|
Now I know that in the core rule book, a cleric can worship a concept such as Valor, instead of a god like Iomadae, or Perfection, instead of Iorori, or Darkness, instead of Zon Kuthon.
Why would a player prefer to have his cleric worship a concept?
Is it just to get divine spells without having to worry about “pesky religion”? is it just for meta-gaming reasons so a player can pick two domains for their powers?
I’m curious thanks.
Maybe also to cater to religious people who don't even want to play a character worshipping a "false" god?
Sometimes, it's based on concept. I once played a halfling cleric in a Greyhawk game. I wanted more of a white mage feel, ala final fantasy, rather then worshiping a specific deity and getting bogged down in all the religious business. So the hafling cleric was dedicated to the philosophy of goodness; he helped heal the sick, fight evil, etc. But he wasn't really "religious."
Sometimes, the deities don't fit the concept.
Often it is so the character can pick 2 domains from the lists that suit their concept. Perhaps you look through all the available gods and none of them quite mesh with what you have in mind for your character's beliefs. So you go with a concept. Even with subdomains, you might not get the feel you want from a given deity. It's also an opportunity for some great roleplaying, because you might worship a concept that is similar to the portfolio of one of the gods-even identical-and have slightly different powers than that god's followers. How you can then interact with said god's followers! Depending on the player, yes, they may optimize or they may not. But with the existing list of domains and subdomains there is a lot of room for customization, which following any given god might not allow because the combination of domains you want doesn't exist for any of them.
Why would a player prefer to have his cleric worship a concept?
As I see it, because they want to play a cleric (as the class) that isn't actually a cleric (as in servant of deity X), but rather a spellcaster who gets their powers from their devotion to an ideal.
The min-maxing of domains and trying to weasel out of alignment or dogma restrictions are often secondary ;) .
Drawing your powers from the ideal of the Katana may be easier
than finding some obscure Diety who favors Katana proficiency. 8-P
´Min-Maxing´ is only one way to look at ad-hoc Domain selection...
That could also just be how somebody´s game world is meant to work, e.g. with Clerics more specifically aware of Domains (i.e. what the Gods themselves pull from), who can associate themselves more directly with Divine Domains. This may result in a situation more like Oracles, e.g. where Clerics of X and Y Domains are ´associated´ with Dieties and Demi-Gods of X and Y Domains in that they have similar powers/interests, but are free to take a position of personal fealty to those Dieties ranging from loyalty/respect, opposition, to disinterest or neutrality. The standard system, whereby some Gods may have overlapping portfolios doesn´t really explain much about why this is so, or what Clerics of different Dieties whose Domains overlap think about this situation.
Now I know that in the core rule book, a cleric can worship a concept such as Valor, instead of a god like Iomadae, or Perfection, instead of Iorori, or Darkness, instead of Zon Kuthon.
Why would a player prefer to have his cleric worship a concept?
Is it just to get divine spells without having to worry about “pesky religion”? is it just for meta-gaming reasons so a player can pick two domains for their powers?
Possibly both. For some players it's an easy cop-out to play the toughest class in the game without having to worry about some god looking over your shoulder cramping your style.
For others, they want to play a spiritual philosopher who is wise and powerful, but isn't a devotee of a god as much as of a philosophy - Buddhism is the nearest thing to a real world example, or secular humanism. It's a way of tailoring the class to the concept of 'sagacious spell caster' rather than 'zealot priest'.
Because no god embodies true nihilism like the concept of Nihilism.
It also may be a seen as a more clear-cut way to define RP limits while stil receiving their powers,
if your powers come from the concept of Righteous War, that´s pretty clear-cut,
if you worship Gorum, deciding what exactly is enough to piss him off to stop receiving powers isn´t so clear.
Because gods can and will die. Remember the poor clerics of Maanzecorian when Orcus did him off? whatever becomes of clerics if their Big Guy drifts on the astral? They loose their cleric abilities, unless they jump ship. On the other hand not even the Lady of Pain can kill the concept of Valor or Disease, for example.
