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 think this is a key point - the rules are intended to cover a wide range of campaigns and, in my experience anyhow, the story of how Gods interact with their followers and the world is one of the key factors in defining a campaign setting. I'd say the magic-level and scope of civilisation would be the other really significant measures in articulating - and perhaps technological status. A cleric of a philosophy is a concept which can easily be justified - but it doesnt mean that it is going to exist in every campaign.
In my mind, there are two competing ways to analyse any given rules subset - how it works mechanically and its scope with regard to the story. (I don't intend this as some kind of 'roleplaying vs optimising' dichotomy, since I've seen plenty of examples of both within the same character).
A Man in Black (amongst others) made a pretty cogent argument that, with regard to mechanics, the separatist archetype overly penalises the cleric for the flexibility of domain choice. Whilst I accept that, it wouldnt actually affect my choice to use the archetype (since when we create characters my group makes suboptimal choices as a matter of routine with very little thought to what may be a better option mechanically - our decisions are more based around what we think the archetype/character option/feat/etc is supposed to mean), so the answer to the OP's question remains (for me) that it's a good way to model heretics looking to found a splinter group of some God's church.
The hypothetical conversations above (which I presume are intended to represent what I am advocating) about Norgorber clerics with light domains or somesuch, are interesting to me. I dont think that's the kind of thing we would allow as DM or ask for as players - our choice as to domain is going to come from whatever brand of heretic we're looking to portray. I daresay other groups have a vastly different method of creating characters than we do (and they would no doubt tear there hair out if they were forced to play in our campaigns) we will generally create our characters first and then work out how the mechanics work, rather than building a character with a mechanical idea of what we want to do already formed.
By RAW, you can now see clerics of Iomedae with the undeath domain! (although I think the evil spell tag will still prevent most of those spells from being cast)
By RAW, you can now see clerics of Iomedae with the undeath domain! (although I think the evil spell tag will still prevent most of those spells from being cast)
Yes it would.
Cleric: "Hey, Iomedae, I want to worship your undeath aspect!"
Iomedae: "My what?"
Cleric: "You know, your love of the shambling dead and all that."
Iomedae: *sigh* "Alright, you can have the domain powers, but no evil spells."
Cleric: "Woohoo!"
Iomedae: *shrug* "At least it keeps these nutters from turning to Urgathoa."
Cleric: "Hey, Iomedae, I want to worship your undeath aspect!"
Iomedae: "My what?"
Cleric: "You know, your love of the shambling dead and all that."
Iomedae: *sigh* "Alright, you can have the domain powers, but no evil spells."
Cleric: "Woohoo!"Iomedae: *shrug* "At least it keeps these nutters from turning to Urgathoa."
Which is where setting and DM feed back comes in.
Discussion at my table probably goes something like this.
Chris: Ben, i have this awesome idea. I sepatist cleric of Iomedae, with the undeath domain.
Ben: STFU Fool.*hits chris with rulebook*
Chris:Ow, WTF. Oh yeah, your right that would be silly wouldn't it...how about I take the pharasman version of the death domain and be from an order of undead slayers devoted to Iomedae instead?
Ben: *Give the thumbs up and a cheesie grin*
Which is where setting and DM feed back comes in.
Discussion at my table probably goes something like this.
Chris: Ben, i have this awesome idea. I sepatist cleric of Iomedae, with the undeath domain.
Ben: STFU Fool.*hits chris with rulebook*
Chris:Ow, WTF. Oh yeah, your right that would be silly wouldn't it...how about I take the pharasman version of the death domain and be from an order of undead slayers devoted to Iomedae instead?
Ben: *Give the thumbs up and a cheesie grin*
In which case, you're already using DM fiat and might as well just let him swap out one of the domains without having to take the archetype.
Its an option in all campaigns, and most useful in those campaigns that share one specific setting constraint with golarion.Well, it's meaningless except in campaigns with no clerics without a specific patron god, and also meaningless except in games where there are few gods with small pools of domains, and also meaningless unless those gods have (more or less) one homogenous monolatrist church. It's also (obviously) out the door if the gods cannot power or will not tolerate separatist clerics to begin with. Even in those specific campaigns, it has the odd effect of encoding the "correct" way to worship a god into the game rules and also the world's magic metaphysic, as clerics of a splinter cult are demonstrably weaker than the mainstream church. This is also an undesirable effect in some games.
You need house rules, a particular magic metaphysic, and a particular sort of pantheon for this to be a meaningful choice. It's not particular to Golarion, but it's inappropriate for a broad variety of otherwise-standard campaigns.
