|
As it stands, some concept-focused players might choose a weaker arch whose specificity suits their concept. The weakest of the arches are kind of wasted space, but this is a necessary evil I think, to keep the design erring on the side of caution. I think the Separatist is one of those hyper-specific arches. If your diety has a crappy favored weapon you are not going to use, and you want a domain from outside the scope of your deity, it is a good option.Until you realize that you could do it without the archetype.
As long as your DM allows players to design their own gods. Many, possibly most, do not.
|
1) John wants to follow Obad-hai, but only really likes one of his domains. So he decides to play a heretical offshoot follower of the god, picking up one normal domain, and one unusual domain using the rules provided in the Core rulebook for people who want to play characters of philosophy, homebrew deities, or heretics/cultists.
2) Billy notices that there is a Separatist archetype and says "hey, that could be fun" and builds a cleric using the "new" archetype and its mechanics.
Only Billy is actually playing a cleic of Obad-hai. John is a cleic who thinks Obad-hai is cool but actually just follows a philosophy. Its a fine distinction but it can come up mechanically.
Also the idea that all domains are equal is laughable. Take a moment to compare travel and water domains.
If the DM doesn't allow godless clerics, and if he's sane, he won't allow the separatist archetype.
-Depends on the player and their reasoning. If say the character is a nature preist that's particularly interested in migrating birds they might be able to pick up the travel domain.
This could work for cult leader npcs and then have the god reject them and rise as a hueveca or advanced hueveca from bonus bestiary for a low level adventure. Remember it is not a nerf at level 1.
Starknives are a sucky favored weapon though. My cleric of desna uses a morningstar.
|
Starknives are a sucky favored weapon though. My cleric of desna uses a morningstar.
Desna, Nethys and Urgathoa are my favorite gods for domain access. I don't like the starknife visually. Quarterstaff as a favored weapon is like a bad joke. That leaves Urgathoa with the scythe, which, as favored weapons go, is both stylish and, very rarely (when it crits) wicked fun. Urgathoa isn't a terribly PC-friendly option, 'though, since her clergy are very popular as bad-guys.
A religion trait that allows a cleric with a simple favored weapon (Abadar, Asmodeus, Nethys, Pharasma) to have a +1 morale bonus to attack rolls with that weapon, could be neat, as a backdoor way of giving clerics with simple weapon proficiencies a leg up. Making it a morale bonus means that it won't stack with some common buffs (bless, bardic inspiration), and feels appropriately flavorful.
Ispire courage gives you a compentace bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Starknives are a sucky favored weapon though. My cleric of desna uses a morningstar.Desna, Nethys and Urgathoa are my favorite gods for domain access. I don't like the starknife visually. Quarterstaff as a favored weapon is like a bad joke. That leaves Urgathoa with the scythe, which, as favored weapons go, is both stylish and, very rarely (when it crits) wicked fun. Urgathoa isn't a terribly PC-friendly option, 'though, since her clergy are very popular as bad-guys.
A religion trait that allows a cleric with a simple favored weapon (Abadar, Asmodeus, Nethys, Pharasma) to have a +1 morale bonus to attack rolls with that weapon, could be neat, as a backdoor way of giving clerics with simple weapon proficiencies a leg up. Making it a morale bonus means that it won't stack with some common buffs (bless, bardic inspiration), and feels appropriately flavorful.
If nethys did something awesome like quarterstaff mastery I think the feat is that lets you use it in one hand so you could still cast some spells that would be nice. Although that made me think of a pretty awesome idea that would suck with the rules cleric staff magus mystic theruge I think that would look awesome but think it would suck.
Heaven forbid you operate at 95 percent efficiency for a roleplaying choice.But why make people lose character power for making more-interesting characters?
I guess it's a matter of personal GM taste, but I'm not particularly offended by the idea of making something (slightly) weaker than it ought to be in order to make it rare in my campaign. For instance, I don't mind "monsters as PCs" rules that somewhat discourage players from playing monsters; in fact, I think that's a mildly good thing for my campaign.
This same logic would argue for making Paladins weak to make sure they're rare, or hell, making all PC classes weaker to make sure that adventurers are rare.
