Joan of Arc did not have a curse.
Francis of Assisi did not have a curse.
Moses is better represented by a low charisma cleric.
Every other Hebrew prophet had no curse unless you count Hosea's wife.
The Oracles of Apollo did not as a rule have curses.There's just Tireseas. He's pretty much the sole mythological basis for the class and all the cursed oracles in fiction except those modeled after Cassandra, who cannot be represented as a Pathfinder oracle because her curse cannot be represented usefully in game terms.
Id have to agree here.
Joan of Arc had long been an example of a Paladin, and I think that's a hard one to debunk.
Moses was inspiration for the cleric class (sticks to snakes anyone) Gygax even said so.
more over, the hebrew prophets were not only part of an organized religion, but more often than not, the founders and organizers of that religion, in their specific eras (books) that screams cleric.
When i look at oracle, and think of something, the festering monks in the movie 300 that betrayed Lionitus, the glowing chick in Aladdin 3 that tells him (cryptically) about his father, some random old blind chineese guy, with a bag full of useless stuff who wanders the roads and can never been found of purpose, but always seems to be able to find you.....
When I look at favored soul, he's a kick azz cleric who answers to no one, and no hierarchy, because he has a direct line to the divine, he has a singular , focus purpose known only to himself, and there is something about him that is not his core race, could be a past life, could be a result of being a raw conduit of the divine, but the fact that it isnt defined makes it more moldable.
Oracle = divine witch, Favored soul = Unbound Cleric.
The oracle has no battle options without going oracle of battle, and at that it seems like there is deliberate intention for it to be there, solely to roll it into rage prophet.
I think, in hindsight, "General" revelations any mystery could have chosen from in addition to mystery specific revelations would have been a good idea.
So if you had wanted a divine witch, you could have ignored/not chosen weapon/armor/war type choices and those looking for divine avenger could have chosen those AND taken a mystery, so everyone who does want to build a divine avenger doesnt get ONLY battle oracle choices.
I think that's what makes it feel "bound" to me.
|
I've played a few, and I just didn't like how they played. Especially at the earlier levels. (Might be a good way to burn one of those PFS characters you had). I didn't like the amount of x/Day abilities it got. I kept feeling like I wanted to either be a Cleric or a Paladin, but just couldn't. I felt like trying to play like a Sorcerer, but again, I just couldn't. That, and I think that they put too much manditory fluff into the class when it should have been left out in the open for a lot of other classes to be able to use.
|
|
Joan of Arc had long been an example of a Paladin, and I think that's a hard one to debunk.
Moses was inspiration for the cleric class (sticks to snakes anyone) Gygax even said so.
more over, the hebrew prophets were not only part of an organized religion, but more often than not, the founders and organizers of that religion, in their specific eras (books) that screams cleric.
Pretty much. I keep thinking back to before the APG came out and Paizo (in general) kept saying to look at the historical meaning of the word to get a understanding of the flavor for the Oracle (vs things like prophet, priest, etc. . .) and to this day I still just don't see it.
Joan of Arc is firmly either a Paladin or a Cleric, not at all an Oracle.
You are right, Moses was one of the major daws for the Cleric class, along with Van Helsing and various Athurian Knights (Gawain and Percival, but others, too).
The easiest way to fill concept space is to leave things open with lots of options. Just a thought. Also, less fluff archetypes and more fluff archetypes that I can take seriously. Dungeering handbook makes me sad.
The easiest way to fill concept space is to leave things open with lots of options. Just a thought. Also, less fluff archetypes and more fluff archetypes that I can take seriously. Dungeering handbook makes me sad.
yea, i think this. Too focused on the fluff makes it not fit what you are trying to do with it. leaving areas open that you can't fill.
All I can say is I have played an oracle of life and had fun with it.
As for the curse, they add flavor but are easy to work around. I had the sight curse but would drop obscuring mist at the start of all fights so everyone was in the same boat as I was.I know of a gnome flame oracle who just road his dog every where.
Might also mention my Gm had as one of his major bad guys a Bone Oracle and and let us say they are not nice people to fight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Joan of Arc did not have a curse.