Because gods can and will die. Remember the poor clerics of Maanzecorian when Orcus did him off? whatever becomes of clerics if their Big Guy drifts on the astral? They loose their cleric abilities, unless they jump ship. On the other hand not even the Lady of Pain can kill the concept of Valor or Disease, for example.
That's a good point. Gods can and do die. A lot. But the causes that gods champion never die. Something might happen to Iomedae, but Valor will live on. Think about it: do you really want to worship some over-powered celestial that may one day kick the bucket? Or something truly eternal?
In a way, gods seem to be the servants of the causes they represent.
|
Because gods can and will die. Remember the poor clerics of Maanzecorian when Orcus did him off? whatever becomes of clerics if their Big Guy drifts on the astral? They loose their cleric abilities, unless they jump ship. On the other hand not even the Lady of Pain can kill the concept of Valor or Disease, for example.
She can try! =)
Now I know that in the core rule book, a cleric can worship a concept such as Valor, instead of a god like Iomadae, or Perfection, instead of Iorori, or Darkness, instead of Zon Kuthon.
Why would a player prefer to have his cleric worship a concept?
Is it just to get divine spells without having to worry about “pesky religion”? is it just for meta-gaming reasons so a player can pick two domains for their powers?
I’m curious thanks.
Maybe he just does not agree with the deities on how to do things. There have also been times I had a character concept that did not mesh with any of the deities in a book so I just took two domains that fit.
Another possibility is that in polytheistic societies you can have holy men devoted to many deities at the same time. This is one of the things I think that Eberron got right ...
The core book lists it as a possibility, but most campaign worlds do not have this possibility as a free to choose whatever you want. Many campaigns do not allow you to play a cleric of 'No God', the only campaign world I know of which does this actually has specific concepts build into the campaign, the Eberon campaign setting has religions like the silver flame not devoted to a god perse, but to the concept. I think that is how you should view this cleric option,a cleric of 'valor' would on the other hand be quite boring and simplistic in my view.
Originally, it was to get around the claims of D&D promoting pagan worship.
And what's wrong with pagan worship?
Heh funny, people getting angry at fictonal religion, oh the irony...
Anyways, how does a cleric that follows an ideal get his spells in-game wise? is he like begging random gods to give them spells per day? because I doubt worshipping a katana gives you spells per day XD
|
Because gods can and will die.
And, yet, bizarrely, the most god-killingest setting, the Forgotten Realms, where Mystra, arguably the most important god in the setting not named 'Ao,' has died three times in recent history, also happens to be one of the settings that forbids clerics of concepts.
People like elf-queen Amlauril and Elminster and Szass Tam have lived long enough to have seen multiple gods of magic come and go. At this point, it would probably just be easier to worship the generic concept of magic, currently embodied in what's-her-name 3.0.
[Then again, since it's the god of arcane magic that keeps croaking, and the 'rules' of magic seem to change somewhat everytime that happens, being a wizard isn't any safer a choice in the Realms...]
If you look at this a different way then it can work (clerics getting spells without gods), Imagine a universe where there are Universal Concepts such as Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, etc (ie: the Domains) and these concepts are sources of power for divine classes.
In this case then the gods are now more like Catholic Saints in that they best embody a lifestyle that Exults the concepts and have been raised to a higher plane as result of it.
Therefore a cleric of Iomedae Isn't drawing power from her, but by following her life and teachings attempts to become a divine being like her, all the while being aware that she is a guide to power not the power itself.
Heh funny, people getting angry at fictonal religion, oh the irony...
Anyways, how does a cleric that follows an ideal get his spells in-game wise? is he like begging random gods to give them spells per day? because I doubt worshipping a katana gives you spells per day XD
If a god was actually performing a miracle in exchange for prayer, you wouldn't have to ask twice, or if the god decided to act, their wouldn't be any chance for failure.
