You are missing the point entirely. It includes them but it isn't them.
Why so very many pagan deities that were turned into either saints or demons in Catholicism?Catholicism is not 'GrecoRomanPaganCelticism' but it sure contains an awful lot of it wrapped up in different packaging.
I never said it was.
[tease]After all we left out Buddhism, and according to some scholars there's a lot of that in Christianity ...[/tease]
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” -- Mark 1:17
I vote the net would be the favored weapon of Catholicism. ;)
Well if you were going to be a Jesus follower specifically you would be Neutral Good, but a Catholic the way a Catholic is portrayed is Lawful Good. A priest would use a quarter staff ie Friars like Tuck, but the soldiers used swords, bows etc. And Paladins used Swords :)
Holy People like Hildagard of Bingen and the saint with all the animals are almost druids and would be more like Neutral Good with the Nature Domain. And Jesus always doing sermons outside is likely to have such a domain.
Catholic monks were very into knowledge and writing everything down and poring over written reccords of everything and bible studying. They also tended to speak Greek, Latin, and sometimes Hebres, Coptic and Aramaeic... So Knowledge is a great domain for them.
So +1 for the fantasy version of the Catholic chirch that has been put out. On the other hand the real world version can be fun also :)
You are missing the point entirely. It includes them but it isn't them.
Why so very many pagan deities that were turned into either saints or demons in Catholicism?Catholicism is not 'GrecoRomanPaganCelticism' but it sure contains an awful lot of it wrapped up in different packaging.
Who says? It's my world, I'm the GM, if I say X goddess and Y demon are the same individual, what is the problem with that? Even the medieval popes agreed.
I mean, the demoness Ashtaroth got her start as the goddess Ishtar. The demon queen Lilith? The pre-biblical goddess Lilith, who didn't even change her name (but did have her scene cut from the book of genesis, but not the subsequent reference, making for one of the great copyediting mistakes of the bible).
And also, frankly, which Catholicism are we talking about? Before or after the split with the Orthodox church? Is there a pope in Avignon? What about if we pick the Catholic church when it was under the administration of Pope Joan, or maybe one of the Medici Popes would be more entertaining?
Saying that "Catholicism is Catholicism" is rather silly when you consider that the current day Catholic church is not doing the Inquisition, nor does it seem to think that flagellation and mortification of the flesh are a great idea--even though Fr. Serra, founder of the California missions, thought this was a great idea less than three hundred years ago and ran around scourging himself with penitential whips and banging his forehead with a rock until it bled. Catholicism is a living breathing religion that has changed with the times and tries to ignore embarrassing past history like that business with Galileo.
If we're going to play in a fantasy world with magic, it's easy enough to come up with some version of reality that meshes with medieval Catholicism and saints tales--and given that the game is based on a lot of these same tales, it makes it even easier. Paladins are based on the paladins of Charlemagne, and last I checked, he was Catholic.
|
For some more variety, have a set of Saints. Dedication to a Saint would give one alternate domain and an alternate favored weapon.
Example
Saint Micheal
Domain: War
Favored Weapon: Longsword
Though perhaps it would be easier to just have an alternate domain. Much easier if the subdomains from the APG are used.
This results in taking one Domain from the "Main" list, and one from the Saint.
Who says? It's my world, I'm the GM, if I say X goddess and Y demon are the same individual, what is the problem with that? Even the medieval popes agreed.
Wait, are we arguing over what Catholicism is now or what it would be in your game world? I mean, the latter is kind of silly, truthfully. Sure, if you are changing it then it becomes whatever you want. But if the question is about Catholicism in the real world, well, last I checked you weren't the GM.
The demon queen Lilith? The pre-biblical goddess Lilith, who didn't even change her name (but did have her scene cut from the book of genesis, but not the subsequent reference, making for one of the great copyediting mistakes of the bible).There is absolutely no evidence that Lillith was ever in Genesis. The bit about being Adam's first wife occurs in legends a few centuries into the common era, hardly close to the time period of Genesis.
