Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 716 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

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."

Thanks TL, I was just about to say that.

I'm with Beckett. Clerics of Aroden are leaving voicemail and getting no reply. If they called another number, maybe they would get an answer.

Shadow Lodge

If you mean an indivisual cleric can't be a "concept" cleric and a deity cleric (at the same time), then yes. It is one or the other. But not only concept clerics or only deity dclerics exist, no they can both exist.

Tacticslion, I was just trying to say that when I say philosophy/concept/ideal/etc. . . I am talking more along the lines of Buddhism, Hinduism, or religions/philosophies that are just as complex as any in game deity's religion, they just either do not have a deity or that having a patron deity is not important whatsoever. I am not talking about someone that decides to have faith in a piece of chalk they find on the sidewalk and expects to pick Domains and get spells. So no, not all things are possible. They are, technically, but it's much more guided by rule of cool and fantasy logic/realism.

Grand Lodge

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

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

What? no appeal to the distaff participants or readers of this thread?


The voicemail only works if Gods are needed. The idea that you can't have a concept about something that is not true is simply at odds with the very Idea of concepts at all. Clerics of Aroden are not praying to him, but the concept of him. Does it matter if that concept is a real being or not?

To me it is very simple. Concepts yes or no?

If yes then why is it not allowed to be the concept of a now dead god who can not disallow it? Why are false gods not a worthy concept but war or nature are? Why is the very idea of a "silent aroden" so undoable but you can worship the idea of humanity or Communities ?

You start to place all kinds of odd restrictions upon something just to make it work the way it does without having to disallow concept clerics .

Shadow Lodge

Yes. But such individuals would be extremely rare. These would be people that know (believe strongly) that Aroden died. Later, they absolutely abandon their old faith in favor of another (on par with accepting another deity who is not closely related with their old faith) and building a new religion from the ground up.

Explain what the concept of Aroden entails? What does the faith practice, preach, quest for, and favor? What restrictions or dislikes do they have? What is forbidden by the faith? Then sure, why not?

Shadow Lodge

If you're praying to Aroden, you're not praying to the concept of Aroden. Clerics gain their power from the strength of their faith. If you suddenly stop receiving power from that faith, how quickly can you establish a new faith? It's not exactly as simple as switching detergent brands after all.


TOZ wrote:
Thanks TL, I was just about to say that.

No prob! I'm a helper! :D

LazarX wrote:
What? no appeal to the distaff participants or readers of this thread?

Sorry. I guess I just felt that was over-reaching... :D

NONETHELESS.

It looks like, based off of Beckett's more recent statement: you need to have a powerful, complex underlying philosophy that unifies. The problem with that as a basis is that Razmir is deity in all but personal status. He's not a god, but he has the religion, the people, the places, the lands, the wealth, and the magic to "prove" it. The Razmiran cultists have a pretty complex and deeply spiritual philosophy about them (that also has many "practical" concerns). This should, in theory, allow them to follow that. HOWEVER: IF you state that WITH a complex philosophy, you...

... a) must have "room" for the divine in said philosophy (whatever "divine" might mean, precisely, is unclear), ...
... b) must not have an "idol" (i.e. no "godhead" figure) and must have large enough number of participants OR have one specific and singular godhead-idol who is actually divine (and probably a greater-than-twentieth-level outsider) but the actual number of participants is then irrelevant...

... it could work with Golarion as-written and Beckett's given description. Some problems with this is that, while it's perfectly fine, you're going to...

... a) start winding up with clerics of Man(kind) in Rahadoom at some point by simple virtue of the fact that they have tremendous indoctrination there, there is no figure, and basically it satisfies every definition of "faith" available, and even if people don't call it "cleric", a being who worships the concept of Man Without Gods is bound to come up (it's kind of the way they're doing things now)...
... b) the above idea is a complicated mechanic: how many is "enough" to make such a philosophy work sans deity, or (alternatively) if not numbers of worshipers or a deity, where does the power come from, as "faith" obviously doesn't suffice (since neither a random piece of chalk nor the concept of "pictures of kittens are cute" will grant spells and believing "they're wrong" hard enough doesn't prevent anything either)
... c) scientifically speaking, other funky things occur, which my toddler completely destroyed my train of thought here, oops.

So yeah. Consider "C" a placeholder until I get my thoughts back. Time to prevent him from ingesting more of that blanket than he currently is...


Sigh no. They would be no more rare then clerics. You can not have it both ways. If "war" is strong enough to have clerics the idea of aroden is just as strong. Even more so as he is silent but underlying philosophy church and large faith is already there.

