of a god or a divine being.

Silver Crusade

Beckett wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Oh, and Samurai weren't allowed before, but exist now?! All of a sudden, we've discovered there is a "Japanese/Chinese/East-Asian" type of area in the world? Ain't a damn thing I can say to that... :)
Not sure if your joking here or not...

BTW-- if I wasn't clear in my earlier response to this-- I was (while trying to be a little humorous) acknowledging what I saw as your point that we've already seen some things that previously didn't exist in the game setting (and were probably denied by various GMs) suddenly popping up in the game universe, because the new supplement's out and they're in there...

Player: "can I play one? It's in the new book."
GM: "I guess so."
Player: "It's supposed to be an ancient civilization, and my character's from there, so where have they been all this time? "
GM: "Ummm... lemme see where I can jam the new ancient civilization in on this map..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh. 250+ responses since I last read this. WELP. Let's. Get. Crackin'.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Tacticslion, I take your points, but your reduction of the arguments to ... <snipped that list>...

Is really quite wrong. There have been many points in play, criticisms, examples etc. Truly there is bickering, but it is a forum. Saying no side is saying anything of worth, we are just opposing each other with you're wrong seems like you just want it to end, and not really add to what's here. After reading all this, I've learned quite a bit about very small sections of the cleric class and how it changes across settings. Bonus.

I take your point. My point is that this that this is what it's become (not what it always was), though I admit that I let my frustration through, for which I apologize. It's been a long couple weeks (and, in this thread, years).

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Jacobs likes the idea of clerics only of one god or goddess (with no other options allowed), but what do YOU think Steve? do you think it is a good idea, a creative idea, an idea fit for a really complex and deep fantasy world? My additional question to you, is do you think removing more options for the cleric should be defended? Because people seem to be doing that, and it is very easy to side with authority without considering authority's position.

I'm not Steve, but he basically gave the answer I was going to anyway.

A world is defined as much by its rules (what isn't there) as its allowances (what is there). For example, Conan would be very, very different if wizards functioned like they do in Pathfinder (or if there were other wizards that also function like they do in Pathfinder, even as some function like they do in Conan). It would not make a "better" story... and that's the ultimate point of having a world with a consistent setting: a strong background for your story.

That's why I reject Davick's false proposition that there is no essential flavor in a game of imagination. Of course there is. The difference is that his "essential" flavor (that of being a large blend of all things possible) is the same as Golarion "essential" flavor (that of specific rules defining the world). A game, by its definition, has rules, ergo "essential", and an RPG adds "role playing" to the game, ergo "flavor". Each person's game (rules) and role playing (flavor) differ, but Golarion is a specific, defined location with specific, defined rules. It is what it is - a specific world with specific rules. You remove those, and it collapses into a nothing. It's a hodge podge as it stands already. While I don't always agree with Mr. Jacobs' specific rulings on a personal level, it makes total sense that those rulings need to stand.

Already answered, but more on one-god clerics worshipping multiple deities!:
Finn K wrote:

However, in practice (social roles and organization, behavior, etc), I'm not sure why you can't play a Cleric who is polytheistic in faith (actively honors/worships/serves more than one specific deity; presumably this is self-limiting anyway by the provision that the deities themselves must be at least somewhat aligned with each other), other than by creator fiat. Are there some specific rationales for why this cannot work in Golarion? (maybe because even the good deities are just so jealous of each other?) Or is this something you can do with a Cleric, within the official campaign setting, with the aforementioned point that you must select a single patron deity as the actual source of your spells and domains, but can still honor the others you also choose to follow?

(BTW-- I think this would still be a better solution for explaining Clerics who belong to the GodClaw order, than the idea that Clerics within the order are strict monotheists in their personal practice-- although one still has to understand why five such different deities tolerate such a close relationship between their worshippers)

Yes, as a cleric you totally have a special relationship with that one deity, but you can totally have a really good one with any other deities that tickle your fancy. I'm not going to be praying to Erastil, for example, when I'm hoisting my booze or visiting the local "earth woman" (of Calistria, if you know what I mean).

So, just to clarify, having a relationship - a special relationship - with one, single deity that's unique to you and that deity doesn't preclude the worship of other deities. It's a little hard to wrap our Western minds around sometimes, but look at it like marraige in Faerun: in Faerun, you could (and were expected to!) get married, but all I'm sayin' is that there was not one, but four good goddesses who... ahem... "encouraged"... well, "extracurricular activities", let's say. And, for the most part, most people in Faerun were okay with that. There wasn't a single religion (that I know of) that actually prohibited polymatrimony (and is specifically called out as a not-unheard-of practice amongst the really wealthy, with no stigma attached). With gods its similar. You're married to this one, right? You have a special relationship with this one that you don't want to jeopardize. But, in this morality system (unlike our own generally accepted one), there's nothing wrong with a few nights out on the town with that one over there (and it might be the most practical thing, really), so long as you're up front about it and nobody objects before hand. So, even with a one-patron-only, it's not monotheism.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Borrow a polytheistic culture, borrow from the real world religion of Hinduism, but only say monotheism works. These decisions on the game world are starting to feel very western and a little racist, i.e. clerics must worship one god or you get nothing as a cleric.

... "racist"? Um. The Picts were white as they come, if that's what you mean, and I think it is, based off that statement. Go read up on the Tuatha Dé Danann and explain how polytheism is totally just a not-white thing? Also, as far as monotheism, you're only looking at the Judeo-Christian side - don't forget, not only do we have Andoran without the Christian god (but a "random" celestial instead), but also we have Qadira without Islam.

Look, I get you're anti-Judeo-Christian in your fantasy. I get that. But listen, man: you're wrong. This isn't about Judeo-Christian culture. It doesn't resemble anything like Judeo-Christian culture. At all. You're hung up on one class as if it's the be-all end-all of all divine things in Golarion. It's not.

Here, let me do something. I'd like to introduce you to a class. I call it "Bhakt"

Bhakti wrote:


Base class.
Hit Dice: d8
Base Attack Bonus: Intermediate
Saves: Good Fortitude and Will, Poor Reflex
Skills: 2+INT mod per level, taken from the Cleric class skill list
Proficiencies: weapons and armor as cleric
Spells: the Bhakti gains spell-casting as a cleric of its level, taken from the cleric spell list.
Channel Energy: a Bhakti channels energy as a cleric of its level.
Special: Bhakti must worship a single deity in order to gain their spells, and must follow that deity's tenets faithfully. Further, they must be within one step of the deity's alignment.

Is that hindu enough for you? No, what about, the... "Dharmist"

Dharmist wrote:


Base class.
Hit Dice: d8
Base Attack Bonus: Intermediate
Saves: Good Fortitude and Will, Poor Reflex
Skills: 4+INT mod per level, taken from the Druid class skill list
Proficiencies: weapons and armor as druid
Spells: the Dharmist gains spell-casting as a druid of its level, taken from the cleric spell list.
Class Features: a dharmist has all the class features of a druid of its level. It needs to venerate the concept of Dharma, the power that is held to lie behind nature and that keeps everything in balance.

... based on:

Wikipedia on Hinduism, the section on Dharma wrote:

Dharma

The concept of a "power" that is held to lie behind nature and that keeps everything in balance became a natural forerunner to the idea of Dharma. The idea of rta laid the cornerstone of dharma's implicit attribution to the "ultimate reality" of the surrounding universe, in classical Vedic Hinduism the following verse from the Rig-Veda is an example where rta is mentioned:

O Indra, lead us on the path of Rta, on the right path over all evils. -(RV 10.133.6)

The transition of the rta to the modern idea of dharma occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The Upanishads saw dharma as the universal principle of law, order, harmony, all in all truth, that sprang first from Brahman. It acts as the regulatory moral principle of the Universe. It is sat (truth), a major tenet of Hinduism. This hearkens back to the conception of the Rig Veda that "Ekam Sat," (Truth Is One), of the idea that Brahman is "Sacchidananda" (Truth-Consciousness-Bliss). Dharma is not just law, or harmony, it is pure Reality. In the Brihadaranyaka's own words:

Verily, that which is Dharma is truth, Therefore they say of a man who speaks truth, "He speaks the Dharma,"
or of a man who speaks the Dharma, "He speaks the Truth.", Verily, both these things are the same.
—(Brh. Upanishad, 1.4.14) (2)

In the Mahabharata, Krishna defines dharma as,

"Dhāranād dharma ityāhur dharmena vidhrtāh prajāh, Yat syād dhārana sanyuktam sa dharma iti nishchayah"

i.e., Dharma upholds both this-worldly and other-worldly affairs. (Mbh 12.110.11).

The word Sanātana means 'eternal', 'perennial', or 'forever'; thus, 'Sanātana Dharma' signifies that it is the dharma that has neither beginning nor end.

Look, it functions. Change the name, and suddenly you've got a functioning Vudra, that's still Hindu in flavor. It fits James' interpretation and yours, and resolves basically everything you dislike. BAM.

Look guys, I'm not even against you using it in your campaign. THAT'S GREAT! DO THAT!

BUT HOW CAN IT TAKE TWO YEARS TO GET THE IDEA OF WHAT CLERICS ARE IN GOLARION?

Davick wrote:
So you can do it, and you can do all the things that upset James about it (ie. worship Razmir and Pharasma and go on as a cleric of Razmir)? I don't think so.

Yes, you can. It's called "house rules". Use them. They're great.

ANYWAY, I'm still three pages out from being done (I'm on page 11, reading Beckett's and Flynn's and Steve's back-and-forth), but it's late and thus bedtime. I'll work on catching up more later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gah, of course I know polytheists have been what we would call white (Greeks and Romans anyone?). I didn't say anything to the contrary, you missed my meaning. My meaning was that with all the borrowing from Hindu and Asian polytheistic cultures, the people of those cultures, even the most religious and devoted, cannot be clerics of more than one deity--they cannot be like clerics/spiritualist figures, of and which are in Asia. Now do you get my meaning?

Bhakti, yay, monotheists in Hindu culture. Are you trying to say something? There are mono-clerics in Hindu culture, so Golarion should represent it like that? You reach to Hinduism to support foreign clerics of one god and Golarion as it has been edited. What about the rest of Hinduism hmm? What about Hindu spiritualists that are not worshippers of one but many?

Now I am not saying there has never been monotheism, sole god worship in what we call Asia. But to only allow clerics of one god, that isn't being entirely honest or respectful to the actual source of increasingly more of the Golarion material.

I'd like the Dharmist more, but you made it a druid, not a cleric. The Dharmist follows the teachings of gods (Indra, Krishna are mentioned) and truth as revealed by gods, but you made it a druid? Focusing on the teachings of law, order, harmony, truth, what is eternal, and you thought it would best be represented as a druid? You've only given more to the idea of concept clerics--especially concept clerics from Budra. That I thank you for, Hinduism is not my area.

My stance is that if Golarion is going to borrow from cultures where polytheism has been significant, it should allow concept and polytheistic clerics. Clerics that worship "eternal" forces (Sanātana) and domains, and the cultural versions of "truth", what has been revealed. Instead of forcing all clerics to worship one god.