Saying that "Catholicism is Catholicism" is rather silly when you consider that the current day Catholic church is not doing the Inquisition, nor does it seem to think that flagellation and mortification of the flesh are a great idea--even though Fr. Serra, founder of the California missions, thought this was a great idea less than three hundred years ago and ran around scourging himself with penitential whips and banging his forehead with a rock until it bled. Catholicism is a living breathing religion that has changed with the times and tries to ignore embarrassing past history like that business with Galileo.
While the Catholic Church has certainly engulfed several pagan traditions, and changed some beliefs, it has always been monotheistic, regardless of various points of dogma. Consequently, any claim that it is other than monotheistic is simply wrong.
If we're going to play in a fantasy world with magic, it's easy enough to come up with some version of reality that meshes with medieval Catholicism and saints tales...
Yes, but Cartigan's point remains - you can base it off of Catholicism, but once you have changed essential parts it is no longer Catholicism.
Yes, but Cartigan's point remains - you can base it off of Catholicism, but once you have changed essential parts it is no longer Catholicism.
As soon as you put it in a fantasy world it is no longer Catholicism. As soon as you give it favored weapons and domains, it is no longer Catholicism. We are using a game system to create something "alot like a" Catholic church. As soon as we change its setting, it no longer IS what it IS and can be interpreted in OOODLES of different ways. Just by making its priests and warriors actually cast magic, reliably heal, and summon angels to the battlefield it is changed. No longer mirrors reality. The point is and remains pointless.
Greg
To get a RPG take on christian religion, there are the green sourcebooks for AD&D2 from the early 90ies. In the sourcebook on Charlemagne´s Paladins, western (i.e. christian) priests were allowed any alignment and blunt weapons only. Spell access varies on account of the level of fantastic elements desired, but is mainly focused on divination, healing and protection spells.
Stefan
There is absolutely no evidence that Lillith was ever in Genesis. The bit about being Adam's first wife occurs in legends a few centuries into the common era, hardly close to the time period of Genesis.
There's plenty of evidence if you simply view the bible as a massively edited and re-edited collection of folklore, as opposed to gospel truth.
I view it all as folklore, and therefore it's a matter of historic fact that Lilith appears in works of folklore predating the bible--including in creation myths predating the Book of Genesis--and it's also a matter of historic fact that the current stories of Lilith and her place in the Book of Genesis date to the 8th to 10th centuries but obviously claim to be part of an older mystery tradition.
And it's also a matter of fact that she's still mentioned in a later chapter of the bible.
While the Catholic Church has certainly engulfed several pagan traditions, and changed some beliefs, it has always been monotheistic, regardless of various points of dogma. Consequently, any claim that it is other than monotheistic is simply wrong.
From the perspective of Catholic theology, likely, but from an objective perspective of a study of religions? Not so much.
While I understand the Catholic dogma that all the saints, apostles, prophets and even the Virgin Mary herself are no more than intercessors, powerless to do anything themselves other than go ask Jesus for favors on a petitioner's behalf, from a practical end there's no difference between someone praying to Saint Barbara to smite someone with lightning and someone praying to the Orisha Chango, one of the seven African Powers, to do the same thing.
From a folkloric perspective, monotheistic Catholicism with all the saints and apostles, angels, archangels, and the Virgin Mary all arrayed below the holy trinity, looks an awful lot like polytheism where there's an exceedingly powerful Allfather figure, whether it's Odin, Zeus, Krishna, or Whomever.
From a game perspective? If the Prophet Ezekiel rides his chariot through the sky and throws thunderbolts (which he does in Russian Orthodox folktales) and you don't have him statted up, but you do have stats for Thor or some other thunder god, just use Thor's stat block for Ezekiel and change the description from a guy with a red beard and a hammer to a crazy old prophet with a white beard and a chariot.
That's not restricted to Christianity; both of the other abraham based religions have done the same thing at various times in their history.