Concept/God are the same thing. You guys are still trying to have it both ways. Either concepts are enough or they are not. If they are enough then the Concept of Aroden is indeed enough. His faithful may have been confused for just a moment but they have enough faith in the concept to be clerics to start with.

It does not matter if that concept is a god or the idea of a god. Concept alone is enough.

You guys are making up guidelines that do not exist to try and justify something that can not exist without a bunch of arbitrary rules.

Either concept is enough to power a cleric or it is not. Golarion is built upon the idea that it is not.


Seeker, just to let you know, I agree with you in terms of Golarion. Canon's canon after all.

THAT SAID, by redefining terms, I'm also telling people how they can explain it in their own house-rule territory/house ruled Golarion. 'Cause that's what house rules are for.

On a side note, it's really, really strange that the Paizo forums recognize neither "Paizo" nor "Golarion" as a word. Come on, guys. :)


They are free to do as they like in home games. I just do not understand the stance they are taking is all.

To me you have them or you do not.

The idea of you do have concept clerics but, this concept does not count or that concept does not count because well just because. Its the idea you can worship and be the rare cleric of farming with no real faith among the people or idea of worshiping that concept but not worshiping the idea of "Aroden" which is far more wide spread and worshiped and has the clerics already in place is a bit mind boggling for me.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Sigh no. They would be no more rare then clerics. You can not have it both ways. If "war" is strong enough to have clerics the idea of aroden is just as strong. Even more so as he is silent but underlying philosophy church and large faith is already there.

I'm not saying it isn't.

I'm saying no one is.

You can't get 555-5555 by dialing 555-5556.


The god is gone, but the concept is there. So it does not matter if he is real or not you can be a cleric of a concept. Even if that concept mimics a dead god in every way.

The number you are dialing now reaches the concept as the other guy no longer works there. The concept replaced the god.

You can have concept clerics or you can not. One or the other.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

I think I'll include the concept of concept clerics, but not concept clerics. Conceptually, I imagine it's the same thing.


Might want to look how Eberron handled it. All clerics are really concept clerics. Just some concepts are "Gods" and some concepts are "Groups of gods" and some concepts are just "Ideas of abstract concepts.". But eberron also realized that such clerics are not held my Al limits and they can never really fall.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The number you are dialing now reaches the concept as the other guy no longer works there. The concept replaced the god.

No one updated the phone system.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
You can have concept clerics or you can not. One or the other.

False dichotomy.


TOZ wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The number you are dialing now reaches the concept as the other guy no longer works there. The concept replaced the god.

No one updated the phone system.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
You can have concept clerics or you can not. One or the other.
False dichotomy.

No its not. A concept is just that a concept. It does not matter what it is. The god is gone, he can't take call, he can't turn down call he no longer exists at all. The Idea of him however is a real thing, it is a concept.

The one and only reason it could not work is because it makes the setting fail. Concept and gods are the very same thing. They are things you have enough faith in to empower you.

So you have concept cleric for both good and ill or you do not.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
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?

For several reasons: here's the main ones.

1) Because there are several divine caster classes in the game, and of them all, only the cleric requires that you worship a deity. The others do not (although they can function that way). Having at least ONE CLASS in the game that worships deities in order to receive their powers is important, and having that be the oldest and most traditional of those classes is also important, since the gods are VERY IMPORTANT to the campaign setting.

2) Cleric domains are tied very closely to the gods. Other classes get domain access... but it's limited and an "also" power—for clerics, domians are a core fact. Since they're organized by deity, then it's logical that clerics should be organized by deity.

3) World verisimilitude. Golarion is an established setting with traditions, and those traditions include worshipers of each type of deity having traditions. And by "traditions" I mean powers that you expect. When you encounter a wizard, you expect to find a spellbook. When you encounter a paladin, you expect to deal with lawful good. And when you meet (or play) a cleric, most folks expect that cleric to worship a deity. And that includes the type of powers that deity grants.

4) Class distinctions. Clerics are similar to oracles in game play, just as sorcerers are similar to wizards. These classes NEED differences. For the sorcerer/wizard, one such difference is the reliance on a spellbook. For the cleric/oracle, one such difference is the devotion to a deity as opposed to devotion to something else.

5) My preference. As the creative director of the company and of Golarion, I make most of the decisions for what is and isn't part of the setting. It's my responsibility to make sure Golarion is not only the best setting for the game, but the best setting for Paizo for everything—not just the game, but as an intellectual property that can be licensed to video game or comic books or movies or whatever. One of those decisions I've made is that clerics worship deities, and I prefer not to go back on decisions about the world unless I have to. And as it works out, I actually REALLY VALUE the fact that clerics must worship deities.

