Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 716 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Sigh I was asked to provide a quote to the official stance. I have done so. JJ even explains why it is like that. The setting as written can not work with god-less clerics, you have no fall of Arodens church, No cheilx civil war, no devil ruled nation, no cleric-less country, no false gods and who knows how many other changes. The whole concept the setting is built upon simply does not work with idea clerics or faith based clerics or god-less clerics which ever name you call them.

You have your official answer. Feel free to not use it, just please stop acting like you never got an answer.


The real answer is that we don't need JJ's views to run Golarion. We can take the setting wherever we wish. The above could happen with god-less clerics, to just focus on the Aroden worship, the orthodox followers of Aroden had real difficulties in leaving Aroden behind and worshipping the forces behind him. They believed he would return, didn't die, he was the little god that could, and the swap was not made to the forces.

A country without clerics is still possible, a region so unspiritual it thoroughly discourages church or solo mystic clerics alike. Where trade and others things hold reign and importance. Easy man, easy to work it all out.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Sigh I was asked to provide a quote to the official stance. I have done so. JJ even explains why it is like that. The setting as written can not work with god-less clerics, you have no fall of Arodens church, No cheilx civil war, no devil ruled nation, no cleric-less country, no false gods and who knows how many other changes. The whole concept the setting is built upon simply does not work with idea clerics or faith based clerics or god-less clerics which ever name you call them.

You have your official answer. Feel free to not use it, just please stop acting like you never got an answer.

It can somewhat of a secret, especially from clerics! Amongst all the clerics that worship the plethora of gods, they don't realise the gods are not needed, and that the gods are using them. A deeper, more pure spiritual path is open, but, as people, they were raised in beliefs, in a culture, with views on what is right, how things are done, how one becomes a cleric.

Somewhere a robed wanderer journeys ahead. He does not play the games of the churches.


Maybe you can't have spells as an Aroden cleric, but you can have a trait...

Devotee of a Dead God (Aroden): You simply cannot and will not accept that Aroden is dead. Your faith in his teachings and religion are stronger than ever. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Diplomacy checks
and Knowledge (religion) checks. One of these skills (your choice) is
always a class skill for you.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Sigh I was asked to provide a quote to the official stance. I have done so. JJ even explains why it is like that. The setting as written can not work with god-less clerics, you have no fall of Arodens church, No cheilx civil war, no devil ruled nation, no cleric-less country, no false gods and who knows how many other changes. The whole concept the setting is built upon simply does not work with idea clerics or faith based clerics or god-less clerics which ever name you call them.

I don't see why not. I can think of easy explaniations for all of these which changes nothing about the setting.

Cheliax:
Their patron died. No one besides Pharasma new it, knows how or why. As was mentioned, the faithful lost all power, but no one knew why. Eventually, as the rumors start to circulate, other factions begin to search for answers, and then Imodae comes along. Some go to her, some search for another way, and some still believe it is a test, and wait. Only the ones without any powers are actually faithful to Aroden. The others have turned to something else. Regardless, House Thune (?) wanted power, didn't mind selling their souls (or anyone elses) to get it, and swooped in. Heck, maybe that is just the initial steps in Big A's plan, to trap Aroden away and siphen off his power in his own rise. Aroden isn't dead after all, (but still can't fuel his true faithful, hum . . . interesting. . .), and it's all very Greyhawk still.

Razmiran:
The "priesthood" of Razmir are fakes. Utilizing arcane arts to fake their miracles, they are a growing faction and seem so ripe for a true ascencion. Or Not. They are a bunch of thugs using brainwashing and magic to enchant their faithful. Not a single one of them has the faith or the spiritual knowledge to actualy perform divine magic. The very philosophy of the "faith" is mutually exclusive to the concept. Hence, even with godless Clerics, Razmiran just doesn't have what it takes. Also notice that there are no Druids or other <official nonPatronless> Divine Casters in there also spreading the "faith".

Alternatively, maybe other factions want to make sure that Razmir never ascends. Or maybe he already did, but is bidding his power until he can afford to take on other deities and their established faiths.

Rahadoum:
A country that actively hates, murders, and is otherwise overly brutal towards faith/religion and anything related to the divine or deities. This is a people willing to let their nearest and dearest die horribly than to be open minded and tolerant, and this attitude would be the same to Clerics without deities just as it is to Druids without deities or Bards who happen to worship a deity(s). A Cleric without deity (or even pantheistic) is still going to be both religious and divinely inspired, which is a major part of what the country is against, not just deities.


I don't agree with any of that Beckett. You are making a fundamental change to the very base the setting is built upon. Ol Raz will be a full god, anyone with faith can be a cleric, Aroden becomes known as the silent god, The "church of man" raises in Rahadoum changing much about the nation. And on and on and on.

Gods mean far, far less when clerics do not need them. Iodema doesn't became a big player as the clerics of arodenn with real faith never lose power. There is no crumbling of his church or the churchs power, no vacuum for the civil war to build upon.

You are making changes in a vaccum without any though to how things must change if you change one of the base rules the settings foundation is built upon. You will not have a civil war without arodens church going down, that will not happen if the clerics do not loose power, that can not happen if clerics can be powered by faith or an idea.

In a setting with concept clerics an idea or a god does not matter as they are the same thing. Your god can die and you will never lose power as long as you still believe in what that god stood for.

Shadow Lodge

KaeYoss wrote:
Christopher Dudley wrote:

Assume that all living creatures (of the prime material plane) contain a spark of the divine, independent of the gods. Made of the same stuff, but not property of it. There are real-world religions that hold this to be true.

