|
It would be damned hard for this to ever happen. If you are atheist then you never had any divine based powers or a class based upon them.
Under this paradigm, could someone take three levels of Ranger and then opt out and take his remaining levels in Fighter or Barbarian, since he got into 'rangering' to learn how to hunt, track and kill goblins, and not to be a nature-cleric?
Or are all classes that eventually grant divine spellcasting off-limits, even the divine classes that don't require one to worship a god?
It seems weird to me that when one class explicitly says 'must worship a god' and the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Adept, Inquisitor and Oracle do not, that they all are being blanket forbidden, based on the specific rules text that only applies to the Cleric, in the actual written rules.
Kinda self evident. If they become atheist, then they have lost what ever faith granted them their class. As such they would loose all powers related to said faith. oracles for example would lose spells and any mystery granted powers. Paladins who lost faith in the divinity of his oath and goodness and justice would fall, druids who lost faith in the divinity of nature would no longer have the faith to call upon it. And so on.
It would be damned hard for this to ever happen. If you are atheist then you never had any divine based powers or a class based upon them. If you have such faith and feel that power and connection every waking moment it would take something epic to force you to renounce that connection and all other divine being and power as false.
In cases where someone 's faith is broken or changed they rarely give up the idea in gods or the divine, they may refuse to use it or accept it or go over to "darker" ideas of the divine or maybe just different ideas of the divine but it would be very rare for them to completely forsake all of divinity once they have felt it's touch.
Hm. I don´t see any reason why a Paladin coulnd´t continue their Oaths and LG-ness, while deciding that it is a travesty against mortal free-will for men to submit to the power of the gods, e.g. including Pharasma´s soul migration and everything, i.e. adopting Golarion Atheism.
Again, I don´t see ANYTHING suggesting Oracles´ powers depend on faith, or that they can be taken away... In fact it seems clear to me they have their powers (and curses) INVOLUNTARILY, i.e. independent of their will. So how can changing their attitude to the workings of Deities affect that? Again, if the Core Rules think it necessary to spell out the circumstances Clerics lose there powers, why isn´t it equally necessary to know such things for other Divine classes who can lose their powers? I had NO IDEA that Paizo intended that it be possible for Oracles to lose their powers, much less that Golarion Atheism could cause that... Obviously, at minimum there is a different and very specific set or circumstances that James is saying would cut Oracles off, yet I´m aware of nothing outside of his post that even suggests that, much less gives specific repurcussions. In the case of Rangers, I´m not sure that every Class Ability would be lost.
Ironically, I see it as HUGELY PLAUSIBLE that an Oracle could in fact turn their back on ALL dieties and become Atheist, since it wasn´t any specific Deity who gave them their powers (and curse), but indefined Divinity at large. I had previously asked questions about Oracles and the Rahadoum regime, and I´m perfectly fine if ´common knowledge´ doesn´t distinguish Oracles from Deity-associated forces (that´s kind of cool, it means they would be persecuted like Clerics, but leaves some possibility for some redemption, at least with a more intellectual class... perhaps akin to the question of Warforged´s souls in Eberron), but I´m just still very shaky on what exactly is the story here in Golarion, and how exactly it should play out.
James is basically saying anything classed as Divine is cut-off if you are Golarion Atheist, but I just see neither specific justification of that or info on it´s implementation, nor understand the exact ´fluff´/setting explanation of it in all cases.
|
|
I had previously asked questions about Oracles and the Rahadoum regime,
Didn't the Iconic Oracle grow up atheist, for that matter?
Eh, something else to get retconned, along with clerics of philosophies, shoanti and stone giant clerics of ancestor worship, dwarven and elven pantheist clerics, clerics of shimme-magalla, clerics of walkena, clerics of the child goddess in Kaer Maga, etc, etc.
I don't envy the Creative Director position. Developers and rules designers get to throw new toys at us willy-nilly, and James has to play bad cop and take them away if they don't fit the vision.
Didn't the Iconic Oracle grow up atheist, for that matter?
Wow, that´s a big one I over-looked, even though I´ve been curious about Oracles and the Rahadoum regime.
Of course, you could say she wasn´t ´REALLY´ Golarion-Atheist all along, but still there´s many questions here.I of course understand if it´s something that calls for a Rules Team - Campaign Setting Team pow-wow to clear up.
Creative Director
|
Set is correct...
That is why I was wondering about ´ALL ´Divine´ Classes´ not having wording ´EQUIVALENT to Clerics´ losing powers´.
Clerics´ loss of powers is 100% clear,
I was contrasting the lack of clarity of other non-Deity-associated Divine classes to the clear rules for Clerics....Amongst my broader questions.
In the end, it's up to each GM how to handle things, but I'm personally with seekerofshadowlight—to me, it's just simply self-evident that an athiest can't use divine magic. In the same way a person without arms couldn't wield a sword. They simply lack what's needed for the job.
And while the iconic Oracle grew up as an atheist, being an atheist isn't biological. You can change from being an atheist to being a person of faith (as in the case of the oracle in question) or you can go vice versa. You can even switch back and forth multiple times.
As for the reason clerics must worship a god... I don't see that as any weirder than saying wizards have to use spellbooks. It's simply part of the class's flavor, nothing more and nothing less.
FYI, I have absolutely no question or dispute around Clerics needing to worship a God,
and the fact that you got that out of my post makes me wonder how I can improve my writing to be clearer.
If you do have time to discuss these broader issues with others at Paizo, to get a definitive answer (and implementation) for Oracles, Rangers, and other non-Deity-linked ´Divine´ Classes, I would be immensely grateful.
I would disagree, they have to have faith in something, maybe not gods but something. And on Golarion atheism is the rejection of the divine, not just "gods" but all divinity.
