|
Not really true. Paizo has talked about how even Oracles and nondeity Druids/Paladins (I think) etc. . ., and Witches, are not accepted in Rahadoum. It's more of a story issue than one that follows logic, really. A religious Sorcerer would be condemned right next to a priest. Essentually what they intended for Rahadoum and they way it is presented in all the books are different. It's a LN country, but is actually a CE one, and is meant to be presented that way.
My question is why does the character want to play a divinely powered atheist. Is it because he wants to fill the healer niche but isn't into religon?This was my case. I wanted to play a healer because the party was in need of one but I really don't like the god's things. I played it like "i revere good" and I thought that i could either be sponsored, or that my devotion to the philosophy would let me tap into that power.
A bit of "gods grant you your spells" thing: in deities and demigods (3.5) it was silly that you were a divine spellcaster deity and had to ask for your spells to another deity so it was ruled that your prayers and whatnot was the special formula of "going to a god's source of power and steal a little bit for yourself" (and as a god you could tap into a bit of your own essence so you didn't need to ask other gods for your spells). Gods aren't answering in a call center of divine spellcasters "do you want 3 blesses for tomorrow? check". It's more of a symbiotic relationship. You as a divine spellcaster tap into a bit of that power and you promote the god's agenda. If they find you are against its porfolio or agenda, it might cut out the supply line of divine stuff and or even try to punish you, w/e. Also when there's no god and thus no divine magic source, you can't get any from it. I'm sure this has a lot of DM fiat and interpretation of the rules so for some DMs it might be good enough that gods are omniscient and omnipresent so they can answer like the aforementioned divine call center to give spells to their clerics.
Anyway, I don't know how Golarion works (I presume everyone has to worship a god, even commoners). If they don't, would it be a problem for your campaign? The paladin is sworn to promote law and goodness into the world, not a personal god's agenda. Perhaps he or she could work as a freelancer between lawful good churches and seen as a pariah or whatnot but I think he could tap into a bit of power from a lawful good god. I believe it's a small DM concession, not that he's asking "can i own the largest kingdom in Golarion?". The ultimate goal in PF should be to have fun
Not really true. Paizo has talked about how even Oracles and nondeity Druids/Paladins (I think) etc. . ., and Witches, are not accepted in Rahadoum. It's more of a story issue than one that follows logic, really. A religious Sorcerer would be condemned right next to a priest. Essentually what they intended for Rahadoum and they way it is presented in all the books are different. It's a LN country, but is actually a CE one, and is meant to be presented that way.
Witches are fine, they are Arcane casters. But any and every type of Divine caster is illegal inside Rahadoum. As long as the witch is non religious or hides it, he is good.
And No its not CE, its very much LN. Both as written and as intended. It has a strict code and set of Laws which is enforced without pity, mercy or exceptions.
This is not chaotic and is not evil.
|
|
I don't remeber where to even look, but not too long ago Paizo was talking about this, because so many people had trouble with Rahadoum, and explained it should have actually been more CE, becuase what people see when they read it and what was actually intended with it are very different.
Witches get powers from a "patron", which violates the 1st law of man, about being beholden to something else.
This is pretty much what I mean with how people percieve Rahadoum and what they really intended for it.
In the Book of Fiends ( greem ronin - Erik Mona was one of the designers) There is a Duke Of Hell Called Furcas ( he appears in The prince of Darkness book too) and he is famous for having a theory written in a book that i find very relevant for the discussion in this thread.
"Gods and monster: An investigation into the nature of divinity. This book argues that the gods are not gods at all, but powerful yet petty beings who fool mortals into worshipping then." ( book of fiends page 164)
greetings from brazil.
|
|
I hear this a lot, but what exactly do you (in general) concider for one, a deity or not, and secondly makes a deity worthy or not of worship?
It's kind of like saying governments are just people that just trick people into abiding by their rules.
Just with less wisdom and truth. I don't mean that as as insult.
Would atheism in Golarion mean denial of the existance of deities, or simply not woshipping them?
Would atheism in Golarion mean denial of the existance of deities, or simply not woshipping them?Could be either.
But you still can reflect about the meaning of being a deity.IMO You can call yourself an atheist, because you belive that divinity is a lie and the gods are just powerful/epic monsters( see FURCAS DUKE OF RETHORIC).