There are real-world religions that hold that the Ultimate Power is a big, flying spaghetti monster. There are real-world religions that believe in b#**@+~ crazy stories about space aliens. There are real-world religions that worship airplanes. There are real-world religions that think you don't need to eat. There are real-world religions that belief that we live on the inside of earth, which is hollow. There are real-world religions that belief that the messiah projects his countenance onto food products.

Citing real-world religions is not really a good way to justify anything, because if you look long enough, you can probably justify everything as a religious belief.

What Chris describes has a 100,000+ year pedigree and underlies things such as Native American faiths, Voudon, Shinto and a heck of a lot of other things too numerous to name, while space aliens and spaghetti monsters are obviously of recent manufacture, and lacking any lasting (so far) impact on the world.

That is a huge difference. And yes, it bothered me enough to bring up after pages and pages of being buried.

The fact that this philosophy underlies a Golorian faith i.e. The Green Faith gives it in game support and divine casters (Some Oracles, Druids) points to this being a viable philosophy in game.

While I do not support worshipers of the dead god getting spells because they are too tied to the personage of the god, something evolving from the ideals of Aroden's faith or from the fact of Aroden's death is another matter. Thing is it needs to happen in game and might be a good starting point for a PC's background (maybe they are the Prophet of Aroden's death). But for something like PFS which does specifically ban 'philosophy clerics', no.

And as an aside, perhaps the Green Faith and the Whispering Way should have clerics. It is a logical fit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HolmesandWatson wrote:

Maybe you can't have spells as an Aroden cleric, but you can have a trait...

Devotee of a Dead God (Aroden): You simply cannot and will not accept that Aroden is dead. Your faith in his teachings and religion are stronger than ever. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Diplomacy checks
and Knowledge (religion) checks. One of these skills (your choice) is
always a class skill for you.

Given that Aroden's been dead for what, centuries now? All of the diehards that survived him have are dust in their graves now.


He has been dead at lest a 100 years. He has only one living bishop left. A very faithful half elf who thinks his god is simply silent and will come back any day now. His faith is unbroken. He simply has no one to grant him spells or cleric power is all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


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

That sounds just awful. i don't think I've ever played a cleric without a deity, but to tell people they can't is pretty narrow minded. Just because you can't wrap your head around the idea, doesn't mean your players can't and wouldn't enjoy it immensely. Clearly a druid gets divine power without a deity, why is it so incomprehensible then?


I also never allow them in home games. The cleric is built to be the servant of a god, that is the whole point of the class. He is made to be a holy warrior of a god. But I also do not allow any divine caster not to have a god.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I also never allow them in home games. The cleric is built to be the servant of a god, that is the whole point of the class. He is made to be a holy warrior of a god. But I also do not allow any divine caster not to have a god.

I think this is a very narrow interpretation that doesn't reflect reality other than the artifical parameters set by the game.

Look at pantheons both in game and in RL, like the Norse, Hindu or Dwarven Gods as a group. Or Philosophies, like Taoism, The Green Faith, or the Whispering Way.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also as has been explained several times by James if you want a divine spell caster that worships Aroden or say Razmir that pretty much what Oracles are designed for. Clerics however do need to worship an actual living god or similaily powerfull enough being (Arch devils, etc).

This of course is just how it works in a cannonical Golarion end of the day in your home game you can change it anyway you see fit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Davick wrote:
LazarX wrote:


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

That sounds just awful. i don't think I've ever played a cleric without a deity, but to tell people they can't is pretty narrow minded. Just because you can't wrap your head around the idea, doesn't mean your players can't and wouldn't enjoy it immensely. Clearly a druid gets divine power without a deity, why is it so incomprehensible then?

In my worlds, the Druid's diety is either an expression of Nature itself or a diety who has Nature in her portfolio.

And when I say I can't wrap my head around it it's not about not being able to understand the concept but finding it aesthetically offensive. Cleric by definition means service to a divine being. Removing that cuts out the essential flavor of a class and reduces it to cherry picking mechanics.


That is just how I build my settings. When I run settings like Eberron which is built upon the concept cleric I allow them. When running Golarion I do not, when using settings I make it is built into the setting.

To me the whole "concept cleric" is a failed idea. A divine caster is granted power by something. He can lose it by displeasing what ever granted it. He is a granted caster not a earned caster. with a concept cleric you never, ever can lose power, you granted your own power nothing else.. So its never granted, congrats you are a wizard.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alienfreak wrote:
Settings have specific Campaign Setting Books. Those override the rules as needed.

This would be the perfect sort of stuff to put in a 'Players Guide to Golarion.'

1) Clerics have to have a single, specific, approved Golarion god. Trumps information in Core, and setting-specific books like Gods & Magic, Heart of the Jungle, the NPC Guide, Humans of Golarion, Orcs of Golarion, the Campaign Setting, Sargava, Kaer Maga, etc.

2) Undead are always evil (or will turn that way soon) in Golarion, even if they are mindless and incapable of malevolence, trumping anything in a setting-neutral Bestiary.

2a) Whether or not there are not Int 0 mindless 'always good' things in Golarion, perhaps even mindless good creatures with Paladin levels, although that might be redundant...

3) That Rahadoum is LE, not LN, and introducing whatever special new rule allows 1st level Commoners of that nation to use knowledge (arcana) or knowledge (religion) or detect magic or spellcraft or *something* that allows them to replicate the effects of the 3rd level Arcane Sight spell and tell if magic is divine or arcane.

4) That Paladins that do worship a god, have to worship a god within one alignment step of LG (i.e. one of Lawful or Good, no true neutral, Chaotic anything or anything Evil).

