Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Incorrect, the reading knows Razmir is an fake, his worshipers know for fact he is a god, they have faith in him in his ideal..same with Adoren

So it's one or the other. If you can have god-less clerics then the fact your god is not real or is dead is irrelevant. Your faith and belief in the ideal of them is enough if the simple faith in "good" is enough to be a cleric as well.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
The followers of Razmir know he does not exist.

Why would he have an entire complex devoted to brainwashing those priests who disbelieve his divinity, if it was openly known among the 'clergy' that he was a big faker?

It's an interesting notion, but miles away from the actual campaign setting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Excuse me, it's been awhile since I read the Razmir entry. I need to refresh myself before I speak in error again.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Incorrect, the reading knows Razmir is an fake, his worshipers know for fact he is a god, they have faith in him in his ideal..same with Adoren

Having reread, they only think he is a god. It is the same problem that Aroden's clergy has. Their prayers are misaimed. And as far as I can tell, none of Razmir's priests are actually clerics, so it's doubly moot. They couldn't access divine power even if he could grant it.

If any of them actually worshipped the ideals of Razmir or Aroden, they would have access to divine power. But no one thinks of it, so they don't. The examples do not prove that no one can, only that no one does.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


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.

No, you are still treating the Core Rulebook and the Golarion Campaign Setting as if they are one and the same. Yes, what you quoted Jason as saying is true for the setting-neutral Core Rulebook, but not for the Golarion-specific Campaign Setting. There is nothing stating one way or the other whether clerics exist on Golarion who do not follow a deity, either singular or as favored among a pantheon. The Campaign Setting, in it's 3.5 edition, lists no concepts/ideals for clerics to follow or draw power from. It does give four sample philosophies for worshipers to follow, but does not give any rules for these philosophies to have clerics or any way to give them power.


God/ideal is the same thing once the god is dead or fake...the faith is what powers it after all.

It does not matter what you pray to if your a cleric of "good " you still get power even though your "god" is fake

Same thing, the very same thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
but does not give any rules for these philosophies to have clerics or any way to give them power.

Because the rules are already there. If deityless clerics were not allowed in Golarion, the CS would specifically say 'all clerics must choose a deity' in the same way that Forgotten Realms did.


You have to worship one of those gods{notice all philosophies with clerics have em listed} to be a cleric of that philosophy some simply do not have clerics as they have no gods tired to them. That is another country that the CS is wrong about I guess what are we up to 4? we had a nice debate on this upthread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

God/ideal is the same thing once the god is dead or fake...the faith is what powers it after all.

It does not matter what you pray to if your a cleric of "good " you still get power even though your "god" is fake

Same thing, the very same thing.

Faith is not what powers it, otherwise Razmir would be a god in fact. You have to be a divine power to grant spells, not have people who believe in your divinity. Thus, Good can grant spells and Razmir cannot.


No he himself can not, belief in him in fact can if belief in good can.

You can not have it both ways, either ideals grant spells or they do not.


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.

I think you'll find that Paizo have considerably less interest in deciding things that should be left up to individual DMs than you attribute to them.

In other words, no, I think you're totally wrong. They have not decided no. They have decided to leave it up to the individual DMs... which is what James Jacobs was quoted as saying like two pages back.

In other other words, you probably shouldn't try to speak for Paizo.


Like your doing... yeah good one. I did say I think which means well this is what I think...if I said Paizo thinks then I would be speaking for them.

I also do think they have, as the setting was written from that point of view or things would be different in at lest 3 or 4 nations not counting some history. And they decide alot of things"like what killed aroden" that they never tell us. But that needs decided at lest in house as it does effect how the world works.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

No he himself can not, belief in him in fact can if belief in good can.

You can not have it both ways, either ideals grant spells or they do not.

It is not the belief in him, it is the devotion to a power that can grant you spells. Razmir cannot grant spells, Good can.


So the "ideal" of good can grant power, but the "ideal" of Razmir can not?

Now your just being picky. Either an ideal can or can not.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Razmir is not an ideal, nor is Aroden. If the cleric was devoted to Razmir's ideals he could gain power from that. But since Razmir enforces everyone worshipping him directly, no one does.


Yes he is an ideal. The ideal of him being a god is an ideal. He is not a god, but the ideal of him being a god is an ideal most people pray to. Show me where it says what ideal can and can not be valid?