FINALLY, you mention "confusing the setting rules with the class rules." Nothing's further from the truth. The class rules set in the Core Rulebook are the baselines for those classes... and those baselines change once those rules get into a setting. For Golarion, those baselines change very slightly... but they DO change here and there. And Clerics having to worship a deity is one of those changes.

And you can go back to 3.5 all you want... but Pathfinder is NOT 3.5. There's a lot similarities, but the people who built that game are NOT the ones who built Pathfinder. We have different philosophies than those who designed 3.5 (and 3.0, for that matter, which was ALSO a different team), and using rules elements from other games to try to validate arguments about the rules in Pathfinder is a waste of time.

IN THE END, though, it's your game as much as anyone else's. If you want clerics to be able to not worship deities, that's a fine change for your setting or your version of Golarion—it's not really one that will impact game balance at all. The reasons I list above are baseless and blather for anyone else's iteration of Golarion.

But I'm not talking about anyone else's version of Golarion. I'm talking about the baseline version of it that we have to assume is the common ground between ALL versions of Golarion throughout game groups across the world. We NEED that common ground in order to be able to present a stable, consistent game setting. And one of those constants is the fact that clerics must pick deities.

That's not gonna change for Golarion. If we do another campaign setting, we might do things differently.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Jacobs locuta, causa finita


Seeker, that's why I clarified as I did. You are using the word concept as just that: a concept (by definition).

They are using the word "Concept" as "Spiritual Non-Theistic Philosophy/Idea With <enough followers/other power source (choose one)> To Make It Function" and separate that from a true and living "Godhead" entity.

In which case this argument has become a semantics debate instead of a rules one.

Semantically Seeker is correct. Canon-wise, Seeker is correct.
Conceptually (irony there) given the colloquial expressions that we are using for "Concept" here, the others are "correct" insomuch as they can come up with a valid system to define, for themselves, why it works the way it does. There is a difference in their system between a High Concept with Real Faith behind it (and no meddling false idol of less-than-21-HD to get in the way) and Low Concept (anything other than a High Concept). The former can grant spells, while the latter can't.

See, in their Golarion* (not in canon, mind), the real cause of the complete loss of Aroden's faithful is probably a combination of Asmodeus' meddling, and, sadly and ironically, Iomedae's kindness and love. As in, when Aroden died by whatever killed him and it rocked the planet, suddenly there was (for a brief time) a complete severance from him: he's dead, after all, don't you know, and that caused lots of chaos with all sorts of divine powers (including Pharasma's ability over fate and prophecy). But before the overwhelming power of the faithful could erect a solid-enough "High Concept of Aroden" in his place to start regaining spells (and possibly even raise him from the dead!) Asmodeus kicks his long-term plan to own Cheliax into high gear severing the faith of many while Iomedae (knowing that he died because, you know, she's his main gal) offered to take over where he left off, siphoning up much of the rest of the faith and drying up what little pool of "FAAAAAAAAAITH POWEEEERRRRRRR" there was for the few remaining faithful in Sargava or wherever. That means that he literally died for good/for sure because one person hated him (and his people) and one person loved him (and his people) and they meddled. If they hadn't, he'd probably be effectively there right now, if not there in fact, purely due to faith.

Now, I am totally over-generalizing, as this probably wouldn't apply in all games, even with Concept Clerics (tm). BUT. That's one example of how the idea would work. The ONLY thing lacking to make such a thing function is a Power Source. Great numbers all having faith could be one such Power Source, but it's not necessarily the only way. Pure faith could be a way, though at that point you immediately run into the problem of Clerics of Razmir and so on.

Creating such a Power Source is, in itself, a House Rule, however, so people need to be aware of that going into it.

* This is presupposing that I'm right in understanding the over-all viewpoints as has been displayed to date. I may not be. I'm not infallibleibleible.

EDIT: MEGA-ninja'd by Mr. Jacobs (and our friendly neighborhood Gorbacz).


Tacticslion wrote:

Seeker, that's why I clarified as I did. You are using the word concept as just that: a concept (by definition).

They are using the word "Concept" as "Spiritual Non-Theistic Philosophy/Idea With <enough followers/other power source (choose one)> To Make It Function" and separate that from a true and living "Godhead" entity.

In which case this argument has become a semantics debate instead of a rules one.

Really does not matter. It is the same thing, just a different name for the same thing. Once Aroden is dead he is no longer a "Godhead" However the idea of him is still very much a Spiritual or Philosophy/Idea.

If concepts can grant powers, well that is a concept.

Anyhow, My stance is not gonna change. To me you allow concepts or you do not. They seem to allow only some concepts while banning other concepts that should work, just so the house of cards does not fall. It simply does not make a lick of sense to me at all.