It offers an option.
It is up to individuals if they use it or not.
Some peoples world are like that, in which case, woot, they get it.
For other people, it may reflect their concept accurately, and they are happy to take a very slight hit to their power level, in which case awesome.
But it isn't an option that exists only in golarion.
Is separatist PFS legal? If so, does it have restrictions on what separatist domains can be taken with which deities?
|
I didn't read all the topic but to answer to the OP :
"Because it could be a cool NPC/Bad guy option ?".I know it's not such a good choice but does it REALLY matter
Also ... If a player says "I want to be a separatist of cult X but I don't want to take the archetype ".
then I say "Fine ... the choice is all yours"
No problem for me AT ALL : So the rule is here... Take it or leave it. You are the master.
In which case, you're already using DM fiat and might as well just let him swap out one of the domains without having to take the archetype.Which is where setting and DM feed back comes in.
Discussion at my table probably goes something like this.
Chris: Ben, i have this awesome idea. I sepatist cleric of Iomedae, with the undeath domain.
Ben: STFU Fool.*hits chris with rulebook*
Chris:Ow, WTF. Oh yeah, your right that would be silly wouldn't it...how about I take the pharasman version of the death domain and be from an order of undead slayers devoted to Iomedae instead?
Ben: *Give the thumbs up and a cheesie grin*
No DM fiat detected. Perhapes the attempt at humour makes it a little confusing.
The point is that you talk with the player, ppointing out that the choice doesn't fit the spirit of the campaign setting, or the god involved. You ask if their sure their isn't a way to achieve your concept without clashing with the setting?
You don't have to change the rules by fiat, you don't have to rule they can't do it.
Sure I could rule they could just use the godless cleric rules, but that would also go against the setting, and I don't buy that optimality outways concept and setting as considerations in character creation. It comes in after both, as a way to make a concept work as well as possible within role-playing constraints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It offers an option.
It is up to individuals if they use it or not.
Obviously. It's also written with words. It's an archetype. It's in the cleric section! Now that all the obvious things have been pointed out...
It's a badly designed option. It's badly designed because it requires heavy negotiation with the GM to work in the first place, and involves a power hit with no compensation whatsoever, when the rules to do exactly the same thing are already in the core book.
Not only is it wasted pagespace to tell people they're allowed to do a thing they could already do, but it also implies that god domain pools are somehow a balancing factor (they're not), and that being able to mix and match domains is somehow a more-powerful option that needs to be offset by some sort of cost (it's not). It reinforces the same old tired horsecrap that wanting to play a cleric that isn't part of the already-made churches for the setting is something that needs to be punished, to prevent (imaginary) powergamers and to protect the purity of the setting or its canon.
On top of all of this, it obstructs roleplay in order to place a completely ineffective obstacle in the path of supposed powergamers. If someone is concerned only with the most effective character they can make, they'll simply choose the god that offers the most effective domains. (You stymie that player by making all of the domains more or less about as good as each other.) Instead, the only players affected by this are the ones with offbeat concepts, like the Death domain cleric of Iomedae or whatever. That player gets a less-effective character despite trying to make a more-interesting character, just because they aren't playing the way the designers wanted him to play.
That kind of crap has to stop.
All character creation requires negotiation with the storyteller.
Campaign power levels, base assumptions and setting all influence what is and is not an appropreate character in a campaign. A campign designed for fred and Tom, murder hobbos inc, has different character creation requirements to a campaign designed for the wizards guild of awesome. So making Magnus the red, god wizard of awesome, in fred and Tom, murder hobbos inc game is going to such for everyone. How exactly is 'I was thinking about maybe playing a Iomedae cleric from an order of undead slayers, using the sepatist archetype and the pharasma version of death domain', a massive increase to the discussion you should be having with your DM and fellow players before making the character?
Secondly, there is compensation for the power hit. It allows you to achieve something that a campaign setting does not normally allow. It opens up a wide variety of builds to you.
Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the concept that taking a power hit is a bad thing.
It isn't. Encounter difficulty should be tailored to the player characters. Super optimised parties should find their adventure just as difficult as the murder hobbos find their adventure.
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'd say it is because the older, larger church has had more time and resources to learn how to best access and harness their god's powers, while the off-shoot separatists have to go by trial-and-error.
On the main topic, I'm one of those who wouldn't allow players to make up their own gods as they go along because they like some specific combination of domains, but I could allow a separatist cleric if he just put a little thought into it. But yeah, the archetype is very campaign/group dependant.
