Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree, but eh whatever we don't play in the same games so no need to agree now is there.

Disagree about what specifically?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree, but eh whatever we don't play in the same games so no need to agree now is there.
Disagree about what specifically?

That the campaign setting doesn't say you can't.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree, but eh whatever we don't play in the same games so no need to agree now is there.
Disagree about what specifically?
That the campaign setting doesn't say you can't.

But the examples he listed are illegal by core rules except for the one living god(Razmir). I don't see how he is listing it as a CS rule. The core rules don't permit getting power from dead gods, or false gods.


wraithstrike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I disagree, but eh whatever we don't play in the same games so no need to agree now is there.
Disagree about what specifically?

Pretty much most of what ya said. To me it's very cut and dry that you can not. I have shown why to me it is clear, you do not agree. So ya see we disagree.

It is interesting seeing others folks takes however, even if I do not agree with them.

Dark Archive

Look they aren't saying you can't worship the pantheon just that you can't worship a dead guy cause he's dead and can't here you the reason the flase gods don't hand out spells is that they aren't divine being and can't heck you could worship the ideals they rep and I'm sure some twist go Zon anyone would give you power but you aren't sorshiping them that's what's being said sorry I just had to rant

From my berry


wraithstrike wrote:

But the examples he listed are illegal by core rules except for the one living god(Razmir). I don't see how he is listing it as a CS rule. The core rules don't permit getting power from dead gods, or false gods.

But the ideal of that god is the very same thing. If faith alone can power you it does not matter if the god is dead, real or a sock puppet. To you he is real and by the rules that is all that matters. The faith in the ideal.

The CS disagrees with that. Faith alone just does not cut it.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

But the examples he listed are illegal by core rules except for the one living god(Razmir). I don't see how he is listing it as a CS rule. The core rules don't permit getting power from dead gods, or false gods.

But the ideal of that god is the very same thing. If faith alone can power you it does not matter if the god is dead, real or a sock puppet. To you he is real and by the rules that is all that matters. The faith in the ideal.

The CS disagrees with that.

According to the book they were not worshipping the ideal of the god. They were worshipping the god. I see the split. I think you see the ideal of the god, and the god as the same thing, and that is where the split is.


It is the same thing, if an ideal alone can grant power{domains or spells} then yes, it matters not if the god is dead.


What bugs me are, as has been stated, non-religious clerics. Clerics that follow the philosophy of "I'm Awesome" and pick the domains they want and can't violate their philosophy because, hey, they're awesome.

I have a hard time "proving" any of this, but my take is that divine powers are granted by the divine. That means that a god has to be involved somewhere in the process.

If a philosophy does not promote the gods on any level, or promotes a false god, the gods probably aren't going to grant any spells based on that belief system. They probably also have a vested interest in not undermining themselves by propping up a dead deity. So if you worship a dead god or followed, however devoutly, a philosophy that doesn't rely on the gods in some form or another, you are probably out of luck.

Notice, even the Prophesies of Kalistrade don't seem to have clerics, only those philosophies that are tangentially associated with gods. The Green Faith? Lots of nature deities and probably some local nature based demi-gods as well (especially since "named" outsiders are pretty much treated as demi-gods in Golarion).

I'm betting even ancestor worship, such as practiced by the Shoanti (and listed as having divine casters devoted to them), probably has to do with some local tribal elders that are effectively demi-gods. They just became gods based on the veneration of the elders, and are only really interested in their own tribes.

Also, divine sources granting spells doesn't mean that the divine caster has to pick one specific deity. Elven clerics are mentioned as being able to worship a range of "elven" gods, for example. The Pathfinder description only touches on this, but the 3.5 write up for paladins made it a bit more clear that paladins are called, and as such, its conceivable that some champions that don't explicitly worship god X or Y might have been called just to do good because the god in question was pretty sure they would be good at it. Oracles are in the same boat, except even more explicitly being invested with powers by a deity whether they like it or not.

I guess the main thing I'm for is just knowing for sure what traditions normally have divine casters, and what ones do not for sure.