Francis of Assisi did not have a curse.
Moses is better represented by a low charisma cleric.
Every other Hebrew prophet had no curse unless you count Hosea's wife.
The Oracles of Apollo did not as a rule have curses.There's just Tireseas. He's pretty much the sole mythological basis for the class and all the cursed oracles in fiction except those modeled after Cassandra, who cannot be represented as a Pathfinder oracle because her curse cannot be represented usefully in game terms.
It's not so much the curse I see as the defining part of the Oracle and I think you are getting hung up on that.
A cleric, to me is a guy or gal who goes to a seminary or is trained by priest in an apprenticeship in smaller faiths, like folk religions. An Oracle is directly inspired by 'god' however you wish to define it. You have a personal encounter with the divine.
The Pope is a cleric. Moses is a Oracle.
Id have to agree here.
Joan of Arc had long been an example of a Paladin, and I think that's a hard one to debunk.
Moses was inspiration for the cleric class (sticks to snakes anyone) Gygax even said so.
more over, the hebrew prophets were not only part of an organized religion, but more often than not, the founders and organizers of that religion, in their specific eras (books) that screams cleric.
Joan of Arc a Paladin? She surely was either neutral or even chaotic good, basically breaking all the lawful rules of her society. In fact, she got burned by what were 'Lawful (neutral or evil)' clerics who had, in addition to the political differences had a real beef with her defying custom. Her gender in that society might be considered a curse.
The fictional King Arthur (not the possible historical figure) or Gallahad are Paladins, because they are law and good personified, which why is I have a problem with paladins.
Moses a Cleric? He had a direct encounter with god, very much like a vision. Many of the biblical prophets also argued and fought the established temple priests, they scream Oracle.
If you want to see what I'm getting at, look at Alahazra. She has a lot in common with Moses on Sinai, a lot in common with Joan of Arc having visions of saints in the grove.
Basically, Oracles are given a mission/revelation/have an encounter that changes who they are. A cleric goes to college.The Blues Brothers are another example of Bard/Oracle.
When i look at oracle, and think of something, the festering monks in the movie 300 that betrayed Lionitus, the glowing chick in Aladdin 3 that tells him (cryptically) about his father, some random old blind chineese guy, with a bag full of useless stuff who wanders the roads and can never been found of purpose, but always seems to be able to find you.....
I guess this is where we fundmentaly see something different. The Monks I see as false clerics who pretend to have a connection with the divine. I think the hang up is with the name Oracle. You (I think) see Oracle to mean temple Oracle like the Oracle of Delphi, where I see it to mean shaman, prophet, divine trickster, seeker of enlightenment etc.
When I look at favored soul, he's a kick azz cleric who answers to no one, and no hierarchy, because he has a direct line to the divine, he has a singular , focus purpose known only to himself, and there is something about him that is not his core race, could be a past life, could be a result of being a raw conduit of the divine, but the fact that it isnt defined makes it more moldable.
I think the revelations make the Oracle highly moldable, more so then the favored soul. With the revelations, I can make someone who is sometimes possessed by ancestoral spirits/Kami/loa or whatever. I can make woman beloved of the god of accidental death, who gifts her with her dead brother who haunts her (Bone Oracle), I cam make a peasant girl who has a god speak to her and is given a mission (Joan f Arc expy). I can make a divine trickster who is gifted with divine power precisely for his lack of wisdom (coyote).
Oracle = divine witch, Favored soul = Unbound Cleric.
The oracle has no battle options without going oracle of battle, and at that it seems like there is deliberate intention for it to be there, solely to roll it into rage prophet.
To me that is a very narrow understanding of what the class is supposed to be hung up on the name. When you see what is written, both in the class and in the Iconic description. It is much closer to what I describe.
There isn't an archetype that replaces the curse however. So a curse becomes a non choice for the class. I like your uses of the revelations, and i could see lots of uses for them, but you sadly can't mix and match and most mysteries only have a few good revelations and a bunch of clunkers as far as I can tell.