4a) Whether or not Paladins that do not worship a specific god even exist in the first place... (Apple cart > horse.)

5) Whether or not casting evil spells will turn you evil, regardless of intent or result. Whether or not casting good spells will *not* turn you good, nor will casting law or chaos spells turn you lawful or chaotic, because 'that's a silly strawman.'

6) Whether or not Oracles are intended for all purposes where a 'cleric' would not worship a single specific god (such as pantheists, totemists, animists, nature-worshippers or 'concept clerics'), as it's been stated at other times that their powers come from a specific single god, which totally flies in the face of their design intent, and James statement that he wishes they hadn't included recommended Deities in the writeup in the first place.

7) Whether or not Rangers, Druids or Adepts worship gods, or not, or whatever. (Editor's Note: Wait? What's an Adept?)

7a) Whether or not the new Rahadoumi ability to detect divine spellcasters can tell if they are god-worshippers or atheists or get their power from the natural world, or their ancestors, or totem-spirits, or whatever. Won't be much relief for the accused, if they can only tell by huffing the smoke from burned heretics that they weren't god-worshippers... :)

8) Clerics of Pharasma have special spell replacement options for the Death Domain. Is there a special spell replacement for Clerics of Nethys with the Magic Domain (since, IIRC, he forbids the use of Imbue with Spell Ability)? Good place for that sort of thing.

9) Oracles Mysteries to represent setting-specific things like 'clerics' of Shimye-Magalla or the elven pantheon or the Shoanti totems or the Godclaw or the Prophecies of the Kalistrade. It's been repeatedly stated that this was the design intent of the entire class in the first place, after all. So it would be nice to actually get that stuff out there.

10) Special rules about whether or not Barbarians, Druids, Monks and / or Paladins can scoff at alignment suggestions or gear restrictions in this setting, as per the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (where Druids of Mielikki, like Druids of Erastil, could use longbows, or where certain types of Monk or Paladin could scoff at multi-classing restrictions, or Paladins could serve the CG goddess Sune) could also find a home here. Region-specific monks who toss out the faux-Asian weapon proficiencies for more Inner Sea-specific weapon proficiencies could go here, for instance.

11) Aroden. Really, really dead.

12) Desna. Not a Great Old One. Honest.

13) Melek Taus, the Peacock Angel. Not secretly also Ahrimanes, ruler of the evil Divs. I mean it!

14) Razmiran.

Spoiler:
He's been a god the whole time. It's all a colossal shell game... Just kidding!


That is a good list really Set. Not sure I really believe 13 however :)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
That is a good list really Set. Not sure I really believe 13 however :)

Paizo should sit down and reread all their books and get rid of those editing fails.

Like reoccuring 3.5 Domains.
Like Spell Likes not being Special Attacks anymore but being treated as such.
Like several Abilitiyfails (pounce, flurry with manyshot and rapidshot... etc pp)
Like Lycanthrope Alignment is fubar
Like Printing Presses are potrayed as EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND HARD TO MAINTAIN in Golarion books but cost 250gp each...
Like their Eastern Equipment being FUBAR even beyond the level of the WotC Eastern Equipment
...

.
.
.

@ Set: Not all Undead are evil according to Paizo. Not all are evil but all are evil because it is so ultimatively evil. They edit failed even in one post with that xD

Dark Archive

Alienfreak wrote:
Like Spell Likes not being Special Attacks anymore but being treated as such.

There's also mid-stream paradigm shifts. At first, all of the Domain, Bloodline and wizard School powers like acidic ray and lightning arc and dazing touch and similar 1st level abilities were labeled as Spell-Likes, but, later, it seemed to be felt that anything that doesn't *exactly* replicate a spell shouldn't be called 'spell-like,' but should instead be a Supernatural ability, leading to a bunch of sub-Domain powers being listed as Su, even in the particularly odd case of the Growth sub-Domain power, which replicated a spell, and fit the 'new paradigm' for a SLA anyway...

I'm all for the design change, and wouldn't mind for it to be retrofitted to pre-existing stuff (so that a Weather Domain cleric could use storm burst as a Su ability and without provoking an AoO or requiring a concentration check in funky situations, for instance), but right now it's six of one and half dozen of the other, and, from way over where I'm sitting, it feels like the situation is 'on review' and hasn't even been settled in-house yet.

It also felt like the mechanics of the abilities were retrofitted to make the *language* seem more appropriate, and, IMO, that's the same sort of thinking that led to someone deciding that all of the core races needed to equal 10 RP in the Advanced Race Guide, and their racial abilities squeezed or expanded to backfit that decision.

I mean, in the end, it's a game with three or more definitions of the word 'level,' and two or more definitions of the word 'divine,' and where words like desecrate, unholy and profane are used to describe things that are *consecreted* and *holy* and *sacred* to gods that are unpopular.

The horse left the barn, long before something that didn't replicate a spell was defined as a spell-like ability.


Set wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
Like Spell Likes not being Special Attacks anymore but being treated as such.

There's also mid-stream paradigm shifts. At first, all of the Domain, Bloodline and wizard School powers like acidic ray and lightning arc and dazing touch and similar 1st level abilities were labeled as Spell-Likes, but, later, it seemed to be felt that anything that doesn't *exactly* replicate a spell shouldn't be called 'spell-like,' but should instead be a Supernatural ability, leading to a bunch of sub-Domain powers being listed as Su, even in the particularly odd case of the Growth sub-Domain power, which replicated a spell, and fit the 'new paradigm' for a SLA anyway...