Shadow Lodge

While I tend to agree with you, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are trying to say here specifically (beyond deity clerics don't work).

I do agree with you on the Druid thing is a bad call, (over all). Clerics, by nature, are spiritual leaders, emissaries and spokespersons of the divine and holy. Druids, are not, and honestly are getting pretty far from the older edition priest concept at all, that I'm not even sure they should be using divine magic.

The Druid class is much more designed and suitable to be a loner, (having a super secret triple stamped language, generaly more of a self-buffer, and comes with a helper as a class feature, and the ability to shapeshift to overcome nearly any mundaine obsticle) rather than working with or building up a group.


Druids don't work with and represent the polytheistic spiritual figures of Asia. Yeah the idea they can just fit in as Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist priests would be pretty insulting to someone of those religions. We've covered this I think, but the summary of my last post is in the last section:

My stance is that if Golarion is going to borrow from cultures where polytheism has been significant, it should allow concept and polytheistic clerics. Clerics that worship "eternal" forces (Sanātana) and domains, and the cultural versions of "truth", what has been revealed. Instead of forcing all clerics to worship one god.

After all, to someone looking at the game for the fist time, we wouldn't want to seem like we condemn polytheism and don't see their priests as real priests would we?

Say a Han fellow reads a bit and says "cool, for the new Tian campaign. I want to play a samurai/cleric of the ancestor spirits" (Taoist, Confucian or Shinto, something along those lines). Orthodox dm would say no. That just seems sad to me, not allowing Asian-themed clerics in an increasingly Asian-themed Golarion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Steve, Seeker, et al.--

(Brief rundown of results for those who don't follow that other thread)

I did take my question to James Jacobs, almost the way I'd phrased it here. The initial response was along the line of "No, that sounds like an Oracle; Clerics have one deity in Golarion", but someone posted the example of the Cleric of Desna in Sandspoint, who is the only/head priest at a temple honoring 6 deities.

Here's the quotes from the exchange on Father Zantus in Sandpoint:

James Jacobs wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
IANJ, but Father Zantus of Sandpoint actually presides over a cathedral that is home to six deities, despite being the only cleric and venerating Desna. Zantus presumably attends and leads the congregation in service to whatever deity is relevant to the town's needs. This heavily implies that cross-worship between good and allied deities is canonical.

That's an excellent example.

The Sandpoint Cathedral is a pantheon-style house of worship; it has shrines for six allied deities inside it, and as such worshipers of ANY of those six churches are particularly welcome, and any of those worshipers can treat the Sandpoint Cathedral as their deity's house of worship.

The current tender of that cathedral is a cleric who worships one of those six deities—in this case, Desna.

He serves as religious adviser for the town, and that includes giving advice to all sorts of other religions. And the acolytes in the cathedral may or may not be clerics of Desna, but they'd still be subservient to Father Zantus. None of that changes the fact that Zantus is a cleric of Desna who reveres her above all other deities and thus gets his power from her (likewise for whatever deities his acolytes worship).

Since James thought that example was cool, I put down the "no" response to the way I'd phrased the question, and rephrased it, making it extremely clear that I accepted and agreed with the official rulings on Clerics in Golarion, and that this wasn't about a cleric having more than one patron, it was about a Cleric (who obviously has a single patron) showing a little respect to other deities without doing anything that could affect/interfere with his relationship with his Patron. Got a different response (one I'm reasonably happy with) once I rephrased it:

James Jacobs wrote:
It depends on the deity, and to which other deity the cleric is paying respect. The gods and goddess of Golarion have their own alliances and rivalries, after all. And some deities are more open to the idea of "sharing" than others. And some clerics are more open to the idea than others. It's a case-by-case basis that generally gets decided by what makes for the most interesting story.

So, I asked about the Deities I was most interested in, as far as interaction and acceptability of a dedicated worshiper respecting one of the others: Sarenrae, Shelyn, Milani, Iomedae, and Desna-- with respect to each other, and with respect to how each of these five feels about Erastil, Pharasma, and Cayden Caillean?

I also made the quip that if one was a Cleric of Pharasma, given Pharasma's portfolio and standing as the Goddess of Death AND Fate, you probably wouldn't bother praying/speaking towards any other power... didn't see any objection to that, but I don't think I'd play it any differently-- Pharasma just strikes me as that sort of Goddess (not that you'd ignore the existence of the other Gods though).

James Jacobs wrote:

Sarenrae and Desna get along well, and they both get on almost as well with Shelyn. They respect Iomedae, but don't interact with her much; she's still a new kid. And Milani is generally not involved in the affairs of those other deities at all; she keeps the lowest profile of them all.

They all respect and perhaps fear Pharasma, are either annoyed or amused by Cayden, and mostly don't have the patience for Erastil.

So... here's my final formulation of it, next time I make a good cleric: Sarenraeists, Desnans, and Shelynites are fine with each other; won't get zapped if you admire Iomedae just a little; and only a fool doesn't give a little respect to Pharasma. Leave Cayden and Erastil out of it. I still think a nod to Milani's gonna be okay if you find yourself assisting a little righteous rebellion-- especially since Redemption and Hope imply similar interests... just don't ever let any of your gestures of respect come in between you and your one and only Patron Goddess that you are dedicated to serving.

(Truth is, in both PF campaigns I'm in right now, I'm having so much fun playing Oracles that right now I don't know if I'm ever going to pick up a Cleric again anyway-- but it's still good info to know)


Finn K: nice!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Are you trying to say something?

Only that "Asia cannot support monotheism/deities of singular deities" is incorrect and if, as you say, that is not your point, then I'm afraid it hasn't been coming across clearly.

However, more to topic: I reject your presupposition that a cleric's special relationship with a single deity is monotheism or, in any way, a condemnation of polytheism!

You mentioned Greeks/Romans. This is a perfect example of the Golarion cleric. A priest (cleric) of Apollo would never cease to worship Zeus (especially for authority, rulers, or sky-related things), Poseidon (especially for anything involving the sea), Hades (especially for anything involving death), or Demeter (especially for anything involving crops or agriculture). And yet, he'd always primarily and fundamentally be a priest (in this case a cleric) of Apollo - not a priest (in this case cleric) of those other gods. Oracles, on the other hand, might have had a singular patron (as Pythia did in Apollo at Delphi), but the Vates (of Gaelic fame) tended to be more polytheistic in their sacrifices (at least as far as I can tell).

Beckett wrote:

While I tend to agree with you, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are trying to say here specifically (beyond deity clerics don't work).

I do agree with you on the Druid thing is a bad call, (over all). Clerics, by nature, are spiritual leaders, emissaries and spokespersons of the divine and holy. Druids, are not, and honestly are getting pretty far from the older edition priest concept at all, that I'm not even sure they should be using divine magic.

The Druid class is much more designed and suitable to be a loner, (having a super secret triple stamped language, generaly more of a self-buffer, and comes with a helper as a class feature, and the ability to shapeshift to overcome nearly any mundaine obsticle) rather than working with or building up a group.

Meh... I admit, I wrote it up as fast as I possibly could, considering how late it was (I'd actually had most of the windows sitting there for several hours as I read, fed baby, did chores, etc, but only got to the actual writing later). I still think it's a fine base presumption.

One problem I think both of you are having with accepting a druid as a "spiritual leader" is... it's a "druid". You're looking directly at the fact that "it's a druid" and going "whelp, that's not a community's spiritual leader!" (despite the fact that this is, in fact, [rul=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid]exactly what many druids actually were[/url], as were the bards, for that matter!).

Which I understand. 'Cause, I mean, heaven knows, I would never have taken a cavalier (on its lonesome) as a samurai, yet that is exactly what happened with the alternate classes. Starting with a similar base, they created a decent alternate class. I fully stand by a druid in that case.

As far as the animal companion or other self-things go:
* change it for a domain
* specialize in a terrain-type
* use a special animal (substitute the words "god[dess] spirit-form" or something similar)
* the menhir savant, mooncaller, reincarnated druid, storm druid, and urban druid archetypes function splendidly for being spiritual advisers more than "generic nature worshiper".

The one thing that druids lack in this edition is the diplomacy skill, sadly (which holds them back only from being missionaries).

Alternatively, of course, they could be Inquisitors with no problems whatsoever.

As far as hinduism goes, you could...
... re-term paladin as a yogi
... re-term a wizard or bard as a srauta
... re-term any other clerics or oracles as practitioners of folk hinduism, which, while polytheistic, focuses on local deities (which could be the one a cleric in question worships).

All that falls perfectly in line with clerics as one-deity, oracles as multi-deities.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Druids don't work with and represent the polytheistic spiritual figures of Asia. Yeah the idea they can just fit in as Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist priests would be pretty insulting to someone of those religions. We've covered this I think, but the summary of my last post is in the last section:

My stance is that if Golarion is going to borrow from cultures where polytheism has been significant, it should allow concept and polytheistic clerics. Clerics that worship "eternal" forces (Sanātana) and domains, and the cultural versions of "truth", what has been revealed. Instead of forcing all clerics to worship one god.

After all, to someone looking at the game for the fist time, we wouldn't want to seem like we condemn polytheism and don't see their priests as real priests would we?

Say a Han fellow reads a bit and says "cool, for the new Tian campaign. I want to play a samurai/cleric of the ancestor spirits" (Taoist, Confucian or Shinto, something along those lines). Orthodox dm would say no. That just seems sad to me, not allowing Asian-themed clerics in an increasingly Asian-themed Golarion.

The idea that a person with powerful spiritual connections could, in fact, be a person with powerful spiritual connections who sees through to the "true divine" behind nature, is insulting? I think you're very incorrect, unless, of course, you're actually trying to make Pathfinder religions perfect analogies of real-world religions (and claiming they work the same), in which case Pathfinder becomes super-duper-mega-insulting to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism: three monotheistic cultures that emphatically state that there is only one God, one true God, and none other. Which no cleric actually does.

It would be wise for the Han fellow in question to go, "Oh, wait, clerics don't work that way, so I'll be a druid, paladin, oracle, ranger or ANY CLASS other than a cleric at all!" (ALSO, it would totally depend on what you mean by "Orthodox", as "orthodoxy" can be split into various minor disagreements, and one GM who holds to the Core RAW above Campaign Setting presumptions would still, by some, be considered more Orthodox than others.)

I think your stand (and problem)

'Sides. As James really recently said (here, about 19-ish posts down)...

James Jacobs wrote:

Not only will I not come to your house to shut down your game if I hear you're allowing good aligned undead... but I don't even know where you live!

I do hope, though, that folks understand when I say things like "No evil undead" or "clerics worship only one deity" that I'm talking about the baseline assumption of Golarion... not how Golarion works in any one person's campaign (including my own).

Basically, he's talking about published stuff. If people come online and ask him "hey, how does this work in Golarion?" he'll tell you how it works in Golarion for publication purposes. But if you want to do something different, he's more than okay with that!