Yes, but Cartigan's point remains - you can base it off of Catholicism, but once you have changed essential parts it is no longer Catholicism.As soon as you put it in a fantasy world it is no longer Catholicism. As soon as you give it favored weapons and domains, it is no longer Catholicism. We are using a game system to create something "alot like a" Catholic church. As soon as we change its setting, it no longer IS what it IS and can be interpreted in OOODLES of different ways. Just by making its priests and warriors actually cast magic, reliably heal, and summon angels to the battlefield it is changed. No longer mirrors reality. The point is and remains pointless.
Greg
Except making some sort of patchwork pantheon isn't "a lot like Catholicism."
Long story short I have a player who just rolled up a half-orc inquisitor that is supposed to be reminiscent of something like van helsing and we were trying to pick a good religion for him within the campaign and none really seemed to fit. After some thought though it seems best to just use Catholicism (during the era of the crusades and the time following it) itself as it feels like a good fit to the character and the story they are getting into and had been meaning to bring it in anyways. My only problem right now though is picking out the domains and the favored weapon for the church and would like to get some suggestions from anyone who would be willing to lend a hand. what domains i feel fit and the favored weapon as it stands are as follows
Alignment LG
Domains:
Law
Good
Glory
Fire
Sun
Protection
Favored Weapon:
Longsword
Looks good to me. Clerics= spellcasting Templars, Hospitallers, etc. In that case, the longsword makes perfect sense.
I'd suggest making the 'Paynims' into idolaters, instead of actual Muslims. If you've read the Song of Roland, you know what I mean. I'd suggest something like the trio of Apollyon, Termangant, and Baphomet (instead of 'Mahound').
original post
hoping I didn't arrive too late for posting on topic...
Rather than dividing by saints, it seems (to me) more obvious to use the monastic orders. Disclaimer: i got no depth knowledge of catholisism, but at least i can illustrate the idea. Each order is governed separately and dresses distinctively:
* Jesuits: LN - longsword - law, knowledge, nobility.
* Fransiscans (Grayfriars, Cappuchinos): NG - quarterstaff - community, good, animal, travel(?), liberation(?).
* Templars: LG (paladins) - sword - protection, war, glory.
* Hospitaliers: NG/LG (paladins) - mace/morningstar - healing, protection, repose(?).
* Dominicans (Blackfriars) : NN (?) - staff - knowledge, magic(?), rune(?).
I'd take a lot of liberties with these charicatures. I'd make some new domains, such as "purity" (covering both purity of spirit and inquisitions)
Just make sure players understand and agree: This isn't porting RL church into PF, it is about designing a fantasy(!) religious system based on historical conceptions and misconceptions.
Just make sure players understand and agree: This isn't porting RL church into PF, it is about designing a fantasy(!) religious system based on historical conceptions and misconceptions.
Sounds right to me!
I really like your idea of using orders. I'm not sure I'd bother to inlcude the Jesuits, as the OP seemed to have something more medieval in mind, and the Jesuits didn't even exist before the CounterReformation. Then again, he mentioned a half orc. Pretty clearly, this is a fantasy world with some pretty big divergences from our history.
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” -- Mark 1:17
I vote the net would be the favored weapon of Catholicism. ;)
John 2:15: favoured weapon scourge and /or whip
Batts
Jesuits aren't medieval, unfortunately. It's too bad; they've got great flavor. Historically they could be some scary dudes. Jesuit assassins had a special sacrament of penance for murders they hadn't done yet, because their mission would lead to almost certain torture and death. No point murdering all those people if you don't get your heavenly chaise lounger afterward.
Well, you could take the Dominicans instead, if you want it more pseudo-medieval. Bernard Gui was Dominican, and he was portrayed as a nasty inquisitor in "The Name of the Rose" (mind you, its a Hollywood-style representation of the middle ages, and thus, could be coined as being a fantasy movie as well). He was indeed the persecutor of the Cathars, but also much more. However, for the aim to represent evil inquisitors, the movie gives you nice ideas. Some put the name of the order as "domini canes" in sarcasm - "the dogs of god".