Oracles also have little to do with a diety if they don't want to. The fluff doesn't heavily support a diety either. They are just wierd about their dieties. Again, the curse thing is wierd if you think of them as inspired by a diety. "I was so close to saranrae she blinded me! but I guess can cast spells now!"
I think I may be stuck on the curse thing... Sorry about that.
|
|
See, I tend to think of Oracles as having super-hero origin stories. You drown under heroic circumstances, so a god intervenes and you become an Oracle of Waves. You run into a burning building to save orphans and kittens and so impress a god that you become an Oracle of Flames. I think of the 'curse' as being more a side-effect of the transformation. It might suck, but it's a lot better than being dead, which is where you would be without the divine intervention.
I think most greek heroes who went to the underworld actually came out better didn't they? Depressed maybe, but not with a broken leg or blind if I remember right. Definitely not cleric spellcasting either thoguh, so my analogy might not be that good.
Paizo, in contrast to WotC, has been careful to NOT have their base classes overlap too much or charge off down the rabbit hole of "there must be an arcane/divine/prepared/spontaneous version of everything." Archetypes allow for most concept tweaks (instead of the multiclass/prestige class route of 3.5). Also, Pathfinder is OGL, so it's compatible with Spontaneous Divine Casters and the Variant Magic rules from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana if you want to modify spellcasting mechanics.
You want "a cleric that's independent of the church and casts spontaneously?" Choose the separatist archetype and use the spontaneous casting rules from Unearthed Arcana (you can choose the War domain for any deity as a separatist to pick up the Weapon Master domain power at 8th level). Or crusader to gain bonus feats. Or evangelist for a demagogue preacher. Or theologian for a heightened focus on a single domain. A cleric does not have to be part of the main church (they could be self-taught or a member of a splinter sect), it's just the most common/simple background.
Alternately, there's the heretic inquisitor archetype if you're OK with not being a full 9th-level spellcaster.
Basically, what's the need for another base class that's pretty much the same as an existing base class with a few tweaks to the mechanics when you can already achieve it through an existing archetype and adopting a compatible basic OGL rule modification? The other thing that Paizo has been careful about is avoiding overly narrow base classes. Base classes in Pathfinder are fairly general so they can be used with multiple character concepts and backgrounds (with archetypes and alternate class variants highlighting some more specialized options).
|
|
It's not so much the curse I see as the defining part of the Oracle and I think you are getting hung up on that.Mechanically the curse is the defining characteristic of the oracle. In terms of fluff there is no difference between prepared and spontaneous divine casters, nor between mysteries and domains. The curse is the sole defining feature of the class.
To me it is the fluff, of having a direct encouter with the divine and letting the player come up the why and how that is behind it, but also being what is fundementally different from the Cleric. This can be tricky for some players, but for some, like me, that makes it exciting and fun.
But perhaps this is why we see the classes dfferently.
If I were to change the Oracle--
I'd change the name of the class, which would get rid of half the objections I see from people here.
Good Fortitude saves.
Perhaps making some changes in the curse, perhaps making it optional or creating more options. Haven't completly thought ths out.
In terms of fluff oracles and clerics and favored souls are very differet people. One of these is not like the other, one them doesn't need a god...
If i want a cleric independant of the church I'll refluff the cleric, or use a cleric of an ideal. Seperatist is an awful archetype. Gives up a lot for what the flexibility of a cleric of an ideal.
The need is for a RAW way to acheive something, or at least a way thats not so complex. You just told us to just homebrew a cleric with spont casting.
As a side note, I totally going to have to get to work on a homebrew Enlightened class... Too bad eastern flavor gets so much hate.
|
|
See, I tend to think of Oracles as having super-hero origin stories. You drown under heroic circumstances, so a god intervenes and you become an Oracle of Waves. You run into a burning building to save orphans and kittens and so impress a god that you become an Oracle of Flames. I think of the 'curse' as being more a side-effect of the transformation. It might suck, but it's a lot better than being dead, which is where you would be without the divine intervention.