I'm all for the design change, and wouldn't mind for it to be retrofitted to pre-existing stuff (so that a Weather Domain cleric could use storm burst as a Su ability and without provoking an AoO or requiring a concentration check in funky situations, for instance), but right now it's six of one and half dozen of the other, and, from way over where I'm sitting, it feels like the situation is 'on review' and hasn't even been settled in-house yet.

It also felt like the mechanics of the abilities were retrofitted to make the *language* seem more appropriate, and, IMO, that's the same sort of thinking that led to someone deciding that all of the core races needed to equal 10 RP in the Advanced Race Guide, and their racial abilities squeezed or expanded to backfit that decision.

I mostly mean that many templates don't strip you from SLAs anymore but should. And this results from shifting abilities from different categories to new ones.

Same applies to Special Qualities and so on.

Many things Paizo tried to edit but lolfailed with their editing. See the change of lycanthropy and so on. Paizo wanted to change it but didn't think it through.

Or another prominent example is the getting rid of all save or dies but the Word Series, Circle Series and Clouds still do it (for example).

.
.
.
.

Of course Paizo overtook themselves when they thought they could rework the whole 3.5 Edition with their resources.
But nowadays their product is #2 on amazon gaming books and ahead of WotC products. So I think I can expect some WotC level quality in editing coming around the corner...


Set wrote:

It also felt like the mechanics of the abilities were retrofitted to make the *language* seem more appropriate, and, IMO, that's the same sort of thinking that led to someone deciding that all of the core races needed to equal 10 RP in the Advanced Race Guide, and their racial abilities squeezed or expanded to backfit that decision.

Yeh I took one look at the preview and thought it may be cool. Then I saw the Dwarf and compared it to races like Elves or Half Orcs and both should be the same power level (10). Then I looked up how it worked out and hardy was 2 points while being better than the Elf ability just that it had a "dwarf only" tag on it.

And that dragged through the whole book... the point system is so unbalanced that you can easily make really OP races with 10 points...


Beckett wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Sigh I was asked to provide a quote to the official stance. I have done so. JJ even explains why it is like that. The setting as written can not work with god-less clerics, you have no fall of Arodens church, No cheilx civil war, no devil ruled nation, no cleric-less country, no false gods and who knows how many other changes. The whole concept the setting is built upon simply does not work with idea clerics or faith based clerics or god-less clerics which ever name you call them.

I don't see why not. I can think of easy explaniations for all of these which changes nothing about the setting.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Yeah, all good explanations. Each plausible.

That clerics must worship a god, a single god, get their juice from one juice-bar actually goes against so much of the cultural background behind and supporting the concepts on Tian. In Taoism, Shinto, Buddhism and Hinduism, there is not one god that the followers worship, there are whole pantheons of many thousands. There are courts, there are lesser and greater beings, major and minor. Spiritual followers of these traditions do not specialise, because the tradition is larger than that, and does not push in this type of direction. Shinto is not monotheistic, Hinduism is not monotheistic. Take Shinto, which believes in all manner of undead kami, as well as spirits in the trees, in houses, in rivers etc. It believes in a great life source, which does not have an identity and does not demand they submit in such and such fashion (although the authorities within Japan have tried to control and regulate Shinto throughout history).

So what I am getting at, is that adding the new chunk of Tian onto Golarion creates a messy situation especially in regards to faiths, beliefs and clerics needing a god. Because for many Asian cultures, they didn't follow the God of Christianity or the God of Islam, or a single god. Druids are a very useful starting point to understand clerics of no god, because Druids are in service to the power of nature, not one god, not even old fey lords (which they probably respect), but which they don't actually serve by default. They can also have domains from a limited natural list.

I don't have a problem with clerics being attached to the source, instead of the middle men (which the gods are, and like middle mafia men, they feud over territory and resources). The rulebooks don't either, except, as has been said, one author of the Golarion setting. The problem with JJs views (if I understand them correctly) is that he is taking a very monotheistic view of faiths and religion, very Christian and Islamic, but not very Chinese, Indian or Japanese. This makes the new Tian material, and the new gods of Tian, weird and not fit, since indigenous Asian cultures and their people were polytheistic, and not following anything at all like Kurgess, Desna, Lamashtu or Calistria solely. It hasn't in our world been anything like that. There was no follow Christ singularly until it was introduced from outside. Introducing new gods of Tian also doesn't solve the problem because it refuses to see spiritual followers as polytheists and attuned to forces behind deities.

The makers of dnd borrow from our world, but then create a religious situation not anything like our world--with a polytheistic pantheon, but no, you cannot be a polytheistic cleric, or a follower of the actual forces of the universe. Poor poor, mountain mystics, Taoists, Hindus, Shinto followers etc. Dnd can do better and the rules allow for more than just a cleric always being attached to a church of a god/goddess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not going to reply to any one specific person on this, but, as I have posted in other threads where this has come up, this is what the Inner Sea World Guide says on the topic. It does not directly answer every point, but still:

From page 235 of the Inner Sea World Guide:

Quote:


False gods and dead gods cannot grant spells to clerics, but other divine spellcasting classes (such as druids or oracles) who gain their power from other sources, rather than directly from the gods, can serve these forces as champions or cultists.

and from page 236:

Quote:


Clerics who follow a philosophy must select a patron deity among the philosophy’s associated religions (they gain no additional benefits from adherence to a philosophy).


Cool, champions or cultists from other sources.

But then, must select a patron deity. :(

How funny it is when it is not clear. Joy of joys!


The quote says "but other divine spellcasting classes (such as druids or oracles) who gain their power from other sources" It states pretty clear that is any class but a cleric. They must have a god. It is in no way unclear.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The official stance in Golarion is that if you're a cleric, you MUST have a patron deity. That's one of the big things that makes clerics not a different type of spellcaster.