One final thought: by insisting that the current classes change and alter what they are to align with everything possible, you're actually cutting away the possible future archetypes, alternate classes, and other special options that Paizo could publish. After all, if the Monk class could be of any alignment in the first place, the Martial Artist archetype would lose of of its appeal.

Silver Crusade

TacticsLion:

Thanks for noticing and the support!

Regarding your post: I think you're right, as far as I know, about how the Greeks & Romans handled religious practice and "clergy" serving their Gods. Good point-- I'm going to remember that in future games. The Norse kind-of had it both ways... a Priest or Priestess often was dedicated to a particular God or Goddess, but I've read material that says there were also Priests and Priestesses who were dedicated to several. However, it's noteworthy in comparison with the practice of some modern neo-pagans that, while the Ancient Norse believed in Loki's existence, there is NO record of a Priest or Priestess ever being dedicated to Loki, or of anyone offering sacrifices and/or thanks to Loki (some other pantheons had 'Evil' Gods they believed in that no-one actually worshipped, too).

I like your thoughts on Druids, and the fact that, in spite of the name, they can be used to represent other spiritual outlooks and practices besides the ancient Celtic Druids. One extra thought for your adaptions though-- if you make a character wherein having Diplomacy as a class-skill is important to your build... you can always add that to the character with a trait. :)


Gods can work together, like Desna and the others, some gods share alignment or outlook, clerics can keep and maintain shrines to many, but still no poly clerics? 0-0

By monotheism and polytheism, yep I know what it means, for mono and poly clerics, I am meaning worshipper of one and worshipper of many. If the many is allowed to be honoured in some cases, why not allow clerics of many? It keeps creeping in, but some keep saying no.

What is also a bit funny, although not so much emphasised in paizo material, is the ur priest. The thief of divine power. Draws from multiple sources, gets no domains, loses cleric status. This one though, is a thief and heretic, a cleric of many would be simply a follower of a tradition of honouring probably a small group, or a large group of the same alignment. I think the joke was made before, but the idea that a truly spiritual person, who say, worshipped five divines and got nothing no matter his devotion, is quite amusing. The joke was made about a Vudrani polytheist, here is another example.

A short play to illustrate

Celestial agent comes down, speak to truly devout polytheist worshipper of the good gods.

"You are genuine, true and devoted to our god, come to the fold and receive power."
"What of the others? What of your allies and deities of a similar bent? I wish to serve them too."
"Nope, can't be done, you have to choose one."
"But the people do not choose one, they honour many, and as a follower of holiness and goodness, I do not only worship one either. That would be to put a god over the cause of what is good."
"Do it or no holy juice!"
"Celestial, this is quite ridiculous."
"This is the way things are mortal."
"Are we waging war on the other good faiths now? It sounds like it, that a cleric cannot be of multiple gods committed to similar ideas, in alliances and opposed to evil. I fear for the gods and their hubris, their wish to be divisive and petty individuals. They are as foolish humans in courts."
"You are wise mortal, but no juice for you!"
"It is no matter, I think I will become an oracle, apparently polytheists are oracles."
"Actually, polytheists are chosen puppets of powers, not all oracles are active polytheists, what you want and what you are does not matter, you could be uncaring and undevoted and still be an oracle, or just obsessed with your own power."
"I am starting to be annoyed with the state of the divines."
"Me too mortal."

They sigh. End of play.

James, your attempt to rigidly control the clerics of Golarion is seriously flawed. It is ham-fisted and doesn't make much sense on close inspection.

Yep, know about the real druids, read a little. Dnd moved far far away from what little we know of them. Happens of course if you make them spellcaster nature warriors and not spiritual leader diplomats.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
James, your attempt to rigidly control the clerics of Golarion is seriously flawed. It is ham-fisted and doesn't make much sense on close inspection.

This is a little weird. They're not real people - he's not trying to "control" anything other than creative content in paizo's IP. What else is the creative director supposed to do?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Not to mention, he's only controlling the published stance. He has no control over my Golarion or anyone else's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 Loyalist, you've made some very clear arguments and post in this thread, but this, I'm afraid, is not one of them. (Much like my last post, in parts, is kind of a mess what with the several half-finished paragraphs and trailed-off sentences and such!)

So, sir (or madame?), allow me to rebut.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Gods can work together, like Desna and the others, some gods share alignment or outlook, clerics can keep and maintain shrines to many, but still no poly clerics? 0-0

Yes. I can be best friends with a guy I knew from college, my wife and I may love him like a brother, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bed with his wife (or vice versa, or with him, or my wife with him, or whatever other combination is out there). You're confusing the ideas of alliance, friendship, assistance, help, and intimacy. They are all different. Further, there are different degrees of each of those. Certainly there can be relationships like that, but then it's not a "marriage" by conventional definitions it's an "open marriage" (or swingers or something, I don't know).

Similarly, clerics have a "special relationship" with one god (in Golarion published material). A non-open marriage-like relationship, if you will. That means that the other gods but-out, don't make demands, and don't fill the cleric with their power. They might be friends, allies, assistants, or even intimates in other ways, but the clerics are clerics of only that one special deity (in published Golarion).

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
By monotheism and polytheism, yep I know what it means, for mono and poly clerics, I am meaning worshipper of one and worshipper of many. If the many is allowed to be honoured in some cases, why not allow clerics of many? It keeps creeping in, but some keep saying no.

I'm afraid I don't know exactly what these sentences mean. You've made much clearer statements before, but this one is garbled and seems to be leaping from one logic point to another. I will try and address the points I'm reading, however.

Monotheism - By definition, in strict Monotheism, there is only one God, there is no other. I worship that one, or I do not. There may be other powers, entities, forces, or whatever, and I can worship them, but there is only one god.

Polytheism - By definition, in Polytheism, there are many gods. I may worship all, I may worship many, I may worship a select few, I may worship only one, or I may worship varieties, or perhaps I worship various ones at various points. I may worship none, or I may have a more complicated or intricate belief system. It depends entirely on the nature of my relationship with one (or more) of those various gods.

Golarion (as published) is completely polytheistic. Clerics of Golarion (as published) are polytheistic. They worship (with a lower case) - i.e. have a loose relationship with/highly respect/like and/or admire and honor, but in a general way - many gods, especially as those gods relate to various aspects of their life. But they Worship (with a capital!) - i.e. have a special relationship with - only that one god, their patron, the one that give them the divine power and authority.

As far as priests powered by "many": that's literally what every single divine class with the exception of clerics are (in published Golarion).

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
What is also a bit funny, although not so much emphasised in paizo material, is the ur priest. The thief of divine power. Draws from multiple sources, gets no domains, loses cleric status. This one though, is a thief and heretic, a cleric of many would be simply a follower of a tradition of honouring probably a small group, or a large group of the same alignment.

Ah, the Ur-Priest! Always wanted to play one of those.

You are confusing D&D 3.5 Edition (which is a different, but very similar game) and it's prestige classes with Pathfinder and its prestige classes (not even 3rd-Party Material[url] has that one!).

While Pathfinder is (mostly) backwards compatible, what that means is that it functions on (most of) the same basic principles and looks strikingly similar to the older edition, but it is not exactly the same. Anything not published by Pathfinder runs the risk of being unbalanced by virtue of the fact that... it wasn't designed with PF's philosophies in mind. Also, Ur-Priests were all evil (unless you're developing them differently with house rules in which case... well, this isn't an issue 'cause you're using house rules, which is great and I totally support that).

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I think the joke was made before, but the idea that a truly spiritual person, who say, worshipped five divines and got nothing no matter his devotion, is quite amusing. The joke was made about a Vudrani polytheist, here is another example.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with said joke. I may have missed it somewhere on here.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

A short play to illustrate

Celestial agent comes down, speak to truly devout polytheist worshipper of the good gods.

"You are genuine, true and devoted to our god, come to the fold and receive power."
"What of the others? What of your allies and deities of a similar bent? I wish to serve them too."
"Nope, can't be done, you have to choose one."
"But the people do not choose one, they honour many, and as a follower of holiness and goodness, I do not only worship one either. That would be to put a god over the cause of what is good."
"Do it or no holy juice!"
"Celestial, this is quite ridiculous."
"This is the way things are mortal."
"Are we waging war on the other good faiths now? It sounds like it, that a cleric cannot be of multiple gods committed to similar ideas, in alliances and opposed to evil. I fear for the gods and their hubris, their wish to be divisive and petty individuals. They are as foolish humans in courts."
"You are wise mortal, but no juice for you!"
"It is no matter, I think I will become an oracle, apparently polytheists are oracles."
"Actually, polytheists are chosen puppets of powers, not all oracles are active polytheists, what you want and what you are does not matter, you could be uncaring and undevoted and still be an oracle, or just obsessed with your own power."
"I am starting to be annoyed with the state of the divines."
"Me too mortal."

They sigh. End of play.

Your play, 3.5 Loyalist, is a classic case of what is often called "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]straw man" - an obviously over-the-top dramatization to prove your point, which it doesn't actually do because it ignores the points of those who disagree with you. I get that it's a humorous aside, but it's still good cause for analysis because it reveals a few flaws in the argumentation that might be causing some hang ups.

The mortal, in said case, is not wise. Instead of doing what needs to happen or choosing a more fitting career, they are specifically attempting to do something that isn't possible. It would be like me working really, really hard to turn lard into the color orange (not orange light or anything, I mean, just turning all lard into the actual color orange). There are rules the world follows. In this case, this is one of them, and the mortal is throwing a tantrum because it doesn't allow him to turn lard into the color orange. Ergo the failure of his supposed wisdom.

Further, he conflates the ideas of necessity of receiving divine power and intimacy from a single source within a certain context as "waging war". Another failure in his supposed wisdom.

Finally (at least in this limited analysis), the celestial is incorrect - all clerics, unless deluded somehow, are polytheists. But if you meant to indicate "gain power by worshipping multiple gods", then there is literally any other divine class other than cleric (in Published Golarion) that can do this. Literally any one of them. And none of the gods have any problem with this whatsoever.

Steve and TriOmegoZero covered the last two points!

So anyway, I know that was kind of harsh, but I mean... well, you've been pretty good for some of this argument in being clear, or at least reasonable and that one wasn't so much. I do hope what I'm saying makes sense though. And I totally approve of it working any way you'd like in your home games!

And now, in reverse order...

Finn K wrote:

TacticsLion:

Thanks for noticing and the support!

Absolutely! Sure thing! :)

Finn K wrote:
Regarding your post: I think you're right, as far as I know, about how the Greeks & Romans handled religious practice and "clergy" serving their Gods. Good point-- I'm going to remember that in future games. The Norse kind-of had it both ways... a Priest or Priestess often was dedicated to a particular God or Goddess, but I've read material that says there were also Priests and Priestesses who were dedicated to several. However, it's noteworthy in comparison with the practice of some modern neo-pagans that, while the Ancient Norse believed in Loki's existence, there is NO record of a Priest or Priestess ever being dedicated to Loki, or of anyone offering sacrifices and/or thanks to Loki (some other pantheons had 'Evil' Gods they believed in that no-one actually worshipped, too).

