Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Cracks whip at James. You're slacking, James.

That's because I keep losing time editing and correcting error-filled messageboard posts! :-P


If that's the only spelling error ya find in my posts you are slacking :)


James Jacobs wrote:


That's unfortunate and should never have gotten into print. I can't control everything that comes out under the Pathfinder Chronicles line, I guess.

Those shamans should not be clerics, actually. They should be adepts or druids.

James -you know I'd love to see you bend on your stance a little on this one. My offer still stands. I'll write you a sidebar, gratis, that reconciles Core Rulebook allowances and Golarion Pantheism/Philosophical worship (NOT this "godless" worship, though) to leave the door open for folks who want to play official pantheistic clerics in Golarion. I could do it in four sentences! =-)

C'moooooooon, James. I'll let you pick any two domains you want!!! ;-)

Brandon

Dark Archive

I wouldn't mind seeing some 'heresies' that allow a Cleric of Cayden Cailean to pick a non-traditional Domain like Liberation (which, based on the write up, and the existence of a Caydenite PrC devoted to freeing slaves and breaking chains, kinda fits better than 'Strength' anyway).

I wouldn't want to see rationale for any Cleric of any god being able to pick whatever Domains they want, but a single 'heresy' for each of a half-dozen or so dieties could mix things up and add another layer of yummy complexity to the Cleric class.

Quite a few dieties lack a Domain that's specifically relevant to their portfolio, as well.

Abadar, patron of cities, wealth, merchants and the law, has, of five Domains, one that's relevant, Law. He probably should have Community, as patron of cities. He probably should have access to some sort of Wealth / Greed / Trade domain, if such a thing were to be created for Pathfinder (preferably not just poached from the Wealth / Greed / Trade domains in 3.5).

Asmodeus seems a lock to have a Domination type Domain, as god of tyranny and slavers and contracts.

Desna, goddess of travelers, doesn't have the Travel domain. Nor a dream or celestial / stars / astrology Domain, for that matter. Indeed, of her spheres of influence, only Luck is represented by a Domain...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Brandon Hodge wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


That's unfortunate and should never have gotten into print. I can't control everything that comes out under the Pathfinder Chronicles line, I guess.

Those shamans should not be clerics, actually. They should be adepts or druids.

James -you know I'd love to see you bend on your stance a little on this one. My offer still stands. I'll write you a sidebar, gratis, that reconciles Core Rulebook allowances and Golarion Pantheism/Philosophical worship (NOT this "godless" worship, though) to leave the door open for folks who want to play official pantheistic clerics in Golarion. I could do it in four sentences! =-)

C'moooooooon, James. I'll let you pick any two domains you want!!! ;-)

Brandon

Nope. Pantheist worshipers who want to cast spells are oracles. That's what an oracle basically is, and this distinction helps IMMENSELY to further separate what a cleric is from what an oracle is. In the same way that spellbooks are for wizards and bloodlines are for sorcerers.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing some 'heresies' that allow a Cleric of Cayden Cailean to pick a non-traditional Domain like Liberation (which, based on the write up, and the existence of a Caydenite PrC devoted to freeing slaves and breaking chains, kinda fits better than 'Strength' anyway).

Rules for heretics who worship a deity but gain weirdo domains is a great idea. NOTE: Even heretical clerics worship deities!

Set wrote:
Quite a few dieties lack a Domain that's specifically relevant to their portfolio, as well.

The new rules for subdomains coming in the Advanced Player's Guide actually do a really cool job of opening up new options for clerics and give their deities access to new domains that should help alleviate this worry.

Set wrote:
Abadar, patron of cities, wealth, merchants and the law, has, of five Domains, one that's relevant, Law. He probably should have Community, as patron of cities. He probably should have access to some sort of Wealth / Greed / Trade domain, if such a thing were to be created for Pathfinder (preferably not just poached from the Wealth / Greed / Trade domains in 3.5).