But what about the Oracle's flavor makes that an Oracle only thing? Or more precisely, a non Cleric/Paladin/Fighter/Ranger/etc. . . thing?
wilds lingers a power beyond the marvels of civilization. Furtive yet undeniable, these primal magics are guarded over by servants of philosophical balance known as druids. Allies to beasts and manipulators of nature, these often misunderstood protectors of the wild strive to shield their lands from all who would threaten them and prove the might of the wilds to those who lock themselves behind city walls. Rewarded for their devotion with incredible powers, druids gain unparalleled shape-shifting abilities, the companionship of mighty beasts, and the power to call upon nature’s wrath. The mightiest temper powers akin to storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes with primeval wisdom
long abandoned and forgotten by civilization. Druids worship personifications of elemental forces, natural powers, or nature itself. Typically this means devotion to a nature deity, though druids are just as likely to revere vague spirits, animalistic demigods,
or even specific awe-inspiring natural wonders.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I tend to think of Oracles as having super-hero origin stories. You drown under heroic circumstances, so a god intervenes and you become an Oracle of Waves. You run into a burning building to save orphans and kittens and so impress a god that you become an Oracle of Flames. I think of the 'curse' as being more a side-effect of the transformation. It might suck, but it's a lot better than being dead, which is where you would be without the divine intervention.But what about the Oracle's flavor makes that an Oracle only thing? Or more precisely, a non Cleric/Paladin/Fighter/Ranger/etc. . . thing?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Oracle's flavor specifically goes to a personal encounter with the divine. A Cleric may, as could a Druid or Paladin, could have something along those lines and at least in general, does not. And Clerics bluntly are the priests, never the founders or original inspiration for a religion, atleast fluff wise (though they may start a breakaway sect).
Oracle also covers a heck of a lot more character concepts that just don't fit into the cleric class but do have a place in RW religion. Whether it be someone possesed by the by the spirit is of the ancestors, or the Kami/Loa/Manitou/whatever, someone who goes up a moutain/or is in a grove and is given a mission that they make the purpose of their life.
None of this is nesacarilly intrinsic to any other class with perhaps the exception of the Paladin. Orcles have something along the lines of 'with great power comes great responibility' built in.
I hate to ask, because I feel like I'm stuck on this, but how do any of those stories relate to the oracles curse? I feel like an eastern flavored oracle alternative without the curse would be nifty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No they don't. Nothing about the Oracle even says they have had any encounter, but does say over and over that they are not called by any one source, and as they tend to revere anything that is attached to their mystery's focus, really are not the deity's chosen-one for anything. :)
Clerics and Paladins on the other hand, are Called, specifically appointed as leaders and emissaries of the divine work, granted powers above normal priests, specifically as rare, chosen individuals.
So essentually, Oracles get their power from a random, one time thing and are not chosen by a deity to represent while Clerics and Paladins are chosen for their faith and commitment to stand above and to lead, ongoing. That's the difference between the flavor of Oracles and Clerics/Paladins/Druid/Inquisitors (to a point).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really?
Who chains their imagination by a few fluff words within a class?
The name of a class does not define your PC.
You do.
You create the flavor.
This "b-b-b-but this minor bit of flavor text prevents...." crap is silly.
This is exactly why many people never get to play some of their favorite concepts.
They bind themselves to restrictions that don't exist.
PFS chains itself to the fluff and flavor, it has a no reskinning rule too. I know many DMs who dislike going against raw ever, even if its just to make a concept work within mechanics. Its rare I find GMs in my area who are willing to let me do anything but what they think is right. This means I could be stuck with a setting specific or book specific fluff even if I absolutely hate it(usually I compromise in some way.)
Personally, I like to work around it all and change mechanics by working with the GM to do what I want. This is not always an option however.
You don't have to change mechanics to change flavor.
No, you don't. However, choosing to change something to better fit who you want to be helps you do what you want to do. If that makes sense. I don't want to restrict myself to whats in the book either.
Joan of Arc did not have a curse.
Francis of Assisi did not have a curse.
