Cleric of Aroden Vs Cleric of No-one


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 716 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

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.

Hey now, don't go trying to confuse the issue with facts...


Linflass wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

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.
Hey now, don't go trying to confuse the issue with facts...

I got something a bit different in my version of core.

"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)." p. 40.

Golarion in the time of beta (in the long-long ago) didn't even have the requires "gm approval". It had "If your cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still elect two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations" p. 22. Neither did 3.5, which beta follows closely.

That clerics are also required to worship a single god is also countered by other Golarion setting sources. There is the allowing of Elven clerics to worship multiple elven gods and draw their spells from multiple elven gods in Elves of Golarion. There is also the godclaw hellknights and their clerics which worship not one single god, but five lawful deities as a combined pantheon (What lies in dust, p. 62), with a focus on "might", "law" and "the legitimacy of their faith". Their leader is even listed as part-cleric. They are not followers of a single god, they care more for belief in law. Oddly, they have five domains, not two (p. 62).

So the rules on deities, even in the Golarion setting and outside the rule books, are fractured. James says a cleric must be tied to one, for elves and godclaw clerics, a cleric can connect to multiple (elves, godclaw hellknights) or draw power more from a philosophy of discipline than a single god (the godclaw hellknights).

Shazam! is the cleaning spray I used today.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

eh no. 3.5 setting sources are over ruled by the current setting book. Which forbids it.

The God claw must pick a god, same with the elevn clerics.From time to time an oversight happens and someone sneaks something though( In at lest one case one guy said he snuck something past on purpose). They put out hundreds of pages of setting every year, mistakes happen.It is always ruled an error or oversight once found. Every time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

So the answer to the matter is that philosophies can grant spells but can't.

Oracles obviously get divine spells (the same ones that clerics get) granted by a philosophy but its impossible for Clerics to pray to an philosophy because gods are personally present in Golarion (like in Fâerun) and thus it is impossible for an philosophy to grant spells.

Sounds alot like: All undead are purely evil, an abomination to everything living, but Ghosts can be neutral Good and have to haunt in their form until every last abducted (on the planet) child has been returned to its parents.
Or we are Juju Zombies who are Undead but also not evil. Because.... they are not.

.
.

What is the difference between Clerics having a cult of Aroden (name?) and casting fluffy divine cleric spells in his name or Oracles having a cult of Aroden (name?) and casting fluffy divine cleric spells in his name?
You might say there is no difference between those two and they are indistinguishable for everyone who uses spellcraft on a casting character of Aroden... (oh one has no channel energy...)

So why is the first highly impossible in Golarion while the second one is day to day business?


Eh Oracles do not choose to be so. something picks them, they have zero say in the matter. They may worship Aroden, but the idea of him is not what granted the power. what ever controls his mystery picked him.

That simple.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The same as why there is Fireball, but there's no Frostball or Acidball: because somebody said so.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Eh Oracles do not choose to be so. something picks them, they have zero say in the matter. They may worship Aroden, but the idea of him is not what granted the power. what ever controls his mystery picked him.

That simple.

Quote:
Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals.

So my Oracle has a philosophy (his ideals) and get spells granted in that way.

If my Oracle now has the ideals of the cult of Aroden (name?) he gets spells granted for that ideals.

So it is perfectly fine for one to get spells from philosophies (or patron deities that are close to the ideals and thus support him) but for the other its a total dealbreaker?

.
.

So we are still at the point where it is completely unreasonable to say that there are no cleric spelllist spellcasters in the name of Aroden, unlike what has been suggested by JJ as the prime example why it can't be possible because it would break the setting.
So we just broke the setting.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually Oracle spells are generally granted by a Deity they are just a lot less hands on about it


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The same as why there is Fireball, but there's no Frostball or Acidball: because somebody said so.

Which is still a major point of annoyance for many people on the boards.

They just copied the basic D&D Vanciant Spellcasting System into their new system without giving it any love even as WotC obviously was working at alternatives for it...