Abadar and Erastil have a not-always-friendly sort of conflict going. One of those areas where they conflict is that Erastil is very much an advocate for the citizens of a community, and thus he has the Community domain. Abadar, on the other hand, is much more "corporate." He doesn't really care as much about the individual, and thus does NOT have the community domain, on purpose. Admittedly a pretty subtle move on my part, but that's the basic reasoning there. And since we have no Wealth/Greed/Trade domain in the game, he offers Nobility instead. (Subdomains, from the APG, will help as well.)

Set wrote:
Asmodeus seems a lock to have a Domination type Domain, as god of tyranny and slavers and contracts.

There's no such thing as a Domination domain, so that's not really an issue.

Set wrote:
Desna, goddess of travelers, doesn't have the Travel domain. Nor a dream or celestial / stars / astrology Domain, for that matter. Indeed, of her spheres of influence, only Luck is represented by a Domain...

Desna does indeed have the Travel domain.

Anyway... the trick with domains, as far as I'm concerned, isn't to build domains that are custom built for deities. It's better to have a good spread of domain types and then match that balanced spread of types to deities as best you can. We COULD build a Dream domain for Desna, but the problem there is twofold—that'd be a lonely domain that VERY few deities would ever offer, and more importantly, there's not a lot of dream-themed spells out there to fill the 9 spells required for a domain.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
Desna does indeed have the Travel domain.

Huh, I was using Gods & Magic as a reference, which has her with Chaos, Good, Liberation, Luck & Protection on p. 12. My bad, grabbed the wrong book.


James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. Pantheist worshipers who want to cast spells are oracles.

I was lurking and couldn't help but point out that Gods & Magic says pantheistic elf clerics can choose domains from any elf deity.


Davick wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. Pantheist worshipers who want to cast spells are oracles.

I was lurking and couldn't help but point out that Gods & Magic says pantheistic elf clerics can choose domains from any elf deity.

Gods & Magic is also a D&D 3.5 book from before Paizo had finalized a lot of how they wanted Golarion to work. With the introduction of the PRPG rules and the revision of the Campaign Setting with the Inner Sea World Guide, it has been retconned that clerics follow a single deity and cannot be pantheistic. That is now the domain (no pun intended) of the Oracle.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be nice if some sort of Golarion-specific Oracle Mysteries were designed with these situations in mind.

Oracle Mysteries for Diabolism and the Philosophies of the Kalistrade, as well as the pantheist dwarven and elven faiths, could be handy.

Bone can be used for the Whispering Way, and Nature for the Green Faith (and, perhaps, Shimmye-Magallah?), but there is a lot of 'use Oracles for this' being thrown around, when no Oracles Mysteries have been designed to actually back that statement up.

'Oh, we don't use X here. Use Y instead.'

'Ok, I'll buy some Y then.'

'Yeah, we don't have Y either.'


...have you seen the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch, Set? :)

Oh, and just to be slightly on topic - I think you're right - some setting specific Oracle Mysteries would be great!


James Jacobs wrote:
Set wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing some 'heresies' that allow a Cleric of Cayden Cailean to pick a non-traditional Domain like Liberation (which, based on the write up, and the existence of a Caydenite PrC devoted to freeing slaves and breaking chains, kinda fits better than 'Strength' anyway).

Rules for heretics who worship a deity but gain weirdo domains is a great idea. NOTE: Even heretical clerics worship deities!

Out of curiosity can a cleric be a heretic who is still following their appropriate deity? I mean isn't heresy normally dictated by the rulings of mortals or in Pathfinder would the simple fact that the supposed heretic still has the clerical powers granted by their deity be proof that the god approves of them?


bigkilla wrote:

A cleric does not need to be aligned to any god, you could just pick 2 domains that you think would befit Aroden and call him/her a priest of Aroden.

Domains: A cleric’s deity influences her alignment, what
magic she can perform, her values, and how others see her.
A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging
to her deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain
(Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if her alignment matches
that domain. 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)
. The
restriction on alignment domains still applies.

I'm backing bigkilla on this. Yes, Clerics don't actually need gods, they can worship forces, pieces of the divine, parts but not the deities. The juice behind the fruit as it were.