So my question is? can a Paladin with this point of view cast "divine" spells?
Would atheism in Golarion mean denial of the existance of deities, or simply not woshipping them?Could be either.But you still can reflect about the meaning of being a deity.IMO You can call yourself an atheist, because you belive that divinity is a lie and the gods are just powerful/epic monsters( see FURCAS DUKE OF RETHORIC).
So my question is? can a Paladin with this point of view cast "divine" spells?
No. You have rejected the gods and the Divine.
No. You have rejected the gods and the Divine.Would atheism in Golarion mean denial of the existance of deities, or simply not woshipping them?Could be either.But you still can reflect about the meaning of being a deity.IMO You can call yourself an atheist, because you belive that divinity is a lie and the gods are just powerful/epic monsters( see FURCAS DUKE OF RETHORIC).
So my question is? can a Paladin with this point of view cast "divine" spells?
I see your point, but i can argue that what i worship is a philosophy/portifolio, like Good or Evil , and the power granted by this behavior is channeled by a powerful being ( seranrae / asmodeus) that i respect, but do not see as my creator. And if you take the reference in the Gods and Magic book or Inner Sea , there a mistery concerning the creation of the world and who was responsable for it.
some references:
"Eventually , mortal life appeared- yet again , whether as a result of aboleths experimentation or divine creation , the thruth is unclear" (Inner Sea World Guide page 33).
"... Whateever the thruth , the gods aren´t saying." Gods and Magic page 2 - concerning the old beings and the old cult.
obs: Just an idea , perhaps Aroden died because he discovered the truth about the concept of divinity and the relationship with this old/primeval Gods/entities.
Food for thought.
sorry for my poor english.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would atheism in Golarion mean denial of the existance of deities, or simply not woshipping them?Could be either.But you still can reflect about the meaning of being a deity.IMO You can call yourself an atheist, because you belive that divinity is a lie and the gods are just powerful/epic monsters( see FURCAS DUKE OF RETHORIC).
So my question is? can a Paladin with this point of view cast "divine" spells?
In order to cast divine spells... you must have faith in something. Obviously, you can have faith in things that aren't gods—but the fundamental quality of having faith is, in a lot of ways, the exact opposite of using logic and science.
With this way of looking at things, you need faith in order to cast divine spells, and logic/science to cast arcane spells.
You can certainly have BOTH... but if you only have one or the other, you can't cast both divine and arcane spells, essentially.
Whether or not an atheist can also have faith is something that each GM needs to decide for his or her table, honestly—but the baseline at my table (and thus, I guess, by default, the baseline for Golarion) is that atheists are paragons of logic, NOT faith, and thus if you're an atheist, you can't cast divine spells.
It's kind of like being a wizard who can't read. You HAVE to be able to read to be a wizard; if you can't you can't learn spells from spellbooks, and thus can't cast really cast wizard spells.
(Obviously there are exceptions, and good writers will be able to use the power of language to justify other interpretations or argue the proof of the opposite of what I've written, but I'm not much interested in those kinds of arguments here.)
How are atheists paragons of logic?
By atheists are you referring to those who don't believe in deities/souls/magic/fey, . . . or those that don't have a patron deity(s)?
You see logic/science and faith as polar?
What he is saying is , An atheist is not a non- religious person in game terms. It is someone who has rejected the divine. They have no faith in anything outside of themselves, no higher power or fate guiding them.
You can not be of a faith based, divine class( which is all of em really) and reject the divine.
You see logic/science and faith as polar?
Fantasy setting aside In real life I they are. Evolutionism vs Creationism, for example. Science vs Magic. So yea, they're basically polar opposites.
Of course you can have a scientist who also has faith, but that's merely an internal justification.
Edit: This is my view. I don't want it to turn into a ridiculous religion flame war (again).
Would atheism in Golarion mean denial of the existance of deities, or simply not woshipping them?Could be either.But you still can reflect about the meaning of being a deity.IMO You can call yourself an atheist, because you belive that divinity is a lie and the gods are just powerful/epic monsters( see FURCAS DUKE OF RETHORIC).
So my question is? can a Paladin with this point of view cast "divine" spells?
In order to cast divine spells... you must have faith in something. Obviously, you can have faith in things that aren't gods—but the fundamental quality of having faith is, in a lot of ways, the exact opposite of using logic and science.
