That's pretty harsh to say someone can't play in your games just because they take their real world religion seriously.I wouldn't game with the player in your #5 example who wants to worship a modern deity. Its meant to be a fantasy game, and I would have it stay that way.
5) Some people still get a bit of a guilty/sin feeling for roleplaying the worshiping another religion. I have seen this several times. They are somtimes more open to it if the GM is willing to add modern religions into the game that they can chose and try to gain converts.
Perhaps it is harsh, but my group doesn't have this problem. What I meant is that I wouldn't play in their game.
... I was actually looking at an oracle, rather than a cleric (the spontaneous over preferred issue), as a potential replacement for my magus... but I just couldn't find enough suitable offensive spells to make the character feel like he'd be effective at anything but support ...
I disagree. While the cleric/oracle list doesn't have as many as the wizard/sorcerer list. There are still some very nice ones. Just at a quick glance for the first couple levels of spells I think are potentially lots of fun.
1)
command
forbid action
murderous command ***
obscuring mist
sum mon I
2)
compassionite ally
hold person
oracles burden
pilfering hand ***
silence
shatter
sound burst
spear of purity
spiritual weapon
sum mon II
3)
chain of perdition ***
bestow curse
blindness
dispel magic
searing light
vision of hell
4)
control summoned creature
dibilitating portent
dismissal
holy smite
poison
spiritual ally
spit venom
terrible remorse ***
Clerics (along with inquisitors), to me, are the only truly offensive aspect of the game. I don't mind religions in games--the associated drama can be fantastic--but when a game attaches mechanics to an "existing" deity it becomes a different issue. And it's not just the patron requirement: deities in most settings are untouchable by even the highest HD mortal around. "Faith" is not magical and I'm sick of seeing mundanes drawing power from it.Atheism in a game where the gods can and sometimes do smite you is probably not a wise idea
;)
Depends on how the DM treats the issue (I'm talking to both of you here).
@Necromancer, Think about it, several times in Pathfinder, a god has died. One's death is even a core setting point. Now if the gods are so powerful, why do they keep dying? They may as well be Bhall from... The Forgotten Realms Setting was it? An entire Video game series was made (Baldar's gate) detailing the survival, trials, and Ascension of the child of that god that got lucky off of Bhall's attempt to resurrect himself after his death as a god that walked the land.
So personally, I think the idea that a god can be killed is plausible. And my personal explanation is that they get their powers from the main alignment outsiders that share the same alignment (Archons, Agathions, Azatas, etc) and from the number of "domains" they control. So if you kill off enough devils, and managed to extend a "zone of truth" spell far enough that Asmodeus's domain of "trickery" is counteracted, you might be able to create a small place where Asmodeus would be weak against mortals...
Oh, I'm sure Paizo will eventually release an interesting product covering the details behind Aroden's demise, but it will likely involve a rebirth-return-to-power plot that'll make my eyes ache from rolling so far upwards. If deicide's a possibility, then I'm game for bringing in deities, as it shatters the standard the-gods-are-eternal-and-invincible crap.
Not being able to successfully pull of deicide is only a small matter; my real problem with clerics/inquisitors & deities was the mechanic of having faith power a type of magic. The concept is repulsive to me in the same way that F.A.T.A.L. is repulsive to others.
... my real problem with clerics/inquisitors & deities was the mechanic of having faith power a type of magic. The concept is repulsive to me ...
However, that is kind of a staple of many legends and novels.
Yeah, afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree there. That's one of the things I love most about having divine classes in the game.
Preparing spells is now a great turn-off for our party former cleric (she was cleric in previous campaign and is wizard in current). She repeats that she will never again play anything that prepares spells about every session.
Had the same problem with my cleric, then I started to create "Spell-Sets".
This means creating spell lists with appropiate spells for a situation and name them accordingly(city, undeead, exploration, dungeon). Also always keep at least one slot open for this "Spell X would be awesoe in this situation" situations :DAnd of course grab/create a good spell list (either a print out with all needed informations (fits on 5 excel-pages for cleric) or an App if you use a pad/phone at the table :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric is a strong chassis on which to build. This is a huge safety net which can be tremendously liberating. I'm about to give some horrible advice but I've found doing some of these things help me turn it into an interesting class.