However, in my game, I make them very rare. They are more mountain mystics, strange unaffiliated clerics, because really, the churches have far more power and influence. If a player wants to play a cleric of forces, not a deity, that is fine. However, they must also be loyal to these powers, and can lose their spells if they really break what they are allied too. In a sense, they become like druids.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

WS, if ideals can grant powers then yeah it does not matter if your god is dead, ya can carry on with little change in power if you have faith.

It really is very simple. If they grant power then Razmir would have clerics and Atheists would have clerics, and Aroden would still have an active church

And ideal is just that an ideal. If "good, or battle or lust" can grant you spells without being a living thing then the god being dead or false is no different at all.

As I said guys we have hit the wall. To me an ideal is an ideal. To you guys you place all kinds or restrictions on what is and is not an ideal, restrictions that are simply not there in the rules.

The CS setting as written does not have any god-less clerics in it. What ya allow in your home game is up to you.

I like the way you think. Perhaps the problem with Aroden is, worshipping him gets no results, what is required is to attune oneself and all the followers to the domains which Aroden represented, the forces in which he flowed, the yamuk sauce at the table he sat at.


Davick wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. Pantheist worshipers who want to cast spells are oracles.

I was lurking and couldn't help but point out that Gods & Magic says pantheistic elf clerics can choose domains from any elf deity.

That's correct! It does. It was also presented as if only the elves can do that. Which I laughed at, because being just a cleric of domains was actually quite an old third ed thing. Of course the some of the settings had different ideas.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I realize this thread is old and dead, but I actualy am starting to hate the idea of Clerics with established deities. To me, building a character means also building aspects of that character. If I build a Wizard, I also really concider what sort of training and tutor that Wizard has, and how that affects their current personality.

When I build a Cleric, I build their ideals of their faith, weither it be a pantheon, a philosophy, or a deity. I have no interest in settings deities, because I didn't put anything into them. They are my character, not the DM's, not the setting designers, and not Golarions, so I don't see any reason that I should allow any of those to tell me what I need, especially when the class has no actual need for that component.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Which I laughed at, because being just a cleric of domains was actually quite an old third ed thing. Of course the some of the settings had different ideas.

If by that you mean more along the lines of either panthion or deityless Clerics, that is actually more of a 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd, and all of 4th edition thing. Original D&D had no deities. It was all an unnamed, taken for granted, "I serve the Light" sort of thing. Later deities where introduced, but even in the core book, the base Cleric <priest> only partially describes gods, less as a need, though it does have a sidebar for being a Cleric of a specific group or deity, and how to alter the class for that. 3rd Specifically called out the differences, giving specific rules for both, (little difference), and having a deity has nothing to do with Clerics in 4th at all, unless you want certain Feats, but even then, you can have multiple patrons.

So, it's actually more true to say that needing a deity is a fairly new 3rd ed thing, with a few exceptions like later FR.


Thanks for the info. Good to know. And knowing is half the battle against the "new" deities.

My next character is going to be an atheist samurai woman. Naginata, longbow, bad-ass. It is in a players newly made world, and the deities have been over-emphasised (how 3rd-4th ed of him) in importance. Of course, since they have very small domains, are usually quite fanatical and competitive, almost like everyone is a monotheist, the great powerful beings don't really seem "wise" (they seem like greedy dic*s in a struggle for power. Desperate, so desperate for followers and to grow).

This onna bushi will see, she will see they are just powerful beings in competition and manipulation. They are not gods, not worthy of the title.

Beckett (from Castle?) you are somewhat right about faith and individuality in dnd. I've had fun making clerics as a dm, and playing them, and they don't always have to be mindless automatons, they can have character, interesting backgrounds and levels other than cleric (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadfael for inspiration). According to the new dm I play with and his new world, he has actually dispensed with alignment, and clerics have to be even more akin in thought, deed and practice to their god. Gone is the one-alignment away step rule, now orthodoxy is really pushed. So it is atheist samurai time. Like a Hitchens in drag with feudal Japanese weaponry.