With this way of looking at things, you need faith in order to cast divine spells, and logic/science to cast arcane spells.
You can certainly have BOTH... but if you only have one or the other, you can't cast both divine and arcane spells, essentially.
Whether or not an atheist can also have faith is something that each GM needs to decide for his or her table, honestly—but the baseline at my table (and thus, I guess, by default, the baseline for Golarion) is that atheists are paragons of logic, NOT faith, and thus if you're an atheist, you can't cast divine spells.
It's kind of like being a wizard who can't read. You HAVE to be able to read to be a wizard; if you can't you can't learn spells from spellbooks, and thus can't cast really cast wizard spells.
(Obviously there are exceptions, and good writers will be able to use the power of language to justify other interpretations or argue the proof of the opposite of what I've written, but I'm not much interested in those kinds of arguments here.)
First, thanks for your reply, the support that you( and the rest of the paizo staff) give to us gamers is amazing.
Second, i want to state that my focus/opinion in this discussion is only in the realm of Golarion , i dont want to see this debate expand to real life.
Third , Are we going to see more info in the creation theories in the upcomming book Distant Worlds?
IMO Golarion is truly the Best of all worlds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see logic/science and faith as polar?Fantasy setting aside In real life I they are. Evolutionism vs Creationism, for example. Science vs Magic. So yea, they're basically polar opposites.
Of course you can have a scientist who also has faith, but that's merely an internal justification.
Edit: This is my view. I don't want it to turn into a ridiculous religion flame war (again).
I'm talking in the game only. I can see an atheists (in game) being very low Wisdom, but I don't see how that makes them high or even moderate Int, so to speak. It depends on what type of "atheist" though.
What I mean though, is I can see certain faiths being more logical that "faith" based, like the churchs of Abadar or Nethrys. I can also see some arcanists being largly, if not fully based of belief and superstitions and not at all science or logic, for example villiage sorcerers and shamans, not to mention pretty much any of the Varisians.
I'm not trying to argue or debate RL religion either, just understand what was said and what it means to the game.
I fully disagree though, "that the fundamental quality of having faith is, in a lot of ways, the exact opposite of using logic and science". In or out of game. But in game here is what matters. Logic is the formation of belief based on reasoning and inference. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proved (or disproved). One can easily have faith in something BECAUSE they reason other factors together but can't prove it to be true because they are not a deity.
I'm talking in the game only. I can see an atheists (in game) being very low Wisdom, but I don't see how that makes them high or even moderate Int, so to speak. It depends on what type of "atheist" though.
What I mean though, is I can see certain faiths being more logical that "faith" based, like the churchs of Abadar or Nethrys. I can also see some arcanists being largly, if not fully based of belief and superstitions and not at all science or logic, for example villiage sorcerers and shamans, not to mention pretty much any of the Varisians.
I'm not trying to argue or debate RL religion either, just understand what was said and what it means to the game.
Gotcha. In game atheists are idiots. Deities regularly make their presence known.
Gotcha. In game atheists are idiots. Deities regularly make their presence known.I'm talking in the game only. I can see an atheists (in game) being very low Wisdom, but I don't see how that makes them high or even moderate Int, so to speak. It depends on what type of "atheist" though.
What I mean though, is I can see certain faiths being more logical that "faith" based, like the churchs of Abadar or Nethrys. I can also see some arcanists being largly, if not fully based of belief and superstitions and not at all science or logic, for example villiage sorcerers and shamans, not to mention pretty much any of the Varisians.
I'm not trying to argue or debate RL religion either, just understand what was said and what it means to the game.
I disagree , again I can use the theory that what is common called a God is just a powerful monster/creature. It is not a fact that the world is a creation of the deities presented in the GODS AND MAGIC BOOKS.
sorry for my english.
|
|
Your english is fine. :)
But lets say your right. They are super-powerful outsiders, (that are also immortal, centers of faithful worship, and in all ways do and are deities), what makes them a deity or not a "real" deity?
In essence, if they are not "real" deities, than religion and philosiphy are all just better forms of politics than politics, and make the world a much better place. So I guess the point is, what is the point?
In Golarion, there are deities made after the creation of the world, so one doesn't have to create a world to be a deity.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Atheisim in RPGs is one of several hot-button topcis that tends to get folks worked up. In the same way, ironically, that we'd rile people up if we put rules in for Christians or Muslims or Republicans or Democrats. In fact, I was tempted to not say anything about the topic in Golarion for that precise reason... but for various reasons we obviously went the route of including atheism (and agnosticism) in the setting.