As for rangers, well only spells make them divine, and you can get away with that now with the spell less archtype, something long over due for the ranger IMO
And while yes the iconic oracle grew up atheist, she didn't really stay that way now did she? She is a divine agent, if not an agent of one single god. Divinity is not solely the realm of gods, as druids have shown for a long time.
Alot of this is people want to use a generic rule set to enforce things the setting has changed. The rules are not for just golarion, but I do agree that ex oracles should have been addressed as you would think an oracle that outright rejected the mystery they are granted would fall. But then it is very hard to cut off something that is more or less a part of you like that.
|
Creative Director
|
James is basically saying anything classed as Divine is cut-off if you are Golarion Atheist, but I just see neither specific justification of that or info on it´s implementation, nor understand the exact explanation of it in all cases.
This thread has had more to say about atheism in Golarion than in all Golarion books combined, I suspect.
It's worth mentioning again—I prefer to deliberately NOT dwell on atheism in Golarion products because it's akin to having Christianity in the game. It's a real-world contemporary philosophy, and as such it's not something you can really easily quantify with game mechanics, and when you try to do so, you rile lots of people up. See this thread as an example.
In the end, you (or your GM) need to make most of these decisions on how they impact your personal game. I've given you some information on this thread on how these topics function in Golarion canon, well over and beyond what I'm comfortable nailing down in print. If that works for you, great! If it doesn't, also great—change it as you see fit. By NOT putting it in print, and by keeping it relatively vague, you can do this without feeling like you're "going against the rules."
In any event, I feel that I've covered the topic and I'll be bowing out of the thread. (I'm not really interested in a faith vs. atheism type debate.)
Rangers, oracles, etc. don't need to have faith in a specific god. That's only for clerics. The "faith" of divine magic is a way to describe how the magic comes from belief, conviction, etc., as opposed to the more scientific study of arcane magic. For instance, if you're a Cassandra-style oracle, you might not like the gods--after all, you've been cursed by them--but you've got faith in your visions because they're part of your reality.
The lines between agnosticism, atheism, and love/hate relationships with various gods are extremely blurry, as we're applying real-world ideas to a fantasy world with fundamentally different rules. Even within Rahadoum, there are probably a number of different shades of belief concerning what it means to be an atheist. It's your game--decide for yourself!
Beaten by Jacobs!
|
How exactly does one define "rejection" of the divine? I can understand a reluctance to use the term "atheist" since it has a lot of real-life connotations that are meaningless in the game, but it's worth thinking about what it would mean for characters to reject the gods. I can think of several different ways in which one might "reject" them:
1) They believe the gods exist but intentionally do not worship one.
2) They believe divine powers exist but the "gods" are just very powerful creatures who have a lot of divine power.
3) They believe that "divine powers" are demonstrably real, but there is nothing special that sets them apart from arcane power or plain old physics.
4) They believe divine power is real, but they actively oppose it and will not willingly use it.
5) They believe divine power is all smoke and mirrors and is not real.
I don't see any problem with 1, 2, or 3 using divine powers that are granted to them. A ranger who meditates daily and knows the right chant to say and how to concentrate to produce a magical effect may not necessarily worship a god or even believe his powers are special, but I don't see how that'd stop him from using them.
As for 4, I could see a character being granted powers and intentionally refusing to use them -- an oracle, for example. Might not be a very fun character to play, though.
5 is just kind of silly.
I also see people saying that an "atheist" must not have any sort of faith or devotion to anything, which seems a bit extreme to me and is certainly not what the word means. Somebody who is completely dispassionate and has no guiding force might lack the ability to use divine power, but that doesn't imply anything about their religious beliefs.
Rangers, oracles, etc. don't need to have faith in a specific god. That's only for clerics. The "faith" of divine magic is a way to describe how the magic comes from belief, conviction, etc., as opposed to the more scientific study of arcane magic. For instance, if you're a Cassandra-style oracle, you might not like the gods--after all, you've been cursed by them--but you've got faith in your visions because they're part of your reality.
Like Arcane Sorcerors don´t study anything, but have powers that are a part of their reality (without implying any attitude or alignment). This isn´t clearing things up for me, at least to understand the position layed out by James.
The lines between agnosticism, atheism, and love/hate relationships with various gods are extremely blurry, as we're applying real-world ideas to a fantasy world with fundamentally different rules.
If I am doing this in any way, please point it out to me, I´m just trying very hard to understand the consistent implication of GOLARION ATHEISM within Golarion and to various Class abilities.
Even within Rahadoum, there are probably a number of different shades of belief concerning what it means to be an atheist. It's your game--decide for yourself!
Yes, I myself alluded to differnces between ´popular understanding´ and actual Golarion Cosmologic Mechanics and their interactions with Class Abilities, etc.
I´m still drawing a blank for what in the Golarion definition of Atheism conflicts with Oracles using their involuntarily acquired powers, and like-wise for Rangers who I´ve never heard of other conditions by which they could lose (some of) their powers... I don´t have any dispute with your Golarion Canon, I just haven´t seen some of the statements in this thread supported in any other Golarion material, much less the specific implementation details (which would be nice to have... i.e. what do Rangers retain? An Animal Companion? Or is that Divine too? Clerics don´t have any other Class Features outside of Spells and Domains, so it would help to have more specificity here.)
Easy rule of thumb. If it is a supernatural power from a divine class then it is a divine given ability. With rangers only the spells are super natural the nature bond is extraordinary not super natural in nature.
So it is is marked with an {SU} they lose it. Ranger only need take the spell less archtype which is stack able with all other archtypes. Other options are swap out his spell list or merely make them arcane and not divine in nature.
@Minneyan: You should read up on what IS written about Golarion Atheism.
A defining feature is what happens to your soul after death, which is affected by if you are Atheist or not... Soul Cosmology is over-seen by Pharasma, i.e. it isn´t a completly ´natural´ occurance of the universe, which I believe is the crux of the matter for Golarion Atheists. I´m certainly not an expert on Golarion Atheism, but having the basics avoids un-necessarily confusing or side-tracking the issue.