Stefan
As soon as you put it in a fantasy world it is no longer Catholicism. As soon as you give it favored weapons and domains, it is no longer Catholicism. We are using a game system to create something "alot like a" Catholic church. As soon as we change its setting, it no longer IS what it IS and can be interpreted in OOODLES of different ways. Just by making its priests and warriors actually cast magic, reliably heal, and summon angels to the battlefield it is changed. No longer mirrors reality. The point is and remains pointless.
Greg
I disagree. We have "warriors" in the fantasy world that can do things no human could really do - that doesn't cease to make them warriors, because the essential core of what it means to be a warrior survives intact. The same applies to anything real-world that you import into a game - if the core of what makes it what it is remains intact, it is still that thing, even if you add supernatural functionality to it.
There's plenty of evidence if you simply view the bible as a massively edited and re-edited collection of folklore, as opposed to gospel truth.
I view it all as folklore, and therefore it's a matter of historic fact that Lilith appears in works of folklore predating the bible--including in creation myths predating the Book of Genesis--and it's also a matter of historic fact that the current stories of Lilith and her place in the Book of Genesis date to the 8th to 10th centuries but obviously claim to be part of an older mystery tradition.
And it's also a matter of fact that she's still mentioned in a later chapter of the bible.
There are a lot of mentions of various gods and demons later in parts of the Bible; Lilith is hardly exclusive in this. Does that mean they were all cut from Genesis, too? Even if there is older source material on something, it doesn't prove something was there, then later cut. Again, there is no evidence.
While I understand the Catholic dogma that all the saints, apostles, prophets and even the Virgin Mary herself are no more than intercessors, powerless to do anything themselves other than go ask Jesus for favors on a petitioner's behalf, from a practical end there's no difference between someone praying to Saint Barbara to smite someone with lightning and someone praying to the Orisha Chango, one of the seven African Powers, to do the same thing.
From a folkloric perspective, monotheistic Catholicism with all the saints and apostles, angels, archangels, and the Virgin Mary all arrayed below the holy trinity, looks an awful lot like polytheism where there's an exceedingly powerful Allfather figure, whether it's Odin, Zeus, Krishna, or Whomever.
Sure there are similarities - that's by design, since the whole point of the Catholic Church adopting all those pagan traditions was to make it easier for pagans to swallow. But similarities aren't equality, and the fact that official dogma flat out states they aren't deities has to be taken into account. One group of religions calls entities gods, another says they aren't. Differences are as significant as similarities.
Looking at only those facts and facets which already fit your beliefs isn't scholarly.
Jesuit assassins had a special sacrament of penance for murders they hadn't done yet, because their mission would lead to almost certain torture and death.
And don't forget that the Jesuits knocked off Lincoln and that they've teamed up with the Jews to rule the world.
Jesuit assassins had a special sacrament of penance for murders they hadn't done yet, because their mission would lead to almost certain torture and death.And don't forget that the Jesuits knocked off Lincoln and that they've teamed up with the Jews to rule the world.
As far as I can determine, the paranoia about the Jesuits derives mainly from exaggerated accounts of plots, conspiracies, etc. In the 1600s, there really were Jesuit spies operating in Protestant countries, reporting back to the Pope. There do seem to have been a few Jesuits involved in assassination plots, or at least this was widely believed to be true. Even a number of Catholic monarchs would eventually expel the Jesuits as troublemakers and conspirators.
That sterotypical negative view of the Society of Jesus, though, hardly represents the whole history and works of the society. Jesuits have done a lot of good work in spreading the faith, educating both children and adults, promoting and advancing the sciences, etc.
Okay, so much for the serious , real world stuff.
I think the OP's idea of using Catholicism is a great fit for both the paladin and the cleric classes. It also provides a very nice way to handle objective morality in the alignment system and the in-game existence of demons and devils drawn from Judeo-Christian demonology.
I'm not sure how easy access it would be, but in Monte Cook's Ptolus setting there is a god/religion that I believe (don't remember if Monte ever came right out and said it) based on christianity/catholicism. Might want to look into that.
That's what I would have recommended. Domains = Good, Law, Protection, Sun; favored weapon = longsword.