This is what you have been saying, so where is an ideal defined? What does and does not count as an ideal ?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Okay, so we'll accept 'Razmir is a god' as an ideal. Show me an example where someone worshiped the ideal of 'Razmir is a god' and got power out of it.

If he did so, and it worked, that means you can gain power from an ideal. Of course, the fact that Razmir has no divine magic anywhere points to the fact that this has never worked for anyone.

If it did not work, that means you cannot gain power from that ideal. However, that does not mean ideals cannot grant power.

So maybe the ideal of 'Razmir is a god' is too narrow of an ideal. Maybe ideals cannot grant spells.

The rules do not define an ideal, you are correct. The rules also do not say ideals cannot grant power.

I should probably take a break from this, since all I wanted to do was point out that the rules do not allow or deny either way. I didn't want to argue for one side or another because it was left so open as to be endlessly debatable.


Ah yeah the ghosting posts..wounder what CR they have?


On the premise that deityless clerics are allowed, I would say that a cleric must acknowledge the actual power they are drawing their spells from and not be deluded in this regard, but that's just my opinion.

That is, a cleric worshipping the ideal of Aroden would have to be fully aware that they are worshipping only what Aroden stood for and not the god himself.

That doesn't stop the cleric from lying about this to others.

That said, I don't feel deityless clerics fit the CS, especially given the Razmir business.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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.

The faith alone is a fluff concept. The mechanical aspect is deity or belief in an idea. A god is not an idea. If you could use faith to pray to anyone/anything you could pray to a party member. RAW you can't pray to a party member and get results because the party member is not a deity. That is also why you can't pray to a false or dead deity. If faith in anything/anyone worked without limitation by RAW you would not need to choose a deity at all. You could just say you have a strong belief in a deity without exactly praying to him which would get you past the limited domain issue.

PC: My deity is Lloth, but I dont pray to her. I value her ideals though.
DM: That makes no sense. Why would you do that.
PC: It stops me from being limited to her domains.

I look at/interpret the clerics without deities as having a strong belief in an idea like love or war or wisdom. Maybe there is a god of wisdom, but the cleric does not agree with the deity enough to be a part of his religion. His view of wisdom is so strong that it empowers him.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I did say I think which means well this is what I think...if I said Paizo thinks then I would be speaking for them.

You said, and I quote, "I think they have decided no". They, in this context, refers to Paizo. So, yes, you were putting words in their mouth. This is especially egregious because, as I already pointed out, James Jacobs has already said something completely counter to what you think Paizo's stance is.


Zurai wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I did say I think which means well this is what I think...if I said Paizo thinks then I would be speaking for them.
You said, and I quote, "I think they have decided no". They, in this context, refers to Paizo. So, yes, you were putting words in their mouth. This is especially egregious because, as I already pointed out, James Jacobs has already said something completely counter to what you think Paizo's stance is.

Not at all he said he was thinking NO. The setting points to no and implies no.

Writh strike, so your answer is to meta game and has nothing to do with the setting.

An ideal is an ideal. If an ideal grants power then Razmir has clerics.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Only the campaign setting says his priests are sorcerers and other spellcasters, not clerics. So an ideal being able to grant spells or not has no bearing on the composition of Razmir's clergy.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Not at all he said he was thinking NO. The setting points to no and implies no.

False. In actuality, he said it would be bad game design to say no. Here's the quote again, for reference, since you seem to be mis-remembering it:

James Jacobs wrote:
Godless clerics are possible under the Pathfinder RPG... as they should be. I'm not sure if they're possible in Golarion, though. To be honest, we probably just won't say one way or another and let each individual GM decide if he wants Godless clerics in his Golarion campaign; we just won't have NPC clerics without deities showing up. It's generally not good game design to set arbitrary "nos" into stone, after all...

Emphasis mine.


so "I'm not sure if they're possible in Golarion, though. To be honest" and everything in the setting implying no means yes?...got ya nice logic there

TOZ, No, by raw any ideal can count. The ideal of Razmir is just as valid as the ideal of good, or battle. If you allow one the other is valid.