On top of all of this, it obstructs roleplay in order to place a completely ineffective obstacle in the path of supposed powergamers. If someone is concerned only with the most effective character they can make, they'll simply choose the god that offers the most effective domains.
I don't know what to tell you. In some campaigns, there may well be no god that offers the two domains that one would consider most effective, especially when you're aiming for a specific alignment (e.g. you usually have pretty slim picking if you're looking for good deities with the Madness domain or evil deities with the Liberation domain).
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.
This is just dumb. Not every schismatic has to take the Separatist cleric archetype, just like not every pirate has to take the Pirate rogue archetype.
Personally, the Separatist archetype passes the most important test for an archetype, in my opinion: it sounds like fun and it's balanced well enough for my taste. I could probably spend all day trying to come up with good reasons why Juiblex would have the Charm domain or why Loki would be the god of thunder. :-)
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.
To be more accurate Separatists are what they are because they stray from the church DOGMA. (Since most deities don't generally spend time on the material plane teaching clerics personally) Kind of the way how Luther started as essentially a separatist cleric of the Roman Church.
Your standard cleric is essentially a person who toes the line on church dogma, even if he isn't necessarily a paragon of it's execution. A Separatist points out to one or more parts of that dogma and says "This is wrong, I'm doing it MY way which IS the CORRECT WAY!" He's the Martin Luther who's posted a bull on the Bishop's door. Deities as usual tend to be silent on the matter as they pay scarce attention as to how their followers order themselves as long as the AGENDA is met. So they grant the Separatist spells. But because the separatist has put himself a variant mindset, it changes, somewhat fractures the way he relates to his deity.
This makes a lot of sense. Once I thought of a cleric of gozreh who thought swamps were the holiest places of nature so has the swamp druid domain. It is a domain that is not on the gods spell list it did not say cleric domain.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Cleric: "Hey, Iomedae, I want to worship your undeath aspect!"
Iomedae: "My what?"
Cleric: "You know, your love of the shambling dead and all that."
Iomedae: *sigh* "Alright, you can have the domain powers, but no evil spells."
Cleric: "Woohoo!"Iomedae: *shrug* "At least it keeps these nutters from turning to Urgathoa."
I was thinking more along the lines of those spooky dwarves from Dragon Age game. The ones that abandon their lives to go fight the darkspawn in the tunnels? I forget what they're called.
Like a group of Iomedaen clerics, who are so dedicated to fighting the forces of evil that they give up their lives in service to the cause. Before they march up to Mendev for the crusade or wherever, they go through a ceremonial death, giving up every aspect of their former lives. They dress like dead men, they think like dead men, they may even act like dead men (forgetting to eat, or claiming to feel no pain nor fear), so deep is their dedication to the cause.
The undead subdomain fits these guys fairly well, as it gives them some undead-like traits and powers to fit their dead-man persona. Just use the Pharasma-friendly Death domain as the base for your Undead subdomain modifications and voila.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Wait, I'm confused.Clerics dedicated to a cause - to fight the forces of evil - are in the core rulebook. Nothing prevent them to worship Iomedae. Separatists are something different.
Why do you need an archetype if the exact character concept you want to play is in the core rules?
Well for one, I'm not arguing about whether the Separatist archetype should exist or not, so reading my post through that lens is going to give you a distorted view to begin with.
Second, you're putting emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence (sort of like you are with the description of the Separatist from the book*) 'Dedicated to fighting evil' isn't the point of my example. 'Giving up their former lives by symbolically dying' is the point. It makes for a cleric with a strong thematic tie to death, even to a sort of undeath, without violating the spirit of Iomedae's teachings. It's not the only way to do that either, just the first that popped into my head.
And for that matter, even though I think you missed the point, you're still right. You don't need an archetype to play that character. It's all flavor. You can stick it on top of the vanilla cleric of Iomedae and it'll work. I just happen to think that it would work better, be more flavorful, if you allowed that cleric to select the Death domain. Thus, the Separatist archetype improves that character.
Cleric: "Hey, Iomedae, I want to worship your undeath aspect!"
Iomedae: "My what?"
Cleric: "You know, your love of the shambling dead and all that."
Iomedae: *sigh* "Alright, you can have the domain powers, but no evil spells."
Cleric: "Woohoo!"Iomedae: *shrug* "At least it keeps these nutters from turning to Urgathoa."
I was thinking more along the lines of those spooky dwarves from Dragon Age game. The ones that abandon their lives to go fight the darkspawn in the tunnels? I forget what they're called.