I think the OP's idea of using Catholicism is a great fit for both the paladin and the cleric classes.
That is the source where these classes come from, anyway. I seem to remember that in the early days of the game, it was implicit that the clerics and paladins were christian anyway - which would be not surprising considering that the game developed from historical tabletop games.
Stefan
I think the OP's idea of using Catholicism is a great fit for both the paladin and the cleric classes.That is the source where these classes come from, anyway. I seem to remember that in the early days of the game, it was implicit that the clerics and paladins were christian anyway - which would be not surprising considering that the game developed from historical tabletop games.
Stefan
Well, it's blantantly obvious that the paladin is based on Medieval Christian ideas of chivalry. Likewise, clerics in the earlier editions have weapon restrictions based on a certain (not terribly accurate, as it turns out) idea of fighting priests. Archbishop Turpin! We do see some crosses and such in some of the early art, too.
Certain spells seem to be based on biblical stories, like sticks to snakes.
Good lord, I wouldn't touch real-world Abrahamic traditions in-game with a ten-foot pole. Otherwise you end up with one player who wants the Good and Glory domains, and another of the same religion who wants the domains of Suffering (eternal hell), Pestilence (no condoms allowed!), and Buggery. Who am I to say which one of them is the One True and Correct interpretation? My advice: don't go there.
Good lord, I wouldn't touch real-world Abrahamic traditions in-game with a ten-foot pole. Otherwise you end up with one player who wants the Good and Glory domains, and another of the same religion who wants the domains of Suffering (eternal hell), Pestilence (no condoms allowed!), and Buggery. Who am I to say which one of them is the One True and Correct interpretation? My advice: don't go there.
That's good advice if you group includes people who have strong anti-Catholic or anti-Christian feelings and cannot seperate such feelings from play, yes. It might not be the case with the OPs' group. It's not the case with mine (in which most of the players are, in fact, Roman Catholics).
That's good advice if you group includes people who have strong anti-Catholic or anti-Christian feelings and cannot seperate such feelings from play, yes.
And it's equally good advice for goups that have one player with a particularly strong pro-Catholic feelings that he or she cannot separate from play -- particularly if these feelings are not as strong in one or more of the other players.
Even if everyone is strongly pro-Catholic, you embrace a system which heads inexprably towards a binary game: "I'm with God = I win; you're not = you lose." There are existing "Christian-friendly" games that handle that sort of play far better than Pathfinder is equipped to; no need to reinvent the wheel in a square shape.
Arguments aside, the last few posts bring up a good point. The Christian/Abrahamic god is the god of EVERYTHING. Everything (good and bad) comes from him, effectively. While the idea is that he is generally not a bad fellow, he does have to have bad things happening from time to time. That includes corrupt priests (though it doesn't mean that morally they SHOULD be corrupt).
In my games, when I did fantachristianity, I generally let the players pick any domains that made sense for their characters. So, you could have the scheming, not-so-nice bishop that wants to rule the world with evil and charm domains with a dagger, or the freewheeling wandering friar with chaos and travel and quarterstaff. All of them purportedly worshiping the same god (the same goes for the Arabic characters they might meet, etc.)
It allows players to build and justify their choices with play style and flavor. In a historical, relativistic concept, the people that were in the church had wide and varied morals and goals, and this concept reflects that. While the church may aim towards LG, and fall somewhere around LN, it played host to a wide range of men and women, most good, some not.
It also dodges the heated question of just what alignment the Abrahamic god really is nicely, focusing on the more fallible mortals.
Some concepts just don't make sense, though, like greatsword wielding healing and plant clerics, and as a GM, I'd rule them out without a great concept.
That said, another valuable concept is the idea of the non-fighting cleric. The D&D cleric was designed around types of fighting knights, and doesn't always fit with the brown-robed monk or village priest idea. The old Unearthed Arcana book (reprinted here: Cloistered Cleric from the SRD) fits this concept nicely. It would require a bit of tweaking for PF, but it works surprisingly well and fits the concept).