If TYR cast "Hold Person" on you, you would be held. When Bilbo Treebeard, cleric of Tyr, casts hold person on you, you can resist. Why is that? It's because Tyr has nothing to do with the spell. The spell is a magic spell invented by a human and cast with human power - power that the gods can interfere with or block if you irritate them.
When a cleric worships a god, they are protected by that god. They can use their magic spells willy nilly, so long as they don't anger that one god.
That's my interpretation anyway - which leads me to my next point.
I crap, all over, clerics of concepts because they have absolutely no protection from any deity. They play at having divine power but give no credit to the creator beings that allow it. If they offend any god, break and command of any deity - trip on any taboo of any culture they happen to be in, they can lose access to their spells.
Clerics of concepts have to do all kinds of goofy rituals to keep the spirit world from climbing up their rears because they want to be their own boss so bad.
What does the willy nilly comment mean, and I am also not getting the "no protection from any deity" comment.
Not all settings have gods in the same sense as Golarion does. Heck, even Golarions's gods work according to different principles than D&D's Great Wheel cosmology, which has its own internal inconsistencies.
Including the wording for non-god clerics makes it easier for people trying to run in those settings.
There are lots of possible reasons though. Someone might just not care to read up on the gods but still want to make a cleric.
Another possibility is that in polytheistic societies you can have holy men devoted to many deities at the same time. This is one of the things I think that Eberron got right ...
I didn't know Eberron had this (probably because I know very little about it other than the name). I have several pantheons with Clerics dedicated to the whole pantheon as well as individual gods. I use the concept bit to cover them, which often covers slots that my gods don't specifically fit.
Personally I feel that it's an option that is provided for those who believe strongly in the interpretation of their faith's prohibition against "worshiping" other gods or false idols.
Seriously, if the player didn't provide a reason you consider valid, just say no. That's why it specifically says "Work with your GM if you prefer this path..."
Another possibility is that in polytheistic societies you can have holy men devoted to many deities at the same time. This is one of the things I think that Eberron got right ...I didn't know Eberron had this (probably because I know very little about it other than the name). I have several pantheons with Clerics dedicated to the whole pantheon as well as individual gods. I use the concept bit to cover them, which often covers slots that my gods don't specifically fit.
Well the gods are not real in eberron. They do not talk to anyone, never interact. They are not distant, they are not real at all as far as the setting counts.
So every cleric is a concept cleric, just some of the concepts are gods and some are ideas and some are multiple gods.
Personally I feel that it's an option that is provided for those who believe strongly in the interpretation of their faith's prohibition against "worshiping" other gods or false idols.
Seriously, if the player didn't provide a reason you consider valid, just say no. That's why it specifically says "Work with your GM if you prefer this path..."
I don't agree with that. Either the rule should be that you can or that you can't.
Another possibility is that in polytheistic societies you can have holy men devoted to many deities at the same time. This is one of the things I think that Eberron got right ...I didn't know Eberron had this (probably because I know very little about it other than the name). I have several pantheons with Clerics dedicated to the whole pantheon as well as individual gods. I use the concept bit to cover them, which often covers slots that my gods don't specifically fit.Well the gods are not real in eberron. They do not talk to anyone, never interact. They are not distant, they are not real at all as far as the setting counts.
So every cleric is a concept cleric, just some of the concepts are gods and some are ideas and some are multiple gods.
That is not true. There is just no proof because they(the developers) were trying to make a world without meddling deities.
"I don't interfere." does not equal "I don't exist."I do wish they at least had personal heralds though. I guess I will add that to the to-do list.
It is mostly left open like a lot of things in Eberron so the DM can decide, and that also reduces the likelihood of canon lawyers, IMHO. I never actually re
That is not true. There is just no proof because they(the developers) were trying to make a world without meddling deities.
"I don't interfere." does not equal "I don't exist."I do wish they at least had personal heralds though. I guess I will add that to the to-do list.