I can't comment on the Paladin, but the PC thing is exactly backwards. I think it's a good thing that NPC classes are weaker and yet are still possible choices for a PC; I think it should be rare for a player to want to be an Aristocrat (say), but I wouldn't want to ban it altogether.
As long as your DM allows players to design their own gods. Many, possibly most, do not.If the DM doesn't allow godless clerics, and if he's sane, he won't allow the separatist archetype.
Some of us think godless clerics are nonsensical. Heretical clerics amenable to their deity but not to the church are not. Differing tastes doesn't imply insanity.
Some of us think godless clerics are nonsensical. Heretical clerics amenable to their deity but not to the church are not. Differing tastes doesn't imply insanity.The problem is that this archetype is also meaningless in any game but one with relatively few gods with relatively small domain pools, all of whom have monolatrist churches.
It works well (as it happens) in the games I play in - although your description is pretty accurate to most of our campaigns. As I mentioned, I like clerics but nearly always play them as borderline heretics, ostracised by the mainstream church. This archetype seems perfect for me since I can tie the mechanics in to what I already do (ie my cleric can do things most clerics of my faith can't).
It's also another (annoying) game mechanic where the Right Way to worship a god is ensconced in the game rules. Why are Reformation-era Protestant clerics weaker than Catholic clerics? Why are Mormon clerics weaker? Etc. etc.
I very rarely disagree with you when it comes to issues of mechanics - I don't really consider myself qualified, since the rules are loosely interpreted at best at our table. In our games such things as balance between choices arent very relevant - we're all horribly under-optimised and our characters have often taken the route wise internet people name as 'trap choices'. If you say it's true I would believe that the mechanical disadvantages of this archetype are over penalising the relatively minor boon of more flexibility in domain choice. As it happens, this is something of a non-issue for me, so I'm happy - I suspect I'll choose this option in spite of the fact it's subpar, just like my characters often have a smattering of skills rather than one or two maxed out (for example).
From what you've said, I agree with you about the balance of this archetype. I just dont think insanity is a very good label for those who choose to allow this option but not godless clerics. That designation seems suspiciously like 'there's one right way to play' to me.
If you say it's true I would believe that the mechanical disadvantages of this archetype are over penalising the relatively minor boon of more flexibility in domain choice. As it happens, this is something of a non-issue for me, so I'm happy - I suspect I'll choose this option in spite of the fact it's subpar, just like my characters often have a smattering of skills rather than one or two maxed out (for example).Well, I'm not going so far as to say it's not usuable as written, especially since it's a small power loss for one of the strongest classes in the game. I'm just baffled as to why it exists, when a discussion of splinter religions and divergent belief in general would serve the same purpose while also being much, much more useful. Failing that, a single sentence of "Different religions worshipping the same god may have different domains, including domains not usually offered to clerics of that god" would cover all of the mechanics here. Those would both serve your game better than this archetype would.
When you're used to wielding the archetype hammer, every concept looks like a nail. Or maybe it's just more archetype pagefiller. Who knows.
Well, you've convinced me. I can probably persuade my DM to just let me switch a domain out anyhow. I guess I can have this to fall back on though.
Some of us think godless clerics are nonsensical. Heretical clerics amenable to their deity but not to the church are not.did you actually read the class? Separatists don't follow the deity's teachings.
I don't parse RPG rules the way I do legislation, so it isnt terribly important to me if the wording of the rules goes against what we think the author intended. In other words, I don't think our interpretation is inconsistent with the intent of the designers (no matter what the wording).
In my view, the deity is granting the heretical cleric spells and access to a previously unavailable domain. I reconcile that by imagining that the cleric is not following the mainstream, primary aspect of their god but is rather following a new, previously inactive or undiscovered aspect.
Clerics with no God is not a sensible concept (in the way I understand the word cleric).
I dont think anyone else should adopt this position - however, I dont think it's right to label it 'insane' just because you take a different view/approach to interpreting the rules.