Silver Crusade

KnightErrantJR wrote:
I'm betting even ancestor worship, such as practiced by the Shoanti (and listed as having divine casters devoted to them), probably has to do with some local tribal elders that are effectively demi-gods. They just became gods based on the veneration of the elders, and are only really interested in their own tribes.

Don't forget the totems that grant domains![/shoantifanpedantry]


Mikaze wrote:


Don't forget the totems that grant domains![/shoantifanpedantry]

Oh, yeah. I kind of pictured the totems as a lot like the Totems from the Uthgardt tribes in the Forgotten Realms, where the totem was a local demi-god/powerful spirit that was only interested in that tribe and its regions.

Silver Crusade

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


Don't forget the totems that grant domains![/shoantifanpedantry]

Oh, yeah. I kind of pictured the totems as a lot like the Totems from the Uthgardt tribes in the Forgotten Realms, where the totem was a local demi-god/powerful spirit that was only interested in that tribe and its regions.

Neat! I kind of thought of them as being aspects of Gozreh, manifested as entities with much more specified interests. That way, the same Hawk and Sun are worshipped both Shoanti and Mwangi tribes that have never had contact with each other. Perhaps it should be more "personalized" by region.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
It is the same thing, if an ideal alone can grant power{domains or spells} then yes, it matters not if the god is dead.

I don't see it as the same thing. If you're asking Aroden himself to answer your prayers, you won't get an answer. If you offer up your prayers to the powers of Good in Aroden's name, you receive an answer. Hence why I now want to play a cleric of Aroden who worships his memory and upholds his teachings.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
It is the same thing, if an ideal alone can grant power{domains or spells} then yes, it matters not if the god is dead.
I don't see it as the same thing. If you're asking Aroden himself to answer your prayers, you won't get an answer. If you offer up your prayers to the powers of Good in Aroden's name, you receive an answer. Hence why I now want to play a cleric of Aroden who worships his memory and upholds his teachings.

I can not agree with that the ideal of a dead god is still the ideal and faith is what powers it, so ya have faith your god isn't dead he merely can't come to the phone right now but see you have spells so clearly not dead. What does it matter if clerics of other gods say he is dead, they do not have faith like you.

I would never allow your ideal in games I run. Good luck to ya though someone might.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
so ya have faith your god isn't dead

No, he IS dead, and we can move on standing on our own two feet, making our own path with the principles he gave us. This is what my cleric will believe.


Good luck to ya, I would not allow him spells or any cleric powers as he has no god. I would point a few out to ya, but no Aroden is dead and you have chosen not to have a god so no spells for you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Like I said, it sucks that I got this great idea from the thread, and there's no one around here to DM it for me.


someone might. I myself never allow god-less cleric in any game, well save eberron I allowed em there, but when I run my own settings, Golarion or FR I do not allow clerics without gods.

Sovereign Court

There was a fun D20 supplement full of ideas about Dead Gods by Monte Cook : Requiem for a God.

While I don't see it as usable as is in Golarion, it does contain interesting options.


@ Stereofm: +1. I was very much a fan (of most of Monte's work come to think of it)

@ everyone else: Thanks for the heated and lively debate. I'm delighted at the sheer volume of replies (I only posted this last night)

For me, I think I'm going to enforce the deific requirement for clerics and gently fudge that for the occasional cultist.

Once again, thanks for the input.

Batts


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
someone might. I myself never allow god-less cleric in any game, well save eberron I allowed em there, but when I run my own settings, Golarion or FR I do not allow clerics without gods.

That is the issue. Because you don't believe in the concept you are making rules where none exist. RAW a god is not a concept. When you have a concept that powers you, you know you are powered by that concept. The godless clerics don't realize they are praying to nobody.

Example:
The clerics that worship Aroden* are trying to get money out of a deleted bank account.
The one's that realize Aroden is dead, but want to keep his ideas doing are pulling from a trust fund designed to support what Aroden wanted to continue.