Moses is better represented by a low charisma cleric.
Every other Hebrew prophet had no curse unless you count Hosea's wife.
The Oracles of Apollo did not as a rule have curses.There's just Tireseas. He's pretty much the sole mythological basis for the class and all the cursed oracles in fiction except those modeled after Cassandra, who cannot be represented as a Pathfinder oracle because her curse cannot be represented usefully in game terms.
It's not so much the curse I see as the defining part of the Oracle and I think you are getting hung up on that.
A cleric, to me is a guy or gal who goes to a seminary or is trained by priest in an apprenticeship in smaller faiths, like folk religions. An Oracle is directly inspired by 'god' however you wish to define it. You have a personal encounter with the divine.
The Pope is a cleric. Moses is a Oracle.
Id have to agree here.
Joan of Arc had long been an example of a Paladin, and I think that's a hard one to debunk.
Moses was inspiration for the cleric class (sticks to snakes anyone) Gygax even said so.
more over, the hebrew prophets were not only part of an organized religion, but more often than not, the founders and organizers of that religion, in their specific eras (books) that screams cleric.
Joan of Arc a Paladin? She surely was either neutral or even chaotic good, basically breaking all the lawful rules of her society. In fact, she got burned by what were 'Lawful (neutral or evil)' clerics who had, in addition to the political differences had a real beef with her defying custom. Her gender in that society might be considered a curse.
The fictional King Arthur (not the possible historical figure) or Gallahad are Paladins, because they are law and good personified, which why is I have a problem with paladins.
Moses a Cleric? He had a direct encounter with god, very...
you can be at odds with someone who is "lawful" and sill be lawful.
A Lawful Good Paladin does not have to follow unjust predatory laws set up by a diabolic cabal.
the figures that were at odds with Joan of Arc where corrupt officials. Law does not necessarily = lawful. That's a misnomer.
Moses and joan were examples of their classes (Cleric and Paladin) used by authors of earlier versions of this game, long before oracle or anything like it was in print.
The 'clerics' of the Jews faith were at odds with corruption in most cases, or starting (restarting) the church of God. They are the very definition of organized religious figure. You can't point to a single biblical prophet at say that he wasn't the leader of God's people on earth and the Center of the Church's organization during his dispensation.
Just because someone has something set up to worship three headed, nine armed gods, doesnt make his 'religion' the status quo and the biblical prophet the 'upstart'
One must not take things out of context inside it's self.
Whether you believe the writing of the bible or not, the bible itself tells a story that begins with man being created by a single God, he then sets up his church with Adam at the head of it.
After a time, the people fall into corruption and do not practice the worship of their God.
Through the book, people fall away, God sends another cleric, reorganizes, people come back to the faith, then when things are good and they no longer 'need' God, they go back to their wicked ways.
This theme repeats itself again and again.
Within the context of that book, the prophets are not "upstarts" but the originial real deal.
They ARE the official divine "real deal".... not the off shoot guy with a cool idea and some fancy tricks.
That makes Biblical prophets clerics in every sense of the word.
|
|
Really?
Who chains their imagination by a few fluff words within a class?
The name of a class does not define your PC.
I was going to respond, but I'm honestly not sure who you are responding against. If it was me, then we are essentually saying nearly the same thing, but from different directions, (sort of). :)
I think he's a favored soul myself, but I've never been one to dig into the books over those characters. I might be entirely wrong or mixing him up with someone else.
|
|
you can be at odds with someone who is "lawful" and sill be lawful.
A Lawful Good Paladin does not have to follow unjust predatory laws set up by a diabolic cabal.
the figures that were at odds with Joan of Arc where corrupt officials. Law does not necessarily = lawful. That's a misnomer.
Agreed that you can be lawful and be at odds with other lawful people. However, you cannot ignore class distinctions, gender roles, and religous officals like Joan did and still be 'lawful'. The fact that she backed the questionably lawful rights of a King might make her neutral, but never lawful.
Joan, had she been lawful, would have shut up, obeyed the male authority figures in her life, married, produced a few kids, and died, perhaps not much longer then she lived IRL. ANd no one would have heard of her.