That's interesting. I'm afraid I'm not as solid on my Norse history as I could be (mythologies more my thing with them), nor the more modern aspects of faith, so I can't really help you out there. But I find what you're saying fascinating!

Finn K wrote:
I like your thoughts on Druids, and the fact that, in spite of the name, they can be used to represent other spiritual outlooks and practices besides the ancient Celtic Druids. One extra thought for your adaptions though-- if you make a character wherein having Diplomacy as a class-skill is important to your build... you can always add that to the character with a trait. :)

I love taking classes as they are, finding a way to revise their outer layer (without actually changing it) and realizing that it functions pretty solidly somewhere else. It's fun!

I totally agree that one can add diplomacy, and, in fact, I'd suggest it, over all! I'm just also pointing out that, as written, even as currently published, most things can function pretty well without changing anything other than the name. That's a pretty solid foundation for adaptability right there!

Anyway, peace out, guys!


Urgh, straw man. That is far over-used on this board.

It is not a straw man because it is not a misrepresentation of my opponent's position. I am attacking what has been disallowed, and making jest of it. Not a misrepresentation, instead a critique of the official stance, with some humour to keep me going and point out how it doesn't make much sense.

To those that would claim the straw man is being used, there are other terms and ploys in rhetoric you know? There are also logical fallacies, and means to criticise other writers. Such things can easily be found with some net research or studying Greek-Roman rhetoric at your library. Some quite common ones are the appeal to authority and the mind projection fallacy or reification.

"Yes. I can be best friends with a guy I knew from college, my wife and I may love him like a brother, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bed with his wife (or vice versa, or with him, or my wife with him, or whatever other combination is out there). You're confusing the ideas of alliance, friendship, assistance, help, and intimacy. They are all different. Further, there are different degrees of each of those. Certainly there can be relationships like that, but then it's not a "marriage" by conventional definitions it's an "open marriage" (or swingers or something, I don't know)."

If you want to drag the real world into this discussion on golarion and try to use it, would the existence and practice of swingers, sleeping openly with other people's wives and husbands invalidate your claim? Because the world is a complex place, where a lot of different relationships happen. But your unwillingness to swing has nothing to do with the topic. Unrelated inductive reasoning, what you would do in regards to marriage has nothing to do with the golarion cleric question.

"Golarion (as published) is completely polytheistic. Clerics of Golarion (as published) are polytheistic. They worship (with a lower case) - i.e. have a loose relationship with/highly respect/like and/or admire and honor, but in a general way - many gods, especially as those gods relate to various aspects of their life. But they Worship (with a capital!) - i.e. have a special relationship with - only that one god, their patron, the one that give them the divine power and authority."

Nope. You have no proof all clerics are actually polytheistic. It is a mostly poly world, in part, for sure, but the fanatical cleric of an evil god is going to almost certainly be a mono cleric. If he thinks Rovagug is truly great, going to destroy all, including the other false gods, he is going to be mono. Same with a fanatic of Zon-Kuthon or other such deities. If they are murdering folk for one god, chances are they don't respect the other belief systems or pray to the other gods.

"Golarion (as published) is completely polytheistic. Clerics of Golarion (as published) are polytheistic. They worship (with a lower case) - i.e. have a loose relationship with/highly respect/like and/or admire and honor, but in a general way - many gods, especially as those gods relate to various aspects of their life. But they Worship (with a capital!) - i.e. have a special relationship with - only that one god, their patron, the one that give them the divine power and authority."

And what if they don't? What if a worshipper does not favour one? What if he or she favours two, three, four, all those of an alignment? They can't become a cleric at all, it is entirely closed to them by the now official material unless they make a choice of one. This was not the case in the earlier versions of Golarion rules, not in the earlier versions of the Golarion setting, which allowed poly clerics that had powers--old ones, Godclaw, nature and domains. In Golarion you can't even have a cleric of the light, say, a cleric of celestial powers and truly holy gods, dedicated to a cause but not to one god, it is not singular enough. That person would have no powers. Look how much has been taken away as possible? Turn against the recently imposed rules and call them out for the limiting restrictions that they are.

"The mortal, in said case, is not wise. Instead of doing what needs to happen or choosing a more fitting career, they are specifically attempting to do something that isn't possible. It would be like me working really, really hard to turn lard into the color orange (not orange light or anything, I mean, just turning all lard into the actual color orange). There are rules the world follows. In this case, this is one of them, and the mortal is throwing a tantrum because it doesn't allow him to turn lard into the color orange. Ergo the failure of his supposed wisdom."

You are refusing to see the point of those lines. He is wise, because the causes of good should ally closer, they should have linked clergy to further cooperation and allow the better opposition to evil and the really dark forces. James divisions come off as really artificial (no surprise in a game, it happens), and prevent clerics of even LG deities--deities which could surely see with all their wisdom, the sense in having one ordered faith for the true worshippers of lawful good. Why would there not be clerics of both Grundinnar and Folgrit and the domains and ideas they represent? Clerics of Calistria and Besmara? Groetus and all the Great Old Ones? Milani and Cayden? Zyphus and Venkelvore?

"all clerics, unless deluded somehow, are polytheists."
You've run with this, you really believe it, but ignoring fanaticism and how clerics of evil cults are presented. If clerics also have to absolutely worship one, have to pick their team, well, this could end up being like football teams, where the other sides are not considered true or real players. Looked down upon etc. You have been so eager to talk about polytheism and monotheism, so let me add this. If a cleric knows the other gods exist, but only worships one, they are not actually a polytheist. There is no poly worship, no adherence to the religion around multiple gods, so a flawed claim you try to run with.

Note: clerics and monks of Irori, could be so invested in the quest for enlightenment and the fulfillment of their training, that they too do not worship other gods. They are busy trying to transcend and meet Irori after all. A possible comparison to today is of practitioners of martial arts and eastern mysticism not becoming Christians in a mostly Christian society, and not picking up the worship of any other gods. They are a bit busy and already have their spiritual needs met (this was my childhood and adolescence, to share a little). No polytheism there, but I don't think it should be impossible or entirely removed from the setting, because...

I found another one, something huge from Chinese culture that is disallowed in Golarion, no clerics of Shenism for you! Ancestor spirits, divinities, heroes = no clerics of that. Even if you are Tian and it is an ancient practice in Asia. Cut another one out Charlie!


Hey, 3.5 Loyalist! Something that'll help clean up your posts for readability purposes. Whenever you want to quote someone, just go like this:
{quote=name}HERE THAR BE THE QUOTES THEY SAID{/quote}
Only, change the {} brackets into [] brackets (so, like [-quote-] only without the -). It'll look like this:

name wrote:
HERE THAR BE THE QUOTES THEY SAID

Usually what I do is I just type up one '{quote}' (or "{url}" or whatever) and then copy it, pasting it multiple times (once at the beginning and once at the end) to make it all work.

To make a url work, it's {url=here'stheurl.com}write what you want the link to be{/url}, only again change {} into [] to make it work like this:
write what you want the link to be

Anyway, that way, when you quote people, it's easier to tell when you're saying it or they are. Anyhoo, I'm going to add quote-stuff to my quotes of you to more easily respond to things!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Urgh, straw man. That is far over-used on this board.

Curious. I've never seen it used except that one other has made this claim. Nonetheless, it's my first time!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
It is not a straw man because it is not a misrepresentation of my opponent's position. I am attacking what has been disallowed, and making jest of it. Not a misrepresentation, instead a critique of the official stance, with some humour to keep me going and point out how it doesn't make much sense.

As I said, I get that it's humor. However! The argument used within the humor is in askance! Which was my point. Effectively, you're presenting either a) [pantheon clerics] or b) [good guys at war] as the only two options. This is false.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
To those that would claim the straw man is being used,...

That's totally (and so far exclusively) me. Sorry if it's wrong!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
... there are other terms and ploys in rhetoric you know? There are also logical fallacies, and means to criticise other writers. Such things can easily be found with some net research or studying Greek-Roman rhetoric at your library. Some quite common ones are the appeal to authority and the mind projection fallacy or reification.

But that's not what that play was. It was a complete misrepresentation of the actual questions involved!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Yes. I can be best friends with a guy I knew from college, my wife and I may love him like a brother, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bed with his wife (or vice versa, or with him, or my wife with him, or whatever other combination is out there). You're confusing the ideas of alliance, friendship, assistance, help, and intimacy. They are all different. Further, there are different degrees of each of those. Certainly there can be relationships like that, but then it's not a "marriage" by conventional definitions it's an "open marriage" (or swingers or something, I don't know).
If you want to drag the real world into this discussion on golarion and try to use it, would the existence and practice of swingers, sleeping openly with other people's wives and husbands invalidate your claim? Because the world is a complex place, where a lot of different relationships happen. But your unwillingness to swing has nothing to do with the topic. Unrelated inductive reasoning, what you would do in regards to marriage has nothing to do with the golarion cleric question.

My point was only in comparing the two is only that open marriage is fundamentally a different creature than a closed marriage. One does not participate in one the same way one participates in another. They are two different paths. Similarly, in Golarion, a divine caster that worships multiple deities as patrons follows one path and a divine caster that worships only one as their patron follows another. There are some paths (in published Golarion) which require a more "closed" relationship (such as a cleric who requires a single deity) while others allow for more open relationships (such as anything other than a cleric).

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Golarion (as published) is completely polytheistic. Clerics of Golarion (as published) are polytheistic. They worship (with a lower case) - i.e. have a loose relationship with/highly respect/like and/or admire and honor, but in a general way - many gods, especially as those gods relate to various aspects of their life. But they Worship (with a capital!) - i.e. have a special relationship with - only that one god, their patron, the one that give them the divine power and authority.
Nope. You have no proof all clerics are actually polytheistic. It is a mostly poly world, in part, for sure, but the fanatical cleric of an evil god is going to almost certainly be a mono cleric. If he thinks Rovagug is truly great, going to destroy all, including the other false gods, he is going to be mono. Same with a fanatic of Zon-Kuthon or other such deities. If they are murdering folk for one god, chances are they don't respect the other belief systems or pray to the other gods.