Shadow Lodge

Excellent explanation TL.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Actually... yeah. I lost sight of one of the MOST IMPORTANT reasons why in Golarion clerics must have gods:

Spoiler:

There are several elements in the world of Golarion that assume this. The two big examples:

1) Aroden is dead, and thus can't grant spells to his clerics. Thus, there are no clerics of Aroden anymore.

2) Razmir is a false god, and can't grant spells. Thus, he can't have clerics.

If clerics didn't have to pick deities, then suddenly the world WOULD have clerics of Aroden and Razmir. Not only do I not want that... we've not had that at all for the past 5 or so years, and suddenly changing that would be awkward and annoying.


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.

Why change the CRB if you have the Golarion Books (like Inner Sea World Guide) to do that.

In 3.5 they also gave players that option but in Fâerun that was forbidden. Though I think it was less painful in Fâerun because of the multitude of available gods (which were also pretty flavourful).
For example in Golarion a total of 2 Gods have the Animal Domain. Failastil and Gozreh.
If we turn to the Demon lords we have also 2 that have the Animal Domain( besides having 70% the same domains otherwise... lol). Demons sure love animals! Why not have a good old nature deity... instead we have the CSU God Failastil that contradicts himself every second book we get.

Or we turn to a god that was potrayed in a splatbook with 3 lines of text who also has it ;) (and somehow hasn't made it into the ISWG)

.
.
.

@ James:

This assumption is unlogical. If you don't have a patron deity you must worship a CONCEPT. Neither of the two gods are concepts but one god that died and one that never existed. In Greyhawk you can be a cleric of a concept but if your god dies you get no more spells from him (because he is dead).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pssst. Calling somebody's work "Fail" might result in you not getting really far with your point. And no, it doesn't make you look smart.


Gorbacz wrote:
Pssst. Calling somebody's work "Fail" might result in you not getting really far with your point. And no, it doesn't make you look smart.

So Erastil will come around and bash me for calling him fail?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alienfreak wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Pssst. Calling somebody's work "Fail" might result in you not getting really far with your point. And no, it doesn't make you look smart.
So Erastil will come around and bash me for calling him fail?

No, but the people who created him - James included - might be put off but your condescending. But if you don't get that, I'm probably wasting my time writing this.


Yeah know there are well over 200 being to pick from if you are a cleric right? Take a gander at the wiki

Fast list
Animal domain
Aldinach
Alocer
Angazhan
Baphomet
Barbarica
Camazotz
Erastil
Ghlaunder
Gozreh
Graffiacane
Jezelda
Kalma
Ketephys
Mazmezz
Urazra
Ydersius (deity
Zarongel
Zevgavizeb

Only 3 are not evil but still more then 2 options.


Thanks, TOZ! :)
(I wish I could speak with your eloquence, though... I've just got too many words... :D)

Ah, but his death could have interfered with the flow of divine energy via his Concept in a similar way his death (apparently) interfered with the flow of natural energy (i.e. weather systems) for a few weeks and that was enough time for el diablo (and accidentally Mrs. shiny pants after that) to annul enough <focus on/faith in/worship of> his concept for it to "work correctly" or "come online" or "fully form" or some such. Alternatively (much like the eternal hurricane the Eye of Abednigo) perhaps it caused all that energy to "lock up" some single place in the Maelstrom somewhere, and that locked up swirl of divine power is just aching to get to its worshipers, but can't 'cause his death was too traumatic. Or whatever, really.

Again: you're correct that, in canon that's not how it went down. He died and that's the end of that. The other is just "well, if you want to home brew it..."

EDIT: So, you know, it took me twenty one minutes to post this (more or less). Heh. I thought I got ninja'd before I had a child...

The Exchange

I suppose I could pray to almighty Atheismo...

(Sorry - Futurama reference.)


SeekerShadow's poor logic here is as follows.

"If a concept can grant divinity, any and all concepts can grant divinity."

And that's simply not true. The fact that Golarion doesn't allow for godless clerics has nothing to do with the poor argument that you presented for nearly two years now.

This was done to death on the WotC boards, about a cleric that worshiped himself as a concept, making him his own deity. It isn't about how much faith the cleric has in the concept, but how much power the concept has to offer those who put their faith in it. Just because one allows clerics of Strength and Destruction in their games does not mean they have to allow dead gods to answer prayers, clerics to worship their own awesomeness, or false deities to invest their followers with clerical spellcasting.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

SeekerShadow's poor logic here is as follows.

"If a concept can grant divinity, any and all concepts can grant divinity."

And that's simply not true. The fact that Golarion doesn't allow for godless clerics has nothing to do with the poor argument that you presented for nearly two years now.