Moses and joan were examples of their classes (Cleric and Paladin) used by authors of earlier versions of this game, long before oracle or anything like it was in print.
Only because there were not better classes to put them in. Even when Joan was brought up in first edition. For clerics, they usually talked about priests and bishops and crusaders for the model of the class; not biblical prophets. In fact, the lack of edged weapons for clerics in early editions came directly from the crusader code.
The 'clerics' of the Jews faith were at odds with corruption in most cases, or starting (restarting) the church of God. They are the very definition of organized religious figure. You can't point to a single biblical prophet at say that he wasn't the leader of God's people on earth and the Center of the Church's organization during his dispensation.
Who were often at odds with the temple priests of the time i.e. the trained clerics. They had the character to listen to the voice god, i.e. having the divine experince that is fundemental to the Oracle class.
They ARE the official divine "real deal".... not the off shoot guy with a cool idea and some fancy tricks.That makes Biblical prophets clerics in every sense of the word.
Abraham was the offshoot guy as far as Sumarian Culture went, and the priests therein. Moses was the offshoot guy, backing a small people against the offical priests of Egypt, who were clerics of their god and had gone to cleric school. Jesus didn't went out into the desert and was tempted and conflicted with the clergy of the Temple, who claimed to represent the same god.
Notice I'm talking in earthly terms, not making a lot of assumptions that a lot of Christians/Jews would disagree with, like Adam was head of the 'church' stuff. I am simply speaking in game terms and historical terms, and from a blunt, fairly literal reading of the bible.
Like I've said before, there are hundreds of concepts that are RW religous types, like some shaman types, prophets, people possesed by Kami/Loa/Manitou/whatever, none of which you have done anything to refute and I suspect, know very little about.
James Jacobs even said that the Oracle was created to cover religous concepts not covered by the 'offical' classes. Who does the Oracle Iconic resemble; a biblical prophet or many a medival saint. The Cleric iconic more represents more the crusader/priest/rabbai.
|
|
I was going to respond, but I'm honestly not sure who you are responding against. If it was me, then we are essentually saying nearly the same thing, but from different directions, (sort of). :)Really?
Who chains their imagination by a few fluff words within a class?
The name of a class does not define your PC.
More generalized, than a specific poster.
|
|
I think a lot of the issues with this is that non of the three classes really fit. A Prophet is someone that either speaks the truth or speaks for a deity, but has different additional contexts wihin different cultures. There is no mechanics that come close to recieving visions and direct instructions from a deity. Even the various Divinations and prophetic class abilites are something that is activated, not something that happens outside of your player's control and is not bound by levels.
I don't like to ut real world religions into game terms, but based on some of the mechanics of the game and what is written about Elijah:
Elijah ws called when the king started to open up other temples, basically being told to warn the king and nation not to do these things. He does, get's exiled, basically hunted. He is ascribed with Flame Strike, a form of Restoration, Raise Dead, Chariots of Fire (2E), among other things, and is noted as ascending to heaven rather than dying. The main point of the story is that the king, priests, and generals basically continued to follow other religions, or at least to let them in, and actively went against the tenets of their faith, not following the hebrew laws. Elijah was tasked with trying to turn them back. Pretty much all of the things he did involved him praying and specifically saying that it was not him but his deity that would do it, so I would say Cleric ands down and not Oracle. It doesn't fit too well with the game, because either the other priests and the followers of other deities (Ba'al) would need to be fallen Clerics or Oracles without spellcasting to really show which was which. Oracles can, but do not need to pray for their abilities, and it's clear that Elijah didn't do it himself, but asked for it to be done by his deity. Doesn't mean no to Oracle, just much less likely. I would say that Elijah is in context much more about Wis than Cha, but again, that doesn't mean a no for Oracle, just less likely.
The idea that he was picked and chosen without having a orgnized religious background suggests more Oracle the Cleric, but does not at all preclude it. Clerics are more about personal understanding, personal faith, and living as an example of their deity's teachings.
|
|
Moses and joan were examples of their classes (Cleric and Paladin) used by authors of earlier versions of this game, long before oracle or anything like it was in print.