What EXACTLY an atheist is in a world where the gods are manifestly "real" though... I have my own opinions. In fact... it's just as difficult to have a religious person in a world where the gods are manifestly real is it is to have an atheist, since when your god can give you the power to heal the sick or can send a minion down to help you in a fight, you don't need faith to believe in that deity. Proof is right there in the magic or the minion.
The whole underlying discussion of what is faith and what is atheisim in an RPG is, as a result, a tough topic to talk about. Especially if you're trying, as a publishing company, to appeal to as wide a group as you can without coming across as disrespecting atheists or religious folks.
So I tend to get evasive on the topic.
(ninja smoke)
How are atheists paragons of logic?
By atheists are you referring to those who don't believe in deities/souls/magic/fey, . . . or those that don't have a patron deity(s)?
You see logic/science and faith as polar?
What you and others seem to be forgetting is that it is not just believe(worshipers) vs. dis-believe(atheists), there is also a sort of middle ground with the agnostic, who acknowledges that there is some divine power out there but does not believe in any of the known deities.
|
Atheisim in RPGs is one of several hot-button topcis that tends to get folks worked up.
I think it would be less of a problem is atheism in the REAL world didn't have to reflect atheism in a FANTASY world.
I mean it's like going to Santa's workshop and smacking Santa, yelling "You lying fat bastard! You don't exist!" If you were in such a world...
Just saying.
The whole underlying discussion of what is faith and what is atheisim in an RPG is, as a result, a tough topic to talk about. Especially if you're trying, as a publishing company, to appeal to as wide a group as you can without coming across as disrespecting atheists or religious folks.So I tend to get evasive on the topic.
(ninja smoke)
I just want to say to all the atheists out there: I believe in Orcus and Santa Claus. So there. :P :)
Atheism just means not believing in deities. That doesn't mean the person is irreligious, they can still be spiritual without believing in deities (or that "deities" are truly deities and not just more powerful outsiders).
Now I have a caveat,
Clerics (and by extension Pallys) can revere an ideal and get power that way. But that's not the same thing as Athiest. WHen a cleric reveres good (for example) a good diety sees that they are worthy and they 'sponsor' them to do good in the world.
I would think though that if that same good cleric actively said "the gods don't exist" cant see a diety sponsoring them. Maybe, but the relationship would be tenuous at best.
This was the first thing I thought too. In 2E at least, they had a a whole section on Paladin's following an ideal and not an actual god.
I actually played a paladin following 'justice'. Fluff-wise we said that a couple of the gods looked down and decided that his dedication should be encouraged and agreed to give him power. The Paladin didn't KNOW any of this... but that's how we played it.
Clerics I'd be less inclined to agree about. I see Clerics as 'by definition' servents of a 'god.' There are a few other Divine casters out there... if they don't want to follow a god, then play an oracle or druid or something... ;)
|
You can certainly have BOTH... but if you only have one or the other, you can't cast both divine and arcane spells, essentially.
I like that. Einstein was a Mystic Theurge, and Hawkin is a Wizard. :)
Some quotes from other random websites:
-----------------------
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking recently explained his belief that there is no God and that humans should therefore seek to live the most valuable lives they can while on Earth.
Guardian writer Ian Sample asked Hawking if he feared death in a story published yesterday. This was his response:
I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I disagree , again I can use the theory that what is common called a God is just a powerful monster/creature. It is not a fact that the world is a creation of the deities presented in the GODS AND MAGIC BOOKS.
sorry for my english.
Well actually you can't since there is not a theory as far as Golarion goes, barring GM Fiat, but we can't really account for every GM's games. As a player the book tells you what they are, and so can the GM. As a PC by saying the god is really just an outsider you still saying that gods in deific terms don't exist, and a god in deific terms are what atheist don't believe in.
In any event either you believe in them in deific terms or you don't with regards to atheism. If you are not sure then you are agnostic or non religous.
I think it is fine to have a paladin follow the teachings of an ideal that is supported by a god, even if the paladin doesn't believe in gods that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the existence of powerful creatures that are worshiped by many. A planeshift spell might convince someone of the existence of powerful beings that are thought of as gods (not that I support that but possible in theory) it would not necesarily convince someone to think of said beings as gods.