Your list of options is heavily mixed up with implications of REAL WORLD Atheism, with confuses the whole matter and isn´t relevant to Golarion Cosmology´s interaction with Class Abilities, but I think your option 4 most closely matches what JJ is talking about:
4) They believe divine power is real, but they actively oppose it and will not willingly use it.
But to me, this statement too strongly depends on mere game mechanics. What is ´divine power´ (generically), and how would a character with a conscious/in-conscious attitude in ´opposition´ to generic divine power (as opposed to arcane power, etc) describe their own position?
JJ is saying the divine vs. arcane division is crucial to this... So how does an Arcane spell like Infernal Healing fit into these mechanics of Golarion Atheism? Does it not work on an Atheist? Can an Atheist not cast it (or becomes non-Atheist by doing so?)
@Seeker: If Monks can have non-Divine Su abilities, why can´t Rangers, just because they ALSO have Divine Su/Sp abilities?
It's worth mentioning again—I prefer to deliberately NOT dwell on atheism in Golarion products because it's akin to having Christianity in the game.
RAHADOUM and Golarion Atheism ARE in the setting, if it wasn´t I wouldn´t be interested in it... Again, I am trying to approach this as if real-world Atheism didn´t exist (i.e. is irrelevant), I don´t know why that is so difficult to do (apparently).
JJ is saying the divine vs. arcane division is crucial to this... So how does an Arcane spell like Infernal Healing fit into these mechanics of Golarion Atheism? Does it not work on an Atheist? Can an Atheist not cast it (or becomes non-Atheist by doing so?)
See there is a massive difference in Divine and arcane magic
Divine magic you are asking something else, be it a being or some outside unintelligent divine power source to grant you power for you to use. You always rely on something outside yourself to power the magic you do. YOu need something outside yourself and your learned skills to gain power.
Arcane magic however, you are not asking anything to grant you power, you are taking that power by force of will, personality or pure learned skill alone. You reliy on nothing other then yourself and the skill you have learned or been born with. Never do you need something but yourself and that skill.
That is the real difference. Atheists seems more of the I don't need you to give me power, I'll learn it and master it myself.
@Quandary, because unlike monks Rangers spells are divine in nature.
|
|
@Minneyan: You should read up on what IS written about Golarion Atheism.
What is the exact definition of "Golarion Atheist"? I've read over this whole thread, at least, and I don't see an official definition -- the closest is James saying, "I actually am not all that comfortable going into big full detail about what it means to be an atheist on Golarion." Then everybody else has their own opinions about what the term means and implies.
What you're saying makes it seem like whether you're a "Golarion Atheist" relies heavily upon whether you're willing to accept that the gods control what happens to you when you die -- but I don't see how that would affect your ability to use divine abilities.
|
Not to purposely shoot down your entire arguement that has spanned this entire thread, James, but the core book specifically says that a cleric can choose to not worship a deity, but instead choose an ideal.
"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.)"
Im not arguing your 'clerics cant be atheists' statement here, but wonder how you rationalize the above quoted text if a cleric wanted to go that route?
What you're saying makes it seem like whether you're a "Golarion Atheist" relies heavily upon whether you're willing to accept that the gods control what happens to you when you die -- but I don't see how that would affect your ability to use divine abilities.
Again its not just the Gods, but the divine. And rejecting that something outside has a hold on you or the Right to dictate and control your fate. Athiests in Golarion do not merely just reject the gods right over them, but the divines right over them. All things divine.
Not to purposely shoot down your entire arguement that has spanned this entire thread, James, but the core book specifically says that a cleric can choose to not worship a deity, but instead choose an ideal.
Im not arguing your 'clerics cant be atheists' statement here, but wonder how you rationalize the above quoted text if a cleric wanted to go that route?
Because yet again the setting always over rides the rule set. The core rules Are not Golarion nor are they written just for one setting. In Golarion however just like the Forgotten realms clerics Must have a god and can not worship concepts.
Specific setting rules always trump the non setting generic rules.
Folks! I think there's a lot of chaff in the water here, and people misinterpreting each other. I'll give it another shot:
*As Seeker pointed out, the RULES present an option for non-deity-worshiping clerics, because that's an option we want people to have for their home games. It's part of any well-stocked toolbox. In the SETTING, we say that clerics have to worship gods or other divine beings to get their powers.
*Non-cleric divine casters do NOT need to worship a god, or any divine being. Their magic comes through faith, ideas, personal belief and understanding--whether it's a veneration of nature, a belief in mysteries they don't understand, faith in themselves and their own mystical abilities, etc. It's magic that comes conviction rather than study and experimentation. As such, they can be atheists by many definitions (such as rejecting the idea that gods deserve worship) without losing their abilities. Could atheism conflict with their ability to cast divine spells? I guess so, if you wanted to adjust the flavor of your druid so that he deifies nature, then loses his faith in nature and actively rejects it... but that's starting to get pretty convoluted. Or you could have an atheist inquisitor who decides that his powers are granted by gods, and thus refuses to use them... but there are probably others atheist inquisitors who reject that idea and see their powers as innate or manifestations of their conviction. Outside of clerics, atheism is a flavor thing, which means it's up to you. But long story short: only clerics are barred from being atheists in setting canon.
*Atheism has many different meanings on Golarion, as defined by the people who believe it. There's no single "Golarion" atheism. I've personally created both characters who reject the idea of worshiping gods (see the upcoming Death's Heretic) and who outright refuse to believe in their existence (my character Kirin from the NPC guide, who thinks all divine casters are sorcerers afraid to take responsibility for their actions). Both are atheists.