(And yes, I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and fix the Core Rulebook so that it says that there in the Core Rulebook as well.)

You're free to say clerics don't need deities in games you run, just as you're free to say wizards don't need spellbooks or rogues don't need thieves' tools or whatever... but the baseline assumption for our campaign setting is that clerics must worship a deity.


James Jacobs wrote:

The official stance in Golarion is that if you're a cleric, you MUST have a patron deity. That's one of the big things that makes clerics not a different type of spellcaster.

(And yes, I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and fix the Core Rulebook so that it says that there in the Core Rulebook as well.)

You're free to say clerics don't need deities in games you run, just as you're free to say wizards don't need spellbooks or rogues don't need thieves' tools or whatever... but the baseline assumption for our campaign setting is that clerics must worship a deity.

But why? What is the reasoning?

The gods aren't the complete masters of the domains they struggle to control and monopolise (monopoloy: golarion edition). There is sharing, there is cross-use of domains, and it has long been said clerics are not confined to a deity.

"You're free to say clerics don't need deities in games you run, just as you're free to say wizards don't need spellbooks or rogues don't need thieves' tools or whatever... but the baseline assumption for our campaign setting is that clerics must worship a deity."

By talking about wizards and spellbooks you are confusing the setting rules, with the class rules. By the class rules, wizards require spellbooks, and by the class rules, clerics do not require a particular deity, only spiritual inclinations. That is, two domain areas of focus. I could go back to 3.5, but I'll instead use beta as an example of where it has said, even in pathfinder, that clerics do not have to worship gods.

"If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations" p. 22.

That is pretty clear. It even follows through into core, with the adage that it is subject to GM approval. Even in core it is allowed...

In 3.5, the base ruleset from which pathfinder came from, it is also said that clerics were not required to have deities. It is on page 32 (of the book I have).

So I have a question. Why is the creative director against players of the Golarion setting being creative in what forces their clerics worship and use?

Why are you pushing that clerics only work through gods? What is the problem?

Why go with this against the rules when the cultures of which the new Tian material is based on, have not followed singular gods?


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 inf luences 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.

Also having no deity means you have no favored weapon...including spells that enhance your deity's favored weapon...

Shadow Lodge

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
Also having no deity means you have no favored weapon...including spells that enhance your deity's favored weapon...

What spells are those? Do you mean Spiritual Weapon? Because that includes rules for non-deity clerics.


DUDE. YOU AREN'T GETTING IT. IT'S A GOLARION DEFAULT ASSUMPTION. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

Pardon the caps, but, Loyalist, it's not as hard as you're making it. You don't have to agree with it - that's fine! Use your own game rules. But Golarion - like Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk* (but unlike default "Greyhawk-sorta-ish" 3.X and Eberron) - require deities for divine casters. It's a campaign setting thing. Heck, Golarion is actually more light-handed on the requiring deities than FR is (and I'm not knowledgeable in Dragonlance or Greyhawk* to say how heavy-handed those two were beyond the basics).

If you want them to not need deities, that's fine. If you want the to run by the official stance for the campaign setting (not the CORE RAW game, but the setting canon), that's what the setting is. "Even in the Core" isn't an argument. "Core" is the baseline that all things vary from for specifics. Setting-Canon is local to the SETTING, and, as such, is free to vary from "Core". It's that easy, man. It's been that way since 3rd (and before, really). There's nothing wrong with allowing it in your Golarion. In "canon" Golarion (the default assumptions of the setting) it's not that way.

* As far as Greyhawk goes, I know it was not always so, and my Greyhawk-fu is admittedly quite weak. I know that originally in Gygax's games clerics prayed to "the gods", until finally the players demanding more info from Gygax were (half-jokingly) informed that there were at least two: Pholtus, whose fanatical followers didn't believe in other gods; and St. Cuthbert, who brought unbelievers to heal with tender whacks of his famous cudgel. Others were developed thereafter. Congratulations to me, anyone can find that basic info on wikipedia. I'm sure I'll get more corrections later, but from what I understand in the Greyhawk, as-published, a deity was needed for clerics. Prior to 3rd, none of my group used any pre-published campaign settings, though, so I could be a bit off on that. In Dragonlance it's obvious you needed a god: it's a major plot point that divine magic disappeared entirely until the gods came back.


BY THE WAY:

I am not saying that anyone is "wrong" to allow clerics without gods in their local home games. At all. That's fine. Point in fact, home games are where awesomeness happens, even when it's rejected by James. James just happens to be inherently correct about the "Canon" interpretation of Golarion by default since he's the, you know, Creative Director of the whole thing.

To clarify, as far as I can fathom, James is dead set against Desna being what amounts to a "reformed" (i.e. "trained not to make people accidentally insane just through being in the same solar system by Curchanus, her mentor") Great Old One. Until I get something published that makes her story make more sense than that, however, she's totally going to be that in my Golarion. There is nothing wrong with this.

Similarly, in "Canon" Golarion, clerics, the class, by definition, need a deity. NO OTHER DIVINE CLASS DOES. Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Oracles, heck (from what I understand) friggin' Inquisitors don't need a patron (and that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, so feel free to correct me on it, if I'm wrong there, James). Variant bards? Nope! ONLY clerics.

It's kind of like saying that Paladins need to be Lawful Good or serve a Lawful Good. It's part of the presumptions for the class (that too can be changed in canon - in FR, for instance, Sune had several Paladins, all lawful good, despite being chaotic good herself, and in Unearthed Arcana three Paladin variants of different alignments were all introduced).