Make stupid choices. Pick the suboptimal domains that give the mediocre blasts. Deliberately shun medium armor and shields. Pretend like your spell list is fixed so your group isn't constantly bugging you all the utility crap. You have a d8 hit die and medium BAB but you don't have to act like you do. Put all your favored class points into skills instead of hit points. Put a mediocre score into your constitution score. Basically, make it risky to play your character and you might get more from the experience.
for me it is the same thing monks complain about. MAD
If I want a healing class who can also fight, I am better off with a life oracle or a druid.
If I want a decent str, con and dex---then how many other attributes can I short?
With a druid I can short int and cha--and the druid still gets 4+int compared to clerics 2+int for skills
with a oracle I can short wis and int--the wil save throw is the highest for casters anyhow so not that great a hit
the cleric can only short int
whereas the druid only needs wis and the oracle only needs cha---the cleric needs both. This will lead to the cleric having lower physical scores. So if you planned on anything physical, the cleric will have less points in his physical scores.
A cleric with 10-12 chi isn't losing much. Doesn't need dex either.
out of my experience in playing and Dming i find people just see clerics as a class just to keep the other players alive... which depending on the build can be very much wrong but it has become an expectation.
I myself love playing clerics as i get to look at my party and go "damn you guys suck" as i heal them.
I am still getting remarks about preparing a Heighten Major Curse spell over another heal. Yes they do expect you to keep the party alive above all else.
One tweak you could make in a home game, my DM offers a feat that allows channel as a move action with selective channel as a pre-req. Its certainly not game unbalancing and it really frees up the cleric to be a caster or melee combatant while still requiring a bit of strategy to maximize action economy.Like Quick Channel feat?
Didnt exist when he did it, and since we dont introduce books mid-campaign, and our current one is almost on two years now...I have had no opportunity to see that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos, if you're looking for a spontaneous casting druid, check out The Expanded Shaman from Open Design.
Regardless of whatever mechanical issues the Cleric has, one of the most fun, interesting, and enjoyable characters I've ever DMed for was a Deeply devote cleric of Cayden Cailean.
He'd make sure to go by all the bars and ease the hangovers of all his "flock" with a stabilize spell (I'd decided that a small burst of positive energy would allow them to get past the worst parts of the hangover). And he would regularly preach about how it was important to "Not be a dick about it".
Good times.
My players tend to pick Oracles and Witches over Clerics due to the restaurant menu problem that prepared casters have.
Also, there's this whole "gotta RP the religion" thing that doesn't gel with my players well - they tend to be rabidly Chaotic Whatever and few deities, if any, float their boat (Cayden being one exception).
I think you are on to something.
The APG changed a lot of things. The Oracles, Witches and Inquisitor offers an appealing alternative to the cleric. Even the Alchemist is an alternative to playing the cleric. And all this classes get more skill point per level (except the witch, but her main stat is Int) and they are also - in my opinion - more fun. Fun as in something cool at most levels.Honestly I rather play an Inquisitor or even an Oracle than a cleric.
Why Are Some People Reluctant To Play Clerics? Probably because other classes are more appealing to them.
I am still getting remarks about preparing a Heighten Major Curse spell over another heal. Yes they do expect you to keep the party alive above all else.out of my experience in playing and Dming i find people just see clerics as a class just to keep the other players alive... which depending on the build can be very much wrong but it has become an expectation.
I myself love playing clerics as i get to look at my party and go "damn you guys suck" as i heal them.
This. A cleric is tons of fun if your party knows/accepts/appreciates the fact that you are not there to play nurse maid. This however is almost never the case. You end up having to split your spells between healing/curing/revitalizing, buffing, and damage. In the end you don't do anything really well and your actions in battle are restricted.
"What do you mean you don't know remove poison. Now I'm gonna die. You're the worst cleric ever!"
I just could never get the hang of divine casters.
Something about being able to make things' HP totals go in the opposite of down just never clicked with me.
A cleric with 10-12 chi isn't losing much. Doesn't need dex either.
you need a 13 Cha just to get selective channeling. and that only allows you to exclude 1. would take a 14 to exclude 2. Cha also determines how many channels you get
so if you cant channel in combat due to healing enemies and have limited channels, you don't have much advantage over a oracle.
and if the cleric did not put it in dex, the oracle would not either(they both wear same armor). so the oracle still has more to spend on str and con.
it still comes down to the cleric spreading his stat spend more thinly than the oracle has to.