*Probably spelled wrong.


I always thought it was messed up that those with a deity were limited to certain domains, but others could mix and match domains. I think the ones that chose a deity should get a boost, or the others should not get as much. I just never thought of anything I liked. I have only played a cleric twice, and I always wanted to not choose a deity because I wanted to mix and match.

Seeker I agree with your belief of not allowing godless clerics, or at least limiting them, but I don't think the rules support it.


Mikaze brought up the Hellknight Order of the God Claw previously, and for those of you interested in this topic, and whether or not Golarion can officially have undeclared clerics, it does shine some interesting light on the subject in another example of a philosophy, and even the specific domains that followers of this order have access to.

From the Pathfinder Wiki:

The Order of the God Claw is a Hellknight order which extols the virtues of five lawful deities, distilling select tenants into a dogma far from any one god’s faith.

Although the God Claw venerates aspects of Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag, it is unclear from which of these gods it draws its power; indeed, it is possible that its own convictions* grant it divine strength. Clerical signifiers and other religious members of the order have access to the Glory, Law, Protection, Strength, and War domains.

*(emphasis mine)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Like I said, it sucks that I got this great idea from the thread, and there's no one around here to DM it for me.

Well, if you did end up able to travel on sundays for kingmaker...


Blazej wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

My thing is that not even the Pathfinder Society guidebook says anything about clerics being required to chose a god. Even if the setting implies it, not having a specific rule in the organized play manual shows that it isn't set in stone. And the setting doesn't fall apart just because there is an option that no one in universe has used yet.

I just feel that all you have seeker is circumstantial evidence and no definitive proof.

I'm not sure if you meant that there was no statement saying whether or not a "godless" cleric may exist in the Campaign Setting, but there is at least a rule dealing with whether you can have one for Pathfinder Society games.

Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play pg. 19 wrote:

Selecting a Deity

For the sake of simplicity, clerics and Order of the Star cavaliers in Pathfinder Society Organized Play must select a deity from those legally allowed for play. The Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting has a rich assortment of deities to choose from that should nearly always match
the sort of cleric you’re trying to play—dealing in abstract clerics is not something we want to see in an environment that’s supporting Paizo’s campaign setting.

The funny thing is, outside PFS, that kind of validates our point. See, they had to point it out, indicating that, in general, it's allowed in normal PF.


wraithstrike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
someone might. I myself never allow god-less cleric in any game, well save eberron I allowed em there, but when I run my own settings, Golarion or FR I do not allow clerics without gods.

That is the issue. Because you don't believe in the concept you are making rules where none exist. RAW a god is not a concept. When you have a concept that powers you, you know you are powered by that concept. The godless clerics don't realize they are praying to nobody.

No I am using what the setting does. The setting is set up for clergy to have to have a god. You have yet to show where it says you do not need a god. The CS seems to go out of it's way to not talk about a cleric without a god. And is the only divine based class it does not give a few words on about not having a god.But does cover false gods.

Brandon Hodge wrote:


From the Pathfinder Wiki:

The Order of the God Claw is a Hellknight order which extols the virtues of five lawful deities, distilling select tenants into a dogma far from any one god’s faith.

Although the God Claw venerates aspects of Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag, it is unclear from which of these gods it draws its power; indeed, it is possible that its own convictions* grant it divine strength. Clerical signifiers and other religious members of the order have access to the Glory, Law, Protection, Strength, and War domains.

*(emphasis mine)

In the article from COt part 3 it is suggested that Asmodeus is in fact the one fueling that order of the god claw. No where in that article does it say it is possible that its own convictions grant it divine strength

The wording is"modeling
their vision of law after the strictures of Asmodeus and four of
the other most lawful beings in existence: Abadar, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag. Rather than directly worshiping any one of these deities, the Order of the Godclaw chooses specific teachings from the philosophies of each deity, creating a doctrine inspired by yet wholly unlike the faith of any of the engendering figures. Thus, each deity is reinterpreted by the order, uniting the godly facets they perceive as relevant into a wholly unique, pantheonic faith."