Only because there were not better classes to put them in. Even when Joan was brought up in first edition. For clerics, they usually talked about priests and bishops and crusaders for the model of the class; not biblical prophets. In fact, the lack of edged weapons for clerics in early editions came directly from the crusader code.
Your mixing something up. It's not that there was no Oracle at the time. There was no Cleric or Paladin at the time, either. Joan of Arc was one of the larger sources to create the Paladin as a concept in the first place, not the other way around. In the same way, Moses was specifically noted as one of the major sources for the creation of the Cleric as a Class concept. It didn't exist before then.
|
|
Agreed that you can be lawful and be at odds with other lawful people. However, you cannot ignore class distinctions, gender roles, and religous officals like Joan did and still be 'lawful'. The fact that she backed the questionably lawful rights of a King might make her neutral, but never lawful.
Joan, had she been lawful, would have shut up, obeyed the male authority figures in her life, married, produced a few kids, and died, perhaps not much longer then she lived IRL. ANd no one would have heard of her.
Authority in medieval Europe was seen as coming from God (divine right and all that) so what she thought were commands from God trumped mortal law.
The church claimed to represent god's authority on earth. Kings claimed god backed them. Big friggin deal. Laws are mortal constructs (at least the laws of Joan's time) usally used by the powerful to justify themselves.
It is why Arthur is a myth, and Law and Good have very little in common in real life IMHO.
Moses and joan were examples of their classes (Cleric and Paladin) used by authors of earlier versions of this game, long before oracle or anything like it was in print.Only because there were not better classes to put them in. Even when Joan was brought up in first edition. For clerics, they usually talked about priests and bishops and crusaders for the model of the class; not biblical prophets. In fact, the lack of edged weapons for clerics in early editions came directly from the crusader code.Your mixing something up. It's not that there was no Oracle at the time. There was no Cleric or Paladin at the time, either. Joan of Arc was one of the larger sources to create the Paladin as a concept in the first place, not the other way around. In the same way, Moses was specifically noted as one of the major sources for the creation of the Cleric as a Class concept. It didn't exist before then.
I think your mixing it up. I know in first edition AD&D cleric were supposed to get titles like adept and bishop and archbishop or Lamma. Class features were taken from real world clerics, mostly medieval catholic, rather then biblical prophets.
I have never seen anything, particularly early, like in D&D or first edition to suggest they were thinking of prophets or citing Moses as an example.
On the other hand, just pick up a 1st eddition rulebook and what I'm suggesting is all over the class.
Basically the Oracle class is better named something like the Mystic.
Also
Those are pretty good examples—all of those characters were in some way inspired and empowered by their mysterious divine source of power, had visions, and suffered for their divine power.You could certainly argue that some of them might have been clerics or paladins or druids, but that's nothing new.Question abbout the Oracle--I am given to understand that the class represents all of the variations of faith, like prophet, some types of shaman, those possessed by Loa/Kami/Manitou/whatever name you want to put on it, many historical mystics and that the term Oracle, kinda falls short of what you were shooting for.
Some examples of RW or mythological oracles
Joan of Arc-Battle Oracle
Francis Of Assisi-Nature Oracle
Moses-Oracle with cool homebrew studder curse.
Tiresias-Knowledge Oracle who paid for his/her knowledge intimately.
Black Elk-Lakota Prophet who had a vision at a very young age.Many RW examples of possesed oracles.
Do I have this right?
You could argue one case or another is a cleric. However James Jacobs basically backs my premise; that it is about direct divine inspiration rather then anything else.
|
|
Wait, what DM restricts flavor by the little fluff written in some class descriptions?
That's just plain mean.
Who are you talking to to me, them or us both? Probably us both.
On a more serious note, does anyone know how to address all the non-judeo christian examples I could come up with.
I haven't seen anyone touch those.
Wait, what DM restricts flavor by the little fluff written in some class descriptions?