Like a group of Iomedaen clerics, who are so dedicated to fighting the forces of evil that they give up their lives in service to the cause. Before they march up to Mendev for the crusade or wherever, they go through a ceremonial death, giving up every aspect of their former lives. They dress like dead men, they think like dead men, they may even act like dead men (forgetting to eat, or claiming to feel no pain nor fear), so deep is their dedication to the cause.
The undead subdomain fits these guys fairly well, as it gives them some undead-like traits and powers to fit their dead-man persona. Just use the Pharasma-friendly Death domain as the base for your Undead subdomain modifications and voila.
Legion of the dead I think, of the top of my head.
It could be worse. It could instead be the Cloistered Cleric. You can play a cleric that sucks at casting and sucks at combat but somehow thinks he's a bard. That archetype is full of fail.
This is just dumb. Not every schismatic has to take the Separatist cleric archetype, just like not every pirate has to take the Pirate rogue archetype.So, which schismatic religions have to take it, and which ones just get domains normally? Why don't they all get domains normally?
Which pirates have to take the Pirate rogue archetype? The ones who want to get those particular class features, I guess. So in the case of the Separatist cleric archetype, you have to take it if you want the Separatist class feature.
I'm not going to touch the issue of what domains the Catholic god and the Mormon god have with a 10' pole.
Plus, if two domains in combination are too good, than the problem is with the domains, not the ability to combine those domains.
I suppose it's possible that there's a tabletop RPG out there that has no possible synergies in player choices, but if so, I've never heard of it.
The problem is that you don't need an archetype for this, you need a discussion of splinter religions, how to create them, and how to fit them into your game.
When you're looking to fill pages with the archetype hammer, every character concept starts to look like a nail.
The funny thing is that I think the Separatist is exactly the sort of archetype/alternate class feature I'd like to see more of. Short and sweet, like the alternate class features from Unearthed Arcana.
Roleplaying reasons are an excellent reason to play a sepratist too. I am in an online kingmaker game with a female cleric of Erastil who hates Erastil's outlook on women, seeing it as archaic and unecessary (something I agree with but Im not the GM this time). So she took the sepratist archetype with Community for Erastil's domain and also Liberation for the other.
Its been a fun character to play with thus far with how much she complains about the social implications of her being a cleric and not stuck in the kitchen
In my opinion, anything that enhances the fun of other people in the groups is a good thing and sepratist most certainly does.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
This archetype doesn't allow everything at once, either. It only allows two domains. You can use all sorts of derogatory language to refer to settings where domains aren't as restricted as in Golarion, but those restrictions exist because of in-universe reasons, not because of power reasons.Why is it good for the game for a cleric of one god to be weaker than a cleric of another god, despite having exactly the same domains?
Because even though they both have the same domains, one person is worshiping a God thematically tied to that domain, and the other person isn't.
It makes sense that Gozreh, Goddess of the sea, is going to have more influence over water (and thus grant a stronger version of the Water domain to his/her clerics) than Shelyn, Goddess of art (who might have a sect dedicated to ice sculpture or fountains or something, but who has no real thematic tie to or influence over water).
It's good for the game because it keeps a cleric's choice of deity mechanically relevant.
I see what you're saying. The base cleric has the option of choosing to follow a "philosophy or concept" instead of a specific deity
Not on Golarion, no. James Jacobs recently stated that on Golarion you NEED a god to grant you spells and powers as a cleric.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
We already have a mechanic for measuring character power, though. It's called "levels". Gozreh's greater influence causes him to have more high-level clerics than Shelyn. This preserve both the in-game effect you want and also doesn't mess with character balance unnecessarily.
Wait, what?
How does that preserve the in-game effect I want?
I want clerics of Gozreh to be better at Gozreh stuff than Shelyn's clerics. Vice Versa, I want clerics of Shelyn to be better at Shelyn stuff than Gozreh's clerics. The relative number of high level clerics between the two gods has no effect on that.
Why is it good for the game to keep a cleric's choice of deity mechanically relevant? Why is it good for the game for two choices to give exactly the same abilities, only one is weaker than the other?
You'd prefer the players' choices be irrelevant? I find most players like to feel that their decisions matter.
Except a sane DM won't accept separatist without accepting clerics of a cause. If he's not going to accept clerics of a cause, whatever the reason, he's not going to accept separatist.
Last I checked I am sane.
Here are the first two ideas of the top of my head for occasions where I would allow a separatist without a second thought.