As Jacobs has noted, atheism is ultimately a flavor issue, and thus best left up to players and GMs.
Hope that helps!
|
|
I'm overall pretty square with this treatment of faith and whatnot. The only thing that needs a little clarification is that whole wall-of-the-faithless-esque thing in Pharasma's Boneyard. There's something a little head-slappingly silly about emulating one of the biggest, most contentious wall-bangers (sorry) in RPG cannon history.
The only thing I could get out of it was this: The "atheists" who are fed to groetus were described as "those so damaged that they denied the existence of their own souls." Now, I'm personally a science-minded person in real life, who thinks that supernatural shit is stupid, and our minds are the product of chemical processes in our brains. BUT, while I might intellectually think that, I still treat other people, and other living things as more than chemical processes, because I am not a sociopath. I may not believe in a "spirit of ART" that makes an assortment of pigments on canvas "art," but I still see the art as more than just an arrangement of pigments. Likewise with people.
the point of all this is that some nihilistic person that sincerely doesnt FEEL that they have some sort of special essence or some sort of greater connection between them and other people, or to the universe, is a damaged individual, very different from someone who just doesn't believe in magical sky faeries when there's no evidence for them, and said nihlist is also different from someone who lives in fantasy setting Y but refuses to bend his knee and offer up his sweet belief-juice to a cruel, irresponsible cosmic bully.
Truth is though, that most of the usual atheist complaints are moot in a D&D setting, since the gods ARE active, DO take responsibility for their follower's actions, and the ones who claim to be good actually ARE by-and-large GOOD. For example, a cleric of Sarenrae who commands his followers to slaughter an entire town or something just because they worship Erastil would loose his divine powers right quick, in a spectacular manner. Involving fire. Lots of fire. In the real world, he'd have an even chance of winding up a saint after the righteous, divinely-ordained holy war.
That's just how I square it in my head. i know this is a thorny-ass problem, and paizo doesn't want to accidentally offend their customer base.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm overall pretty square with this treatment of faith and whatnot. The only thing that needs a little clarification is that whole wall-of-the-faithless-esque thing in Pharasma's Boneyard. There's something a little head-slappingly silly about emulating one of the biggest, most contentious wall-bangers (sorry) in RPG cannon history.
I know I said I was "out of the thread," but I need to step back in to clarify something that, alas, wasn't made clear in the section that talks about what happens to atheists when they die.
Basically... the same thing that happens to ANYONE when they die—they either get punished or get rewarded.
For an atheist, if you're punished, you go into the graveyard in the Boneyard. If you're NOT to be punished, your soul transforms into a free-roaming spirit that leaves the Boneyard to drift through the planes to observe and watch and learn, sort of like a ghost, I guess, but without stats since you're not undead—your'e just an invisible observer at that point.
Pharasma's the one who judges whether an atheist was naughty or nice, in any case, and she does so fairly and as according to that particular atheist's success or failure at whatever it was he/she did in life.
So in essence, an atheist is like anyone else when they die; they either go on for a reward or they get eternal punishment.
That we haven't gotten that message out there more clearly is one of the biggest disappointments and failings of both "The Great Beyond" and "Beyond the Vault of Souls."
|
|
*Non-cleric divine casters do NOT need to worship a god, or any divine being. [SNIP] But long story short: only clerics are barred from being atheists in setting canon.
I prefer this interpretation, rather than the 'Rangers have to worship a god or lose their powers' notion upthread. Thanks.
The existence of Celesial/Infernal/Abyssal sorcerers, who get arcane power from traditionally divine sources (gods, angels, demons), further complicates matters...
|
The existence of Celesial/Infernal/Abyssal sorcerers, who get arcane power from traditionally divine sources (gods, angels, demons), further complicates matters...
I don't think it's notably more complicated. They aren't empowered by those sources though...just descended from them and tapping into their heritage.
To put it another way: a Celestial Sorcerer isn't using anyone's power except his own...his own power just comes from having an Angel in the family tree. And that's where the distinction lies.
As folks have noted, there are many different ways to be an atheist in Golarion. For instance, for most Rahadoumis, it's not so much about denying the existence of the gods as rejecting their worship. Sure, gods exist, and are very powerful--but so is the Tarrasque, or devils, or a human king, or a million other beings. To them, the idea of enslaving yourself to the will of some more powerful being in exchange for a few magical powers is the problem--you're essentially selling your independence and entering voluntary slavery.
All of this discussion plays a fairly big role in the upcoming Pathfinder Tales novel Death's Heretic!
In the strictest sense, your not describing atheism when you talk about Rahadoumis. It's citizens beleive in the existance of the gods, but the choose not to worship them.
If they where Atheists, they would simply not beleive in the gods.
A better term might be antitheist.
|
|
As folks have noted, there are many different ways to be an atheist in Golarion. For instance, for most Rahadoumis, it's not so much about denying the existence of the gods as rejecting their worship. Sure, gods exist, and are very powerful--but so is the Tarrasque, or devils, or a human king, or a million other beings. To them, the idea of enslaving yourself to the will of some more powerful being in exchange for a few magical powers is the problem--you're essentially selling your independence and entering voluntary slavery.
All of this discussion plays a fairly big role in the upcoming Pathfinder Tales novel Death's Heretic!
In the strictest sense, your not describing atheism when you talk about Rahadoumis. It's citizens beleive in the existance of the gods, but the choose not to worship them.
If they where Atheists, they would simply not beleive in the gods.
A better term might be antitheist.
If I don't believe superman is a god, but just a very powerful person and others believe he is a god, I don't believe in "god"
If I don't believe superman is a god, but just a very powerful person and others believe he is a god, I don't believe in "god"As folks have noted, there are many different ways to be an atheist in Golarion. For instance, for most Rahadoumis, it's not so much about denying the existence of the gods as rejecting their worship. Sure, gods exist, and are very powerful--but so is the Tarrasque, or devils, or a human king, or a million other beings. To them, the idea of enslaving yourself to the will of some more powerful being in exchange for a few magical powers is the problem--you're essentially selling your independence and entering voluntary slavery.