EDIT: Also, in passing, the archetype says the cleric doesnt follow the deity's orthodox teachings - which (in theological terms) means the mainstream interpretation. I dont think it's implying that the cleric doesnt follow the deity's teachings but rather puts a different interpretation on what those teachings mean. In fact I think this view was pretty clearly in the designers' minds, since they anticipated a separatist going on to start a holy civil war in an effort to determine 'the true faith'. That would indeed be peculiar if, as your interpretation seems to imply, a God was actively assisting someone working against their own interests.
Player: I will play a cleric dedicated to the cause of Justice who travel across the world to bring Justice everywhere. Iomedae will give me my powers, but I will use the rules of cleric of a cause to have the travel domain.
DM: No way! that's nonsensical.
Player: OK, then I will play a separatist who don't follow Iomedae's teachings. He never finishes the things he begins because he doesn't stay in the same place for long - eg if a village is attacked by goblins every days, he will help the village a bit, but depart before the problem is solved.
DM: OK, that makes perfect sense.
I'm not ignoring them, but I dont really have much to say to your hypothetical conversations. Suffice to say, they dont bear any resemblance to the conversations at our table. I dont even really understand what the point is - our group's conversation would have stopped after the first player statement, I suspect. I would imagine any of us would have said - OK, sounds like you want to be a separatist.
I have seen this before:
Player: Can I play this character that makes no logical sense? (secretly expecting the GM will say no, to provide precedent for this case if it comes up again)
GM: Sure. (thinking it's a genuine request and just not caring about the nonsenibility)
Player: But, uh, um. I'll play something else. D:
Sometimes, it's not the GM wanting more verisimilitude. It's the players.
EDIT: two points:
1. the author didn't speak about the chrch's teaching.
2. If a facet of Iomedae is is adapted to the travel domain, why does she give a weaker domain?
1. The archetype refers to the orthodoxy of the deity's teachings - what can that possibly be other than the church's teachings? That's what orthodoxy means in a theological context.
2. Because it's a new manifestation/interpretation with barely any followers.
That's the second part of my argument: if you don't follow the description, then the cleric dedicated to a cause makes sense: "I will play a wandering cleric of Iomedae, who brings justice everywhere. Technically, he's a cleric dedicated to Justice with the travel domain."
That's the whole nonsense of the separatist: if you follow the descriptions of classes or archetypes, the separatist doesn't make any sense, if you don't follow the descriptions, the cleric of a cause does the job better. In which case would you use the separatist?
I realize it doesn't bug you but a cleric of a cause doesn't work for us. It's like a mounted warrior with no horse.
Next up, clerics of Norgorber with the Sun domain! They believe Norgorber's not really secretive. He's just shy and is really pretty and glowing bright but afraid to show it!
Next up, clerics of Norgorber with the Sun domain! They believe Norgorber's not really secretive. He's just shy and is really pretty and glowing bright but afraid to show it!
Does he sparkle? Is he reeeeeally angsty? Does he have a werewolf rival for the affections of Pharasma? >_> <_<
Be it the player or the DM who care about verisimilitude, it doesn't change the fact that the separatist is more nonsensical than the cleric of a cause.
I agree.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Next up, clerics of Norgorber with the Sun domain! They believe Norgorber's not really secretive. He's just shy and is really pretty and glowing bright but afraid to show it!
Sun domain isn't so outrageous for Norgorber. Probably not common, but by no means unreasonable. Light can blind as well as it can illuminate.
Since Norgorber is the god of assassination, why couldn't a sect of his church focus on the assassination of undead individuals? I can easily these clerics being granted the sun domain. Along the same lines, what about a sun-domain cleric of Norgorber that works as an exorcist? Banishing ghosts and haunts to ensure that the dead never share their secrets with the living. Sounds pretty Norgorbery to me.
Now that I think about it, Norgorber's holy symbol even includes a sort of sunburst shape over the left eye.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Because Light Is Good and Norgorber is Evil, and Pathfinder is all about stereotypes, silly!
Of course you're right. How silly of me! :)
Next up, clerics of Norgorber with the Sun domain! They believe Norgorber's not really secretive. He's just shy and is really pretty and glowing bright but afraid to show it!Sun domain isn't so outrageous for Norgorber. Probably not common, but by no means unreasonable. Light can blind as well as it can illuminate.