It seems the problem for most people comes from the fact that CORE RAW says one thing, but Setting Canon says another. I don't see how this is unclear, but really, that's all there is to it: Setting Canon presupposes effective [Publishing] House Rules that cause it to function properly, but you're free to alter those and apply your own, if you like, effectively house-ruling it back to CORE/RAW, if you like. That's fine. But if questions are asked, and James answers, unless he recants, that's the line presumed by the books.

Doesn't mean I always like his answers, though.
Seriously, why is Desna not a Great Old One?!


I get he can make a design call, but it makes even less sense, with the new Tian material for Golarion coming from Asian civilisations, cultures and religions.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
I get he can make a design call, but it makes even less sense, with the new Tian material for Golarion coming from Asian civilisations, cultures and religions.

This has nothing at all to do with it. Not a single thing. The inner sea does not work as written if concept clerics are allowed. The cleric is the only divine class that must have a god, nothing stops you from making god0less druids, inquisitors, paladins or Oracles.

Tian is built upon the same idea's as the rest of the world. That idea being you need a god to be a cleric. Not a priest, but the cleric class.


Tian is built on the ideas of Asian cultures and religions, which don't have the same view of clerics being faithful to one god, and punished if they think or act differently. Normally in the rules and previous editions, it was all fine, go deityless if you want, be a cleric of water and healing etc. If James wants to go against this, I would like to hear some good reasons.

That Golarion doesn't work with deityless clerics is false. As explained earlier.


No it is not false. As also explained those "Fixes" do not work. They only work if you ignore things. They make a false world, one unlike golarion that is not built upon case and effect. You can not have the world as written. It simply forces to much reworking of history.

Asian culture also did not have the pathfinder style cleric now did they. You can build a priest in the Asian style, you simply may not have the cleric class. which is not Asian anyhow.

Tian has nothing to do with the cleric, which is a class built around being the faithful servant to a god. Tain was crafted using the same assumptions that the rest of the world uses.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How do they not work. Nothing at all is ignored, you just don't like it. Because it makes deities less important? It doesn't even do that, and certainly no more than Druids or Paladins not requiring a deity does. Especially when you yourself say that most priests shouldn't even be Clerics.

He is also right about the Cleric vs Tien. Less the Cleric but rather that the game is based off of more western fantasy standards. Shoving an eastern portion in without changing that standard does a massive diservice to both the eastern and to Pathfinder in general. I would say Druids become the greatest problem, as that class is purely western, and as much a problem as the Monk is in most western games, despite that we have accepted it and grown used to it since 3.0, more or less. Paladin, Cleric, and possibly Ranger are also somewhat difficult classes for this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Similarly, in "Canon" Golarion, clerics, the class, by definition, need a deity. NO OTHER DIVINE CLASS DOES. Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Oracles, heck (from what I understand) friggin' Inquisitors don't need a patron (and that doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, so feel free to correct me on it, if I'm wrong there, James). Variant bards? Nope! ONLY clerics.

I suspect that in many cases the designers took the assumption that people would make the implied ties. I.E. an Inquisitor doesn't make sense unless he's policing the dogma of an established church, which would imply a tie to a diety. Perhaps it was felt that they did not need use up page space budget to write in something that was felt to be obvious. Similarly Paladins are inherent zealots in belief. Presumably they are anointed by a diety they serve with such zealotry. It's also a much more narrow range considering what they are. (You're not likely to find Paladins in service to Boccob The Uncaring after all)

Oracles are a special case. You don't sign up to be one... you're not required to honor a diety to receive it's powers, it's a gift and curse inflicted upon you without your consent by a diety or group of dieties that back a particular mystery.


Beckett wrote:

How do they not work. Nothing at all is ignored, you just don't like it.n you yourself say that most priests shouldn't even be Clerics.

No, your solution only works if everything stays the same. The only way it stays the same is if concept clerics do not work. In a world where they work god or concept makes zero difference. You can't have a church fail in such a world because the god dies. Because you have allowed clerics of ideas and concepts then the idea of the god is now the god. It does not matter that he is no longer there as faith alone powers concepts.

So its very simple. Are concept clerics allowed? If yes then why did his clerics loose power? Simple. They won't not all, not most as they had massive faith to start with. If a concept is ok, then the concept of a god is ok( Look at Eberron).

You say no for arbitrary reason. Is it a concept yes or no. There is no yes, but. Yes or no. Concepts are ok or they are not.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The inner sea does not work as written if concept clerics are allowed.

Actually, that isn't really true any longer assuming that it ever was.

In Rahadoum, if a cleric could be a cleric of a concept, it wouldn't matter in the slightest, because the Rahadoumi already reject divine spellcasters who *don't* revere a god, such as Druids, Adepts, Rangers and Oracles. A 'philosophy' Cleric would get booted (or lynched) as fast as a Cleric of Sarenrae or Norgorber or an Oracle of Life or a Ranger of 'the natural world' or an Adept of This Shiny Rock That Wants To Be My Friend. So, really, nothing about concept clerics would change Rahadoum *one bit.*

In Razmiran, there's a feat that makes it easier for people to use divine magic items, there's a bard archetype that makes it easier to use certain healing magics, there's a sorcerer archetype that does the same, there's actual clerics of an actual god (Sivanah) sneaking around behind the scenes pumping out items to support the nation (for her own amusement, for all we know), and there has *always* been the option of Bards, Druids, Rangers, Adepts, and, now, Oracles and Alchemists, providing healing options and 'priestly services.' Razmiran *also* having 'concept clerics' would be just another candy in an already well-stocked dish compared to the options already opened up for them, and, so, it would, again, in the final analysis, change *almost nothing* about the nation of Razmir, if clerics of 'Razmir' existed. He'd still be what he is, and it would just be *harder to prove it.*

Even if it *used* to be the case that justifying the set up in Razmiran or Rahadoum would literally take two minutes to explain if 'philosophy clerics' existed, it's not even the case any longer, because there are so many options available to replace them in Razmiran, and because Rahadoum (regardless of the flavor text) has been 'canonically' redefined to not care about god-worshippers *at all,* just whether your spells are divine or arcane.