All of this discussion plays a fairly big role in the upcoming Pathfinder Tales novel Death's Heretic!
In the strictest sense, your not describing atheism when you talk about Rahadoumis. It's citizens beleive in the existance of the gods, but the choose not to worship them.
If they where Atheists, they would simply not beleive in the gods.
A better term might be antitheist.
You are atheist with regards superman, although.
That, is a form of atheism. Thought a slightly more complex than no belief in the existance of the entity. It is what I think of as sigilian atheism.
But, if my breif memory of rahamounis is correct, it is not what they believe. They accept the divinity of the gods, they just reject their worship.
|
|
If I don't believe superman is a god, but just a very powerful person and others believe he is a god, I don't believe in "god"As folks have noted, there are many different ways to be an atheist in Golarion. For instance, for most Rahadoumis, it's not so much about denying the existence of the gods as rejecting their worship. Sure, gods exist, and are very powerful--but so is the Tarrasque, or devils, or a human king, or a million other beings. To them, the idea of enslaving yourself to the will of some more powerful being in exchange for a few magical powers is the problem--you're essentially selling your independence and entering voluntary slavery.
All of this discussion plays a fairly big role in the upcoming Pathfinder Tales novel Death's Heretic!
In the strictest sense, your not describing atheism when you talk about Rahadoumis. It's citizens beleive in the existance of the gods, but the choose not to worship them.
If they where Atheists, they would simply not beleive in the gods.
A better term might be antitheist.
You are atheist with regards superman, although.
That, is a form of atheism. Thought a slightly more complex than no belief in the existance of the entity. It is what I think of as sigilian atheism.
But, if my breif memory of rahamounis is correct, it is not what they believe. They accept the divinity of the gods, they just reject their worship.
I think Superman is really powerful. If he were able to raise the dead and grant powers to humans who worshiped him, I would think he is even more powerful.
That doesn't mean I think he has divinity, or is a god.
It means I think he is really powerful.
My understanding is they know these beings who others call "Gods" exist, but they think they are more trouble than they are worth due to all the wars and conflict so they ban worshiping these beings.
They decided they aren't gods, just really powerful beings. Which makes sense since quite a few of them were born mortals.
Ooo
If I don't believe superman is a god, but just a very powerful person and others believe he is a god, I don't believe in "god"As folks have noted, there are many different ways to be an atheist in Golarion. For instance, for most Rahadoumis, it's not so much about denying the existence of the gods as rejecting their worship. Sure, gods exist, and are very powerful--but so is the Tarrasque, or devils, or a human king, or a million other beings. To them, the idea of enslaving yourself to the will of some more powerful being in exchange for a few magical powers is the problem--you're essentially selling your independence and entering voluntary slavery.
All of this discussion plays a fairly big role in the upcoming Pathfinder Tales novel Death's Heretic!
In the strictest sense, your not describing atheism when you talk about Rahadoumis. It's citizens beleive in the existance of the gods, but the choose not to worship them.
If they where Atheists, they would simply not beleive in the gods.
A better term might be antitheist.
You are atheist with regards superman, although.
That, is a form of atheism. Thought a slightly more complex than no belief in the existance of the entity. It is what I think of as sigilian atheism.
But, if my breif memory of rahamounis is correct, it is not what they believe. They accept the divinity of the gods, they just reject their worship.
I think Superman is really powerful. If he were able to raise the dead and grant powers to humans who worshiped him, I would think he is even more powerful.
That doesn't mean I think he has divinity, or is a god.
It means I think he is really powerful.
My understanding is they know these beings who others call "Gods" exist, but they think they are more trouble than they are worth due to all the wars and conflict so they ban worshiping...
The thing is that the term god is the term which describes the class of entity. They haven't changed their minds about the nature of the gods. They haven't stopped calling them the gods. They haven't decided that the gods are powerful human wizards on another plane.
All thats changed is the way they respond to them.
|
|
The thing is that the term god is the term which describes the class of entity. They haven't changed their minds about the nature of the gods. They haven't stopped calling them the gods. They haven't decided that the gods are powerful human wizards on another plane.
All thats changed is the way they respond to them.
Or the translation. God may mean "Really powerful being" to them, fundimentally because they don't believe in the divinity of the "Gods".
When discussing the Greek Gods, we refer to them as Gods. I don't think any of us would argue for the divinity of the Greek Gods, but they were called Gods.
As I said above, many believed in the Divinity of David Koresh. He actually existed. Jesus probably actually existed, even though I personally don't believe he was divine. There is an entire country in Golarion worshiping a false god.
The Atheists of Golarion don't believe Gods exists, and either believe those called Gods exist and aren't gods or that they don't exist and clerics are just sorcerers by another name.
But you could be agnostic on Golarion and believe these powerful beings exist but aren't gods. However there may be a god (or gods) more powerful than them that are really "Gods"
The thing is that the term god is the term which describes the class of entity. They haven't changed their minds about the nature of the gods. They haven't stopped calling them the gods. They haven't decided that the gods are powerful human wizards on another plane.
All thats changed is the way they respond to them.
Or the translation. God may mean "Really powerful being" to them, fundimentally because they don't believe in the divinity of the "Gods".
When discussing the Greek Gods, we refer to them as Gods. I don't think any of us would argue for the divinity of the Greek Gods, but they were called Gods.
As I said above, many believed in the Divinity of David Koresh. He actually existed. Jesus probably actually existed, even though I personally don't believe he was divine. There is an entire country in Golarion worshiping a false god.
The Atheists of Golarion don't believe Gods exists, and either believe those called Gods exist and aren't gods or that they don't exist and clerics are just sorcerers by another name.