We know one is not valid there for the other is also not valid. You can not have it both ways, either ideals are ok or they are not. Saying the ideal of razmir is not valid because he is not a god, makes the ideal of god also non valid.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
so "I'm not sure if they're possible in Golarion, though. To be honest" and everything in the setting implying no means yes?...got ya nice logic there

Right back at ya. Don't quit your day job to become a scientist. Or logician. Or mathematician. Or any other job that requires actual logic, because you're failing at it. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In other words, not being sure about something is not the same as being sure that something isn't. Also, since he explicitly and very directly said that it would be bad game design to say "no", one can generally assume that "no" isn't the answer, since one would hardly accuse oneself of bad game design out of the blue like that.

Of course, that might be too logical for you. In that case, because the sky is green with purple polka dots, I'm right.


Zurai man ya need a hobby, stop stalking me your adding noting to the topic. Me and the rest have been having a nice debate and all you can add is snide comments. You always act like I lie or give a half truth then turn around and give one yourself. Dude I paraphrase often. get over it.

If you have something to add to this debate please do so, if you want to harp on me , The eh what ever amuses ya

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

ghost post (CR 1/2)


Really just CR 1/2?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


An ideal is an ideal. If an ideal grants power then Razmir has clerics.

Razmir does not have clerics, so the theory cannot be proven or disproven.


Nope proves the theory, he can not have them , Aroden can not have them, then an ideal is simply not enough.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Razmir does not have clerics because he does not have clerics, not because you cannot be a cleric without a patron deity.

'God does not exist because there is no proof of God's existance.' That's what you're saying here.


Nope an ideal is not enough. The CS points that out, if an ideal could be enough there would be no need to point out he can not have them.

An ideal is enough or it is not enough, one or the other. If it is enough he has them, if it is not then he can not have them.

You can not have it both ways, if an ideal is enough then the CS is wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You're ignoring the possibility that no one in his service took the cleric class.


No I am not the CS says he can not have them, so it is wrong then. An ideal is enough or it is not. One or the other.

So is an ideal enough?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Razmir has nothing to do with if an ideal can provide spells. Nothing in the CS says 'clerics must pick a deity to gain spells from'. The whole discussion of Razmir has been a goose chase with nothing to do with my main point.

Your proof is not proof.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Zurai man ya need a hobby, stop stalking me your adding noting to the topic.

You have waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy*1,000,000,000 too high an opinion of yourself if you think I'm stalking you. This thread has over 150 posts. I tend to stop in on most threads that get this big. It's got nothing to do with you, except that frequently you're part of the reason the thread gets that big.

Quote:
You always act like I lie or give a half truth then turn around and give one yourself.

First, I have never lied nor given a half-truth here on these forums. I'd ask you to cite any example of it; you'll be searching a long damn time.

Second, when you say "This is so" and there's no support for it, yeah, I call that a half-truth at best. As TOZ said, and I said earlier, the fact that you can't find an example of "A" doesn't mean that "A" doesn't exist or isn't allowed. You have to find an actual rule or law that says that "A" cannot exist or isn't allowed in order to prove that "A" cannot exist or isn't allowed. This is why physics is almost entirely made up of discovering what can be done rather than what cannot be done; it's incredibly difficult to prove that something cannot exist/happen.

How does that apply to this discussion? You have two explicit references that "A" can happen (the Core Rulebook and James Jacob's quote) and zero rules that state "A" cannot happen. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that "A" can, indeed, happen.

You're right that campaign settings can change the rules, but they have to actually change the rules to do that. Hints, allegations, and things left unsaid have no rules weight. The campaign setting certainly does change enough rules that we know for sure that Paizo could have forced Clerics to be devoted to a single deity if they wanted to; hell, the Paladin entry is proof of that, because 3.5 Paladins do have to worship deities, while Golarion Paladins (remember, the current CS is based on 3.5 rules) don't.


No it is not, he is an ideal if he can not have clerics ideals alone can not power them.

An ideal powers them or it does not, you can not choose yes sometimes then no the other. It works or it does not. One or the other.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The campaign setting does not say 'clerics must pick a deity'.

Razmir not being able to provide spells does not change this.


So, if you can worship an ideal or a god, what is a dead or false god? Is it an ideal? Is it a god?

Some might say it is neither and is thus unable to grant cleric powers.


I think this argument ends very simply, as I explained a long time back:

"Ideals" that grant spells, like Good and Strength, are "sponsored" by the deities who represent those ideals in their portfolios, and they grant spells to undeclared clerics of sympathetic alignments they wish to promote.

Isn't that simple enough? It solves the debate. You can't have "godless" clerics, but you CAN have clerics undevoted to a singular deity.