Alienfreak wrote:


So my Oracle has a philosophy (his ideals) and get spells granted in that way.
If my Oracle now has the ideals of the cult of Aroden (name?) he gets spells granted for that ideals.

So it is perfectly fine for one to get spells from philosophies (or patron deities that are close to the ideals and thus support him) but for the other its a total dealbreaker?

His mystery is granted by a group of god. No matter what "He thinks" If you look at the mystery it tells you which gods normally gant it. Or which gods servants anyhow. So which one does he have?

Just because you believe in aroden, doesn't mean he is the one granting the power.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:


So my Oracle has a philosophy (his ideals) and get spells granted in that way.
If my Oracle now has the ideals of the cult of Aroden (name?) he gets spells granted for that ideals.

So it is perfectly fine for one to get spells from philosophies (or patron deities that are close to the ideals and thus support him) but for the other its a total dealbreaker?

His mystery is granted by a group of god. No matter what "He thinks" If you look at the mystery it tells you which gods normally gant it. Or which gods servants anyhow.

Just because you believe in aroden, doesn't men he is the one granting the power.

So what is the difference between a cleric praying to the ideals of Aroden and getting his spells from somewhere and the oracle praying to the ideals of Aroden and getting their spells from somewhere?

Both result in no real deity Aroden but the last already results in Aroden having legit divine caster followers.


Aroden is a dead god. The setting does not have concept clerics. The power is coming from somewhere. Aroden is gone and hos no power to grant, the oracles are picked for reasons only a group of Gods know.The same goes with a Druid and an inquisitor. Something grants them power, but no one really knows what. But the cleric is granted power by a known being.

A cleric however is a servant of a single god. He is something granted power by that god. False gods, concepts or dead gods can not grant power. So a cleric of aroden has nothing.

I mean why can't a fighter who worships a god cast spells? Oh yes because he is not a cleric. Just because you worship something does not mean you are a cleric.


Ok to make this more clear.

The oracle can pray or not pray. It makes zero diffidence. He does not pray for spells, he knows spells. He does not choose to be what he is. He does not get to stop, to choose to "leave the faith" and never be an oracle. His faith or lack of faith has nothing at all to do with his power.He is a tool, something choose by a group of gods or something for reasons he will never know or understand. he can hate them, love them, choose to disbelieve they are real it matters not.

An Oracle is not a cleric, just as a ranger is not a cleric. The only thing they have in common is they cast divine spells.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pssst, Oracles are the class for "godless Cleric" fans.

Just like Sorcerers are the class for "magic doesn't come from study, it's in my blood" people and Witches are the class for "why can't I cast both heal and black testicles, the arcane/divine divide makes no sense!" people.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok to make this more clear.

The oracle can pray or not pray. It makes zero diffidence. He does not pray for spells, he knows spells. He does not choose to be what he is. He does not get to stop, to choose to "leave the faith" and never be an oracle. His faith or lack of faith has nothing at all to do with his power.He is a tool, something choose by a group of gods or something for reasons he will never know or understand. he can hate them, love them, choose to disbelieve they are real it matters not.

An Oracle is not a cleric, just as a ranger is not a cleric. The only thing they have in common is they cast divine spells.

An Oracle can be LG and admire knightly behavior and then shift its alignment to CE and admire slaughter and plunder.

Its hard to believe that "you can't leave the faith".


You can't. There are no Al requirement. You can not "switch" mysteries, can not change curses and can't take the same class twice. Once you are an oracle you are one for life. what you believe or how you act has zero baring on your mysteries, powers, spell you know or your curse.

There is no such thing as an Ex- oracle. Unlike a cleric.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

You can't. There is no Al requirement. You can not "switch" mysteries, can not change curses and can't take the same class twice. Once you are an oracle you are one for life. what you believe or how you act has zero baring on your mysteries, powers, spell you know or cruse.

There is no such thing as an Ex- oracle. Unlike a cleric.