Since Norgorber is the god of assassination, why couldn't a sect of his church focus on the assassination of undead individuals? I can easily these clerics being granted the sun domain. Along the same lines, what about a sun-domain cleric of Norgorber that works as an exorcist? Banishing ghosts and haunts to ensure that the dead never share their secrets with the living. Sounds pretty Norgorbery to me.
Now that I think about it, Norgorber's holy symbol even includes a sort of sunburst shape over the left eye.
There was a feat in 3.5, "Heretic of the Faith", which granted you the same ability as the Separatist.
Only that you had to somehow justify your choice with the GM.
Oh, and if you died your soul was condemned to oblivion.
With those two restrictions, that was probably one of the best feats I ever laid eyes on.
I'd just like to note that referring to a Cleric of a Philosophy as a "Godless Cleric" smacks of "spin" to me. It only focuses on the ways in which they are different, and appears (to me) to have a pre-deliberative bias against the notion, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with a real-world analog.
I don't think it requires a real-world analog, and I am no expert on religion (I spent my skill points elsewhere), but I'm pretty sure Zen Buddhists don't actually "worship" Buddha, instead it is more of a belief system, or a "path to enlightenment." Also, the Unitarian Church is a real, official church (there's probably one near you), that does not have any particular Deity as the focus of their beliefs. I'm pretty sure they primarily believe in "the inherent worth and dignity of every human being."
I think these examples (I suspect there are others) show that there are real world religions that are not focused on worshipping any particular Deity--some of them are more focused on a Philosophy. Is it fair to disregard them as religions, merely because in some ways they may seem unusual to us? To merely call these people "Godless" does them a disservice, I think, and places the focus on what they *don't* believe, rather than what they *do*. I don't really want to get into this point any further, because I am not a theologian, and because this topic can be a hot button issue for some people.
In a fantasy world, why should it be so unimaginable that a highly religious/spiritual/philosophical person might be able to wield some divine power through some avenue other than through a particular, enumerated deity? Further, where do those deities themselves get their power? Is it impossible to imagine that there may be greater forces in the Universe beyond those known to the good people of Golarian? What if, for example, Good and Evil are actual, real, cosmic forces, forever at odds and continually finding ways to express themselves? One manner may be by granting abilities to powerful, seemingly eternal entities who in turn grant a small portion of that power to their mortal followers.
Is it unthinkable that the right type of person might also find some small expression of those powers through direct supplication? Clearly, these people would be rare individuals indeed, and they would need to devote their lives to an existence in accordance with that cosmic force and philosophy and likely spend a good deal of time in spiritual contemplation. But is it so impossible to conceive?
Granted, the canon says there are no such individuals in Golarian, so this is all sort of a moot point. But I feel it is somewhat an expression of intellectual laziness to simply refer to such Clerics as simply "Godless." Or as "pick two Domains" Clerics. It certainly appears to be a term of contempt or derision.
In a world with: Skeletal Dragons that wield arcane power, faeries, mortal beings who can summon water and other materials out of thin air, or shoot lightning from their hands, stop time or turn their bodies completely gaseous, talking trees and assassin vines, living gelatinous cubes, "Monks" who can do more damage with a fist than the average person can do with a sword (due to their "ki" power?), Mushroom people and bird people, Potions that can heal your wounds, turn you invisible or allow you to levitate, magic rings that allow one to walk on water, use x-ray vision or that grant wishes, Alchemists who can create potions that only work for the one who created them, flying carpets and flaming swords...
In a world with all these things, one cannot imagine a cleric who receives her power from a source other than a named deity?
On pages 48 and 49 of the Core Rulebook, Druids are said to be "servants of philosophical balance." "They confound foes with the powers of nature, others transform into deadly beasts and savagely wade into combat. Druids worship personifications of elemental forces, natural powers, or nature itself. *Typically* this means devotion to a nature deity, though druids are just as likely to revere vague spirits, animalistic demigods, or even specific awe-inspiring natural wonders." (Emphasis added).
Why should Druids get a pass, while other sources of divine power remain unfathomable to us as players or DMs?