Inexperienced players see the Cleric as a heal bot. Experienced players see the cleric as broken and even worse as boring as you are really abusing the same spells Clerics have been abusing since 3.0. 12 years of Divine power/divine favour and greater magic weapon really and things like Cleric archers existed 10 years ago.
I just could never get the hang of divine casters.
Something about being able to make things' HP totals go in the opposite of down just never clicked with me.
Wrong alias, not enough caps.
** spoiler omitted **
I guess I've earned that one, but if AM made a cleric it would somehow heal 3d8+3 at level 1 on a charge.
I'm not going to say I haven't sat down and looked at the class, but my mind more naturally works with wizards and melee classes. I dunno why, it's just a block I have about divine casters.
|
I just could never get the hang of divine casters.
Something about being able to make things' HP totals go in the opposite of down just never clicked with me.
Wrong alias, not enough caps.
** spoiler omitted **
I guess I've earned that one, but if AM made a cleric it would somehow heal 3d8+3 at level 1 on a charge.
I'm not going to say I haven't sat down and looked at the class, but my mind more naturally works with wizards and melee classes. I dunno why, it's just a block I have about divine casters.
This might seem weird but... you could try playing a ranger.
They're the training wheels divine caster, you don't even have to cast spells if you don't want to but eventually you start teeing up longstrider, magic fang and lead blades. Before you know it your casting barkskin, entangle and cure light wounds without batting an eye.
This might seem weird but... you could try playing a ranger.
They're the training wheels divine caster, you don't even have to cast spells if you don't want to but eventually you start teeing up longstrider, magic fang and lead blades. Before you know it your casting barkskin, entangle and cure light wounds without batting an eye.
It's funny you should mention that. I was once given the option to play a god-based character, the rules were that he had to be gestalt 20 with one of the classes being a divine caster.
Without thinking about it at all, I went for a Barbarian/Ranger 20 who took the titan mauler archetype so he could dual-wield greatswords with Instant Enemy FOR MASSIVE DAMAGE.
I may have to try an actual ranger for our next campaign, based on what you're telling me.
|
... my real problem with clerics/inquisitors & deities was the mechanic of having faith power a type of magic. The concept is repulsive to me ...However, that is kind of a staple of many legends and novels.
I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "faith power" in Pathfinder or D&D for that mater. There is only magic. The disctinction is in how you access that magic. Wizards study, sorcerers, etc. have an inborn afinity because of bloodline, clerics are given access to magic by a supernatural entity. The magic is the same. Only the access is different.
|
1) Many people do not like the expected (and most say not-needed) healbot role.
2) Many GM's really encrouch on the players free will because of the religion. "Your god wouldn't allow that." Some is ok and helps immersion. Too much is annoying and frustrating. Even if the GM doesn't do it, some players feel like they should be severly limiting themselves (I do this sometimes).
3) Some that decide to play a full caster want the full on power of a wizard or sorc. The arcane spells have a reputation (deserved or not) that on average they are more powerful.
4) For us old guys that remember the old editions. They weren't very fun back then except being very survivable. The healbot really was necesary. So you couldn't put too much effort into being any other kind of caster unless someone else was willing to be a cleric/healbot at the same time. So they bring back memories of, "Carp, I guess it's my turn to be stuck with the cleric."
5) Some people still get a bit of a guilty/sin feeling for roleplaying the worshiping another religion. I have seen this several times. They are somtimes more open to it if the GM is willing to add modern religions into the game that they can chose and try to gain converts.
Kydeem De'Morcaine, Please forgive my ignorance...but I am not sure I quite understand why some people would feel guilty for roleplaying a cleric? How does adding modern religions to the game help?
I suppose my base assumption would be, by keeping the elements of a game world imaginary or rather made up, rather then using a real world religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, (I am sure there are many others) you would avoid inadvertently offending another player.
I remember one time a few years ago, I was playing a 3.5 D&D game at my local gaming store, and I made a dread necromancer, i decided to call him Shaitan. I remember that was the name of the big bad evil god in the Wheel of Time book series.
One of the players next to me told me that I had used the arabic name for Satan. He was a Muslim. I asked him if the name i had picked for my character made him feel uncomfortable. He said yes.....so I picked another name....Mr. Morden.....or something like that.