So my LG battle Oracle who admires Knightlyness can't go and admire Slauger, Rape and Plunder and become CE? I would count that as a serious change of faith :P. And most probably the sources of his spells change, but what does the Oracle care? The Oracle owes to noone and does never have to worry where its spells come from. Oracles do not have alignment restrictions, have no opposed alignment type restrictions and no codex to follow. I doubt that counts as "faith".

Its just like there are no Ex Sorcerers. Being a sorcerer comes with no obligations and thus you are not inside anything you could possibly leave so you are not stuck inside anything.


Faith has nothing to do with it. Unlike a cleric. You will always be what ever type of oracle you are. You can't "leave the faith" what ever you happen to believe. a cleric who does what you talk about stops being a cleric or switches gods. An Oracle does not.

Faith has nothing to do with the oracle. Not a single thing, you can be a freaking atheist and be picked to be an oracle( Hello Iconic). You will always be the same. If you pick healing, and then become CE murder..guess what you still are an oracle of the healing mystery. Prob only a few levels but still that is what you are.

You are not a cleric. It does not work the same way.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Faith has nothing to do with it. Unlike a cleric. You will always be what ever type of oracle you are. You can't "leave the faith" what ever you happen to believe. a cleric who does what you talk about stops being a cleric or switches gods. An Oracle does not.

Faith has nothing to do with the oracle. Not a single thing, you can be a freaking atheist and be picked to be an oracle( Hello Iconic). You will always be the same. If you pick healing, and then become CE murder..guess what you still are an oracle of the healing mystery. Prob only a few levels but still that is what you are.

You are not a cleric. It does not work the same way.

So a Fighter with Heavy Blades as Weapon Group and his weapon focus set on his Greatsword will never be a Fighter with whatever als Weapon Group and his focus on whatever no matter whether he believes in Erastil or Asmodeus?

This makes our Fighter really sad that he can't leave his "faith". Clerics are really lucky that they can be Ex Clerics if they choose to be!

.
.
.

So we are still left at the point where the fluff of the fake god who is the product of some Tricksters to seem to be more than they are destroyed and now every Oracle can start his own very real cult of god X.
Just like in Greyhawk where every cleric can choose his ideology himself and then can create a cult around it.

I still fail to see the difference between those two.
And the less it makes it COMMON SENSE that clerics have to choose a patron deity if there are obviously ways to get spells granted without having to follow a god or force (like nature) and here is where the circle closes....
Now since there is not a single reference about clerics having to choose a god in Golarion it fails to strike me that it is OFFICIAL and CANON.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Looks like somebody is new to arguing with Seeker. But this time, I don't mind. Go wighty boy, go!


Man its in the new setting book. It is both Official and canon. Page numbers are on the last page of this thread. The Man in charge of the setting has told you twice now.Nothing else I or anyone else can say will matter if you can't understand that, will not take the word of the person in charge of the setting.

No one is gonna make you stop doing it at home, but stop acting like it isn't official for the setting.

Also cleric and Oracle are not the same class.They are nothing a like at all. You can run it how you like, but as written they are not powered by faith or pray at all.

From The inner sea world guide pages 235 and 236

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.

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).


Maybe I just don't see them but I scrolled through the last page and found no page references for RAW on that

Quote:
A cleric's deity influences her alignment, what magic she can perform, her values, and how others see her. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to her deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if her alignment matches that domain. If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval).

The text you just quoted is refering to the 4 (?) philosophies which are shared by some gods to clarify how they work and not godless clerics.


They can't worship dead or false gods and philosophies must have a pardon god. That is pretty damned clear. Concepts are philosophies man. Just a different name for the same thing. The godclaw, is a concept and a Philosophy as are the green way and all the others. By the book you need a god.

You have page numbers, where it says you need a god and a statement from the man in charge. Nothing more is needed.