This is entirely patently false. "No proof"? That's... kind of silly! Considering entire religions specifically talk about other deities, there's a published temple to multiple deities, staffed by a cleric (who has a special relationship with one, but honors all), and any claims to the contrary are quickly brushed aside by the fact that most deities and their churches, very clearly have distinct teachings and feelings about other deities. There are very few that are shown to be monotheisitic at all, and this, again, is misrepresenting the argument of your opponent. In a clearly polytheistic world, with polytheistic temples, with a city (Absolom) filled with multiple churches to literally every deity, and divine spellcasters of all kinds who routinely talk with various entities of all faiths (and respect all faiths), you're totally putting up a false argument here.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Golarion (as published) is completely polytheistic. Clerics of Golarion (as published) are polytheistic. They worship (with a lower case) - i.e. have a loose relationship with/highly respect/like and/or admire and honor, but in a general way - many gods, especially as those gods relate to various aspects of their life. But they Worship (with a capital!) - i.e. have a special relationship with - only that one god, their patron, the one that give them the divine power and authority.
And what if they don't? What if a worshipper does not favour one? What if he or she favours two, three, four, all those of an alignment? They can't become a cleric at all, it is entirely closed to them by the now official material unless they make a choice of one. This was not the case in the earlier versions of Golarion rules, not in the earlier versions of the Golarion setting, which allowed poly clerics that had powers--old ones, Godclaw, nature and domains. In Golarion you can't even have a cleric of the light, say, a cleric of celestial powers and truly holy gods, dedicated to a cause but not to one god, it is not singular enough. That person would have no powers. Look how much has been taken away as possible? Turn against the recently imposed rules and call them out for the limiting restrictions that they are.

A worshiper does not need to only favor one. Neither do clerics. But clerics (in published Golarion) need to favor one. You are correct - if a worshiper can't choose, they don't have the focus to become a deity in Golarion (as published). You're hung up on printing errors and slip-ups. These happen. But canon Golarion (as currently published) rejects these things. Think of them as "common misconceptions" if it helps. Rumors that many think are true but are really not. This does not actually created the disunity that you seem to be expecting. And "recently imposed" has been "for a while". It's only recent in relation to before the change from 3.5 to Pathfinder, I believe.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
The mortal, in said case, is not wise. Instead of doing what needs to happen or choosing a more fitting career, they are specifically attempting to do something that isn't possible. It would be like me working really, really hard to turn lard into the color orange (not orange light or anything, I mean, just turning all lard into the actual color orange). There are rules the world follows. In this case, this is one of them, and the mortal is throwing a tantrum because it doesn't allow him to turn lard into the color orange. Ergo the failure of his supposed wisdom.
You are refusing to see the point of those lines. He is wise, because the causes of good should ally closer, they should have linked clergy to further cooperation and allow the better opposition to evil and the really dark forces. James divisions come off as really artificial (no surprise in a game, it happens), and prevent clerics of even LG deities--deities which could surely see with all their wisdom, the sense in having one ordered faith for the true worshippers of lawful good. Why would there not be clerics of both Grundinnar and Folgrit and the domains and ideas they represent? Clerics of Calistria and Besmara? Groetus and all the Great Old Ones? Milani and Cayden? Zyphus and Venkelvore?

Oh, I totally see the point! It's just that said mortal is totally ignoring his own reality for the sake of his supposed "wisdom". It would be as if I insisted that my computer should be, in fact, an orange, and that instead of needing a computer to communicate with you, I'd prefer to have an orange, and it makes no sense that I'm using a computer instead of an orange. That isn't wisdom - that's me refusing to accept reality. There is nothing wrong with cooperation - that's even encouraged. You're refusing to accept that. Just because a cleric is a cleric of a single deity, that doesn't negate cooperation. Just like I'm only married to my wife and only interested in having a special, unique relationship with her, doesn't prohibit me from having a good relationship with other people that I like or agree with (or some I don't!). There are no clerics of both Grundinnar and Golgrit for the same reasons there are not clerics of Calistria and Besmara - there are only clerics of singular deities. Cooperation =/= intimacy. Clerics are "intimate" with only one.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
all clerics, unless deluded somehow, are polytheists.
You've run with this, you really believe it, but ignoring fanaticism and how clerics of evil cults are presented. If clerics also have to absolutely worship one, have to pick their team, well, this could end up being like football teams, where the other sides are not considered true or real players. Looked down upon etc. You have been so eager to talk about polytheism and monotheism, so let me add this. If a cleric knows the other gods exist, but only worships one, they are not actually a polytheist. There is no poly worship, no adherence to the religion around multiple gods, so a flawed claim you try to run with.

Nnnnnnnnnnnope. Those fanatics? They're deluded, exactly as I've said. That means they don't understand their own reality, a reality which includes multiple real, true gods. However you're presupposing that having a priest of a singular deity alone is tantamount to having monotheism. This is not true. As I mentioned - in Grecian temples, you had a priest who was a priest of only one deity. That's it. Just the one. However, that in no way prohibited him from worshiping the others. In fact, he was a fool not to, 'cause they were kind of super important. Same thing in Golarion.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Note: clerics and monks of Irori, could be so invested in the quest for enlightenment and the fulfillment of their training, that they too do not worship other gods. They are busy trying to transcend and meet Irori after all. A possible comparison to today is of practitioners of martial arts and eastern mysticism not becoming Christians in a mostly Christian society, and not picking up the worship of any other gods. They are a bit busy and already have their spiritual needs met (this was my childhood and adolescence, to share a little). No polytheism there, but I don't think it should be impossible or entirely removed from the setting, because...

I found another one, something huge from Chinese culture that is disallowed in Golarion, no clerics of Shenism for you! Ancestor spirits, divinities, heroes = no clerics of that. Even if you are Tian and it is an ancient practice in Asia. Cut another one out Charlie!

I'd say you're confusing monks (who seek personal enlightenment usually as set out by predefined path) with clerics (who seek to perform the will of their deity) in the case of Irori worship.

Ancestor worship (in published Golarion), as specified by James Jacobs is totally what the oracle is meant to be all about. It's not prohibited at all.

EDIT: by the way, I know I totally messed up my url in the other one, but whooooooooops. My bad. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too late to edit that puppy into propriety now.


ALSO:
3.5 Loyalist, I want to be clear: while I'm disagreeing with your points (and showing you why I think they're incorrect), even strongly, I'm not trying to attack you, personally. I wouldn't want you to feel that I was! You are simply the most vocal and direct at this time, and I'm trying to answer your points.
:)

Shadow Lodge

Tacticslion wrote:


Urgh, straw man. That is far over-used on this board.
Curious. I've never seen it used except that one other has made this claim. Nonetheless, it's my first time!
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
It is not a straw man because it is not a misrepresentation of my opponent's position.

I see it often. Typically, it seems that the attitude is who ever gets "strawman", "troll", or a few other words out first think they have some sort of moral high ground and intellectual dominance in an arguement/debate. They are also typially followed with nit-picking arguements and claims that put their side of the arguement on the defensive, so they don't have to do any effort and force it all on the other side.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Finn K wrote:
Regarding your post: I think you're right, as far as I know, about how the Greeks & Romans handled religious practice and "clergy" serving their Gods. Good point-- I'm going to remember that in future games. The Norse kind-of had it both ways... a Priest or Priestess often was dedicated to a particular God or Goddess, but I've read material that says there were also Priests and Priestesses who were dedicated to several. However, it's noteworthy in comparison with the practice of some modern neo-pagans that, while the Ancient Norse believed in Loki's existence, there is NO record of a Priest or Priestess ever being dedicated to Loki, or of anyone offering sacrifices and/or thanks to Loki (some other pantheons had 'Evil' Gods they believed in that no-one actually worshipped, too).
That's interesting. I'm afraid I'm not as solid on my Norse history as I could be (mythologies more my thing with them), nor the more modern aspects of faith, so I can't really help you out there. But I find what you're saying fascinating!

I've studied a lot of different religious and spiritual paths over the years, in the effort to try to understand as much of the different ways of looking at God(s), the divine, etc. Comes in handy for discussions like these (Acquired more information on some of this, because I also used to be a practicing neo-pagan-- now, I'm much better described as a 'Deistic Agnostic'; 'Deistic' because I do believe that there is a Divine Presence in the Universe, which separates me from a standard Agnostic).

But I had quite forgotten about the Greco-Roman approach to priesthood (as opposed to belief in the Gods in general), until you pointed that out. I'm digging through the Norse stuff just a little bit, and it becomes a pointer towards an even greater difference-- while there were wise men and women in the Norse traditions who in some sense spoke for the Gods and Goddesses, and there were individuals who specifically dedicated themselves to a particular God or Goddess (while believing in all of them), the Norse really didn't have a dedicated Priesthood, the way that the Greeks, Romans, and for that matter, the Christians, did. The wise men (Godhi, in Norse-- Gydhja is the feminine form) still had to work their normal occupation in the community-- being a wise elder who had studied the Gods and gave spiritual advice was a sideline. Sacrifices were conducted by individuals, or by community leaders.

YMMV for how this relates to clerics in various D&D campaigns.

Shadow Lodge

An issue I have with this is along the lines of what you said about the Druid. By requiring the Cleric to have a single patron, that really limits the amount of change or face-lifting that you can do with the class. It really hampers a lot of options for Feats, Archtypes, and things of that nature, as well as concepts like the godclaw. To me, none of these are good things. I think that the Druid and the Oracle, (classes I really don't care for myself) are stepping too far on the Cleric's toes as a class and potentual, not to mention the Witch.

Why can't a be a Cleric "witch" that has some unknown patron? Because there is a Witch class, but it isn't what I actually want to play.

Silver Crusade

Beckett wrote:

An issue I have with this is along the lines of what you said about the Druid. By requiring the Cleric to have a single patron, that really limits the amount of change or face-lifting that you can do with the class. It really hampers a lot of options for Feats, Archtypes, and things of that nature, as well as concepts like the godclaw. To me, none of these are good things. I think that the Druid and the Oracle, (classes I really don't care for myself) are stepping too far on the Cleric's toes as a class and potentual, not to mention the Witch.

Why can't a be a Cleric "witch" that has some unknown patron? Because there is a Witch class, but it isn't what I actually want to play.

Ummm.... which of us are you directing this post at?


Oracles also do not clearly represent ancestor worship or polytheistic clerics, because you can be an oracle and not worship ancestors or an oracle and not worship any of the divines. You also are punished and penalised in a minor way, for taking the path of the oracle.

Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me, be a cleric of one god or be an oracle (which are sometimes worshippers of many gods or forces, but sort of whatever works, whatever we say, fate etc. You can also be some divine instrument even if you don't want to be. This class is all over the place) which gets you a magical punishment for taking that class. The curses are messed up, some more powerful and beneficial later on that others. The class is trying to be a class of the possessed or odd cripple-spellcasters. If they want to use a taint system, use a taint system evenly and fairly. Why punish the divine spellcasters from a poly, concept worshipping background? Oh wait, they don't actually worship gods or forces...

Just from paizo on the oracle.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/oracle.html

"These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand."

So what is meant to represent the polytheist cleric-like spellcasters, is actually in the fluff, for those who don't get any choice in the matter of what their worship, what they worship is not stated to actually impact them, and they don't even understand the power they have been given. I'm not sure what these are meant to represent beyond another I have been chosen class, like the fated sorcerer. It certainly doesn't sound like a Taoist sage, a Shenist holy man, or a Shinto nun. I'm pretty sure they would understand their traditions, and why does the cleric know about being a cleric and its powers, but a oracle doesn't? So there aren't oracle priesthoods of polytheism teaching their path. Didn't James say this is meant to represent clerics of many gods and forces in Golarion? It is all over the place.