I just thought it was a good idea to steer clear of real world religions.
So I am curious would some people feel guilty for roleplaying a cleric? How does adding modern religions to the game help?
please forgive this stupid qusiton...thanks.
I really want to play a cleric, but every time I look at the class I struggle not to fall asleep. They are so <i>boring</i>.
It doesn't help that they have the worst selection of archetypes of all classes. The only acceptable one is the crusader, but the most interesting one, flavorwise (the cloistered cleric), gets stumped by diminished spellcasting.
My Undead Lord and his Army of Darkness would like to have a word with you!
|
Many inexperienced players view clerics as a healbot. This is wrong and they should be punished severely for it.
It's less experience and more the fact that healing is hardlined into the class. Maybey have other options (regardless of alignment) besides Channel Energy and Spont Cures would really help this.
There is also the fact that, (and I haven't read too far into this thread yet, so forgive me if these have been mentioned) that other players, (and experienced ones tend to be the worst here), regardless of build or focus, still expect the Cleric to be the healer, if not first and ofremost at least equal with any other function. People actually get angry when they expect you to heal and you inform them you are not a healer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal aversion for PF clerics is twofold; the mechanics are relatively boring and the fluff is limiting.
1a. Mechanics. The class doesn't provide a lot of customization. You pick two domains (powers of which are relatively limited compared to your spell list), choose caster/archer/melee and that's sort of it. You're pretty much bound by that build from then on. You don't get to choose much else. That's why the first thing I did in my houserules is to give them 'blessings' each two levels, which work like rogue talents. They also served the purpose of deleting the paladin class, so you can build a 'paladin' cleric instead.
1b. The spells. You have access to all spells, all the time. And some of them are plain awesome while others are quite meh. There are a few standard spell selections and the domains don't give enough uniqueness. Your spells are for the most part pretty straightforward, unlike a wizard who can use a great variety of spells to do creative stuff (and who needs to be creative).
One of the possible fixes of the top of my head (just thinking of this right now): make them spontaneous casters with only access to domain spells. In return they get all the domains belonging to their deity. 'Rebalance' all deities to give 5-6 domains.
1c. The power. Clerics are rather... good at everything they want to do in character without trying. You never really specialize or do something unique. You don't have significant weaknesses that you need to keep in mind.
2a. The fluff. Having a set pantheon means choosing between a limiting amount of ways to play your cleric. There are difference in followers of the same deity but overall since the faiths and domains are predetermined the RP is partly predetermined.
2b. The game gives no incentive for actually RPing the religion aspect. Almost all cleric players in my experience (me included) casually mention they pray or worship when asked what they are doing, but otherwise their religion plays no significant role beyond the ethical decisions the group makes. What makes religious characters from fiction great is all the little superstitions, phrases they use (by Thor's hairy testicles!) and the little traditions they have (quick prayers to some deity if some transgression is made). But at the table that is actually quite hard to convey. Point is, there are no consequences for only casually acting religious. You're functionally just a wizard with armour and a different spell list, and you can swing a sword or shoot a bow with the right build.
The wierd thing is what happens when the cleric seems ot roll a lot of 1s when using a wand of cure light wounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the biggest issue with the clerics in PF is the spell list. Everything else about the class has done a fairly reasonable job of adjusting from edition to edition, but the spell list has remained virtually unchanged. Among the many problems it has:
1)Every single cleric, regardless of their deity, has the exact same spell list, and the few spells they might have different are restricted to a single slot/level. Personally, I think they need to rework how domain spells work. Start by going through the list of all of the spells in the book, and assign associated domains to them all; at the same time, select a small core list of cleric spells like the cure spells, the inflict spells, bless, and the few other core basics. Each cleric than gets the core list plus the full list for the domains for their deity. More work up front to revamp the list and to add domains later on, but once done, you get more customization and less bookkeeping during the actual game.
2)The current spell list just plain sucks for versatility. Almost all of the commonly used spells are touch spells. Virtually all of them target the same type of save (will). Most are highly situational in their usefulness, and often very limited in their situational usefulness. Outside of a half a dozen common spells at each level, most of the spell list is relegated to scrolls or wands if it is used at all. The 3rd to 6th level lists are better than the others, but the options at higher levels are just plain thin in number of overall options, and the 1st level list just plain sucks if you don't want to use the same basic spells that every other cleric uses. The list is great for a pure healing/buffing character, but pretty much sucks for anything else.