So there is your pantheonic clerics

It goes on to say "Yet despite their unusual—some claim heretical—
religious views, the pious members of the Order of the Godclaw receive spells just as the worshipers of any other deity. What power grants the faithful of the Godclaw their might remains a matter of some debate outside the order, with many believing Asmodeus himself encourages this
corruption, while others suggest they draw their power from the fanatical devotion to law alone. The signifers of the Order of the Godclaw have another answer, though, claiming their might merely proves the legitimacy of their faith.'

So while they seem to think it is faith alone, they do in fact worship a pantheon and most agree Asmodeus is fueling the most of it.

Sorry the godclaw are a nod toward an pantheon cleric not a god-less one

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The funny thing is, outside PFS, that kind of validates our point. See, they had to point it out, indicating that, in general, it's allowed in normal PF.

No, it points to that paizo officially does not support godless clerics in there setting. the wording "dealing in abstract clerics is not something we want to see in an environment that’s supporting Paizo’s campaign setting" and the fact they have no pl;ans to have any god-less cleric npc, along with the CS kinda nails it.

You can do what ya want in yur home game but so far, nothing anywhere points to god-less clerics. Everything anyones shown does seem to point to them not being allowed.


I am a 50th level cleric of Andocearat the god of suffering.

I get no spells no energy no abilities.....

That would decrease my suffering, you idiot don't you get it....

I like to suffer!!!


Or, Seeker, more likely, they simply didn't want to open a can of worms. Just the fact that they felt the need to point it out indicates that they recognize it as a debatable point.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:


It goes on to say "Yet despite their unusual—some claim heretical—
religious views, the pious members of the Order of the Godclaw receive spells just as the worshipers of any other deity. What power grants the faithful of the Godclaw their might remains a matter of some debate outside the order, with many believing Asmodeus himself encourages this
corruption, while others suggest they draw their power from the fanatical devotion to law alone. The signifers of the Order of the Godclaw have another answer, though, claiming their might merely proves the legitimacy of their faith.'

So while they seem to think it is faith alone, they do in fact worship a pantheon and most agree Asmodeus is fueling the most of it.

You and I are still on the same side in this debate, and this quote really backs up my pantheism argument definitively, but I'm afraid it really opens the door more for the worship of an ideal in the passage you quoted: "others suggest they draw their power from the fanatical devotion to law alone."

That really leaves the door open to 'idealogical' worship and is intentionally vague, as it was meant to be. All it states is that others outside the order think Asmodeus might be behind the power, and is far from definitive proof otherwise, as you cite. Quite the opposite, it does say that it is a possibility that the order's own convictions grant it divine strength.

So, there's that.

(circles, circles!) =-)


I do not think it leaves it open at all. The order does worship all those gods. And there is a type of pantheism. It is thought by most that one god grants it, they think otherwise, yet do in fact worship the teaching and ideals of many gods.

I see no circle and no open door. Unless false gods and dead ones also can still grant power on faith alone. Something we know they can not do.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or, Seeker, more likely, they simply didn't want to open a can of worms. Just the fact that they felt the need to point it out indicates that they recognize it as a debatable point.

I think they have decided no, but want to keep everyone happy so are riding the fence.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I see no circle and no open door. Unless false gods and dead ones also can still grant power on faith alone. Something we know they can not do.

Whatcha mean "we" kemosabe*

*Ke-mo sah-bee (pronounced /&#716;ki&#720;mo&#650;&#712;s&#593;&#720;bi/; often spelled kemo sabe or kemosabe) is the term of endearment used by the fictional Native American Tonto (and sometimes the Ranger himself) in the radio and television program The Lone Ranger, said to mean "trusty scout" or "faithful friend" in Potawatomi.[1][2] Its use has become so widespread it was entered into Webster's New Millennium Dictionary in 2002.

Also "seeing no open door" sounds depressing, lacking escape/oppotunities. I hope you will be OK.....