Beckett wrote:

I realize this thread is old and dead, but I actualy am starting to hate the idea of Clerics with established deities. To me, building a character means also building aspects of that character. If I build a Wizard, I also really concider what sort of training and tutor that Wizard has, and how that affects their current personality.

When I build a Cleric, I build their ideals of their faith, weither it be a pantheon, a philosophy, or a deity. I have no interest in settings deities, because I didn't put anything into them. They are my character, not the DM's, not the setting designers, and not Golarions, so I don't see any reason that I should allow any of those to tell me what I need, especially when the class has no actual need for that component.

I like your warrior spirit.

I have seen a DM try to push the characters of players to be orthodox according to the beliefs of the setting which we did not define or create. E.g. trying to say all respect contracts because there is a god of contracts, who knows all breaches of contracts and punishes you if you break them. I was critical, I was playing a rogue. This rogue didn't agree to be bound in a spiritual connected sense. He later both broke AND fulfilled the contract. Yeah, take that god of contracts.

Simply, if we didn't make it, don't like it, keep that cleric shi* out of our player's faces.

Shadow Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Thanks for the info. Good to know. And knowing is half the battle against the "new" deities.

I had thought you where from 3.5 Private Sanctuary. :)


"Foul Necromancy!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gods this subject is not just beating a dead horse, its a fine pasty mist of dried blood.

Simple fact: In Golarion Clerics Must have a god.There is no such thing as God-less clerics or clerics of an idea or concept. That is what the Oracle is for.

2nd fact: You may change this for your home games, but as written the setting does not allow god-less clerics.

Shadow Lodge

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Simply, if we didn't make it, don't like it, keep that cleric shi* out of our player's faces.

I'm less saying that than I want to do that little bit of extra for my divine characters. No other class has a similar stipulation, and there are plenty of fantasy "priest" or even holy/divine crusader types that do not have deities. Especially not in the sense of a Patron.

Shadow Lodge

I was pulled away before I could finish what I meant.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Simply, if we didn't make it, don't like it, keep that cleric shi* out of our player's faces.

I'm less saying that than I want to do that little bit of extra for my divine characters, just as I would for any other. I see no logical reason why (even in golarion except that someone says so) that Clerics require a deity, when Druids, Oracles, Paladins, etc. . . do not. Leave it to the players, period.

Many examples have been offered as proof as to why Clerics in Golarion need a deity (Raz priests are secretly paladins, this country has this, that country hates that), and not a single one of them can't have a multitude of other reasons why they still couldn't be in that situation even is non-deity Clerics existed, which many people assume anyway.

No other class has a similar stipulation, and there are plenty of fantasy "priest" or even holy/divine crusader types that do not have deities. Especially not in the sense of a Patron. Older editions had a blanket spell list for Clerics, Spheres, special spells, and basically an equivalent to Domains. As far as I know, Dragonlance was the first setting the required a divine patron, followed later by FR. Both had specific reasonings, though FR's is very flimsy, too. Otherwise, it has practicly always been either some unnamed, unknown source, or a pnathoin/no deity.

Edited as I was cut off before finishing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I would say that most of Aroden's clerics were too distraught by his death to even think of praying to another god for their abilities and never considered the possibility of gaining power from anywhere else. Those that did were absorbed into Iomedae's faith. I can't find any text restricting deity-less clerics in Golarion tho.

To be specific the actual restriction is not from the text Golarion setting, but the Pathfinder Society Network Campaign version of Golarion. If you want to allow dietyless clerics in your version of Golarion, I'm sure that James Jacobs won't be breaking down your door.

Most published settings that I've seen, (Arcanis, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms) assume that all clerics answer to soomeone. You'll probably never see a diety-less cleric or mention of same in any published works in the Golarion setting either. The diety-less cleric was mainly created so that homebrew users could use a cleric without angering Fundamentalist Christian parents who would otherwise get bent out of shape.

In my home campaigns, I've never allowed them. And never will.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


Simple fact: In Golarion Clerics Must have a god.There is no such thing as God-less clerics or clerics of an idea or concept. That is what the Oracle is for.