To paraphrase The Bard, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I'd just like to note that referring to a Cleric of a Philosophy as a "Godless Cleric" smacks of "spin" to me. It only focuses on the ways in which they are different, and appears (to me) to have a pre-deliberative bias against the notion, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with a real-world analog.
It is certainly a bias, but, in our case, it's not unfamiliarity (I've studied a little theology and quite a bit on the philosophy of religion) but disinterest in modelling such systems. We like our fantasy to be of the fairly standard, fantasy Western European type.
You can plausibly argue that there are real world clerics of religions who are not devoted to a God - nonetheless, cleric means a member of the ordained clergy (as opposed to a member of the laity) and, at its conception, was not really intended to apply to Eastern religions or to extreme devotees of some philosophy. That doesnt mean the word can't change, or that in a fantasy setting it can't apply to someone who is not devoted to a specific deity - it just doesnt fit with the image my group has of a cleric.
I don't think it requires a real-world analog, and I am no expert on religion (I spent my skill points elsewhere), but I'm pretty sure Zen Buddhists don't actually "worship" Buddha, instead it is more of a belief system, or a "path to enlightenment." Also, the Unitarian Church is a real, official church (there's probably one near you), that does not have any particular Deity as the focus of their beliefs. I'm pretty sure they primarily believe in "the inherent worth and dignity of every human being."
I think these examples (I suspect there are others) show that there are real world religions that are not focused on worshipping any particular Deity--some of them are more focused on a Philosophy. Is it fair to disregard them as religions, merely because in some ways they may seem unusual to us? To merely call these people "Godless" does them a disservice, I think, and places the focus on what they *don't* believe, rather than what they *do*. I don't really want to get into this point any further, because I am not a theologian, and because this topic can be a hot button issue for some people.
In a fantasy world, why should it be so unimaginable that a highly religious/spriritual/philosophical person might be able to wield some divine power through some avenue other than through a particular, enumerated deity? Further, where do those deities themselves get their power? Is it impossible to imagine that there may be greater forces in the Universe beyond those known to the good people of Golarian? What if, for example, Good and Evil are actual, real, cosmic forces, forever at odds and continually finding ways to express themselves? One manner may be by granting abilities to powerful, seemingly eternal entities who in turn grant a small portion of that power to their mortal followers.
Is it unthinkable that the right type of person might also find some small expression of those powers through direct supplication? Clearly, these people would be rare individuals indeed, and they would need to devote their lives to an existence in accordance with that cosmic force and philosophy and likely spend a good deal of time in spiritual contemplation. But is it so impossible to conceive?
Granted, the canon says there are no such individuals in Golarian, so this is all sort of a moot point. But I feel it is somewhat an expression of intellectual laziness to simply refer to such Clerics as simply "Godless." Or as "pick two Domains" Clerics. It certainly appears to be a term of contempt or derision.
I don't mean it in any derisory or contemptuous way, merely descriptive. All I mean by 'godless cleric' is a cleric who is not substantially devoted towards worshipping some specific deity. As I mentioned, in our worlds, such a thing is as sensible as a mounted warrior without a mount. A separatist cleric, on the other hand, fits in fine with how we see deities interacting with their worshippers - it is entirely plausible to us that a church will misinterpret or be too narrow in their conception of a God - and further that a heretic will arrive with a similar, but slightly different conception which is acceptable to the deity (or a different aspect of the deity, perhaps) even though their views may not be recognised by the church.
You make some good points, Steve, and I don't think I disagree--especially in terms of the role of Separatist Clerics. My own post was a bit off-topic, I must admit. My only real beef, I guess, is when some people (not necessarily you) have trouble conceptualizing a "Cleric of a Philosophy" (the name that I believe is more appropriate or accurate than "godless Cleric") or who assume that it is only done to cherry pick 2 domains. It also bugs me when people suggest that it is somehow illogical or absurd. It is neither. As you point out, though, it *is* a bit contrary to many people's expectations of how D&D Clerics work--but I think all it requires is a bit of thought or explanation.
(I also meant to mention earlier, as another example, that Witches get some of their spells from a "Patron"--what are those exactly? Perhaps another source of Power other than deities--though I assume the power is arcane rather than divine, but the point still serves).