:) I suggest more gameing and less Messageboarding ;)


Not at all, the setting would simply be different then the one in the book if you could power by faith alone.The flavor and some nations would simply be different as well as some history.

Settings that allow you to worship pure ideals as a cleric have a different feel and flavor then those that do not. The history and write ups in the CS point to not being able to be a cleric without a god, I do not care how much faith you have you need someone to grant you that power. If not then false gods and Arodens church would still gain spells, as faith fuels them.

You can say you worship truth all ya want, unless a godlike being grants you that power you have none. The godclaw are granted it by eaither one god or all of the lawful ones as they work for law, they do fill a needed role. It does not say a godclaw cleric may not follow the teaching of the godclaw and still be a cleric, teaching that are pantheistic in nature.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or, Seeker, more likely, they simply didn't want to open a can of worms. Just the fact that they felt the need to point it out indicates that they recognize it as a debatable point.
I think they have decided no, but want to keep everyone happy so are riding the fence.

That's a matter of opinion. However, the whole 'no monster races' rule wasn't incredibly popular (not with me, anyways)but they did it for simplicity's sake. It stands to reason that this is a similar case.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or, Seeker, more likely, they simply didn't want to open a can of worms. Just the fact that they felt the need to point it out indicates that they recognize it as a debatable point.
I think they have decided no, but want to keep everyone happy so are riding the fence.
That's a matter of opinion. However, the whole 'no monster races' rule wasn't incredibly popular (not with me, anyways)but they did it for simplicity's sake. It stands to reason that this is a similar case.

No it's not much of an opinion, JJ said as much. TOZ hunted up the quote.They have made it clear without coming out and saying it, you can't do it. Not sure why they don't just say it. Guess they fear it will hurt sells or something.

They have put up so many road block to doing it, left out even talking about it in the CS where they talked about it for everyone else, and it would screw with a large part of the settings history to allow it.

But eh they decided to beat around the bush and not say it out right to keep everyone happy.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Or, Seeker, more likely, they simply didn't want to open a can of worms. Just the fact that they felt the need to point it out indicates that they recognize it as a debatable point.
I think they have decided no, but want to keep everyone happy so are riding the fence.
That's a matter of opinion. However, the whole 'no monster races' rule wasn't incredibly popular (not with me, anyways)but they did it for simplicity's sake. It stands to reason that this is a similar case.
No it's not much of an opinion, JJ said as much. TOZ hunted up the quote.They have made it clear without coming out and saying it, you can't do it. Not sure why they don't just say it. Guess they fear it will hurt sells or something.

Baloney. :P

All they'd have to do is say 'clerics only get power from deities unless the GM says otherwise'. Nobody would protest or stop buying because of something which doesn't really impact them. But Paizo clearly wants to keep the jury out, since it's so debatable.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Not sure why they don't just say it. Guess they fear it will hurt sells or something.

Maybe they think that this is ridiculous.

Maybe they a "ruling" is pointless because people would still be doing the exact same things as before. GMs who want to allow it will. GMs who don't want to allow it wont.

Maybe they don't want to be forced to take the place of the GMs judgement for every single decision.


All I am saying is if you do not need gods the setting is not the same one in the book as some major things ride on clerics needing a god or god-like being to grant spells.

I do not see what it hurts to say 'officially no" as everything is always up to your GM anyhow. As I said to me it is clear, they go out of the way to say it without saying it as with god-less clerics you get a different history then in the CS and a few changed countries


Wow, 139 posts in less than two days and only minor flaming....so far. I'm impressed! ;) Anyway, I skimmed more than read, so I hopefully am not just repeating what others have posted.

First, what the Core Book lists is for use in any campaign setting created for PRPG, not specifically Golarion, though they have stated that they are very unlikely to put stuff in the core books that would not also apply to Golarion and that anything that applies to Golarion will definitely be in a core rulebook.

Second, the Campaign Setting book, rules-wise, is out of date and a new PRPG version is coming out in October. It has also been stated that there will be lots of new and revised info in it, as well as stuff dropped out just because it either is not needed any more or will be in one of the core books coming out this summer. So this issue very well could be fixed and made plain in the new book how this topic works for Golarion.