The oracle is not a godless cleric. While they may serve (or in some cases be inflicted by,) a Mystery, that mystery has divine sponsors behind it. The oracle may not worship those sponsors, it may even hate them, but the ties are still there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Beckett wrote:

I realize this thread is old and dead, but I actualy am starting to hate the idea of Clerics with established deities. To me, building a character means also building aspects of that character. If I build a Wizard, I also really concider what sort of training and tutor that Wizard has, and how that affects their current personality.

When I build a Cleric, I build their ideals of their faith, weither it be a pantheon, a philosophy, or a deity. I have no interest in settings deities, because I didn't put anything into them. They are my character, not the DM's, not the setting designers, and not Golarions, so I don't see any reason that I should allow any of those to tell me what I need, especially when the class has no actual need for that component.

I on the other hand can't wrap my head around the concept of a cleric without a diety. It's like a wizard without magic. The diety is the central core about what the class is about, being essentially a mortal proxy or representative of your diety's interests in the mortal world. Clerics aren't wizards, the magic they practise is granted, not learned.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:


Simple fact: In Golarion Clerics Must have a god.There is no such thing as God-less clerics or clerics of an idea or concept. That is what the Oracle is for.

Simple Fact: You don't have to. It is stated nowhere and has never been erratad.

2nd Fact: If you pay 20$ for a product and consider a forum post you have to find yourself (it takes me 10 Minutes every time even though I know it exists to find it again in this crappy forum engine) to be official errata (even though it is stated in the forum rules that things developers here say are never official in any way), then yes, you need a god in Golarion.


LazarX wrote:


I on the other hand can't wrap my head around the concept of a cleric without a diety. It's like a wizard without magic. The diety is the central core about what the class is about, being essentially a mortal proxy or representative of your diety's interests in the mortal world. Clerics aren't wizards, the magic they practise is granted, not learned.

That is the issue with making the cleric so powerful, people want that power and could care less about being ya know a "Cleric". They want to be a white wizard, but with better combat, hp's and cherry pick domains.


Alienfreak wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


Simple fact: In Golarion Clerics Must have a god.There is no such thing as God-less clerics or clerics of an idea or concept. That is what the Oracle is for.

Simple Fact: You don't have to. It is stated nowhere and has never been erratad.

You can change and houserule anything. As written Golarion can not have godless clerics. If you read the setting, you would understand this. It has also been stated many, many times. Yes it is official. No they will not come to your house just because you changed it.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


Simple fact: In Golarion Clerics Must have a god.There is no such thing as God-less clerics or clerics of an idea or concept. That is what the Oracle is for.

Simple Fact: You don't have to. It is stated nowhere and has never been erratad.

You can change and houserule anything. As written Golarion can not have godless clerics. If you read the setting, you would understand this. It has also been stated many, many times. Yes it is official. No they will not come to your house just because you changed it.

Can you provide a quote where this is stated?


Dude, its in this thread at lest twice. A simple search of "god-less clerics+ James Jacobs will turn it up many more times.

And they do not errata things they think are clear.


Jacobs wrote:

If you're the GM and your player's not taking your word as the rule, that's unfortunate.

Also unfortunate: I don't know if there IS a page number I can turn you to for this purpose. I'm not sure what frustrates me more—the fact that that silly clause is in the Core Rulebook for clerics in the first place, or the fact that I didn't plaster the "Clerics must have a deity" phrase into the Inner Sea World Guide.

In any event, if a messageboard post from the creative director isn't enough for your player, I doubt an entire book of the phrase "Clerics must have a deity" will change his mind.

Jacobs himself says there is no such thing in any rulebook.

If it is so easy to find the rule in question here I love quotes. (I found nothing as I searched for it as my group came up with the issue and the only thing is Jacobs post...)

Scarab Sages

Morally confused Paladin wrote:
"Foul Necromancy!"

AM SMITING ALL TARGETS.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Dude, its in this thread at lest twice. A simple search of "god-less clerics+ James Jaccobs will turn it up many more times.