It was a flimsy excuse, back then. It's completely shredded and lying on the floor now.

There doesn't need to be an excuse. It is what it is. In Golarion, clerics need a god. Rationalizations that just fall down under the most passing of glances only obfuscate the fact of the matter.

Barbarians have d12's for HD. Wizards cast arcane spells. And, in Golarion (and the Realms), Clerics need gods.

If anyone wants to change that, the Inner Sea Region isn't going to fly apart at the seams, because it was built better than that.


LazarX wrote:

I suspect that in many cases the designers took the assumption that people would make the implied ties. I.E. an Inquisitor doesn't make sense unless he's policing the dogma of an established church, which would imply a tie to a diety. Perhaps it was felt that they did not need use up page space budget to write in something that was felt to be obvious. Similarly Paladins are inherent zealots in belief. Presumably they are anointed by a diety they serve with such zealotry. It's also a much more narrow range considering what they are. (You're not likely to find Paladins in service to Boccob The Uncaring after all)

Oracles are a special case. You don't sign up to be one... you're not required to honor a diety to receive it's powers, it's a gift and curse inflicted upon you without your consent by a diety or group of dieties that back a particular mystery.

What they felt when publishing the class is irrelevant. I'm talking about Golarion where it's been stated that the only class that needs a patron is the Cleric class. You seem to think that I dislike something about the game: not at all. I might disagree with something, or find things a little off, or have my own preferences, but I'm totally fine with whatever they want to put on their product and then houseruling it whichever way in my home game.

Specifically, I'm responding to this idea:

James Jacobs wrote:

Of all the classes in Golarion... only clerics MUST have a patron deity, since only clerics get their spells from a patron deity.

Other divine spellcasters CAN have patron deities, and in some cases (inquisitors and paladins) they USUALLY have patron deities, but that's not always the case.

I'm not sure where and when I said all paladins need deities, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't and that's a misquote.

Ergo, it's not so much, "Why didn't they put that in the books?", as it's, "Uh, there seems to be some dissonance from the title/theme/feel/description of a class and its presentation in Golarion canon". That said: he's still inherently right about Golarion canon. That's just how it goes when you're James Jacobs.

Also, the fact that the setting doesn't function well as-described without clerics requiring a specific patron has been clarified more than once here. Mostly this is just an argument in circles, I think.

EDIT: though Set makes a good point, too. I do think it makes more sense given the historical idea rather than the present incarnation, though. :)


Set wrote:


Actually, that isn't really true any longer assuming that it ever was.

Again I disagree. Rahadoum would not have ended as it did. sure it has that stance on the divine now, but what if the concept of man not needing a god, the very thing that made it what it was today had clerics? They would not have banned all religion or maybe they would but that would have to had been a factor.

Also the main issue is Aroden and his death and the effect that has had. If you had concept clerics the impact would not have been as large. thre are still have people with unyielding faith in a dead god. The very concept of Aroden is powerful and drives many peoples faith. His own clerics many just refused to except his death and stayed faithful to the day they died.

With concept clerics that goes down very, very different.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:


So its very simple. Are concept clerics allowed? If yes then why did his clerics loose power? Simple. They won't not all, not most as they had massive faith to start with. If a concept is ok, then the concept of a god is ok( Look at Eberron).

You say no for arbitrary reason. Is it a concept yes or no. There is no yes, but. Yes or no. Concepts are ok or they are not.

Not really, no. You can have both easily. It is the individuals faith, their devotion to _____, their understanding of the mysterious of their religion, and spiritual wisdom. One Cleric can worship a deity, and the next can be a servant of "the Light". So Aroden dies. Boom, gone. Clerics of Aroden world wide suddenly discover they can never again replenish their powers. The spiritual connection to their source was severed. They can either find a new deity, remain powerless, or go through a paradigm shift and relearn all the mysteries and spiritual wisdom they thought they understood. Unfortunately, this isn't something they can jst do on a moments notice, and certainly not when the mood hits them.

Now that Cleric of the Light over there was unaffected by Aroden's death. But his dad cuts off his hand and then says if he joins him, they can rule the <golarion> together as father and son. Cleric of the Light doesn't tear up and cry over every little thing like his father did at his age, but instead calls on the dark to smite that dark guy. Dark guy dies, and ex-Cleric of the Light has a problem. His <that would be trademark infringment, this is a psionic spearblade> doesn't work any more, and he no longer channels the light. Now ex-Cleric of the Light is in the exact same place as the Ex-Cleric of Aroden.

If one is a Cleric of Aroden, then one is not also a Cleric of the Light, and if one is a Cleric of the Light, they are not a Cleric of Aroden any more than a Cleric of Asmodeus is a Cleric of Aroden. They might have some superficial similarities, but they are not compatible beyond that.

So, again, having "concept" clerics in no way changes anything about Golarion, and is often what a lot of people <most?> assume, which doesn't cause issues beyond the things that don't really work on their own.


Ok then why did Arodens church fall apart? They had faith so they are still full clerics.