It is mostly left open like a lot of things in Eberron so the DM can decide, and that also reduces the likelihood of canon lawyers, IMHO. I never actually re
It is left to the GM, however NEVER have any contact what so ever with the world out side of myth or GM making it so.You can be a CE cleric of a LG god with zero drawl backs as long as ya can keep it secret. No god will ever strike you down, angles, demons or devils do not work with gods, do not know of gods and have never seen a god.
The fact you can be as blasphemes as you wish with zero chance of ever losing your power means gods do not watch you or give you power.
Lets be honest here, in worlds were you just need "faith" in well anything to be a cleric, gods are pointless if you know they are real. Why worship a god at all when the idea of the god grants you power.
Eberron side stepped that whole mess by making gods {un proven} faith alone grants you power, wither that faith is in a god or the might of the color green. Works the same, and once you have that power nothing can ever make you lose it.
Because ye olde greek pantheon is incredibly boring, and your only two solutions are "Worship Zeus" or "Worship a concept
Also Eberron religion is a matter of faith. Are there gods? Well, that'd be up to your character, wouldn't it?
I can think of a couple of situations where the worshiping a concept fits. One would be a society where the rulers rule by divine right. Think of the pharos or the emperor of Japan. Both were worshiped as living gods. Somehow I do not think any human would be able to grant spells. But can see where they may have clerics worshiping them.
Someone else also brought up Buddhism, but that is not the only real world religion many religions like Shinto, and many tribal societies worship spirits rather than deities.
Michael Moorcock also comes to mind. There were two forces in his multiverse , Law and Chaos.
Maybe to cater to secular people who feel uncomfortable with playing a character that worships any god at all?
This was my first reaction, and I think it makes some kind of weird sense from a marketing viewpoint. Like, "Let's let people who consider themselves spiritual but not religious play like characters."
I have to point out a few things, though. As an atheist, I have no real desire (at the moment) to play any kind of cleric. I'm perfectly fine with having my anti-deist, semi-marxist/anarchist characters be wizards and rogues and whatnot. I'm having a hard time picturing the atheist player who wants his character to be atheist but feels left out if he/she can't play a cleric. I'm currently running a 4e game with a player who wanted to play an invoker that "worships" the " of knowledge". It seemed weird (like an example of "what's wrong with 4e" weird) until he settled on Ioun, the god of knowledge, as a deity. With no prodding from me, I might add.
Also, even if you're secular and feel, as I do, that the whole "deity" thing is kind of silly (even though I play elves that live underground and wizards that shoot fireballs from their hands), there's nothing to prevent other people in your group from playing devoted clerics.
Seems more like if you have the burning desire to play a cleric, you should suspend whatever disbelief you have and just fake it (you know, roleplay). It's called fantasy, after all. I have no problem whatsoever with a fighter, rogue, wizard, bard, etc. not having a deity and "worshipping" an ideal. What makes me scratch my head is the notion of the "concept" granting that person magical powers. The deity should go with the territory, just like Paladins have to be Lawful Good.
If you worship a concept, you don't get free prof. in a favoured weapon, because there's no deity who could favour one. At least, that's how I would read, understand and play it.
Say you're a cleric dedicated to the concept of Law. You worship all the gods of Law equally, no matter their position on the good/evil axis, and do not consider one better than another.
Say you're a cleric who wants both the Light *and* Darkness domains - no deity is likely to have both, but a cleric can still have them as a worshipper of the cosmic balance of Light and Dark, or yin/yang, or whathaveyou.
As for how such a cleric gets spells, I imagine gods who sympathize with their ideal grant them, on the basis of "this advances my agenda". Not as many as they grant their own clerics, but when many chip in at once, well...
Or possibly you gain the spells from the power of your own faith, not from the gods granting them.