And they do not errata things they think are clear.

Perfectly clear like Pounce working only with natural weapons?

Or that Skeletons lose their spell like abilities and all abilities that are not listed under SQ or Defense?
Or that Lycanthropes change their alignment (as was in 3.5 due to save or you can see it in Kingmaker where the Barbarian changes back his alignment)?
...


Alienfreak wrote:


Jacobs himself says there is no such thing in any rulebook.

Yet, it is official. And you the setting does not work as is if you could be god-less clerics. It really is that simple.

You can change it for your games, but as written and officially you must have a god.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:


Jacobs himself says there is no such thing in any rulebook.

Yet, it is official. And you the setting does not work as is if you could be god-less clerics. It really is that simple.

You can change it for your games, but as written and officially you must have a god.

You still say it is written. WHERE!?

Only things in rulebooks are official.

Shadow Lodge

'Official' is such a nebulous term, especially when the people in charge can't agree on it themselves.


AM PALADIN wrote:
Morally confused Paladin wrote:
"Foul Necromancy!"
AM SMITING ALL TARGETS.

"Thats right brother! Smite them all!...Well except the lasses in cute outfits..maybe we..um..can save those"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


I have seen a DM try to push the characters of players to be orthodox according to the beliefs of the setting which we did not define or create. E.g. trying to say all respect contracts because there is a god of contracts, who knows all breaches of contracts and punishes you if you break them. I was critical, I was playing a rogue. This rogue didn't agree to be bound in a spiritual connected sense. He later both broke AND fulfilled the contract. Yeah, take that god of contracts.

Simply, if we didn't make it, don't like it, keep that cleric shi* out of our player's faces.

Arcanis probabably would not have been the setting for you, where the penalties for breaking an oath sealed by Sarish kept every player I knew well in line. And even Druids were required to serve a diety.

An interesting difference with Arcanis is that the gods have no alignment. So every god was tended by clerics of all nine alignments, although generally not in the same church or sanctuary. Illir Demon-foe, God of the Sun and Honor, was also the God of Curses and a couple of other things less savory. An Arcanis god was served by faiths that worshipped differing aspects of the same diety. It would not be unknown for different cults to come to blows, or incite wars over their differences.


TOZ wrote:
'Official' is such a nebulous term, especially when the people in charge can't agree on it themselves.

Paizo themselves say that Forum Posts are not official in any way.

I think the CRB and Setting Books are pretty official in their latest print versions ;)


TOZ wrote:
'Official' is such a nebulous term, especially when the people in charge can't agree on it themselves.

Eh the man in charge of the setting says no god-less clerics and that is his official stance. Writers however like to sneak things past him, ya notice he rules them "errors" as soon as they are found.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is his stance. There is nothing 'official' about it.

'Official' is just a code word for 'you're not allowed to question it'.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
I on the other hand can't wrap my head around the concept of a cleric without a diety. It's like a wizard without magic. The diety is the central core about what the class is about, being essentially a mortal proxy or representative of your diety's interests in the mortal world. Clerics aren't wizards, the magic they practise is granted, not learned.

None of this has to change with what I'm suggesting. It's just in the players hands, not the setting or DM's, what sorce they want that power to come from. It's still based on faith, and is still restricted by what they believe. They are still champions and mortal proxies for something divine and bigger than themselves. I would actually go the other way and say that their magic is not granted, but is grasped by understanding the various truths about themselves and the <generic> divine/universe. As oppossed to Arcane which is learned and studied, more formulaic.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
That is the issue with making the cleric so powerful, people want that power and could care less about being ya know a "Cleric". They want to be a white wizard, but with better combat, hp's and cherry pick domains.

And what is the problem with this? Every single other class does this. Unless you also require that Wizards have a school and master, Fighters need to have some military training, and Rogues need to be part of some official guild. It doesn't break the game or the class, and more than any other class, still. Cherry picking Domains to me is the equivalent of saying no you can't actually pick what Feats or spells or Skills or builds you want.