But you could be agnostic on Golarion and believe these powerful beings exist but aren't gods. However there may be a god (or gods) more powerful than them that are really "Gods"
I would never argue that the greek gods were real. But they fit the criteria of divinity as well as any god does. As do the muses, the elemental dragons and many, many other mythic creatures.
Also, you seem to misunderstand what agnostic is. I am very likely the most outspoken atheist on the boards, yet I am also an agnostic.
Gnostic/Agnostic, regardless of how agnostic often used, does not mean that a person sits in the middle ground between theist,and atheist.
It refers to if you know something, or not.
So an agnostic atheist does not know if god is real, but does not beleive that he is. While a gnostic atheist, knows their is no god.
the same applies to theism. where you can have gnostic and agnostic theists.
All that said, I'm not sure I understand your point.
|
|
There is an entire country in Golarion worshiping a false god.
And if Razmir ever succeeds in ascending, through the Starstone or 'the old fashioned way' that Irori, Nethys and Urgathoa became gods, they will retroactively become 'right,' as their false god will have become a real boy.
*If* Golarion used the Pathfinder 'clerics of philosophy' rules, it would be entirely possible for a cleric of 'the divinity of man' to arise in Rahadoum, drawing power from the philosophy that mankind doesn't need the permission of powerful outsiders to channel the forces of the outer planes (such as positive energy or negative energy channeling).
Indeed, the ability of some arcane spellcasters, such as the reviled necromancers, to channel negative energy for very specific uses, might be hated and feared not merely for all the usual reasons, but because it heralds the dangerous and sacreligious concept that one need not be beholden to a divinity to channel those powers normally limited only to the clerics of the gods. There's plenty of social and moral and ethical reasons to hate necromancy, but added to the pile is that the gods are pants-wettingly terrified of mankind learning that they don't need the gods (or their permission) to tamper with the forces of life and death (and the energies they wish restricted only to their followers)...
Sarenrae, who started out as a powerful outsider (an angel, and likewise Asmodeus the devil and Lamashtu the demon) before ascending to godhood, has a vested interest in keeping the powers of the divine limited to fellow powerful outsiders and those who toe the party line and follow the will of the gods. Urgathoa, having already broken the glass ceiling and been the first mortal to flip the divine plan the bird and bootstrap herself up into the previously outsider-only 'mile high club,' finds the thought of other mortals following her trail, via The Whispering Way, to be amusing, because it so terribly upsets all the old gods, who think of her (and Nethys and Irori) as trashy nouveau riche, stinking up the outer planes with their presumptuous ingrateful mortal-born ways.
Through the Whispering Way, Urgathoa is the Rodney Dangerfield character in the gods private golf course, inviting all of her brash loud socially inappropriate lowborn friends to tag along in her wake, and the other gods are Judge Smails, all scandalized at the spectacle.
In my group, we were just speculating last week's game about what a Secular Humanist (and atheist) Paladin would look like - LG, devoted to the ideals of the Golden Rule and a rejection of slavery to the "gods". Since they're not a cleric, this would work in Golarion, or no (canonically)?
We enjoy the concept, so either way it'll probably make an appearance some day in "our" Golarion.
|
|
I'm overall pretty square with this treatment of faith and whatnot. The only thing that needs a little clarification is that whole wall-of-the-faithless-esque thing in Pharasma's Boneyard. There's something a little head-slappingly silly about emulating one of the biggest, most contentious wall-bangers (sorry) in RPG cannon history.I know I said I was "out of the thread," but I need to step back in to clarify something that, alas, wasn't made clear in the section that talks about what happens to atheists when they die.
Basically... the same thing that happens to ANYONE when they die—they either get punished or get rewarded.
For an atheist, if you're punished, you go into the graveyard in the Boneyard. If you're NOT to be punished, your soul transforms into a free-roaming spirit that leaves the Boneyard to drift through the planes to observe and watch and learn, sort of like a ghost, I guess, but without stats since you're not undead—your'e just an invisible observer at that point.
Pharasma's the one who judges whether an atheist was naughty or nice, in any case, and she does so fairly and as according to that particular atheist's success or failure at whatever it was he/she did in life.
So in essence, an atheist is like anyone else when they die; they either go on for a reward or they get eternal punishment.
That we haven't gotten that message out there more clearly is one of the biggest disappointments and failings of both "The Great Beyond" and "Beyond the Vault of Souls."
Well, now I feel really stupid. That makes more sense. Thanks.
|
|
All that said, I'm not sure I understand your point.
Let me try it another way.
In Ancient Egypt the Pharaoh was considered a God-King. The word Pharaoh more or less meant God-King meaning if you believed the Pharaoh existed you believed that someone that a “God-King” existed.
Now, obviously he wasn’t actually a God by any definition we would use, so if you didn’t believe in the divinity of the God-King you rejected his divinity and could be, for the age considered either an agnostic or if you took it to the level you believed none of the Gods of the time were actually Gods, an atheist.
Now let us move that conceptually to Golarion.
Aroden, Norborger, Ioemaedae and Cayden Caileen are all “Gods”. All were born as humans, one is a murderer, one is a drunk, one appears to have been killed and one seems impotent in her efforts to close the World Wound.
Maybe looking at this information, you decide that these aren’t “Gods” but just very, very, powerful beings, just as Nex, Geb, Tar-Bahphon (who killed a God if you remember) are all very powerful beings. But not beings that deserve worship any more than any other powerful being.
Now back to Ancient Egypt and the Pharaoh. The God-King is still called Pharaoh if you doubt the divinity of them, because that is the title. “God” is the title given to a group of powerful beings in the same way that Pharaoh is the title given to the God-Kings of Egypt. But my believing that Pharaoh’s existed doesn’t mean I believe in the divinity of them, just because the word means “God-King”
“God” is the word in the language used for immortal beings who can grant divine power to mortals. As was pointed out above, Demon Lords can be worshipped and can grant powers to followers as Gods can. But they aren’t “Gods” to those who do not believe they are anything more than really, really, powerful beings.