Another possibility is that in polytheistic societies you can have holy men devoted to many deities at the same time. This is one of the things I think that Eberron got right ...I didn't know Eberron had this (probably because I know very little about it other than the name). I have several pantheons with Clerics dedicated to the whole pantheon as well as individual gods. I use the concept bit to cover them, which often covers slots that my gods don't specifically fit.
Which is a good way of doing it. In Eberron, it's the faith of the priest that matters, not the intent of the deity. This leads to chaotic evil priests of lawful good deities that think they are following the Way the way it is meant to be done ...
I don't agree with that. Either the rule should be that you can or that you can't.Seriously, if the player didn't provide a reason you consider valid, just say no. That's why it specifically says "Work with your GM if you prefer this path..."
You must have a lot of issues with the Pathfinder game then, because there are a lot of optional rules like that. What it really boils down to is 'this rule is flexible so you can have fun, talk to your DM first though because it can also allow you to be an ass-hat and we really don't want that.'
If you worship a concept, you don't get free prof. in a favoured weapon, because there's no deity who could favour one. At least, that's how I would read, understand and play it.
Why not? If I worship the concepts of Truth and War, because you must fight for the truth, why should I not have proficiency in the two-edged sword that represents the double edge of Truth?
You must have a lot of issues with the Pathfinder game then, because there are a lot of optional rules like that.
You misunderstood me. I am not talking about things such as hero points and traits.
What I took the other comment as was something entirely different.Example:
Player A, you can do this(take domains) because you are good at background stories.
Player B, your story/reason sucks so no you can't.
I was saying either the ability should be on the table for everyone or no one.
You must have a lot of issues with the Pathfinder game then, because there are a lot of optional rules like that.You misunderstood me. I am not talking about things such as hero points and traits.
What I took the other comment as was something entirely different.
Example:
Player A, you can do this(take domains) because you are good at background stories.
Player B, your story/reason sucks so no you can't.I was saying either the ability should be on the table for everyone or no one.
Yes, but there's a problem with that:
DM: "OK, the campaign is going to be focussed around you being the good guys fighting threats to the Lawful nation of Monoplatipus, so alignments in the lawful and/or good directions, and I'll allow clerics of concepts.
Player A: Cool. My cleric worships the concepts of Valour and Truth, as represented by the longsword, the weapon of the knight. He'll be lawful good.
DM: Cool concept.
Player B: Awesome! my lawful neutral cleric will aspire to the concepts of magic and EEEEEvil as as represented by the falcata, which he will use to ceremonially torture and kill random sacrifices to his ideals.
DM: Hey I said lawful and/or good!
Player B: He is, he's lawful neutral! He just admires those concepts, and it does say ANY two domains. Oh, and I found these spells in the Book of Vile Dorkness for my Evil domain, mind if I use them?
I rest my case.
You must have a lot of issues with the Pathfinder game then, because there are a lot of optional rules like that.You misunderstood me. I am not talking about things such as hero points and traits.
What I took the other comment as was something entirely different.
Example:
Player A, you can do this(take domains) because you are good at background stories.
Player B, your story/reason sucks so no you can't.I was saying either the ability should be on the table for everyone or no one.
Yes, but there's a problem with that:
DM: "OK, the campaign is going to be focussed around you being the good guys fighting threats to the Lawful nation of Monoplatipus, so alignments in the lawful and/or good directions, and I'll allow clerics of concepts.
Player A: Cool. My cleric worships the concepts of Valour and Truth, as represented by the longsword, the weapon of the knight. He'll be lawful good.
DM: Cool concept.
Player B: Awesome! my lawful neutral cleric will aspire to the concepts of magic and EEEEEvil as as represented by the falcata, which he will use to ceremonially torture and kill random sacrifices to his ideals.
DM: Hey I said lawful and/or good!
Player B: He is, he's lawful neutral! He just admires those concepts, and it does say ANY two domains. Oh, and I found these spells in the Book of Vile Dorkness for my Evil domain, mind if I use them?I rest my case.