Being an atheist seems very possibly from a roleplay perspective especially if said paladin maintains that no creature is inherently superior to another though some might be much more powerful than others, 'gods' are just creatures on the top of the foodchain. Even in real world religions/myth many creatures are interchangably called demons, gods, false gods or different things still.
|
|
That's why I kept asking what was ment by atheist. Typically in reference to the game, people mean an individual that is either agnostic, or doesn't have a Patron Deity. Which is fine. Possibly even common. But it isn't atheism, which causes a lot of confussion.
Not a person that believes that magic, deities, and monsters (anything "supernatural") doesn't exist, which is what atheism is. Such a person is pretty deluded, illogical, and has very low mental stats.
I'd even go as far as to say that was the baseline for the game in the earliest editions. Being a Priest (or Paladin) of goodness and light. Maybe they are sponcered by all the deities of good.
That's why I kept asking what was ment by atheist. Typically in reference to the game, people mean an individual that is either agnostic, or doesn't have a Patron Deity. Which is fine. Possibly even common. But it isn't atheism, which causes a lot of confussion.
Not a person that believes that magic, deities, and monsters (anything "supernatural") doesn't exist, which is what atheism is. Such a person is pretty deluded, illogical, and has very low mental stats.
I'd even go as far as to say that was the baseline for the game in the earliest editions. Being a Priest (or Paladin) of goodness and light. Maybe they are sponcered by all the deities of good.
Actually, it was Gygax's players who wanted him to come up with specific divinities, instead of the generic "gods" who granted clerics' spells. He created: Pholtus (who's "followers were so fanatic that they refused to believe in other gods") and St. Cuthbert (who "brought the faithless around with tender whacks of his cudgel"), if I recall correctly.
Also, I'm not sure that atheism includes rejection all elements of the supernatural. In fact, I know several people who have told me in no uncertain terms that they don't believe in (a) (G/g)od(s), but certainly believe in (depending on the person): aliens, angels, magic, nature-spirits, SCIENCE (-fiction theories). So, rejection of "divinity" =/= rejection of "supernatural".
The largest problem that people come to with these discussions is the problem of common definition. So, until a common definition is espoused, we can debate until we're blue in the face, and all sorts of people who claim seemingly opposite things can be right. As you can see, I disagree with your definition of Atheism... and I agree with your argument! So, you know, it's an issue. :)
Also, I'd say he needs only one low mental score: wisdom. I made that argument somewhere else, too. I'll see if I can find it later.
Good discussion , may i recomend a book that i find very good.
The dawn of magic/The morning of the Magicians - Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier.
|
|
Actually, it was Gygax's players who wanted him to come up with specific divinities, instead of the generic "gods" who granted clerics' spells. He created: Pholtus (who's "followers were so fanatic that they refused to believe in other gods") and St. Cuthbert (who "brought the faithless around with tender whacks of his cudgel"), if I recall correctly.
That is pretty much correct. but still the point is that the origins of the class, and even in 2nd Ed, having a single specific deity was not the norm (though 2nd ed made it more of a possibility if desired).
So, rejection of "divinity" =/= rejection of "supernatural".
The largest problem that people come to with these discussions is the problem of common definition. So, until a common definition is espoused, we can debate until we're blue in the face, and all sorts of people who claim seemingly opposite things can be right. As you can see, I disagree with your definition of Atheism... and I agree with your argument! So, you know, it's an issue. :)Which is fine. I assume there are variations in belief across the board, just as there are in other systems of belief.
Also, I'd say he needs only one low mental score: wisdom. I made that argument somewhere else, too. I'll see if I can find it later.
I'm saying this in reference specifically to an individual (adventurer) who does not believe in magic, deities, souls, planes, fey, . . . Int would also need to be very low, though this is really just an off handed comment.
|
Not really true. Paizo has talked about how even Oracles and nondeity Druids/Paladins (I think) etc. . ., and Witches, are not accepted in Rahadoum. It's more of a story issue than one that follows logic, really. A religious Sorcerer would be condemned right next to a priest. Essentually what they intended for Rahadoum and they way it is presented in all the books are different. It's a LN country, but is actually a CE one, and is meant to be presented that way.