Now you are correct that they could be agnostic, believing that perhaps there is an omnipotent being overseeing even the gods that would meet the criteria they would use to identify a true “God”. Hell since you are familiar with the Gnostic concepts you could even take the approach that potentially “God” is all things forming a shared consciousness.
But if either were true, none of the “Gods” would be “God”.
If a monotheistic person were to appear on Golarion, they could easily conceptually reject the divinity of all of the “Gods” of Golarion, seeing them only as creations of the greater “God”. That person would not be an Atheist, but they would still not believe in any of the existing “Gods” divinity.
Being an atheist in Golarion is taking that concept, and removing the belief in a monotheistic God as well. To the atheist, these beings people call Gods are simply powerful outsiders. The argument could be that the fact that a mortal can become one of them only shows they are not truly the creators of the universe, and perhaps that is your definition of God.
It has been the definition of God in many (if not most) cultures.
|
|
Do the current gods on golarion actually claim to have created the world?
Well...their follower's legends claim so, at least for all the early ones. The Book of the Damned chapters on Asmodeus and Ihys seem to indicate that they and the other motes created by the "Seal" were the original propagators of life, and fashioners of the heavens. With the Seal as some sort of ineffable creator...object/entity/whatever. regardless, a much more likely ultimate creator than a big beard in the sky.
Of course, the golarion universe also has horrible Elder Gods that predate such things, and the Maelstrom seems to have predated the various hierarchies of seal Motes, and the Abyss may have predated the maelstrom. And Axis just sort of came out of nowhere, fully-formed, likely from some other reality, a painful pin of order in the chaos of the Maelstrom.
And all that is the Great Beyond, and not the infinite physical universe of stars and planets and nebulas and slumbering-tentacle-gods. And the various Golarion gods seem to be mostly focused on Golarion itself (or it just looks that way to their worshipers, in the same way children think their parent's lives revolve solely around them). Do the other planets have their own versions of Pharasma and Erastil? Or are the known gods localized entities? Does Viltvoodle 6 have it's own Jetravartid god of the hunt, and it's own Jetravartid Maelstrom? Or is the Jetravartid god of the hunt just erastil with a few extra arms? Does the infinite Great Beyond have various districts? As in, if you travel far enough on axis, do you leave the part metaphysically connected to Golarion and reach one that's more tuned to not-mars or not-venus? Or totally-not-Vort-home-of-the-slaughtering-rat-people?
These are the inherent problems of trying to square an infinite material plane universe with the usual D&D cosmology, a created universe with a naturally-formed universe, gods that predate reality with gods that developed within reality. And it actually comes across really well in-game; no one really knows the answers to these questions, and the neat-and-tidy pantheon and creation story doesnt really hold up under scrutiny, but nor does the "endless, uncaring gulf of space that wants to eat your brain" square with a gives-a-shit pantheon of various divine entities drawing in and caring for mortal souls, whatever their eventual fate. No one in-universe ultimately knows, so why should we?
the inconsistency actually adds to the fun. Personally, I kind of like the idea of the wonderful multiverse of gods and heavens and angels and hells and souls still being a tiny, precious spot of light in an infinite sea of tentacular blackness. the Elder Gods scare the crap out of the regular gods just as much as the Cthuloids scare mortals; see Rovagug for example. Makes them a more sympathetic and relatable bunch.
One last clarification: In addition to what Jacobs mentioned regarding the punishment/reward of atheists via the big graveyard and Groetus, there's also a third option--those atheists who voluntarily choose the graveyard as an extension of their philosophy. It's essentially a form of cosmic protest--rejecting the afterlife and choosing a death that's simply a grave, where they wait until the end of eternity (not unlike the real-world belief of some historical Christian sects that souls lie in graves waiting for the second coming). Since atheism in Golarion can already be considered a form of protest in many ways, this particular choice can be either regarded as insane or held as the purest and most honorable form of atheism, depending on who's talking about it.
|
|
For an atheist, if you're punished, you go into the graveyard in the Boneyard. If you're NOT to be punished, your soul transforms into a free-roaming spirit that leaves the Boneyard to drift through the planes to observe and watch and learn, sort of like a ghost, I guess, but without stats since you're not undead—your'e just an invisible observer at that point.
Isn't this pretty much what the Petitioners in the Bestiary 2 are?
|
Creative Director
|
For an atheist, if you're punished, you go into the graveyard in the Boneyard. If you're NOT to be punished, your soul transforms into a free-roaming spirit that leaves the Boneyard to drift through the planes to observe and watch and learn, sort of like a ghost, I guess, but without stats since you're not undead—your'e just an invisible observer at that point.Isn't this pretty much what the Petitioners in the Bestiary 2 are?
Sort of... but petitioners still have a certain adherence and allegiance to a deity or a plane. An atheist who goes on to be a free-roaming spirit would probably have the same stats as a petitioner, but wouldn't be tied to one specific plane.
Thanks for adding that last clarification James (Sutter), it kind of brings together the other threads I was remembering of what you had put out before about atheism and soul cosmology, etc.
Regardless of what the gods claim and their followers believe about creating the world / it`s inhabitants, I`m pretty sure that there`s a good amount of Canon making clear that there are beings who existed prior to the Gods` meddling in the world: Aboleths for one. This conflict/contrast between Gods/Divinity as a whole and `other organic forces` seems to be a signifigant part of the Golarion Universe history.