3)Even most of the buffs really aren't worth all that much because by the time you get them cast, the fight is already over. Most fights, you are lucky to get even a single surprise round, and over reliance on buff spells will be just as problematic as the over reliance on the healbot. Action economy is just not worth it.
Unless you are prepared to run a pure support character, being a caster cleric is going to drive you bananas. The bard list and the druid list can do pretty much everything the cleric list can but better, aside from the hyper specific curing and remove spells, and have more customization as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have few good options on a list you use over and over that is something that is good for a spontanteous caster.
My fav character ever was a 2nd edition cleric/wizard in forgotten realms who worshipped Mystra .... decent fluff, pretty easy to rp the worship of magic when you're nuking stuff all day. I wish I had spont cure spells back then! As has been said, it wasnt about the religion vs arcane, it was all about the magic and I never felt like a healbot- probably helped me that there were no other clerics or wizards in the party so I had a monopoly on casting (don't think I ever rolled a melee attack after 3rd level). Also was able to really make him unique with things like specialty priest powers and "wild mage" rules.
I can see the dislike for the plain vanilla though: I only started playing pf recently and decided for a goof to recreate that character in the new rules.....even using mystic theurge the character doesn't feel as cool as he used to. The class could definitely benefit from some more archetypes or something.
Except I don't even like the cleric list for an oracle most of the time, unless I am wanting to either deemphasize the casting aspect or want to play a mostly support character. I houseruled in my games that the druid list is used for all appropriate mysteries. Much better list overall, both in terms of options and flavor.
Well, while I believe that the cleric is easily the most versatile and capable of classes, it is also the primary healer of any group. Instead of actually taking down opponents, many times a cleric simply heals everybody else. Now if the party is willing to take a little damage for a while and heal mostly between encounters (except in emergencies) then the cleric is a lot of fun. If not they could get boring really quickly.
Letting players die is a good way to remind them that making good decisions is important.
My browser crashed when I clicked on this thread. Probably crashed out of sheer disbelief of the name of the thread.
Anyway, I've never noticed a "turn-off" to Clerics before in my time playing Pathfinder. Certainly there are other classes that can heal a party such as an Oracle of Life but clerics have many strengths and are very customizable.
One group that I ran featured a War/Travel Domain cleric who could nearly do anything save for having lots of skills. But he could fly, fight, heal, buff, and cast some offensive spells. Hell he even had Power Attack and combat Expertise when he originally made his character in 3.5. Once converted to Pathfinder, the war domain's 8th level domain power opened up a realm of combat possibility.
But combat aside, clerics are a rich class that are full of variety depending on what domains you choose and how you run your cleric.
I personally have never heard anyone complain about them. However I can see where the class can be written off as a chore some player will have to do to ensure party survival. This however, is a limited scope of a what a cleric can be for the party.
Kobold Press
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me a spont-casting Druid equivalent and I'll probably write all three base Vancian casters out of the game (and rewrite Witch, I like the flavor of the class and the Hexes to much to drop, just need to make them a spont-caster).
Sorry, I'm catching up on this thread and going back to page 1 but I gotta answer this:
Orthos, the spont-casting Druid equivalent is called the Shaman. It's been around for a bit, with good reviews, and it does exactly what you are asking for.
|
Dunno. i find it hard to role-play a priest.
That, and a cleric's spells and abilities never seemed cool or impressive. Compare them to arcane spellcasters, with all sorts of flashy powers and versatile abilities. Heck, compare it even to other divine casters. Druids can change shape and call lightning from the sky (as well as being able to manipulate the natural world at higher levels), Inquisitors are essentially monster hunters of the highest caliber, and even oracles gain a greater feel of uniqueness with their mysteries, which often a lot more variety than the domains do (though I'm still reluctant to play one of those). To tell the truth, I'm just never satisfied with their spell list. I much prefer the gaudiness of a sorcerer, so sue me. And there's only so much roleplay i could do with a priest.
My fav character ever was a 2nd edition cleric/wizard in forgotten realms who worshipped Mystra .... decent fluff, pretty easy to rp the worship of magic when you're nuking stuff all day. I wish I had spont cure spells back then! As has been said, it wasnt about the religion vs arcane, it was all about the magic and I never felt like a healbot- probably helped me that there were no other clerics or wizards in the party so I had a monopoly on casting (don't think I ever rolled a melee attack after 3rd level). Also was able to really make him unique with things like specialty priest powers and "wild mage" rules.