Er... reference on this? Why is Rahadoum CE exactly?
Their reason to reject deities is actually quite reasonable and exiling all religious folks and banning all religion doesn't feel CE to me.
|
|
Sorry, I went back to Apr and searched through about 10 pages of old posts, and I'm just not seeing it. Could have sworn it was something like "Explain Rahadoum", "Law of Man?", or something.
And now that I think back, I think it was actually NE rather than CE, based on the fact that the people, or rather groups of people had no issues with destroying the lives of others, burning at the stake, or otherwise doing great evil towards those with faith. Not to mention that they woulld rather have their country overcome with disease, starvation, dehydration, disease, or any number of wasting and painful deaths than allow the good that Clerics would bring, including to close friends and family.
Their Atheism is arrogent and tyranical, which really isn't that explained.
Their Atheism is arrogent and tyranical, which really isn't that explained.
The country had an enormous religious war a few hundred years back and the folks overreacted a bit and banhammered religion.
And yes its bad. But they could be Cheliax or Razmiran...
The class description isn't what I'm basing it off. I'm basing it off the fact I'm running Carrion Crown. I have an atheist (he doesn't believe in ANY gods) monk. He was going atheist cleric until there was a posting by James Jacobs and he shut that one down. Now I have a new player who heard about my player being disallowed an atheist cleric. NOW he wants (I believe) an atheist paladin. In Carrion Crown.
Help....
You don't need to believe in the Gods to be a cleric. You can be a worshipper of an ideal or Nature (for all that it matters). In Planescape there were an entire sect of people who basically refused to believe in the Gods/Believe the Gods "were" Gods.
I don't know why you would disallow a cleric that didn't worship a deity when its been core for a long time that worshipping an abstract concept (such as love)/ideal/natural phenomena (correlary: unnatural phenomena) has been fine since 3.5.
You don't need to believe in the Gods to be a cleric. You can be a worshipper of an ideal or Nature (for all that it matters). In Planescape there were an entire sect of people who basically refused to believe in the Gods/Believe the Gods "were" Gods.
I don't know why you would disallow a cleric that didn't worship a deity when its been core for a long time that worshipping an abstract concept (such as love)/ideal/natural phenomena (correlary: unnatural phenomena) has been fine since 3.5.
That's true in general, and even in Pathfinder RAW, but James Jacobs has said that believing in a god - having a patron - is an integral part of the class in Golarion. In other words, clerics need a patron deity. Any other divine class is technically allowed an "out" but to not worship deities is kind of silly when they work miracles and hold the keys to your soul. It's actually pretty foolish, all things considered.
|
|
I completely disagree. There are more than a few real world religions that do not worship either any deities, or do not venerate deities as part of their worship. Bhuddism for example, Voodun, many variants of "witchcraft".
In other settings, also, Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind, this is also factually not true. Grayhawk has a lot of cults revolving around concepts. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with James' Golarion being that way (and am not arguing that at all). But it is by no means intrigal to the class or concept any more than all Arcanists needing to go to a wizards academy.
Well, it is understandable for why they might want to do that for organized play.
Of course, ultimately you are probably painting yourself into some corners. For example, are there domains that none of the deities have in their portfolio? If you introduce new domains, do you have to retcon the original deities or introduce new deities just to have someone have the new domains in their portfolio? Are you afraid to introduce new domains because you don't want to mess with the hassle, even if you have really cool idea for a couple of new domains?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely disagree. There are more than a few real world religions that do not worship either any deities, or do not venerate deities as part of their worship. Bhuddism for example, Voodun, many variants of "witchcraft".
In other settings, also, Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind, this is also factually not true. Grayhawk has a lot of cults revolving around concepts. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with James' Golarion being that way (and am not arguing that at all). But it is by no means intrigal to the class or concept any more than all Arcanists needing to go to a wizards academy.
It's not "James's Goalrion" that requires clerics to worship a deity. It's "Paizo's Golarion" that requires that. It's the baseline. If you want to change it in your version of Golarion, go for it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the underlying basic assumption of Golarion that clerics must worship a deity.
Also, comparasions to the real world here are fundamentally flawed, since clerics as d8 HD spellcasting medium BAB character classes actually don't exist as real-world things. Therefore, applying the limitations and requirements of the cleric class to anything from the real world is off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
If you want a character in Golarion who doesn't worship a deity, who worships multiple deities, who worships a philosophy, who worships an ancestor, who worships animals, who worships spirits, or so on... there's like 17 other classes you can choose from in the game, MANY of which are divine spellcasters.