Sigh fine.

James Jacobs wrote:
Belkar wrote:

James if you don't agree with this statement, then you are disagreeing with the book you helped make. And if this is the case then there needs to be an official errata.

Nightfall, stop fighting me on this and accept the rules written in the book or wait for an official errata to change this.

You're absolutely correct. I'm disagreeing with a book I helped make. I was not the ONLY one making the Core Rulebook, nor was I the lead designer. I "registered" my complaint about that line in the cleric entry when we were building the book and was more or less overruled. Possibly because that's the way it was in 3.5, and we were too timid to make that change to Pathfinder for backwards compatibility reasons.

That said, in Golarion, I do not get overruled except by the publisher.

There are elements of Golarion that just work differently than things as they're established in the Core Rulebook. Clerics being required to serve a deity is one of them.

Of course, any GM who runs a Golarion game is free to change that as they will, but that's not what the OP asked—the official stance on clerics in Golarion is that they MUST chose a patron deity.

THE REASON THIS IS THE WAY IT IS IN GOLARION
Here's why (spoilered in case someone still doesn't know the truth about one of Golarion's "deities")...
** spoiler omitted **

Notice the bold. So yes. It is official.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
TOZ wrote:
'Official' is such a nebulous term, especially when the people in charge can't agree on it themselves.
Eh the man in charge of the setting says no god-less clerics and that is his official stance. Writers however like to sneak things past him, ya notice he rules them "errors" as soon as they are found.

If it is so super official and such a grave error in the Rulebook (I consider it to be one at least...) has been printed I ask myself why Paizo spends so much time on correcting spelling errors via Erratas and not just changing the Cleric Class Section of the Golarion Setting Books similiar to the one it was in Fâerun.

I doubt even 1% of all buyers of Paizo products look up the rules on the Forum when they have to search for it themselves (and most probably have no idea that James Jacobs even posts here...).

Lol... you are still quoting forum posts that don't refer to anything but a personal opinion of someone who happens to work at Paizo. I still am unable to see any official ruling about this issue.


LazarX wrote:
Beckett wrote:

I realize this thread is old and dead, but I actualy am starting to hate the idea of Clerics with established deities. To me, building a character means also building aspects of that character. If I build a Wizard, I also really concider what sort of training and tutor that Wizard has, and how that affects their current personality.

When I build a Cleric, I build their ideals of their faith, weither it be a pantheon, a philosophy, or a deity. I have no interest in settings deities, because I didn't put anything into them. They are my character, not the DM's, not the setting designers, and not Golarions, so I don't see any reason that I should allow any of those to tell me what I need, especially when the class has no actual need for that component.

I on the other hand can't wrap my head around the concept of a cleric without a diety. It's like a wizard without magic. The diety is the central core about what the class is about, being essentially a mortal proxy or representative of your diety's interests in the mortal world. Clerics aren't wizards, the magic they practise is granted, not learned.

It is like this, to use an analogy and talk about dnd for a while. Deities are actors in the political sense, they exert power, they have capabilities. They are individuals, sometimes young, old or ancient. Settings often have the new and the old, Golarion is no exception. Now they get their powers by controlling certain spheres of power. Forces, like chaos, like darkness, scalykind, air, war, healing, travel, etc. In dnd, we call them domains. Now multiple gods can share domains, and do, check gods and magic.

So what we have, are shared forces, domains, which are beyond the gods and suffused through them. Some gods lay sole claim, some gods control these domains significantly, others are more minor and less claimed. There aren't so many faiths fighting over scalykind for instance. Evil, good, law, chaos, that is far more contested and fragmented.

Gods are powerful individual actors, for sure, but the power comes from what they actually tap into and control--the domains. They do not control them solely (except in some cases), and in the basic ruleset, there is no limitation that clerics have to absolutely pay heed and follow the churches/cults that are in play. You see, a cleric isn't just an orthodox follower of a religion, they can actually be a burgeoning spiritualist of almost any force, up to dm approval and depending on the combination. A cleric is viewed as a member of a group, as a part of something greater, but in the rules, and unless the dm really goes against it, they can actually be channellers of powerful spiritual forces and under no direct church control, or responsible to a hierarchy or association. These I always see as far closer to monks, druids and simply term them mystics. They aren't sucking up to a church, a cardinal, an ideology exactly, they are explorers of the spiritual, the divine, the very forces!