Edit: yes I know the Godclaw says you can in the Ap. That was ruled an Error. many things from that Ap have been.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

They can't worship dead or false gods and philosophies must have a pardon god. That is pretty damned clear. Concepts are philosophies man. Just a different name for the same thing. The godclaw, is a concept and a Philosophy as are the green way and all the others. By the book you need a god.

You have page numbers, where it says you need a god and a statement from the man in charge. Nothing more is needed.

Edit: yes I know the Godclaw says you can in the Ap. That was ruled an Error. many things from that Ap have been.

A God has a physical body and is an sentient entity.

A concept is a concept.

Hence a false God is no concept. Only a concept could be advertised as a God.
Calling a Cat 'Dog' won't make it one.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
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.

The inquisitor is meant to be an enforcer for a religion... and not all religions are dedicated to deities. MOST of them are, and thus most inquisitors worship deities...but there can also be inquisitors of Diabolism, of the Green Faith, of the Whispering Way, or entire pantheons.


Alienfreak wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

They can't worship dead or false gods and philosophies must have a pardon god. That is pretty damned clear. Concepts are philosophies man. Just a different name for the same thing. The godclaw, is a concept and a Philosophy as are the green way and all the others. By the book you need a god.

You have page numbers, where it says you need a god and a statement from the man in charge. Nothing more is needed.

Edit: yes I know the Godclaw says you can in the Ap. That was ruled an Error. many things from that Ap have been.

A God has a physical body and is an sentient entity.

A concept is a concept.

Hence a false God is no concept. Only a concept could be advertised as a God.
Calling a Cat 'Dog' won't make it one.

A false god is pure concept. As much as "nature" or Farming or war. It is no god but is a concept just as a philosophy exists only as a concept.

Trying to muddy it up so you can claim something that has been made clear is untrue is just dishonest.

Shadow Lodge

Basically what you're saying, seeker, is that that a god is a concept, so there is no such thing as a campaign that has no concept clerics, just ones that have no restrictions, and ones that restrict choice to an approved list.


TOZ wrote:
Basically what you're saying, seeker, is that that a god is a concept, so there is no such thing as a campaign that has no concept clerics, just ones that have no restrictions, and ones that restrict choice to an approved list.

What I am saying is, in such a setting what is the diffidence between a god and a concept? 3.5 nothing, in pathfinder..a free weapon.

You say concepts are allowed. The a false god is as much a concept as anything else. By saying it can never have a clerics even with a million worshipers and mass temples, yet the "concept" of the very same thing but lets call it the 'Path of enlightenment" with the same teaching is ok? Once you make the call that faith alone is enough you can't put brakes on it as it makes not a damned bit of sense. If you place restrictions they need to be across the board and universal. If you do not allow false gods then clerics of the path of enlightenment are also not doable. As only a name given by the Gm is any different at all.

If you have both you simply do not need god. You only need faith and devotion. Even if a god cuts you off you can still be a cleric of that god, if the idea is enough. True his church will brand you a heretic but still you are still a cleric.

Shadow Lodge

I'm saying you have to be in the right mindset to receive the power. Praying to Aroden is different from praying to the idea of Aroden, even if only in a very small way. But that small difference is enough to make the prayer 'miss the mark'. (Thinking about the difference a centimeter makes in a trajectory when you get 500 meters out.)

It's similar to addressing a letter to me with 'Stephen' rather than 'Steven'. It's close, but still different.


I disagree. All a god is is an Idea given form when you get down to it. You have faith in a thing, a devotion to it. It really does not matter if it is the god himself or the idea of him because really its the same thing with a different name.

You still are praying to the same thing. Except now its pure devotion the the idea that was shim and not the god giving you power. The faith goes to the same place. What powers it is the only change.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Alienfreak wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

They can't worship dead or false gods and philosophies must have a pardon god. That is pretty damned clear. Concepts are philosophies man. Just a different name for the same thing. The godclaw, is a concept and a Philosophy as are the green way and all the others. By the book you need a god.

You have page numbers, where it says you need a god and a statement from the man in charge. Nothing more is needed.