I completely disagree. There are more than a few real world religions that do not worship either any deities, or do not venerate deities as part of their worship. Bhuddism for example, Voodun, many variants of "witchcraft".
In other settings, also, Dragonlance and Eberron come to mind, this is also factually not true. Grayhawk has a lot of cults revolving around concepts. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with James' Golarion being that way (and am not arguing that at all). But it is by no means intrigal to the class or concept any more than all Arcanists needing to go to a wizards academy.
I'm not arguing RAW, real-world, or anything else. That's why I've said "in Golarion". James' Golarion is Golarion, canon-wise. Anything else is house rules (which is totally fine). Its much like Forgotten Realms, only less strict, as in that setting unless you had a deity you couldn't use divine magic at all. Now, again, House Rules-wise, whatever a table wants is fine, much like PepticBurrito said. That's the beauty of the difference between canon, and House Rules. I'm citing canon. House Rules are totally fine, however, and there is nothing wrong with them.
As far as painting yourself into a corner, pres man, indeed you are: just as much as you are painting yourself into a corner by, say, not mentioning alchemists (you know, wizards and experts), cavaliers (those fighters with horses), summoners (classing them instead as conjuerers), or witches (which were sorcerers or wizards) in the CORE or the original campaign setting book... because they didn't exist. Is it a retcon? Sure. Is it major? In no way is it major at all. "Retcon" isn't the inherent boogeyman that says "you did it wrong", although it certainly can mean that. Instead, in such cases, it says "you were working with incomplete information, here's some more".
EDIT: for clarity of minor word-choice
EDIT 2: NINJA'D BY THE MAN HIMSELF. I'm totally not changing my post, though. :)
|
|
It's not "James's Goalrion" that requires clerics to worship a deity.
That was intended to be insulting in any way, so I hope you didn't take it that way. We all have our own version of Golarion, and the game itself.
Also, comparasions to the real world here are fundamentally flawed, since clerics as d8 HD spellcasting medium BAB character classes actually don't exist as real-world things. Therefore, applying the limitations and requirements of the cleric class to anything from the real world is off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I wasn't making a comparrison. I was giving examples to show that there is room for religions that don't have deities, or their worship is not part of the religions focus, but do have a history of various miracles. It's also very much on topic, as it shows that there are things not being accounted for and that there is room for improvment.
|
Creative Director
|
I wasn't making a comparrison. I was giving examples to show that there is room for religions that don't have deities, or their worship is not part of the religions focus, but do have a history of various miracles. It's also very much on topic, as it shows that there are things not being accounted for and that there is room for improvment.
Well... while all clerics are religious, not all religious folks are clerics. There's plenty of room for non-deity religions in Golarion—we've included many of them in the world specifically because non-deity religions are interesting, in fact. Druids and oracles are more or less the primary spellcasting agents of said religions.
|
Druids and oracles are more or less the primary spellcasting agents of said religions.
This sort of thing apparently can't be repeated enough.
Even in this thread, there are assumptions that non-cleric divine casters in Golarion (such as druids, oracles, paladins, rangers and adepts) *must* worship a god, or even a specific god, because they are 'divine' casters.
Clerics *must* worship a god (in Golarion, canonically, which only really matters for Pathfinder Society).
Everyone else *might.*
Druids and oracles are more or less the primary spellcasting agents of said religions.This sort of thing apparently can't be repeated enough.
Even in this thread, there are assumptions that non-cleric divine casters in Golarion (such as druids, oracles, paladins, rangers and adepts) *must* worship a god, or even a specific god, because they are 'divine' casters.
Clerics *must* worship a god (in Golarion, canonically, which only really matters for Pathfinder Society).
Everyone else *might.*
+1.
I probably am not being clear, but this is really what I'm trying to get across, by canon (though that was not true when I first posted here). In my home games I'm still going to require paladins to worship (very specific circumstances aside), but that's not part of canon. Clerics needing worship is.
EDIT: ... and now Set's post doesn't exist, apparently. NONETHELESS: IT WAS TOTALLY THERE WHEN I QUOTED IT, I SWEAR. And I'm not the kind of guy to swear...