Ok why is the concept of "Aroden" any less worthy then Farming? Or the idea of "The laws of man" or any of a dozen other things? You can indeed worship farming as a concept cleric. so why can you not worship another idea? Why can you worship farming or war or darkness, Ideas with no being on the other end granting you the power. Yet not the idea of a god because there is no longer a real being behind the name?

So yes the idea of Aroden is just as valid and able to have clerics as the idea of destruction or war or Farming. There is no god, only a concept in which they have utter faith.In a world where a concept can have clerics all a god really is at its core is simply another concept.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

SeekerShadow's poor logic here is as follows.

"If a concept can grant divinity, any and all concepts can grant divinity."

And that's simply not true. The fact that Golarion doesn't allow for godless clerics has nothing to do with the poor argument that you presented for nearly two years now.

Ok why is the concept of "Aroden" any less worthy then Farming? Or the idea of "The laws of man" or any of a dozen other things? You can indeed worship farming as a concept cleric. so why can you not worship another idea?

I am not talking about the color green or anything, I am talking about a very real, well defined concept. Why can you worship farming or war or darkness yet not the idea of a god?

So yes the idea of Aroden is just as valid and able to have clerics as the idea of destruction or war or Farming. There is no god, only a concept they have utter faith in.

In a world where a concept can have clerics all a god really is at its core is simply another concept.

Someone who answers the question they ask before waiting for an answer probably doesn't actually intend to listen to other answers, but here's the deal.

"Why" Aroden isn't a valid concept is a distraction from the real point, which is that allowing concepts to grant divine power does not equate to allowing all concepts to grant divine power.

Why Aroden is or isn't a valid concept depends on your game setting and personal taste. And the choice one's personal taste makes in that in no way suggests that logic is then beholden to allowing every concept to grant divinity.

"What sort of concepts allow the granting of divinity" is absolutely an in game question to be answered by the DM (or the campaign setting). "None", "These Few" and "All" are all valid answers. You pretended for years on this thread that "None" and "All" were the only ones.


To validate Seeker, however, the question of why Aroden isn't a valid concept (when other non-deity concepts are) is, in fact, the central premise of the OP of this thread.

That said, you are correct that a home game can come up with any number of reasons.

That, too, said, those "any number of reasons" aren't necessarily logical, intuitive, or good... nor necessarily illogical, counter-intuitive, or bad... nor are those two groupings of three descriptive words necessarily all like-concepts (to use an over-used and oft-incorrectly-used word).

To put it more succinctly:

DUDES, ITS A GAME. PLAY HOW YOU WANT. YOU HAVE JJ'S CANON ANSWER, USE IT OR NOT, YOUR OPTION.

Maybe JJ should put a sticky on this topic (but perhaps not this thread?) or something. It'd save lots and lots of time. Or maybe a thread: "Rules in Golarion as they differ from CORE RAW."

Anyone? Anyone? Jacobs? Anyone? Jacobs? Jacobs? Jacobs?

/Ferris Beuller reference


None or all are the only ones really. If you can have a concept strong enough to empower a clerics. The any concept that can gain that kind of faith could do so. Its an all or nothing thing, anything less is all "well because..umm...I umm say so..yeah" Which tends to make for crappy settings. You are place very thin and very arbitrary conditions upon the very idea of concept clerics. You can worship farming but not an idea or faith that millions embrace.

There is nothing at all different between the Concept of Aroden and the Concept of Destruction. Except one has a much, much larger faith and number or worshipers. They both are complex idea with no being behind them granting any power.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alienfreak wrote:
This assumption is unlogical. If you don't have a patron deity you must worship a CONCEPT. Neither of the two gods are concepts but one god that died and one that never existed. In Greyhawk you can be a cleric of a concept but if your god dies you get no more spells from him (because he is dead).

What you describe is more or less exactly what an oracle does. Since oracles work that way, clerics should not.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Pssst. Calling somebody's work "Fail" might result in you not getting really far with your point. And no, it doesn't make you look smart.
So Erastil will come around and bash me for calling him fail?
No, but the people who created him - James included - might be put off but your condescending. But if you don't get that, I'm probably wasting my time writing this.

Don't worry too much... one of the things an industry professional who posts on public forums needs to develop quickly is a thick skin when it comes to insults or the like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Pssst. Calling somebody's work "Fail" might result in you not getting really far with your point. And no, it doesn't make you look smart.
So Erastil will come around and bash me for calling him fail?
No, but the people who created him - James included - might be put off but your condescending. But if you don't get that, I'm probably wasting my time writing this.
Don't worry too much... one of the things an industry professional who posts on public forums needs to develop quickly is a thick skin when it comes to insults or the like.