Tactics, its all good man, I won't cry at disagreement.

Shadow Lodge

Both, no one in particular, as much as the general idea. Sort of wondering about how it seems a lot of things are ok, except when it applies to the Cleric.

Clerics are not priests/priests are not always clerics excpet when Clerics are priests devoted to one patron deity.

It's good to face-lift classes to broaden past the base concept, like the Druid -> priest, except when it applies to the Cleric branching out.

Inconsistancies in the setting are fine, unless it has to do with the Cleric changing everything (back).

Not argueing as much as just saying.

Tact's alternate ideas for the Wizard, Paladin, and Druid, are cool. Don't get me wrong. It's just so strange and, I really can't think of another more appropriate word that's less insulting, close-minded, that the one class that should fit most perfectly with these concepts can't, but there is no issues with expanding other's much less related to them.

I think it really pigeon-holes the whole concept of Clerics, too. How many Divine organizations or schools do we see? I know of only one in print, and that is so generic (Factions Guide), it barely counts. Compair that to the many different arcane schools, colleges, institutions, etc. . .

I've also noticed, that so far, all of the Golarion novels and short stories do not have any major characters as Clerics. Why is that? (granted I do not have, nor have I read them all, but even

***Spoiler*** for Prodigal Sons:
the Cleric turns out to specifically not be a Cleric
), I'm thinking by restraining the class so much, it pretty much handicaps so much fluff elements that make them fun or interesting.

Shadow Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me, be a cleric of one god or be an oracle (which are sometimes worshippers of many gods or forces, but sort of whatever works, whatever we say, fate etc. You can also be some divine instrument even if you don't want to be. This class is all over the place)

I agree (I think) with what your saying, but the difference is that they can worship any or no deity, and it has no relevance to their sorce of power. It is all over the place, and it also causes a lot of problems for the setting, but there is a difference in the Oracles (and other classes) worship of a Patron deity and their source of power.

This was the same as the 3E's Favored Soul. No where did it specify that a FS had to be any alignment in relation to a deity, nor did they necisarrily need to worship a specific deity or agree with what they believed.


Ah yeah, the favoured soul does bring back memories. More chosen b%*%&*#s and you get it no matter who you are.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beckett--

I get what you're saying (I think). In the discussions back and forth (and sideways), the way Clerics are supposed to work in Golarion makes sense to me, but I am not saying I'd do it that way if I were the one developing the setting. TacticsLion has already made what is (IMO) another excellent point-- Greece and Rome are classic polytheistic societies, yet the priests in those cultures were all devoted to one patron, not to the pantheon as a whole, but they did still believe in and honor the whole pantheon. Seems like Golarion is functioning on that model, and if so, explains why there aren't any multi-patron deity clerics-- but it does shut out some alternate cultural models.

I don't feel that it's overwhelmingly limiting, but on the other hand-- I can see multiple ways (usually) to pulling off most of the character concepts I come up with. I just don't see it as that big a restraint, and on the other hand-- I think one should come up with a good character concept, and then figure out the mechanical issues to make the character come to life, rather than come up with the numbers & mechanical build, and then try to make a concept that fits. Sometimes that does involve running into a class that would be perfect in every way, except for this little nit-picking requirement....

There's a few things to add to this...

The rulings discussed here and concepts for how clerics work are only binding if you're planning on playing in official Golarion. Otherwise, just house-rule it to fit what you want (so long as GMs and other players are in agreement-- if they're not, they're the ones you really have to discuss changes with).

If it's official Golarion, then essentially you have to pick *ONE* deity for mechanical/build purposes... doesn't mean you can't play the character much more like the polytheist you envision-- you probably won't have a problem with it, unless you go out of your way to inflict your resistance to the idea that you had to pick one patron on everyone else at the table. Now, it does mean you're going to have problems pulling off a 'concept' cleric type of idea using the Cleric class-- but that is one that fits Oracles and other classes every bit as well as it can fit the Cleric, IMO.

If it were a game that I was running... I'm probably not going to run in Golarion in my own campaigns in the first place, and for that matter, although I'm playing in two Pathfinder games right now (neither of which is actually in Golarion, although one of them is using the Pathfinder Deities), I probably won't be running Pathfinder or any other D&D variant (that will have to wait until I've completed my current track of college studies). If I do run Pathfinder, as far as I'm concerned, Clerics do have to have some sort of Deity (or other power source) that they are devoted to, that is capable of answering their prayers and granting them spells, which means I wouldn't allow 'concept' clerics (that strikes me as a core part of Clerics-- that they are devoted to someone/something that can answer their requests for help, not a completely abstract concept). I would probably allow polytheistic clerics though-- although you'd have to be careful about explaining which deities you followed, and ensuring that they were a group that was okay with a Cleric serving all of them instead of just one. Power-hungry deities, insane ones, etc... most evil deities, for instance... aren't going to share.

But, y'know, YMMV. What character concepts are you thinking of, that can't be done with Clerics under the current official Golarion rules, that also cannot be done with any other class?

(BTW-- if you're still deployed out there-- from a vet to someone still serving, stay safe and bring yourself and your buddies home alive, 'kay?) :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I persoanlly just don't like the way Oracles or Druids play. Like TMZ mentioned I wish they'd just combine Cleric and Oracle.

One I love is a secret 4th faction of the Eagle Knights of Andoran, specifically priests without deities, that focus on watching out for corruption within Andoran, but also that Andoran's higher ideals do not become a form of tyrrany against any form of faith. That their crusade against superstition doesn't destroy the good things that come from such (home remedies, culture, beliefs, a Lich's favorate hiding spot, or whatever riddles might come into play). The deitiless part is because the society would not want to show favor to a deity/faith over others.

Good Necromancer Cleric similar to the Juju Oracle. A Cleric that raises the fallen to continue the fight a little longer, or invests corpses with the souls of trusted allies and ancestors, or something along those lines.

The idea of Clerics of a Faction. Andoran, the Silver Crusade, and Osirion scream that to me. That is to say individual so fanatical about the ideals of their faction that that is their power source.

Many religions that either do not have any deities, or that deities are not pertinent to the faith. Buddism, is a prime example. Many eastern faiths. Many "primitive" faiths.

I don't mind, for example Oracles or Druids also being able to be priests of these things with Clerics. Sometimes that makes perfect sense. It's the "instead of" that causes problems for me.

Also note, I completely agree. The official ruling, dispite how much I hate it and how many issues it raises, is not going to affect me or my home games one bit. It does, however, affect things like PFS.

Shadow Lodge

One concept that this does not allow, and that I don't think any other class could really pull off either is the Dualist Cleric (priest).

A Cleric with say the Sun and Darkness Domains, or Sun and Moon in 3E.


Finn: great to know! :)

Beckett wrote:
I see it often. Typically, it seems that the attitude is who ever gets "strawman", "troll", or a few other words out first think they have some sort of moral high ground and intellectual dominance in an arguement/debate.

Well, I don't think anyone's trolling! (Also, we must hang out in different areas or read different parts or something. Or I just missed it. I'm dyslexic, so it can happen!)

Moral high ground: nah. I might have a legalistic whatever, but no moral whatsits. That's why I prefaced the statement by "you've done better!"

Nonetheless, my apologies if it's a forum "dirty word" or whatever. Not intended that way at all.

Beckett wrote:
They are also typially followed with nit-picking arguements and claims that put their side of the arguement on the defensive, so they don't have to do any effort and force it all on the other side.

Toooooootally nitpicking. That's me. Guilty!

Toooooootally not trying to put "on the defensive" in order to "do less work". If I was, I wouldn't have tried to clarify how to use coding tags on the board. I'd probably have been all like, "ugh, that's stupid, you're stupid, shut up" or something. I don't know. (I think that's what trolling does.)

Beckett wrote:
An issue I have with this is along the lines of what you said about the Druid. By requiring the Cleric to have a single patron, that really limits the amount of change or face-lifting that you can do with the class. It really hampers a lot of options for Feats, Archtypes, and things of that nature, as well as concepts like the godclaw. To me, none of these are good things.

Okay, first, this is, from what I can tell, exactly the opposite of what I was saying, and I think the exact opposite of what is true. Making a Cleric Archetype: Cleric of the Godclaw, is a perfect way to handle these things. It functions perfectly, even in a flavor-text kind of way, and it gives a clear rules-delineated perspective as to why most clerics can't run around worshipping pantheons willy-nilly. You also totally missed what James said above: he completely supports and approves of house rules on the subject. Add that to the fact that Core works one way, while Golarion Canon works another, and you've got more than enough tools to function in basically anything you want. Seriously, though, go read the undead thread. He's got good responses in that one that might clear things up for you a bit.

As to the second part of your argument:

Beckett wrote:

I think that the Druid and the Oracle, (classes I really don't care for myself) are stepping too far on the Cleric's toes as a class and potentual, not to mention the Witch.

Why can't a be a Cleric "witch" that has some unknown patron? Because there is a Witch class, but it isn't what I actually want to play.

Here's the thing I'm taking away from this:

Beckett seemed to wrote:
there are classes I really don't care for myself, but I want to play things with the same name only different mechanics

And my response is, "what's stopping you?"

It would be like someone complaining that because both the cleric and the monk class exist they could be one of these guys or these. That's blatantly untrue.
If I was a wondering warrior-priest, extremely devout, lawful good, and wanted to follow/receive powers from my god, and be called a Paladin... but not actually be the class "Paladin"... I could just as easily play a cleric. They fit that criteria pretty well.

Or say I wanted to wield my mighty blade, and smite the evil foes, as my ancient clan has done for centuries! Well, paladins - as a class - do that. Feel free to call yourself a "Belmonte" or whatever (maybe taking the exotic weapon proficiency [whip]!)... but the mechanics are there for you to use as you see fit. This goes back to Davick's claim that there is no essential flavor in a game of imagination - while I disagree with that in terms of a specific world (since, you know, we're talking about Golarion, as a published entity), I certainly agree that you can alter your table to do what you want. In fact, I insist that you and your group alter the rules (or names) at your table to conform to your play styles. To do less would be to make the game less fun.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Oracles also do not clearly represent ancestor worship or polytheistic clerics, because you can be an oracle and not worship ancestors or an oracle and not worship any of the divines. You also are punished and penalised in a minor way, for taking the path of the oracle.

You can be. In Golarion as a published setting. In your home game, change it.

Penalties: I was just talking to my wife about this last night. Simply remove the curse and all the benefits and drawbacks that go with it. Tadah! You now have a favored soul! (More or less, I'll get back to that when you guys actually start talking about favored souls later.)

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me, be a cleric of one god or be an oracle (which are sometimes worshippers of many gods or forces, but sort of whatever works, whatever we say, fate etc. You can also be some divine instrument even if you don't want to be. This class is all over the place) which gets you a magical punishment for taking that class. The curses are messed up, some more powerful and beneficial later on that others. The class is trying to be a class of the possessed or odd cripple-spellcasters. If they want to use a taint system, use a taint system evenly and fairly. Why punish the divine spellcasters from a poly, concept worshipping background? Oh wait, they don't actually worship gods or forces...