Aspected gods:
In setting such as Mark Smylls Artesia comics, gods have broad roles, and often have more than one branch of worship, which change by culture. As such I would happily allow separatist as a cleric of a god or godesses, but tied closely to a specific aspect. such as Yhera, queen of the night. They would be less powerful because they are drawing power from only part of the goddess in question, but would gains access to powers which are not normally granted to their fellows because of their devotion to a specific aspect.
Human made gods:
In settings, such as my own home brew, where gods are the direct result of human belief in them, separatist effectively create a second, less powerful god with slightly different properties, which exists in consort with the original. Why can separatists do it, but individuals not? Because their is a large enough critical mass of believers in the new god, and they piggy back on the worship going to the original.
Edit:
In addition
Intersessionary saints:
The religion believes in the intersession the saintly dead on behalf of individuals, and the PC is a member of a saints cult. Still draws its power from the greater god, but through the filter of a saint cult.(which is exactly what Iomedae started out as.)
Mecurial gods:
Like classical human gods, the gods of the setting are internally inconsistant, ever changing, prone to practical jokes on humanity and generally a bit of a nightmare. They grant the power, because they think it would be a good crack, or to teach the silly mortal about hubris and how it is a bad thing.
pantheonic alliance:
A specific god favours a mortal for being an exampler of a trait he or she represents, and favours them, however realising that the mortal is also well suited to say that gods spous, the god talks his or her better half into lending their power to the mortal as well.
That's not what separatists are about. Except if they're saying "this aspect is the only aspect of the god".
No, but it is a perfectly valid use of the archetype.
In this setting, clerics of a cause exist. That is, if enough peoples believe in a cause like "Justice".
Sorry...did you really just try to tell me how my home setting works? Sufficed you say, it it the attribution of personality, motive and purpose to a complex set of ideas, which is then worshipped that shapes the gloam into a god. Concepts of what justice is are to varied within said setting to collapse the quantum wave form through belief, especially without strong cultural images of justice. Hence some cultures form their own gods, who may even be gods associated with justice, but they are distinctly linked to one cultures vision of what justice is, rather than of justice as a whole.
That's not what separatists are about. Except if they're saying "Aroden doesn't exist, you should all worship Iomedae instead". Oh wait, that's actually what's they are saying... Why aren't clerics of Iomedae less powerful than clerics of Aroden since the latter are separatists?
Actually, in pathfinder, a difference of power between two gods doesn't lead to any difference in the power of clerics. Sarenrae is one of the most elder and the most powerful gods, Asmodeus is only an archdevil, Caiden Caylean is a human turned into a god, and Rovagug is an ancient god who has been beaten by Sarenrae. But all clerics are at the same power level. Shouldn't a cleric of Sarenrae be more powerful than a cleric of Rovagug, since Sarenrae is more powerful? Or a cleric of an angel of Sarenrae be at least as powerful as a cleric of Caiden Caylean, since the latter is far younger?
No, but it is a perfectly valid use of the archetype.
OK, this one makes a little bit of sense. Those gods should also give power to some clerics of a cause, just for fun, but let's pretend they don't.
I notice you didn't say "That's not what separatists are about." because that isn't what the fluff describes it as either. But again, it is a perfectly sane and rational use of the archetype.
pantheonic allianceThat's not what separatists are about.
Not what the writers envisioned, but a perfectly valid use for the archetype.
The Archetype is a set of mechanics. The background material attached is for inspiration purposes only. I can think of more separationists also.
Such as the strayed flock, where the god looks on their movement away from his doctorine, and uses a reduction in provide power as a way to guide them back to the fold.
In my experience, when someone propose a special cult, the DM's response has always been "yes" or "no". The response has never been "oh, yes, but since your cult is special, you have to lose 1 level for this domain, and 3 level for this one and this one, and maybe 2 level for this one". Because the latter is needlessly complicated for no reason, since all clerics have the same power (even if some deities are weaker than others): if the special cult makes sense, then it makes sense.
Don't use it then. However, for me as a player and as a DM it is another tool in my arsonal. It increases the range of characters and NPCs that I can make, allowing me to fit mechanics to concept better. I am glad to have it.
The answer for you and the man in black not liking it...don't use it and stop harping on about it. Or house rule it and stop harping on about it.
"Godless" Clerics = Player Advocacy Movement saying for "screw you DM, sorry, Mister Cavern, you will NOT limit my choice of domains in ANY way, you opressive rule-0 mongering weasel!"Is there any difference with the separatist?
It's a two way street. I really want A, I will give up B for it.