Oh? Well then you can kiss my...heh. Seriously though, I don't know if it gets said a lot or enough, but I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there for this stuff.

In any case, I don't mind the default assumption that clerics require gods. It mirrors my own, exceptions arise rarely.

I do mind saying (And seeker is guilty of this, not James) that IF you allow deity-less clerics you can have no structure or limits to the allowable sources of divine power. That any idea goes, or that somehow one has to justify not allowing clerics to worship the Holy Sunflower if they allow clerics to worship the Mana Tree.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I demand a Mana Tree religion writeup.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know, right?!
(Oh, sweet Secret of Mana the pen-and-paper, you WILL BE MINE!)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a mighty nice tree.

Just realized that technically my homebrew Golarion city does have a Mana Tree-ish entity that should be getting prayers...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
1) Because there are several divine caster classes in the game, and of them all, only the cleric requires that you worship a deity. The others do not (although they can function that way).

Why not the same requirement for the inquisitor? Isn't his main function to be the (by any means neccessary) enforcer for the church of a diety? as I assume he was inspired by the Van Helsing movie. I'd find the concept of a concept inquisitor even harder to swallow than that of a concept cleric, neither of which I'd allow in a home campaign.


Heh. The Mana Tree features in my Greyhawk/Golarion mishmash campaign world. I just threw it out there though. I wrote up stats for its acorns and stuff made out of its wood, but beyond that, nada. Maybe an epic treant/artifact level power node thing? I dunno, no need to worry about it just yet.


Kain Darkwind wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:

SeekerShadow's poor logic here is as follows.

"If a concept can grant divinity, any and all concepts can grant divinity."

And that's simply not true. The fact that Golarion doesn't allow for godless clerics has nothing to do with the poor argument that you presented for nearly two years now.

Ok why is the concept of "Aroden" any less worthy then Farming? Or the idea of "The laws of man" or any of a dozen other things? You can indeed worship farming as a concept cleric. so why can you not worship another idea?

I am not talking about the color green or anything, I am talking about a very real, well defined concept. Why can you worship farming or war or darkness yet not the idea of a god?

So yes the idea of Aroden is just as valid and able to have clerics as the idea of destruction or war or Farming. There is no god, only a concept they have utter faith in.

In a world where a concept can have clerics all a god really is at its core is simply another concept.

Someone who answers the question they ask before waiting for an answer probably doesn't actually intend to listen to other answers, but here's the deal.

"Why" Aroden isn't a valid concept is a distraction from the real point, which is that allowing concepts to grant divine power does not equate to allowing all concepts to grant divine power.

Why Aroden is or isn't a valid concept depends on your game setting and personal taste. And the choice one's personal taste makes in that in no way suggests that logic is then beholden to allowing every concept to grant divinity.

"What sort of concepts allow the granting of divinity" is absolutely an in game question to be answered by the DM (or the campaign setting). "None", "These Few" and "All" are all valid answers. You pretended for years on this thread that "None" and "All" were the only ones.

Aroden isn't a domain, seeker.

There is talk of concepts, but domains are more useful, since they are the key issue. In all editions from 3-3.5, to beta, even up to core (with the with GM's permission addendum) it has been possible for clerics to be attuned to domains, and not gods. Now you can worship a god/goddess as a cleric, and choose from that god or goddesses domains, but you can also not worship a deity and instead be spiritual tied and invested in two domains.

He tried to present none and all indeed.


James Jacobs wrote:

Actually... yeah. I lost sight of one of the MOST IMPORTANT reasons why in Golarion clerics must have gods:

There are several elements in the world of Golarion that assume this. The two big examples:

1) Aroden is dead, and thus can't grant spells to his clerics. Thus, there are no clerics of Aroden anymore.

2) Razmir is a false god, and can't grant spells. Thus, he can't have clerics.

If clerics didn't have to pick deities, then suddenly the world WOULD have clerics of Aroden and Razmir. Not only do I not want that... we've not had that at all for the past 5 or so years, and suddenly changing that would be awkward and annoying.

Razmir can't grant spells because he has no domains to give. He is an old wizard. A false god is not the same thing as being attuned to domains without a deity.

By the rules of the cleric class from 3.5 to beta to core you could never have a cleric of dead Aroden or Razmir, because they are not domains, have no power over domains and worshipping them does not give access to domains or spells. This only applies to Aroden when of course, he is dead and severed from what he controlled. If you worshipped similar spiritual powers to what he oversaw, you would still not be a cleric of Aroden.

On the editions point, James Jacobs, you can say "you can go back to 3.5 all you want... but Pathfinder is NOT 3.5. There's a lot similarities, but the people who built that game are NOT the ones who built Pathfinder. We have different philosophies than those who designed 3.5 (and 3.0, for that matter, which was ALSO a different team), and using rules elements from other games to try to validate arguments about the rules in Pathfinder is a waste of time".