A player trying to loop hole his way into evil is not what I meant. I am speaking of denial based on arbitrary GM decisions. Your example was not arbitrary.
Of course Robb Smith did not exactly say what he meant by valid either.
@dabbler:
"Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). Clerics are also proficient with the favored weapon of their deities." (quoted from pfsrd, because I only own a german copy of the rulebook).
They are not, by RAW, proficient with the favoured weapon of their concept.
Of course, everyone can do it as they like, but to me it makes no sense, because the word "favoured" is connected to a person/people/culture. A concept cannot favour sth. If a godless cleric favours a certain weapon that he is not proficient with, he can always take the corresponding feat.
A player trying to loop hole his way into evil is not what I meant. I am speaking of denial based on arbitrary GM decisions. Your example was not arbitrary.
Of course Robb Smith did not exactly say what he meant by valid either.
I know it isn't what you meant - but it's what some players will try and do if the rule is written that way. That's why it's DM discretion.
They are not, by RAW, proficient with the favoured weapon of their concept.
Of course, everyone can do it as they like, but to me it makes no sense, because the word "favoured" is connected to a person/people/culture. A concept cannot favour sth. If a godless cleric favours a certain weapon that he is not proficient with, he can always take the corresponding feat.
I understand your point, but can you give me a reason why a concept cleric should lose a class feature, which is what the weapon proficiency is after all? All we are doing is replacing the word 'deity' with 'concept'. I understand the interpretation of RAW, but I am also looking at RAI. A concept cannot favour, but it can have symbolism, and a weapon is symbolic. In fact, a deity is itself arguably a concept, just an anthropomorphised one. So ... why not?
A player trying to loop hole his way into evil is not what I meant. I am speaking of denial based on arbitrary GM decisions. Your example was not arbitrary.
Of course Robb Smith did not exactly say what he meant by valid either.I know it isn't what you meant - but it's what some players will try and do if the rule is written that way. That's why it's DM discretion.
I understand your point, but can you give me a reason why a concept cleric should lose a class feature, which is what the weapon proficiency is after all? All we are doing is replacing the word 'deity' with 'concept'. I understand the interpretation of RAW, but I am also looking at RAI. A concept cannot favour, but it can have symbolism, and a weapon is symbolic. In fact, a deity is itself arguably a concept, just an anthropomorphised one. So ... why not?They are not, by RAW, proficient with the favoured weapon of their concept.
Of course, everyone can do it as they like, but to me it makes no sense, because the word "favoured" is connected to a person/people/culture. A concept cannot favour sth. If a godless cleric favours a certain weapon that he is not proficient with, he can always take the corresponding feat.
As a GM I don't have an issue with GM discretion. I have an issue with the way I interpreted Robb Smith's statement which may have been an incorrect interpretation.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually in a world of magic, I can see clerics of *concept* making sense.
Think of certain comic book characters, and re-image them as clerics. Ghost Rider as a cleric of 'vengance' Cap as a cleric of 'Freedom' or 'America' Batman as a cleric of 'Justice'.
Also from Dr. Who 'Curse of Fenric' The one Russian soldier holds of the Haemovours with his faith in the Rodina. Would giving him cleric spells be so far out of order in a mystical world?
Though it does lead to an interesting situation. A Cleric of *deity* can lose their spells/powers by offending their deity. How does a cleric of *concept* handle such a crisis. If Cap is a cleric of 'America' How does he recover when he feels America's failed its ideals? If the Russian in Dr. Who is confronted with the mass graves and atrocities of Communist Russia, how does he recover that faith?
In a world that has both I can only see war between the two types. As why beg a god for power? Those who have power without the blessing of a god are clearly blaspheming and making a mockery of faith and your god.
Whole wars are started over that without magic to back it up anyhow. I just do not see a world where both are facts making sense if the gods are in any kind of contact at all.
Fall From Grace - awesome cleric of a concept.