It depends entirely in how you paint it, which you guys are painting it entirely negatively. Look at it like this: Oracles aren't so much "punished" as "granted too much for a mere mortal".

"Real Life" example: look at Moses. Was he punished by God for getting too close? No? But unless he wore a veil he freaked the daylights out of everyone he ever came across (they couldn't even talk to him), what with the shining light he emitted from his face. It really hurt his diplomacy rolls.

Or, let's even look at it as a curse: What about the apostle Paul? Was his near-sightedness a curse*? Did he even care? Considering he's the apostle that wrote almost half the new testament (more by numbers of books, close to half by sheer volume, his rival being Luke), and, more than that, he is recorded as performing more "weird miracles" than any other apostle in the scripture. That's pretty nice compensation for having some trouble seeing. What's more, Paul was a pretty unwilling chosen vessel too. Originally named "Saul", the guy totally was persecuting Christians, before Jesus-as-God Himself showed up and was all like, "Yo, Saul, you're stupid, and you're persecuting my people, which means you're persecuting me. Stop it. *BLIND*" Shortly thereafter, Saul converted (and received his sight again... maybe, sort of, for a time*), and totally became Super-Christian (tm)! What's more, many theorize that his persecution is what drove many Christians out of Jerusalem to spread the gospel so far and wide in the first place, making it much more prolific than it otherwise would be.

That sounds like a great way for an unbelieving oracle to be totally chosen by a Higher Power against their will, but still ultimately serve said Higher Power's goals, and end up the servant of said power.

* Well, sort of. It depends on what you're looking at, when, and who you talk to about it. Paul mentions a "thorn in the flesh" specifically allowed him by God so that he didn't get too cocky and foolish, and start doing stupid things. This may or may not be it. Some say it may have been merely a continuance of the earlier way he converted...

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Just from paizo on the oracle.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/oracle.html
"These divine vessels are granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand."

See above. :D

Also, nice stopping at the first sentence. Everything else in that paragraph makes it a completely different flavoring:

Everything else wrote:
Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs. While some see the powers of the oracle as a gift, others view them as a curse, changing the life of the chosen in unforeseen ways.

That's pretty hard core exactly what you're talking about. They worship some group of things that they agree with. It grants them power.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
So what is meant to represent the polytheist cleric-like spellcasters, is actually in the fluff, for those who don't get any choice in the matter of what their worship, what they worship is not stated to actually impact them, and they don't even understand the power they have been given. I'm not sure what these are meant to represent beyond another I have been chosen class, like the fated sorcerer. It certainly doesn't sound like a Taoist sage, a Shenist holy man, or a Shinto nun. I'm pretty sure they would understand their traditions, and why does the cleric know about being a cleric and its powers, but a oracle doesn't? So there aren't oracle priesthoods of polytheism teaching their path. Didn't James say this is meant to represent clerics of many gods and forces in Golarion? It is all over the place.

You really did ignore everything except what you quoted?

Hey, speaking of referencing something I already did, you know what doesn't sound like a Christian monk? A monk (or, the Paizo site link, if you prefer)!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Tactics, its all good man, I won't cry at disagreement.

Good! :) I mean it only in the friendliest of senses, so I wanted to make that clear.

Beckett wrote:
Sort of wondering about how it seems a lot of things are ok, except when it applies to the Cleric.

???

That's exactly like every other rule in Pathfinder and every class ever?

Beckett wrote:
Clerics are not priests/priests are not always clerics excpet when Clerics are priests devoted to one patron deity.

Might I suggest a fallacious comparison is at work here? Bad logic, if you will. To go back to mathematical proofs...

All "poodles" are "dogs". All "dogs" are not "poodles". "Poodles" have a specific definition underneath the broad category of "dogs".

SIMILARLY!

All "clerics" are "priests". All "priests" are not "clerics". "Clerics" have a specific definition underneath the broad category of "priests".

Now, the specifics of what you're defining will change slightly from place to place. Golarion's definition differs slightly from the Core. No big deal, really. So did every single published campaign setting ever.

Beckett wrote:
It's good to face-lift classes to broaden past the base concept, like the Druid -> priest, except when it applies to the Cleric branching out.

Er... you didn't read how I totally had the cleric branching out? I did everything I did to druids to clerics. Everything. (I literally copy/pasted one set - the cleric stuff - to the other - the druid stuff - and just changed the title and the word "cleric" to "druid".)

Beckett wrote:
Inconsistancies in the setting are fine, unless it has to do with the Cleric changing everything (back).

This is inconsistent! Changes are fine, except when they're not!

...!

Joking aside, I actually see where you're going with this and understand entirely, but referencing your earlier point...

Beckett wrote:
Clerics are not priests/priests are not always clerics excpet when Clerics are priests devoted to one patron deity.

... it seems the same logic is at work here. There's a reason and a thought process behind what is so casually dismissed based on a differing view. I'm not saying that it's a bad point (though I disagree with it), so much as pointing out how one might interpret things differently based off of a less flippant dismissal of the opposed view.

Beckett wrote:
Not argueing as much as just saying.

Oh, I argue all the time. I try and be gentle about it, but yeah. Disagreements are fine. :)

Beckett wrote:
Tact's alternate ideas for the Wizard, Paladin, and Druid, are cool.

Thanks! :)

Beckett wrote:
Don't get me wrong. It's just so strange and, I really can't think of another more appropriate word that's less insulting, close-minded, that the one class that should fit most perfectly with these concepts can't, but there is no issues with expanding other's much less related to them.

I don't see how things are as unrelated as you claim. I mean, I found a place for each of the classes without bending them at all. I literally replaced their name, and BAM, they fit (at least as much as they fit with the Euro/Western image we have them come with). It's a difference of painting the miniature a different color v. actually recasting/re-sculpting the miniature. I'm advocating the former, you guys the latter (I give you this, though, the recasting/re-formatting is done for the specific setting from the Core, you guys are just asking for the more vanilla model).

Beckett wrote:
I think it really pigeon-holes the whole concept of Clerics, too. How many Divine organizations or schools do we see? I know of only one in print, and that is so generic (Factions Guide), it barely counts. Compair that to the many different arcane schools, colleges, institutions, etc. . .

If by "one" you mean "two" (one of which is as generic as you described)...:

* Red Mantis
* Religious Generic Template

... and if by "many" you mean "two" (that I can think of, as I don't have my Faction Guide handy):
* Arcanamirium
* that bard College in Taldor (this is stretching it)

One could make a case for the following being divine:
* Eagle Knights (also martial) [what with their divine patron of Andoran and all being why they're called "Eagle Knights"]
* Green Faith [I mean, it's a faith]
* Old Ones Cultists [what with their aberrant worship and all]
* Prophets of Kalistrade [they look at it as divine]
* Whispering Way (also arcane) [Urgathoa, come on down!]

One could make a case for the following being arcane:
* Cult of Razmir [obviously]
* Old Ones Cultists (also divine) ['cause they ain't all worshippers]
* Whispering Way (also divine) [you know, with the necromancers]

By stretching it, one could make a case for the following being divine (or at least religious... ish), though I wouldn't:
* Cult of Razmir (also arcane) [he's a false god, but it's still religious, sort of]
* Hell Knights (also martial) [admittedly, this is totally stretching it]
* Kusari-Gama (also martial) [their entire point is a religious holy war prophesied]

The Pathfinders are neither arcane nor divine, though, if I recall correctly, they favor arcanists (specifically wizards) a bit more... but that has more to do with the way the classes cast their spells, then anything else.

Beckett wrote:
I've also noticed, that so far, all of the Golarion novels and short stories do not have any major characters as Clerics. Why is that? (granted I do not have, nor have I read them all, but even ** spoiler omitted **), I'm thinking by restraining the class so much, it pretty much handicaps so much fluff elements that make them fun or interesting.

I'm not educated enough to know about the novels. Whoops.

I disagree entirely on the restraints on the class, however. Again, read James Jacobs' stuff on the undead thread. It should clarify things a bit.
EDIT: the two posts together! Whooooooops!
Beckett wrote:
This was the same as the 3E's Favored Soul. No where did it specify that a FS had to be any alignment in relation to a deity, nor did they necisarrily need to worship a specific deity or agree with what they believed.

Your pardon, sir, but this is patently false!

Complete Divine (recently found it due to another discussion), page 7, paragraph 3 and 4, under "Alignment"...
Complete Divine (recently found it due to another discussion), page 7, paragraph 3-4, [b wrote:

Alignment[/b]]Divine magic is intuitive to a favor soul, not a matter of careful prayer. This intuitive nature leads to a freer interpretation of faith and doctrine, and so favored souls tend slightly toward chaos over law.

A favored soul is often of the same alignment as her deity, though some are one step away. For example, a favored soul could serve a lawful good deity and be neutral good herself. A favored soul may not be neutral unless her deity is neutral.

This explicitly states that while most are the same, some are one step away. This in no way allows them to go further afield. Also...

Complete Divine (recently found it due to another discussion), page 7, paragraph 5, [b wrote:

Religion[/b]]A favored soul can be of any religion. The most common deity worshiped by human favored souls in civilized lands is Pelor, god of the sun. Among nonhuman races, favored souls most commonly worship the chief diety of their racial pantheon.

Unlike clerics, favored souls are not able to devote themselves to a cause or a source of divine power instead of a deity.

Bold by me.

Now first, recall that this is 3.5, not PF. Ergo, the difference between favored souls and clerics in the opposite way from Golarion clerics and oracles. Second, favored souls are totally bound to one deity and only one deity - the deity of which they are the favored soul.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Ah yeah, the favoured soul does bring back memories. More chosen b#%~!!#s and you get it no matter who you are.

Also, patently false! Both favored souls and oracles can come to those, no matter who they are, but they do not come to those "no matter who they are"! By virtue of being chosen, they are very carefully selected by divine wisdom. Also, I've never actually played an animate walking pile of manure chosen by a deity for anything, and I'm fairly certain that's an extremely rare thing for any gaming table or setting ever dreamed of by man. ;)

Also, Flinn pretty much clarified most of what I did. I wouldn't run my games the same way (and I love running them in Golarion), but yeah, he pretty much nailed it.

EDIT 2: Gah! Beckett, you sneaky ninja! I shall... feed my waking child and come back to this later. :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Tacticslion is my hero now.

Shadow Lodge

Tacticslion wrote:
Well, I don't think anyone's trolling! (Also, we must hang out in different areas or read different parts or something. Or I just missed it. I'm dyslexic, so it can happen!)

I think you misunderstood. I'm not accussing you of these things. I'm just saying I see it thrown around a lot, and there is typically some behavior with it that gives it a negative conotation. So I apologize if it seemed like I am attacking you (or anyone else here). That isn't my intent as much as just to explain why Loyalist said that.