If I pathfinderized it, I would say remove favored weapon entirely or make it a staff or club (staff works well, given above comments), make hit dice d6 and BAB per wizard, etc.) Tweak the skills and voila.
That's good advice if you group includes people who have strong anti-Catholic or anti-Christian feelings and cannot seperate such feelings from play, yes.And it's equally good advice for goups that have one player with a particularly strong pro-Catholic feelings that he or she cannot separate from play -- particularly if these feelings are not as strong in one or more of the other players.
Even if everyone is strongly pro-Catholic, you embrace a system which heads inexprably towards a binary game: "I'm with God = I win; you're not = you lose." There are existing "Christian-friendly" games that handle that sort of play far better than Pathfinder is equipped to; no need to reinvent the wheel in a square shape.
Well, no, that's not so. You are confusing the idea of a final victory over evil with the idea that the good guys will come out on top in every fight. The eschaton occurs beyond history. That's very important. The Catholic Church, or any small o orthodox church, does not teach that the faithful and piuous will always physically defeat the unfaithful and impious in every worldly clash. Good Heavens, no! Where do you think we get martyrs?
Well, no, that's not so. You are confusing the idea of a final victory over evil with the idea that the good guys will come out on top in every fight. The eschaton occurs beyond history. That's very important.
David and Goliath don't count, then? Moses vs. Pharaoh's guys? None of the stuff I learned about in Catholic Sunday School? The Bible is nothing but recurring examples of one side winning solely because God is with them, and the other side losing because He isn't. That's the theme. Remove that, and you might as well remove the rest, too, and play a bunch of made-up religions instead.
Well, no, that's not so. You are confusing the idea of a final victory over evil with the idea that the good guys will come out on top in every fight. The eschaton occurs beyond history. That's very important.David and Goliath don't count, then? Moses vs. Pharaoh's guys? None of the stuff I learned about in Catholic Sunday School?
Please not that I wrote EVERY fight, not SOME fights.
What about all those martyrs, my friend? You have to admit, the good guys end up dying- a lot.
The martyrs have a glorious victory, yes- but it's not the sort of 'kill the monsters and take their stuff' victory that D&D heroes normally get.
In my games, when I did fantachristianity, I generally let the players pick any domains that made sense for their characters. So, you could have the scheming, not-so-nice bishop that wants to rule the world with evil and charm domains with a dagger, or the freewheeling wandering friar with chaos and travel and quarterstaff. All of them purportedly worshiping the same god (the same goes for the Arabic characters they might meet, etc.)
Thats a reasonable approach if everybody can live with the inherent relativism. Knowledge and Law might work for an inquisitor.
Also, kudos for fantachristianity.Stefan
What about all those martyrs, my friend? You have to admit, the good guys end up dying- a lot.
Martyrs are like Christ in that their sacrifice is ordained by God as serving a greater purpose; it's not random.
The martyrs have a glorious victory, yes- but it's not the sort of 'kill the monsters and take their stuff' victory that D&D heroes normally get.
Which is why I said there are other systems that work a lot better for this than D&D/PF. Making a career of killing other intelligent beings and taking their stuff is sort of antithetical to Christianity, but it's the name of the game in D&D.
What about all those martyrs, my friend? You have to admit, the good guys end up dying- a lot.Martyrs are like Christ in that their sacrifice is ordained by God as serving a greater purpose; it's not random.
That's one way to look at it- but some Christians would tell you that all things occur according to the will of God, period.
That's one way to look at it- but some Christians would tell you that all things occur according to the will of God, period.
Yes, exactly -- and things in D&D/PF happen according to the will of the dice. The two don't mix well.
Which is why I said there are other systems that work a lot better for this than D&D/PF. Making a career of killing other intelligent beings and taking their stuff is sort of antithetical to Christianity, but it's the name of the game in D&D.
Not every D&D game is run like that, though. I was merely referring to the common rule. Maybe the OP prefers epic quests, or noble heroes fighting against the powers of evil? Maybe he wants to run a game with demons and devils, and their vile cultists, as the main adversaries?