Edit: yes I know the Godclaw says you can in the Ap. That was ruled an Error. many things from that Ap have been.

A God has a physical body and is an sentient entity.

A concept is a concept.

Hence a false God is no concept. Only a concept could be advertised as a God.
Calling a Cat 'Dog' won't make it one.

A false god is pure concept. As much as "nature" or Farming or war. It is no god but is a concept just as a philosophy exists only as a concept.

Trying to muddy it up so you can claim something that has been made clear is untrue is just dishonest.

There is a major difference between praying to Blubber the God of Beast Slaying and believing in the concept of Beast Slaying as being divine.

In the first case you pray to an sentient entity that simply does not exist and thus can't do anything for you. In the second case you pray to no entity at all.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I disagree. All a god is is an Idea given form when you get down to it. You have faith in a thing, a devotion to it. It really does not matter if it is the god himself or the idea of him because really its the same thing with a different name.

You still are praying to the same thing. Except now its pure devotion the the idea that was shim and not the god giving you power. The faith goes to the same place. What powers it is the only change.

It is still a major difference praying to a specific deity that is given attributes like being grateous to the ones that bring flowers to an altar and praying to concepts...

You are going down the road saying that monotheistic religions like christians and buddhists are exactly the same when it comes down to their prayers. That is plain wrong.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I disagree. All a god is is an Idea given form when you get down to it. You have faith in a thing, a devotion to it. It really does not matter if it is the god himself or the idea of him because really its the same thing with a different name.

And so, a god is a concept. The question is how many concepts does the setting allow to be worshipped.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
You still are praying to the same thing. Except now its pure devotion the the idea that was shim and not the god giving you power. The faith goes to the same place. What powers it is the only change.

That's one way to say it works. Mine is another.


TOZ wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I disagree. All a god is is an Idea given form when you get down to it. You have faith in a thing, a devotion to it. It really does not matter if it is the god himself or the idea of him because really its the same thing with a different name.

And so, a god is a concept. The question is how many concepts does the setting allow to be worshipped.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
You still are praying to the same thing. Except now its pure devotion the the idea that was shim and not the god giving you power. The faith goes to the same place. What powers it is the only change.
That's one way to say it works. Mine is another.

A god that exists (like the ones in Golarion) are no concepts but beings. They can move around, speak with people, make failures etc pp.

Or would you categorize yourself as a concept? I think not. Because you exist and do stuff.

Shadow Lodge

Just explaining how I see seeker's argument. And yes, I am a concept.


A god is simply a concept if you allow concept clerics. Yes, the book says concept clerics are powered by devotion. The object or idea behind the devotion does not grant power. The devotion to that thing does.

In such a world Aroden the god and Aroden the concept are one and the same. His death would effect nothing really. New clerics would be trained the same way. The Devotion to him is still there, which is all a concept needs.

A cleric of silent Aroden still prays to his god, but his devotion is what powers such a cleric.

And no AF in such worlds where devotion to a concept allows clerics, the God of Beast slaying and the devotion to the concept of beast slaying are both acceptable.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
A god is simply a concept if you allow concept clerics.

A god is a concept regardless of what the setting allows. A setting 'without concept clerics' is a setting that limits the available concepts to a list, and calls those concepts gods.


Alienfreak wrote:

[

A god that exists (like the ones in Golarion) are no concepts but beings. They can move around, speak with people, make failures etc pp.

Concepts are all things. Some are simply Idea's others are real creatures, objects or places.


TOZ wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
A god is simply a concept if you allow concept clerics.
A god is a concept regardless of what the setting allows. A setting 'without concept clerics' is a setting that limits the available concepts to a list, and calls those concepts gods.

Its really Do you need a being to power a cleric? Concept clerics are only possible if the answer is no.

Shadow Lodge

That's a very opaque statement. What is your point?


Somehow I got cut off and only the last half got posted.

The point was that is it a concept is not the question really. The question is in the setting do you need a being to power clerics? If yes, then concepts do not matter. However if no, then you are correct. A concept or a god is the same thing in that case.