Shadow Lodge

Sneaky ninja? The point I'm trying to say is that a Favored SOul doesn't actually have any Alignment requirement. It doesn't have to be within one step or the same. So a Favored Soul can hate their deity, and be of a different alignment.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Holy crap, I'm gonna have to find an hour to read that TL post! :)

Beckett wrote:
I persoanlly just don't like the way Oracles or Druids play. Like TMZ mentioned I wish they'd just combine Cleric and Oracle.

Wizard and Sorcerer too!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Oracles also do not clearly represent ancestor worship or polytheistic clerics, because you can be an oracle and not worship ancestors or an oracle and not worship any of the divines. You also are punished and penalised in a minor way, for taking the path of the oracle.

Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me, be a cleric of one god or be an oracle (which are sometimes worshippers of many gods or forces, but sort of whatever works, whatever we say, fate etc.

Just to be clear here. You and several others here are misunderstanding the Oracle. It's not a matter of choosing to be an oracle as opposed to becoming a cleric. Oracles are DRAFTED, invested with divine powers without choice and in some cases perhaps against their will. It's very much like the theme of a shamanic calling. And it's not even clear if it's a diety or the combined interests of the mystery itself that has suddenly chosen you for a vessel of it's power.

The Greco-Roman comparison is also a bit off, especially with the Roman one, because in Rome the head of every household was a minor priest who would lead the worship of whatever gods the household worshiped even if it was some minor figure whose only identity was that it was the figurine over the door inherited from your grandfather or great-grandfather. There were some cults that enjoyed a dose of popularity over others, by Christ's time, the classical Gods had been largely bypassed in the military rank and file by the Cult of Mithras who would be Early Christianity's only significant competitor during the First Century, the classical gods having long fallen out of general favor, but still invoked every now and then, their temples being maintained mainly from cultural inertia.

Rome went through many different phases of religious expression, the classical gods being only one of them. At the time of Christ, Romans experimented with an entire panoply of cults being quite happy to borrow from many sources, not only Greek, but even Hebrew cults were quite popular and allowed AS LONG AS THE EMPEROR WAS GIVEN HIS DUE AS OVERALL DIVINE SOVEREIGN of the Empire. It was those religious zealots who refused the primacy of the Emperor who wound up as Coliseum entertainment.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:
Sneaky ninja? The point I'm trying to say is that a Favored SOul doesn't actually have any Alignment requirement. It doesn't have to be within one step or the same.

It does. Page 7 of Complete Divine has the goods. Most are the same alignment. Some are one step away. There's even an example that a FS serving a LG deity could be NG.

There's even the old 3.X restriction of 'cannot be neutral unless your god is neutral' that PF did away with.

[tangent]
And now I realize, that just because PF did away with it, doesn't mean that it's an option in Golarion. (Just like clerics of philosphy, rules-legal, but not setting-compliant.)

I wonder if a cleric of Norgorber (NE) or Gorum (CN) or Abadar (LN) or Sarenrae (NG) can be Neutral, in Golarion? It would have been illegal in 3.X, but PF Core doesn't explicitly forbid it, which, demonstrably, doesn't mean that it's necessarily allowed in Golarion...

There's a lot of potential stuff in the Core that could be unspokenly assumed to be different in Golarion, and we just haven't thought of asking the question yet.
[/tangent]

Shadow Lodge

Beckett wrote:
Sneaky ninja? The point I'm trying to say is that a Favored Soul doesn't actually have any Alignment requirement. It doesn't have to be within one step or the same.
Set wrote:

It does. Page 7 of Complete Divine has the goods. Most are the same alignment. Some are one step away. There's even an example that a FS serving a LG deity could be NG.

There's even the old 3.X restriction of 'cannot be neutral unless your god is neutral' that PF did away with.

I don't see anything about a FS must be anything. I am pretty sure it never made it to the FAQ, but I asked WotC this by email years ago. FS do not infact need to have an alignment related to their diety, but are still bound by the rules for divine spells and alignment, so doing so can seriously hamper spell selection, (they can't cast anything oppossed to either their or their deity's alignments, and can't be Neutral unless their deity is as well could mean 0 alignment spells) I will grant you the neutal part, I didn't think that was pertinent to the conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer: haven't read every post here

These things are all allowed in unmodified Golarion:
monotheism
polytheism and pantheon worship
demon/devil/lord/whatever high-powered thing worship
the worship of a [false] mortal god
atheism (not acknowledging the presence of deities or simply not worshipping any)
ancestor worship
concept/philosophy "worship" (being a daoist, etc.)
etc.

There is no question about this. James Jacobs is not saying they don't exist. The fact that doing any of the above things may or may not result in you having magical powers does not mean they don't exist.

The only thing laid down in the rules is that if you are a cleric, you get your powers from your patron deity. Other divine classes are less clear and could theoretically come from any number of the above sources or something more mysterious. And in most campaigns, the source of these classes' divine power will likely never come up (though where the character thinks it comes from might).

The dozens (hundreds?) of posts in this thread asserting that all the above worship choices are not supported by Golarion are incorrect. Recall that in real life, none of those choices grant anybody powers. Why should Golarion or any setting be forced to make every possible form of real life worship grant powers? And be forced to do it with a specific class no less? Why dilute the setting so that every possible whim of the posters on this board are supported?


Beckett wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Well, I don't think anyone's trolling! (Also, we must hang out in different areas or read different parts or something. Or I just missed it. I'm dyslexic, so it can happen!)
I think you misunderstood. I'm not accussing you of these things. I'm just saying I see it thrown around a lot, and there is typically some behavior with it that gives it a negative conotation.

Hey, I'm not upset! I'm just hoping you weren't thinking that I was purposefully doing that! Communication... GET! :D

(Also, still working on it, but I've got a couple other things to do.)

Gorbacz wrote:
Tacticslion is my hero now.

I... I'm so sorry for your loss.

(Also, thanks! And: hahahahahahahahahah!)
EDIT:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Holy crap, I'm gonna have to find an hour to read that TL post! :)

See my response to Gorbacz. :)


Beckett wrote:
Sneaky ninja? The point I'm trying to say is that a Favored SOul doesn't actually have any Alignment requirement. It doesn't have to be within one step or the same. So a Favored Soul can hate their deity, and be of a different alignment.

Nooooooooooo. "Sneaky ninja" because I made a super-long uber-post (with a couple coding issues) and you posted twice while I was writing it. That's all. :)

Also, Set read it right.

Beckett wrote:
I persoanlly just don't like the way Oracles or Druids play. Like TMZ mentioned I wish they'd just combine Cleric and Oracle.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wizard and Sorcerer too!

drumlord: I agree with drumlord. Succinct, accurate, to the point. I wish I could post like that! LISTEN TO THE DRUMLORD!

Laz: we almost always disagree while agreeing. I... huh.
In mentioning the Greco-Roman elements, I was mostly focusing on the Grecian ones (thus using the Grecian names instead of the Roman variations), however, if you wish to talk later Rome, you are correct. "classical" Greece, however, no. Again, we're not talking about worshipers of local things, we're talking specific clerical investitures of divine power (which, in the real world sort-of-ish maps to real power in a church and/or supposedly divine powers granted), which, in Greco-Roman culture was only really supported with individual worship, with few exceptions, with all I've seen (and those few exceptions tend to behave much more like oracles than clerics).

Also, dude, Beckett, this thread is totally for you!

And...

Beckett wrote:

Many religions that either do not have any deities, or that deities are not pertinent to the faith. Buddism, is a prime example. Many eastern faiths. Many "primitive" faiths.

I don't mind, for example Oracles or Druids also being able to be priests of these things with Clerics. Sometimes that makes perfect sense. It's the "instead of" that causes problems for me.

Also note, I completely agree. The official ruling, dispite how much I hate it and how many issues it raises, is not going to affect me or my home games one bit. It does, however, affect things like PFS.

First: by virtue of its polytheistic nature, Pathfinder inherently prohibits a true Monistic and accurate Monotheistic belief structure. These are things it denies already just by being itself. I wouldn't worry too much about it denying a few other "real world" things, too. That happens.

And never once was it solely "instead of". Rather, clerics can worship a singular demon lord as their patron, but an oracle worships the Abyss (or all demon lords) as a whole as their patron (and this, mechanically, does not even have to be what's true, subject to the GM's discretion). That does not prohibit anyone from doing anything at their own table or Paizo from changing the official stance later.

Re: PFS, well... yes, it does. But there are many, many things that are prohibited in PFS, and this, by far, is one of the least. Prohibiting things is pretty much what PFS does, so that everyone is relatively balanced for the challenges faced.

Beckett wrote:
I don't see anything about a FS must be anything. I am pretty sure it never made it to the FAQ, but I asked WotC this by email years ago. FS do not infact need to have an alignment related to their diety, but are still bound by the rules for divine spells and alignment, so doing so can seriously hamper spell selection, (they can't cast anything oppossed to either their or their deity's alignments, and can't be Neutral unless their deity is as well could mean 0 alignment spells) I will grant you the neutal part, I didn't think that was pertinent to the conversation.

It's pretty solidly there, unless, again, you're twisting the rather clear intent (RAI) of the words. But then, if you're only concerned about RAW... it's still pretty clearly there. It even gives a "for instance" and notes that the FS "can" be... one step away. Then proceeds not to note that anything other than these options exist. It would be like saying, "Weeeeeeell, it gives clear ranges for human height, but I'm going to play a 25 foot-tall human wizard who weighs five pounds... who's still totally medium!" Sure, you could (I think), and it'd be some pretty sweet optimization, too. There's nothing I can think of that actually limits you in choosing your character's height (unless you roll randomly), but it's pretty ridiculous otherwise.


Set wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Sneaky ninja? The point I'm trying to say is that a Favored SOul doesn't actually have any Alignment requirement. It doesn't have to be within one step or the same.

It does. Page 7 of Complete Divine has the goods. Most are the same alignment. Some are one step away. There's even an example that a FS serving a LG deity could be NG.

There's even the old 3.X restriction of 'cannot be neutral unless your god is neutral' that PF did away with.

[tangent]
And now I realize, that just because PF did away with it, doesn't mean that it's an option in Golarion. (Just like clerics of philosphy, rules-legal, but not setting-compliant.)

I wonder if a cleric of Norgorber (NE) or Gorum (CN) or Abadar (LN) or Sarenrae (NG) can be Neutral, in Golarion? It would have been illegal in 3.X, but PF Core doesn't explicitly forbid it, which, demonstrably, doesn't mean that it's necessarily allowed in Golarion...

There's a lot of potential stuff in the Core that could be unspokenly assumed to be different in Golarion, and we just haven't thought of asking the question yet.
[/tangent]

Just because the Golarion Setting Book does not forbid something it does not mean its allowed.

Wait for the OFFICIAL forum post.
What else would you expect from someone who has 7 products in the top 10 gaming book products of Amazon.com?

But I can tell you that it will not be allowed in the Hasbro Alignment System.
Or someone finds some vague statement on page 271 right in the fluff text about some hut construction right in the Setting Book

651 to 700 of 716 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.