You are being arbitrary. They are now simply concept clerics which is allowed. No change .

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Also the main issue is Aroden and his death and the effect that has had. If you had concept clerics the impact would not have been as large. thre are still have people with unyielding faith in a dead god. The very concept of Aroden is powerful and drives many peoples faith. His own clerics many just refused to except his death and stayed faithful to the day they died.

With concept clerics that goes down very, very different.

You are confussing the factual information we have as a reader with the unknown mystery of what is happening in the game. No one, in Golarion, except possibly Parasma knows Aroden is dead and gone. Everyone else realizes he is gone, but not why/how/when(ish)/what happened. They do know about the same time that his faithful woke up and didn't feel their deities presence and could no longer prepair spells the next morning that there was a huge mystical backlash that changed "prophecy" and altered destiny, and all kinds of crazy things happened around the world at the same time as Aroden didn't answer the phone. I guess deities are pretty important in Golarion after all, regardless of clerics.

As for those still faithful Clerics of Aroden (who do not have power), you are answering your own question. They are still faithful to Aroden, and did not convert, either to another deity or to another religion, which is the exact same step away from their faith. Powerless Cleric of Aroden knows (and by that I mean absolutely believes and has a strong faith) that Aroden is missing or that this is all a test. So, if the Divine powers come from the Cleric's faith, he has faith that he doesn't have powers. If it comes directly from the deity, he's not even checking the answering maching. "When" Aroden does come back, that Cleric will get all his powers back.


Aroden is dead. So Aroden is now a concept. The Concept is there. You are disallowing a concept for the simple reason of keeping everything the same.

It does not matter if they feel him now. They KNOW he is there. They have faith in him and so they have faith in the concept of him. They are now faith clerics with the concept of Aroden.

You can't have it both ways. You have concept clerics or you do not. Which is it?

Shadow Lodge

Ok, I misundertood what you meant. Still not a problem. You have false "concept" Clerics of Aroden, (when the rest of the world knows they are 100% delusional, mind you) running from Imodae's crusaders for their lives (and Pharasma's faithful probably don't like the insult that implies about their goddess either come to think of it), and true Ex-Clerics of Aroden. I'm starting to like Golarion a bit. Honestly, thanks, that's a really cool idea.

But, unlike Raz false-priests, these "concept" Clerics of Aroden the late are not a brainwashed cult <probably> whose "faith" is based off of Enchantment and mind-control/influence.


No. You have a Concept. It matters not if it is false good, bad or what. The faith powers the class. His church simply Knows he is now silent but still there.

If you have concepts clerics then him being dead is not a big deal. He does not talk to his clerics but they still have power as they still have faith in him and what he stood for.

So you would need to rework the last 100 years big time.

Shadow Lodge

I'm not seeing why either "him being dead is not a big deal" [see above] or "would need to rewrite the last 100 years big time", [again, why?]

Having concept clerics doesn't mean all clerics are concept Clerics. To be honest, "concept Clerics" fall under the ordained over the internet spagetti monster Cleric. More along the Indiana Jones is a Cleric of "it belongs in a musuem" and I'll die to make sure it does Cleric of knowldege and Museum-stuff. Secondly, as everyone in the world actually knows that the deities are real, (even in Eberron, it is almost universally accepted that they exist, at least some of them), "concept" Clerics are the minority.

Faith also isn't so much a choice one decides to have and be absolutely devoted to. There is choice there, but it's not like deciding what set of cloths one will wear tomorrow. You seem to be stuck looking at this from an outside the game only perspective rather than what an actual person in that world might actually think or believe.

And I am still totally stealing that concept Cleric of Aroden idea, even after all that. Just too good not to.


Sigh if a concept can power a cleric then "Aroden" is indeed a concept. His most faithful will not lose anything. His faith would not really fall at all. Sure other people say he is dead. Clerics of other gods, ya know the ones who are jealous of him, but the faithful know.

You are making a difference in concepts. It does not matter if he is dead, real or made up. The concept is all that matters. Concept clerics are in the minority in most worlds that have them, because Gods are real, but now the "God" is the concept. Just like Eberron, the "Gods" are concepts no more able to speak or no more real then Aroden.

If concept clerics are allowed god or concept does not matter. Real or made up god does not matter. Made up gods with a larger faith base will have far more clerics then a random concept. A well known and organized concept believed by hundreds of thousand people will have more clerics then one held by a few.

You are putting a distinction in there that only matters in worlds with no concept clerics.


Okay, guys, guys, guys. GUYS. Guys.

Instead of using the same words to mean different things, let me translate what the two of you are saying so you can better facilitate communication. That okay?

Seeker: you are saying 'hey, if clerics of concepts are possible, than all things are possible, so long as they can be conceived of, because that's what a "Concept" is. Ergo, believing in something that is conceived of, no matter what, grants powers under "Concept Cleric".'

Beckett: you are saying, 'See, you can worship an in-game universal Constant/Truth that we'll call a "Concept" OR you can worship an idol - that is a personal, living receptacle of worship, usually termed a "god" - but if you worship an idol and that idol goes away, than you lose the connection to your divine power.'

Me: I'm saying, "Hey, look, there's setting rules that trump general rules, but house rules trump all, take what you want and leave the rest. Thanks. Also, seven pages of this is kind of silly."

EDIT: spelling, once

EDIT 2: I mean, it's almost as bad as the over-use of the word "Level" as an in-game thing. "I cast sixth level spells.", "But you're a seventeenth level character!" "I know! My caster level is only twelve, because I dipped for several levels in a different class." "What?"

EDIT 3: editing my edit 2. :)

301 to 350 of 716 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.