As they are attuned to the sources, and not the bloated gods that seek to hoard these powers and direct followers only to them, they bypass a need for a god--because there is always something beyond and behind the dnd gods.

You can have a Catholic like priest, well affiliated with lawful bodies and strictly controlled. Or you can have something like a Taoist mystic, also a cleric, but far more interested in wandering and understanding the world, the way and its forces, the yin and the yang--whom has two domains they specifically focus on harnessing for their quest of wisdom. Perhaps protection and rune (scholar tomb master), water and death (sea-cleric), madness and community (civilisation cleric, what it is, but what also threatens it), war and trickery (Sun Tzu?), knowledge and travel (cleric of the eternal wanderer). These are just some examples.


The rule book is not setting specific. Settings often change core rule. Golarion is not the "pathfinder core rule book". It is a setting and settings do not always allow everything, just as you will not see all options from the AGP,UM and UC always used or allowed upon golarion.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The rule book is not setting specific. Settings often change core rule. Golarion is not the "pathfinder core rule book". It is a setting and settings do not always allow everything, just as you will not see all options from the AGP,UM and UC always used or allowed upon golarion.

Settings have specific Campaign Setting Books. Those override the rules as needed. Yet the Golarion Books do nothing in this area of question. There is no single text line that states that you can't cast cleric spells without a patron deity in Golarion. Look up the Fâerun Campaing Setting Book on the contrary where you will find the rule in question. It is specifically stated that there are no god less clerics in Fâerun. Druids for example could use Metal Weapons (I think...?) contrary to the rules of the Player's Handbook.

In PF we have the CRB that says you can be a cleric without a patron deity (the only thing you don't get is the weapon proficiency obviously) and the Golarion Books don't say anything about the matter so the CRB is still in effect.


Beckett wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I on the other hand can't wrap my head around the concept of a cleric without a diety. It's like a wizard without magic. The diety is the central core about what the class is about, being essentially a mortal proxy or representative of your diety's interests in the mortal world. Clerics aren't wizards, the magic they practise is granted, not learned.

None of this has to change with what I'm suggesting. It's just in the players hands, not the setting or DM's, what sorce they want that power to come from. It's still based on faith, and is still restricted by what they believe. They are still champions and mortal proxies for something divine and bigger than themselves. I would actually go the other way and say that their magic is not granted, but is grasped by understanding the various truths about themselves and the <generic> divine/universe. As oppossed to Arcane which is learned and studied, more formulaic.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
That is the issue with making the cleric so powerful, people want that power and could care less about being ya know a "Cleric". They want to be a white wizard, but with better combat, hp's and cherry pick domains.
And what is the problem with this? Every single other class does this. Unless you also require that Wizards have a school and master, Fighters need to have some military training, and Rogues need to be part of some official guild. It doesn't break the game or the class, and more than any other class, still. Cherry picking Domains to me is the equivalent of saying no you can't actually pick what Feats or spells or Skills or builds you want.

Indeed, and I also agree with TOZ. I have seen the personal views of designers creep into made fantasy worlds. For instance, a monotheist who creates a world of competing monotheisms. This one comes from a Christian background, and is quite unfamiliar with Asian philosophy and religion. So, ki, Taoism and Buddhism is quite absent from his games. So much so, that the monk seems really out of place now. A consequence of the main world. As to settings and big official men we should listen to, ha! I wonder what the other designers and assistants would say, and who would make the better argument?

As a Dm, unaffiliated clerics or specific forces have a place, they are a bit weird, unusual, probably meditative loners or fulfilling the ideas they try to embody, but they are not non-existent. There is more than the mask that is the great twisting game of the gods. Mmmmm dnd discussions.

251 to 300 of 716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.