The wording has actually been copied from 3.5 for the cleric class on domain clerics with no deities. For beta it was so very close to 3.5, for core, it hardly changed at all, except by adding the with Gm's permission. Pathfinder is very much 3.5, with changes, edits and additions, and it is the same on this point on clerics.


James Jacobs wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
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?

For several reasons: here's the main ones.

1) Because there are several divine caster classes in the game, and of them all, only the cleric requires that you worship a deity. The others do not (although they can function that way). Having at least ONE CLASS in the game that worships deities in order to receive their powers is important, and having that be the oldest and most traditional of those classes is also important, since the gods are VERY IMPORTANT to the campaign setting.

2) Cleric domains are tied very closely to the gods. Other classes get domain access... but it's limited and an "also" power—for clerics, domians are a core fact. Since they're organized by deity, then it's logical that clerics should be organized by deity.

3) World verisimilitude. Golarion is an established setting with traditions, and those traditions include worshipers of each type of deity having traditions. And by "traditions" I mean powers that you expect. When you encounter a wizard, you expect to find a spellbook. When you encounter a paladin, you expect to deal with lawful good. And when you meet (or play) a cleric, most folks expect that cleric to worship a deity. And that includes the type of powers that deity grants.

4) Class distinctions. Clerics are similar to oracles in game play, just as sorcerers are similar to wizards. These classes...

Thank you for your reply and the length, it is good to get a response from a high-up.

The Tian question was not addressed though. You talk about world verisimilitude, you talk about traditions, but not all world traditions have the same views of the divine (and we are trying to distill a game system, a game setting and real world religious beliefs all together) as the Christian/Zoroastrian/Jewish/Islamic model of follow the one, "follow the leader" great-god.

Now, I wouldn't really care so much, but then Golarion is having so much of Asian cultures and all that baggage wedded to it. This is happening recently. For the religions and religious ideas of Asia to not follow suit and be allowed seems off. It seems more off, as some have been arguing, because of the cleric class by the rules being able to accommodate clerics of domains, clerics of philosophies, clerics without one god they follow--which is to more enter the area of Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism etc. Which leads to the weird situation, where you can have a samurai, but not a samurai cleric of shinto/zen buddhism. The samurai cleric must follow a god, but the beliefs of Japan were not monotheistic during the period of the samurai, until that is until Europeans and Christianity came.

So to close, not sure the setting of Golarion should try and add a lot of Asian themes and culture, but then say, no, the setting doesn't actually allow clerics of Asian-like cultures. You must choose Kols or Urazra or Zyphus (or any one and single god--awkward Christianity moment), so sorry, you can't be a cleric from actual Asian religions or very similar fantasy-copies.


James Jacobs wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
This assumption is unlogical. If you don't have a patron deity you must worship a CONCEPT. Neither of the two gods are concepts but one god that died and one that never existed. In Greyhawk you can be a cleric of a concept but if your god dies you get no more spells from him (because he is dead).
What you describe is more or less exactly what an oracle does. Since oracles work that way, clerics should not.

Excuse me Mr. Jacobs I'll admit I haven't read the whole topic mostly because I'm a bit exhausted. But the issue as I gleaned it from the posts I did see between the raging and bashing seems to be that the setting book doesn't explicitly state that there cannot be concept clerics right? And that if that is the case then the core rules apply because they aren't explicitly overruled and trying to adjudicate rules based on inference is a failing proposition. If that is in fact the case why not just errata it and be done with it? What I'm trying to say is that it's accepted fact that what is said on a forum or in person or anything of the sort doesn't supersede the rules in the books but that errata and faq's do, so if that's your intent and if you are in fact the head honcho and what not then why not do the thing that would actually stop the arguing.

As an aside for the others in this thread I see a perfectly good reason why even with concept clerics the Order of Aroden couldn't draw divine power, because they don't have the faith for it. They know their god is dead and therefore they know their prayers shouldn't be answered since they know that, they don't believe that they will be answered and so they can't tap into the powers available to a concept cleric. And for the false god guy since they are actively praying to that dude they are actually shutting themselves off from the concept magic because they will only accept the power if it comes from him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Almost 400 posts and I cannot remember if anyone has even quoted the bit from the Cleric entry in the Core Book that is causing all the trouble, so here it is:

Quote:
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)

It seems like people want to forget the final sentence that is in parentheses, which I have put in bold. This sentence, to me and many others, means that Concept-worshiping clerics are an optional rule because they require you to work out the details with your GM, and any rule that requires GM approval or assistance first is not a default, or Core, rule. If this is an optional and not a default rule, any setting material would have to spell out any Concepts a cleric could worship before you could create a Concept-worshiping cleric and still be following canon for the setting. So since there are no rules for Concept worship in any of the Golarion books, and one of the setting's primary designers has said there never will be, then this point is moot by canon. As has been said many times, you can house rule this however you want if you are the GM, or with approval from your GM, but if you want to play in Golarion the way James Jacobs designed it, then you cannot have a Concept-worshiping cleric.