That's one way to look at it- but some Christians would tell you that all things occur according to the will of God, period.Yes, exactly -- and things in D&D/PF happen according to the will of the dice. The two don't mix well.
The way I see it:
The dice don't exist for the PCs, though. The in-game worldview of a culture isn't dependent on the rules set , the dice, etc. It's a story element.
Oh, this should be FUN...
You know, that's not a terribly helpful comment. It gives the impression that you are trolling, quite frankly.
Kirth and I happen disagree about something, but we've both been very civil about it. He hasn't said anything to offend me, and I trust that I've not said anything to offend him.
|
Oh no, I gave the impression of trolling. Woe is me.
If the comment is not terribly helpful, you might consider that it wasn't intended to be helpful. And also, being that it did not quote anyone, that it was not directed at you specifically, but the thread in general.
I recommend you grow thicker skin.
The dice don't exist for the PCs, though. The in-game worldview of a culture isn't dependent on the rules set , the dice, etc. It's a story element.
I agree. However, trying to reconcile the results of the dice with the pre-ordained narrative ("all things happen for a reason!") leads to a lot of internal contradictions and pieces that don't fit without egregiously absurd hand-waving. A game that actually runs on one set of rules (the RAW, and the dice) but claims to run on another set (the will of the in-game God) is set up with these sorts of disconnects as its dominant conflict and theme, that will quickly overshadow the characters' deeds. Like I said, there are games that have built-in rules to reconcile these sorts of things. Pathfinder isn't one of them, however.
Thats a reasonable approach if everybody can live with the inherent relativism. Knowledge and Law might work for an inquisitor.
Also, kudos for fantachristianity.Stefan
Thanks. Maybe I should have capitalized it? :)
The basic idea is that since there is only one god, everyone is simply accessing different aspects of the one god.
Another idea might be giving the clerics the ability to change domains, not on a whim, but at given points in their careers (such as a sorceror can relearn spells at a certain level; or alternately if a major event or shift in the campaign happens, etc.), or by performing rituals or prayers. I.e. the wandering friar ends up becoming a defender of a small village vs. nasty evil thing, so maybe he changes travel to protection by spending a week in fasting and prayer.
Just some game ideas.
I brought the popcorn.
No need -- TOZ has the Drawmij's instant popcorn cantrip, and 0-level spells are "at will" in Pathfinder.
Thats a reasonable approach if everybody can live with the inherent relativism. Knowledge and Law might work for an inquisitor.
Also, kudos for fantachristianity.Stefan
Thanks. Maybe I should have capitalized it? :)
The basic idea is that since there is only one god, everyone is simply accessing different aspects of the one god.
Another idea might be giving the clerics the ability to change domains, not on a whim, but at given points in their careers (such as a sorceror can relearn spells at a certain level; or alternately if a major event or shift in the campaign happens, etc.), or by performing rituals or prayers. I.e. the wandering friar ends up becoming a defender of a small village vs. nasty evil thing, so maybe he changes travel to protection by spending a week in fasting and prayer.
Just some game ideas.
That's an interesting notion- a cleric shifting domains as events in his life lead him to play different roles or see things in a different light.
The dice don't exist for the PCs, though. The in-game worldview of a culture isn't dependent on the rules set , the dice, etc. It's a story element.I agree. However, trying to reconcile the results of the dice with the pre-ordained narrative ("all things happen for a reason!") leads to a lot of internal contradictions and pieces that don't fit without egregiously absurd hand-waving. A game that actually runs on one set of rules (the RAR, and the dice) but claims to run on another set (the will of the in-game God) is set up with these sorts of disconnects as its dominant conflict and theme, that will quickly overshadow the characters' deeds. Like I said, there are games that have built-in rules to reconcile these sorts of things. Pathfinder isn't one of them, however.
Well, some of this depends on how much one likes a 'receding ' rules set. Perhaps more important, though is the question of whether the OP's intent is to create a game world that works in all respects according to Christian ideas- or just a game world in which many characters subscribe to Christian ideas.