Third, yes the PFS Guide makes it so a cleric has to follow either a single deity or a pantheon with one specific favored deity. Since this is clarified there, at least Josh thinks there is the possibility of non-deity specific clerics existing on Golarion.

Fourth, even when the new version of the CS comes out, they may still not clarify this. After all, there is still a LOT of the world left to be mapped and detailed and why would the want to close the door on something that they may end up using on a totally different continent of the world?

So, basically, the Core Book says clerics can worship Ideals, PFS says they have to worship a Deity, and the Golarion Campaign Setting does not say one or the other, pending any changes in the revision.

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

Edit: I thought of this just in time to edit my post, but I would not be surprised at all to see this covered more in the class options section of the Advanced Player's Guide. :)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

All I am saying is if you do not need gods the setting is not the same one in the book as some major things ride on clerics needing a god or god-like being to grant spells.

I do not see what it hurts to say 'officially no" as everything is always up to your GM anyhow. As I said to me it is clear, they go out of the way to say it without saying it as with god-less clerics you get a different history then in the CS and a few changed countries

Because they aren't saying it. You're just pointing out implications. The Aroden thing is explainable, and most of th other things are. PFS just doesn't permit it to avoid confusion.

/\ I agree. If the RPG says yes, and the campaign setting implies no at first glance...certainly, the setting is 3.5, but there's nothing really definitive, so I think it's safe to assume you can serve a cause and get spells.


Heh if it Implies no, then assuming yes is kinda flawed. The explanation on Aroden not having clerics as well as Razimar not having them is a ringing "NO" if you can have them without gods, then there would still be active clerics of Aroden as they do not need a living god, just faith in him. Which we have been told can not be done.

So it's yes you can have god-less clerics in that case both Aroden and Razimar would have clerics

OR

No you can not , in which case both Aroden and Rzaimar could not have clerics.

The CS supports the 2nd.

Dark Archive

I have zero interest in re-writing the nature of Aroden's clergy, Iomedae's 'inheritance,' Razmir's 'priests,' Rahadoum and Druma's healing options, etc. so I'll stick to the canon.

Somehow, the ability to cherry-pick my favorite two Domains (and, most likely, Favored Weapon as well, which will, of course, be Exotic, or a longbow) seems extra-cheesy, since the main place I've seen that option espoused is on the CharOp forums, for building Divine-Persist Clerics, by cherry-picking Planning and Undeath domains.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Deityless clerics do not get a favored weapon.

Again, a lack of something does not prove it does not exist. If it were not allowed in setting, it would state so explicitly. Other settings do, Golarion does not.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
a lot of stuff about deities

There is no one place that says a cleric must have a deity. All it says is that Aroden can't grant spells but since he is dead that does not even need to be mentioned. They also call out one deity that can't have clerics. Other than that I have seen nothing that says clerics have to have a deity. If you pray to a false god you should receive spell by the core rules anyway. Razmir does not even exist so of course he can't grant spells. Praying to him is no different than praying to someone in your party.

You need to worship a deity or a concept[beleif]. If they were one in the same they would not have different rules.

From the core book: If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval).

A dead god is not an option and neither is a false god by RAW. I guess you could look at spiritual inclinations to include false gods, but then false gods would be a specific general spiritual inclination, making it a part of a set. Taking a probable member of a group to ban an entire group seems like a big stretch to me.
As an example I dont like strawberry ice cream. It does not mean I don't like any ice cream.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Deityless clerics do not get a favored weapon.

That's an interesting concept, actually. The Clerics of Aroden retain their clerical spellcasting and Domain access, but forget how to use the favored weapon of their god, as he's dead?

It's kind of the opposite of how I'd be inclined to roll, as I think of the favored weapon proficiency as being a result of training as an acolyte, and not divine inspiration, but, by this interpretation of the favored weapon text, they would indeed not have a favored weapon, since they do not have a diety.