Shadow Lodge

A 'being' is just another label that really means 'concept that belongs to a group I selected'.


No. Being means just that, a creature or entity granting you power, not simply devotion. Being only becomes meaningless with the idea of "Concept clerics", which makes devotion to a thing the source of the power, not the Object itself.

Shadow Lodge

You're still saying 'only this group of things grants power'.


Honestly I no longer even know what you are arguing at this point.


You've still failed to address how you defend your view point that if one allows 'concept clerics', they have to allow any concept whatsoever.

Shadow Lodge

That the distinction of a setting with no 'clerics of an ideal' and one with them is just in your head.


Not at all. Concept clerics are powered by Devotion to a thing. Non- concept clerics are powered by the thing itself.

That is a massive distinction.

And yes if you allow concept clerics its damned well silly to say no to something that has a devote following but allow something with a much less wide spread and excepted faith.

Once you allow devotion to power a cleric, kinda hard to not allow a faith because the name on the door belonged to someone at some point or the Gm knows is fake. As The object itself is not granting the spells. It does not matter what the thing itself is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Not at all. Concept clerics are powered by Devotion to a thing. Non- concept clerics are powered by the thing itself.

That is a massive distinction.

And yes if you allow concept clerics its damned well silly to say no to something that has a devote following but allow something with a much less wide spread and excepted faith.

Once you allow devotion to power a cleric, kinda hard to not allow a faith because the name on the door belonged to someone at some point or the Gm knows is fake. As The object itself is not granting the spells. It does not matter what the thing itself is.

"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."

A "Divine concept"

This says nothing about their devotion powering them. It says that a divine concept, that they worship, empowers them.

I don't particularly find your flavor wrong. I only find it wrong to portray your flavor as fact. It is but one of many ways to do the 'concept cleric'.


Canon, non-canon, editing what was canon to what is no longer canon.

The Godclaw. If seeker is right, and it has been overruled, is now going to be edited out, a real mistake has been made. See my party is near Citadel Dinyar, and the Godclaw have been put in. The party has fought them, these slightly usual Hellknights and taken over one of their towers. Now this was good, this was fun, finding out a little bit about this highly unusual Godclaw religion (with no single god, but five) has been a bit intriguing to them. In the party I oversee as DM, the lawful good monk (leaning to neutral good), has decided that they need to go. So now they are the big bad. These fanatics that worship a mix of lawful gods, love pure discipline, order, control and whom are a mix between fighters, clerics and hellknights as the prestige class.

This is a good idea, this works with the setting. Clerics within a major group of hellknights that do not follow a god, but which instead distill the teaching of many into a philosophy and focus more on being clerics of the domains (rather than the one god). It works, it is cool, and now seeker is saying, no, their entire religion and basis isn't allowed, it doesn't matter if it accords with the class rules, it is against the setting (despite being a part of the setting). So, they worship one now, even as it says they don't, the teachings are what is important. Like Taoists, the one is unimportant for them, the way is important. In this case the way is war, glory, law and a few other domains. What I dislike most is that it is cool, it was interesting in my experience of play, it worked, this small interesting group did not shatter Golarion, and for the setting rules to go against what is cool, and what was itself a part of the setting seems a really bad decision.

So allow domain clerics I say, clerics without a single god, let them be polytheist or more attuned to forces and domains. Because it has already been allowed, and it was cool. Do not shatter what is cool.


@ 3.5 yeah the Godclaw has been overruled, you can find the thread with a search. As has the ones that got stealthed placed in the Savagna book. In Golarion all clerics need a god. The God claw believe what they believe and have clerics of all those gods among them as well as oracles. Needing a god to be a cleric changes nothing about the godclaw.

@ Kain, It says "divine concept worthy of devotion" A Divine concept itself can not grant power. Devotion to that concept does. You skipped the Devotion part. The concept of strong can not grant you spells, but devotion to that concept can.

401 to 450 of 716 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.