After all, both Core and the CS do explicitly state that deities grant spells.


I think we are not gonna agree as they use RAW but ignore it when it does not match.

The CS simply does not cover "ideals" but does say false gods do not have clerics, so ideals can not do it alone or false gods could have clerics.

Ideals work or they do not. Pick one or the other.

I think we have went as far as we are gonna go in this debate.

Bradon, The whole "ideals are sponsored by a god " is not even talked about so no, that don't wash. {well one instance I can think being the god claw and thats very limited to one order and a set domains and not the same thing, more a patheion } But not covered in the CS. No where does it cover that...wait it does..it's called an oracle :)


I think we are not gonna agree as you seem to use RAW but ignore it when it does not match.

The CS simply does not cover "ideals" but does say false gods do not have clerics, so ideals can not do it alone or false gods could have clerics.

Ideals work or they do not. Pick one or the other.

I think we have went as far as we are gonna go in this debate. We has hit tha wall boss.

Brandon, The whole "ideals are sponsored by a god " is not even talked about so no, that don't wash. {well one instance I can think being the god claw and thats very limited to one order and a set domains and not the same thing, more a patheion } But not covered in the CS. No where does it cover that...wait it does..it's called an oracle :)

Dark Archive

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
But not covered in the CS. No where does it cover that...wait it does..it's called an oracle :)

Or an Adept. There's plenty of ways for a diety-less *priest* to exist, just, as in Rahadoum or Razmiran or the crumbling temples of Aroden, not as Clerics.

If the setting flat out doesn't have them, then I don't really need a rule telling me that they can't exist. Godless Clerics *don't* exist, so it's a moot point whether or not they *could* exist, since nobody in the campaign setting (as detailed thus far, including two or three entire nations desperate to get their hands on godless sources of healing / divine magic) has figured out how to do it yet.


I fully agree set, but ya knew that didn't ya :)

Dark Archive

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I fully agree set, but ya knew that didn't ya :)

I will find something to violently disagree with you about, so that we can maintain a sense of balance. :)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I think we are not gonna agree as you seem to use RAW but ignore it when it does not match.

The CS simply does not cover "ideals" but does say false gods do not have clerics, so ideals can not do it alone or false gods could have clerics.

Ideals work or they do not. Pick one or the other.

I think we have went as far as we are gonna go in this debate. We has hit tha wall boss.

Brandon, The whole "ideals are sponsored by a god " is not even talked about so no, that don't wash. {well one instance I can think being the god claw and thats very limited to one order and a set domains and not the same thing, more a patheion } But not covered in the CS. No where does it cover that...wait it does..it's called an oracle :)

You have to choose what you pray to, and that determines if you get powers or not. If you pray to a living deity you get powers. Praying to a dead god does not get you powers. An ideal of something is not the same as the actual thing itself. The ideal of being Aroden like in nature gets you powers. Praying to Aroden as if he is still alive gets you nothing. Asking a dead god for spells is no different than asking a dead mortal for something. Either way you will be waiting for a long time to get any results. To carry this further praying to non-existent god is not any better. It is like trying to convince my imaginary friend to give me money so I can pay you back. Don't hold your breath for that one either.


Set wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I fully agree set, but ya knew that didn't ya :)

I will find something to violently disagree with you about, so that we can maintain a sense of balance. :)

Everyone does , I tend to have that effect.


wraithstrike wrote:


You have to choose what you pray to, and that determines if you get powers or not. If you pray to a living deity you get powers. Praying to a dead god does not get you powers. An ideal of something is not the same as the actual thing itself. The ideal of being Aroden like in nature gets you powers. Praying to Aroden as if he is still alive gets you nothing. Asking a dead god for spells is no different than asking a dead mortal for something. Either way you will be waiting for a long time to get any results. To carry this further praying to non-existent god is not any better. It is like trying to convince my imaginary friend to give me money so I can pay you back. Don't hold your breath for that one either.

SO ideals work? or do not work? Your trying to have your cake and eat it to here. Some fine wordy hoops your jumping backwards though that has nothing to do with RAW or the CS.

Yes or no, ideals can have power or can not. You can not have it both ways.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Set wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I fully agree set, but ya knew that didn't ya :)

I will find something to violently disagree with you about, so that we can maintain a sense of balance. :)

Everyone does , I tend to have that effect.

So many ways to respond to that... :)

151 to 200 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.