I can see the dislike for the plain vanilla though: I only started playing pf recently and decided for a goof to recreate that character in the new rules.....even using mystic theurge the character doesn't feel as cool as he used to. The class could definitely benefit from some more archetypes or something.
Cleric of Mystra I am assuming is a specialty priest form Faiths and Avatars? THey had minor access to something like 23/24 spheres and major access to 19 of them lol+ granted abilities etc.
That being said those specialty preist books are still some of my favourites although some were unbalenced as hell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me a spont-casting Druid equivalent and I'll probably write all three base Vancian casters out of the game (and rewrite Witch, I like the flavor of the class and the Hexes to much to drop, just need to make them a spont-caster).
One of my pet peeves about clerics (and druids, and to a much lesser extent, paladins and rangers) is how they automagically get every spell ever created for their class (unless it's faith-restricted or has an antithetical alignment type).
Rather than create whole new classes like the oracle or sorcerer (or favored soul or spirit shaman, in 3.X), I'd have preferred if every spellcasting class had to choose one of two options at 1st level;
1) Prepared caster, acquiring spells the same way a wizard or witch does. Prepared clerics and druids would learn new rotes and rituals and invocations and maledictions from their spiritual advancement (2 spells / level, just like a wizard) or by acquiring / learning them and 'scribing' them into their prayer books or ogham binders or whatever. Prepared bards would have hymnals or musical notation or texts full of inspiring rhetoric or whatever.
2) Spontaneous caster, having more spell slots per day, but a small and fixed list of spells known (and no delayed access, a prepared 'wizard' and a spontaneous 'sorcerer' could both potentially learn fireball at the same level). A spontaneous paladin or cleric would only know a small set of rituals to their faith, and only be able to swap them out occasionally (similar to a sorcerer), but could call upon those rites and benedictions more frequently (and more flexibly) than a prepared cleric or paladin, who would have to pray in the morning for a specific set of ritual boons and blessings from those the (potentially much larger) list of those that they have learned.
Nobody would get free access to every spell ever published on their class list when they went up a level, with new options automagically being retrofitted into their brains every time a new splatbook comes out.
But that ship sailed long ago, so I'm just wild-eyed streetcorner preaching at this point. :)
Many inexperienced players view clerics as a healbot. This is wrong and they should be punished severely for it.It's less experience and more the fact that healing is hardlined into the class. Maybey have other options (regardless of alignment) besides Channel Energy and Spont Cures would really help this.
There is also the fact that, (and I haven't read too far into this thread yet, so forgive me if these have been mentioned) that other players, (and experienced ones tend to be the worst here), regardless of build or focus, still expect the Cleric to be the healer, if not first and ofremost at least equal with any other function. People actually get angry when they expect you to heal and you inform them you are not a healer.
+1
Even experienced players expect you to heal. I think it's really condescending when people pull the " inexperience/less experience player"-card.Some people like to play clerics, some don't. Some on the other hand would like to play it but find its Mechanics too boring or they have some other reason for not liking it. I have mentioned some of them in my first post.
Some like the concept of the diving caster, but prefers a spontaneous caster and thus play the oracle or Inquisitor and as doctor_wu pointed out:
- "If you have few good options on a list you use over and over that is something that is good for a spontanteous caster."
And that's probably one of the reason people play The Oracle or Inquisitor. Want to be an archer or melee god? You only need a few good spells. I also agree with sunshadow21, I don't think the current spell list is that versatile, but as a cleric people still expect you to have the right spell and the right time. So another good reason to play and Oracle or Inquisitor.
Some like to have the ability to cure or at least don't mind it, but don't want to be labeled the healbot. That's why they favor other classes such as Paladin, Druid, Witch or Inquisitor. Sure you can play a healbot as a Druid, Bard, Paladin, Oracle, Witch, Inquisitor or even Alchemist , but (with the possible exception of the Oracle) it isn't expected of the other classes to be healbots.
You can be an Atheist cleric
Not if your GM says no.
There is also the 'No Devotion' option.Not if your GM says no.
You can be an Atheist cleric
Not if your GM says no