Dieties who have simple favored weapons, like Nethys, Pharasma, Abadar and Asmodeus, could be dead, and no one would know, while the death of Shelyn or Zon-Kuthon would be readily apparent to their Clerics, as they would forget how to use glaives or spiked chains, respectively (although the clergy could rationalize this sudden loss by claiming that Zon-Kuthon had switched his favored weapon to the scarification dagger, or something, while others blow their next feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Spiked Chain to maintain the illusion that their god is still granting them skill with his favored weapon).

In addition to the Favored Weapon loss, assuming that Aroden was lawful, his Clerics would also have had a Lawful aura, even if they were neutral good or whatever, and, upon his death, would have lost that Lawful aura, as they no longer served a lawful diety, perhaps giving another clue to the death of their god (or heretical cults springing up claiming that Aroden was no longer a champion of law, but still quite alive, just no longer Lawful, to rationalize why they no longer radiate an aura of Law).

Anywho, I've attempted some constructive feedback upthread, suggesting Domains for clerics of Aroden, Razmir, etc. Any interest in actually developing this idea in this manner, or is this room only for arguments?


No wraithstrike, if you can cast by faith alone Razmir WOULD have clerics at lest a few. He has true believers that believe in him heart and soul yet that alone is simply not enough.

The book does not come out and say it, but it did cut out the section from the cleric where it talked about it, it does talk about "false " gods that have worshipers.

It is the same thing. If you can cast by faith alone then Aroden and Razmir still have clerics. If your belief in them is all you need then the CS and the history of some nations is incorrect.

You can have one or the other, not both. So the CS does not allow it or the CS is wrong and there are clerics of those 2 gods still around, also there would be clerics of man who are atheists

It's one or the other..so I guess your saying the CS is wrong. In such a world why did the devils gain control of cheliax as Ardon's church is still active? An Razmir has clerics so there is another point the CS is wrong about.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Set wrote:
That's an interesting concept, actually. The Clerics of Aroden retain their clerical spellcasting and Domain access, but forget how to use the favored weapon of their god, as he's dead?

Ah, but Clerics of Aroden HAVE a deity, so they train with the favored weapon. Deityless clerics have no weapon to train with and so get no special benefits. It's not a case of Aroden's faithful forgetting how to use their weapons, its that they no longer have a god to provide their spells. They still have their proficiencies. Deityless clerics just don't get any extra proficiencies.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Shisumo wrote:


What favored weapon, if any, do such clerics get to wield?

None. There are advantages to choosing a deity.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Another interesting quote from the previously linked thread...

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Archade wrote:


Hi all,
Something that is mentioned in the WOTC PHB is the idea that a cleric or paladin is not required to have a deity, but can worship an ideal or code, picking two domains of their choice.

Is this an option in Golarion? Pathfinder is strangely silent on this ...

Page 22, Domain Powers, 2nd Paragraph.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Even Jason points us to the Domain powers writeup. So obviously, Golarion allows deityless clerics. They just aren't common or well known, probably because most of them are pantheistic.

Seeker, you're putting forth a false dilemma. You can have worshippers of Aroden and Razmir that do not get powers from the dead and false god they each worship, as well as deityless clerics that get their powers from ideals. The two are NOT incompatible.


They are one and the same. If the ideal is all you need then gods dead or not are irrelevant and Aroden and Razmir do indeed have clerics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The clerics of Aroden continued to pray to a dead god. A dead god cannot grant spells. Thus their faith was broken and they either found a new god in Iomedae or continued to worship Aroden, powerless. It never occurred to any of them that there was another option.

The followers of Razmir know he does not exist. So they don't bother actually praying! It's all a charlatan act, with no real faith. They don't even bother actually being faithful, but seek magical parlor tricks to allow them to fool the masses. And anyone that disputes them tends to be silenced rather soon after. Redacted, corrected argument on the next page.

Neither of these things prevent a cleric from worshipping an ideal.

101 to 150 of 716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.