Dark Archive

TOZ wrote:
I'm with Beckett. Clerics of Aroden are leaving voicemail and getting no reply. If they called another number, maybe they would get an answer.

Pretty much. If a GM wanted to allow clerics of philosophies, it would not have changed that the vast, vast majority of Aroden's clergy were, in fact, Clerics of *Aroden,* and their powers would have winked out.

The ones who were most stubborn and denied that he was dead, and that he was testing their faith, would have been the *last* ones to convert to the 'Cleric of Aroden, the Philosophy,' since they would have seen that as abandoning their faith in 'Aroden, the really-real god,' and failing that 'test' instantly.

And every other clergy in the universe who cared to pop off a divination or commune spell on what the heck was up with the suddenly-powerless majority of Arodenites would have been told, 'Yeah, he croaked. Go poach some of his worshippers and see if you can annex one of those fancy temples, would ya?' Iomedae's clergy, as she took on the mantle of Inheritor, would have been actively running around telling *everyone* that Aroden was dead, and even if some faithful Arodenites wanted to believe that she was being all premature and opportunistic, the clergy of Pharasma would have been nodding and saying, 'Yup. Dead as a doornail. Sorry.'

Any Clerics of Philosophy affiliated with Aroden's temple would be hearing from whatever celestials (or fiends) answer their calls when they cast commune or divination that, 'Yeah, he's not answering our calls either...'

It's a tempest in a teapot. With or without clerics of philosophy, everything in the setting, including Rahadoum, Razmiran, and, yet, the death of Aroden, works just fine.

Silver Crusade

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

The Tian question was not addressed though. You talk about world verisimilitude, you talk about traditions, but not all world traditions have the same views of the divine (and we are trying to distill a game system, a game setting and real world religious beliefs all together) as the Christian/Zoroastrian/Jewish/Islamic model of follow the one, "follow the leader" great-god.

Now, I wouldn't really care so much, but then Golarion is having so much of Asian cultures and all that baggage wedded to it. This is happening recently. For the religions and religious ideas of Asia to not follow suit and be allowed seems off. It seems more off, as some have been arguing, because of the cleric class by the rules being able to accommodate clerics of domains, clerics of philosophies, clerics without one god they follow--which is to more enter the area of Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism etc. Which leads to the weird situation, where you can have a samurai, but not a samurai cleric of shinto/zen buddhism. The samurai cleric must follow a god, but the beliefs of Japan were not monotheistic during the period of the samurai, until that is until Europeans and Christianity came.

So to close, not sure the setting of Golarion should try and add a lot of Asian themes and culture, but then say, no, the setting doesn't actually allow clerics of Asian-like cultures. You must choose Kols or Urazra or Zyphus (or any one and single god--awkward Christianity moment), so sorry, you can't be a cleric from actual Asian religions or very similar fantasy-copies.

There's one very important disclaimer in Dragon Empires Gaz - DE's aren't Asia. They're not a copy-pasta of the continent with everything having it's direct equivalent. Therefore, the spiritual system is also different. It's kind of the same as with Inner Sea - you get Qadira without Islam.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Aroden isn't a domain, seeker.
There is talk of concepts, but domains are more useful, since they are the key issue. In all editions from 3-3.5, to beta, even up to core (with the with GM's permission addendum) it has been possible for clerics to be attuned to domains, and not gods. Now you can worship a god/goddess as a cleric, and choose from that god or goddesses domains, but you can also not worship a deity and instead be spiritual tied and invested in two domains.

He tried to present none and all indeed.

You do not worship "Domains" You worship a "divine concept worthy of devotion". The very Idea of Aroden is a divine concept. Razmir is a divine concept, the laws of man is also a divine concept. Anything worshiped is a "Divine concept" Bill the farmer would not be, but bill the farmer who saved the village and became the pardon saint of luck after his death would.

If you want to go all core rule book the only requirement for a Concept cleric is that his "Concept" be worthy of devotion . So yes anything can be "Worthy" Aroden is worthy as is Razmir, he has a church. The Concept does not grant the domains, the devotion to that concept does.

You are placing nonsense restrictions where none exist.

351 to 400 of 716 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.