Of course... that only makes me wonder what would it look like if an ABOLETH found a way to ascend to Divinity thru the Starstone (or some other way), perhaps something that was never meant to POSSIBLY happen, even more so than humans and other normal mortals... Presumably it would be just as opposed to forces of the Gods, but perhaps it`s own kind would not take a kindly view to the new `abomination`.
To my mind, the "crystallized atheists" aren't indicative of all Golarion atheists, but rather 'unhappy nihilists': people who believe that not only does the universe have no objective purpose, but that it is impotent to try to apply a subjective purpose. Of course, if this is the case, then ironically the universe is kept in existence by people who believe that the universe has no inherent value.
Correct. Divine spellcasters who get their powers from non-deity sources are oracles. Or perhaps druids or paladins or rangers or even inquisitors.
Clerics get their powers from a deity. That's one of the fundamental things that defines that class, in the same way wizards record their spells in a spell book.
One of your 3.5 modules provides the possibility of a demigod of atheism. As you've noted, 3.5 is no longer canon, and you do note the module in question, but I thought I'd bring it up.
I'm overall pretty square with this treatment of faith and whatnot. The only thing that needs a little clarification is that whole wall-of-the-faithless-esque thing in Pharasma's Boneyard. There's something a little head-slappingly silly about emulating one of the biggest, most contentious wall-bangers (sorry) in RPG cannon history.I know I said I was "out of the thread," but I need to step back in to clarify something that, alas, wasn't made clear in the section that talks about what happens to atheists when they die.
Basically... the same thing that happens to ANYONE when they die—they either get punished or get rewarded.
For an atheist, if you're punished, you go into the graveyard in the Boneyard. If you're NOT to be punished, your soul transforms into a free-roaming spirit that leaves the Boneyard to drift through the planes to observe and watch and learn, sort of like a ghost, I guess, but without stats since you're not undead—your'e just an invisible observer at that point.
Pharasma's the one who judges whether an atheist was naughty or nice, in any case, and she does so fairly and as according to that particular atheist's success or failure at whatever it was he/she did in life.
So in essence, an atheist is like anyone else when they die; they either go on for a reward or they get eternal punishment.
That we haven't gotten that message out there more clearly is one of the biggest disappointments and failings of both "The Great Beyond" and "Beyond the Vault of Souls."
Thank you SO MUCH for clarifying that. That was something that I found offensive out of game, and probably the only thing I've ever found to affect me out of game from an RPG (the bit in the Great Beyond about Atheists in Golarion really bothered me, specifically the part about them warping their souls or somesuch).
I appreciate it, thank you.
Well, I mean, we still have 3rd-person omniscient text in Faiths and Philosophies that misidentifies antitheists as atheists. It then goes on to explain that it uses the term atheist in place of the others because people in the setting use it that way, but how hard would it have been to use some sort of less-defined term like 'Faithless' or something?
There's a bit of backpedaling now, but the early Golarion cosmology seemed to equate atheism with bitter nihilism and punished it appropriately.
Umm... In the PHB it specifically states the following:
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).
How I read that is that the cleric doesn't need to have a deity, or even faith in them, as they can see the glory in their chosen roles. A cleric of Luck and War need not worship a deity or even acknowledge them, as they have "faith" in their own luck and in their ability to wage battle.
Personally, I would have no issue having an "atheist" cleric, as long as it isn't "Edgy McNofun" dude who just doesn't want to adhere to the general norms of the setting.
And either way, I would never allow a cleric who claims to be from Rahadoum without a very clear and good background.
That's the Core Rulebook - if you go through the forum you'll eventually find a number of posts where James Jacobs states that in Golarion a cleric must worship a deity (at least in Paizo products, whatever you do in your home campaign is obviously up to you and your group).
Well, I mean, we still have 3rd-person omniscient text in Faiths and Philosophies that misidentifies antitheists as atheists. It then goes on to explain that it uses the term atheist in place of the others because people in the setting use it that way, but how hard would it have been to use some sort of less-defined term like 'Faithless' or something?
There's a bit of backpedaling now, but the early Golarion cosmology seemed to equate atheism with bitter nihilism and punished it appropriately.
As the staffer probably most concerned with atheism in Golarion (both in its traditional meaning and in the way that Rahadoumi use it), we've never attempted to paint atheism as nihilism. I think Rahadoum as a government explores some awesome morally gray spaces, but we've striven really hard not to portray the *philosophy* in a negative light. While other nations may reject and deride it, I personally see Rahadoumi atheism as noble, at least as far as one considers the fight for freedom and independence noble.
If you're interested in seeing deeper into the Rahadoumi mindset--which I assure you is FAR from nihilist--the main character of my novel Death's Heretic is a Rahadoumi atheist forced to work for the goddess of death. In explaining things to other characters, he gives what I hope are some pretty good explanations of where the Rahadoumis are coming from.
I read Deaths Heretic and enjoyed it so thank you James. I, However, have trouble with the Rahadoumi as portrayed in the book as noble strivers for freedom. I see an attitude more akin to the "you will be forced to be free" concepts expressed by Rousseau and played out in the French Revolution. In order to free someone you need to take away their freedom.
This is certainly an are ripe for complex story telling, but at least for me is more like tyranny by another name.
Rahadoum is generally shown as a tyrannical nation, as well as one with a woeful lack of knowledge about how divine magic actually works to the point where they'll persecute the hell out of rangers who cast divine spells, who don't even worship a deity. But that doesn't really say much about atheism, except to show that there are some people who don't worship gods in the setting who are incorrectly labelled as atheists who tend to be unpleasant.
The overall structure of the cosmology, in which atheists (or possibly those who are conflated with atheists) are punished in the boneyard, and the equation of a life lived without worshiping gods as one that is wasted and unnatural, is the problem - it comes off as Greenwood-style editorializing, or else seems meant to characterize Pharasma as a horrible person (which I find to be unlikely, considering the rest of the setting material endorses her version of 'natural order' as right and good).