That's just plain mean.
My GM in highschool becuase he wanted everything to be grayhawkesque and hated forgotten realms and therefore everything extending from it. He's also against Golarion and for his own homebrew world. Occasionally I would work with him, but the fact was if a mechanic or fluff stated it worked ilke this then it worked exactly like that. Which caused a lot of interferance with eachother sometimes, but luckily he wasn't overly strict or serious about it so I was allowed a lot of wiggle room unless he was really against it.
My last GM wanted to be in Golarion and was all about Golarion lore, I had some flexibility but I was restricted if I chose to be a cleric or something dedicated to Golarion lore. Baseline rules for the campaign were the same as PFS rules. Also, Alignment as a force of the world was in effect becuase he wanted to make it like starwars where magic bent you towards an alignment. I pretty much couldn't play a divine class without being pigeonholed into being exactly like this alignment and this god and follow these 100 tenants I didn't even know about, and no divine casters of an ideal. I left for 101 reasons of my own.
PFS is pretty strict about it and has a no reskinning rule. DMs are allowed to basically strip you of your own fluff if you come in reskinning things.(your not supposed to, for simplicity.)
I've also had a GM who would double check your work,(often getting it mixed up or wrong) amd then after you've already done things or make the character ask you if he was right and retcon things because of it. I also left his group for dozens of reasons
So... Plenty do really. I may not have goodluck with GMs.
Ok, now I want to ask this thread (because it's loosely sort of on-topic)
Elijah (the Hebrew prophet who opposed and deposed Ahab and Jezebel) would you consider him best represented by a Cleric, Oracle, or possibly a Favored Soul?
Elijah:
An important distinction here is, at this point in Israel, the Rule of the Kings has been separated from the Seat of the Judges. Meaning there is a separation of church and state. Ahab is the King, not the spiritual leader.
According to the Bible, Ahabs god is false, meaning there is no god, just a cult, no church.
This is different in an existence where polytheism is "real" , like Golarion.
In the 'reality' of Israel and the Bible, there is no other God, and again the story has to be read as a whole, in that this is a reoccurring theme in an ongoing story, beginning with Adam and ending with Jesus; and not little isolated stories.
With that in mind, the Prophets of God (yahweh) are called by God, to build his kingdom (church) here on earth. Ecclesiastically speaking, each and every one of them are Clerics. Order, structure and perpetuation of the same are the rule and measure of the day. Not sparkling new ideology.
Moses is the priest who brings about the origin of the Ten Commandments, laws and structure by which both Judaism and Christianity are still ruled by today.
Moses ordained the first deacon (Aaron his brother) and officiated over the church of God for centuries as it's High Priest.
The position of Pope is modeled after the ministries of Moses, Jesus and Peter.
The Catholic church follows laws and traditions set forth and originated by Moses and then later altered/clarified by Jesus.
That's a structured church over thousands of years, and moses isnt a cleric, yet he ordained, taught, and was modeled after by Clerics?
Hardly.
This is a story about the Church of God, the same church, ordained by God, for man. Not 30 different churches, balking against the "established" status quo. Babylonian gods? Norse mythology? THOSE are the upstarts, because the church of God was first, and always was. That's Biblical.
If you want to argue otherwise, then the source of your information is not from the bible. But from the writings of the Babylonians or someone else, an I think they would scarcely even name people like moses or abraham.
Now, with that established, since the first prophet of God was a cleric, and the last prophet of God is a cleric (the catholics believe their Pope to be a direct mouth piece of God) how could any other officiate of the same church NOT be a cleric (Elijah included).?
Do you see a situation where, in an organized religion, that the clerics would have an Oracle in charge of their temple they all answered to?
in 3.5, the favored soul was clearly intended to be a divine caster who operated outside of the organized church in his gods name (why, i dunno)
The PF Oracle isnt even necessarily connected with a god.
Now, if i were to look at the stories separately rather than a collected whole, I could see Elijah as a favored soul, because he does seem to have this "operates outside of the norm" theme to him, and parallels the authority of other church pontifs (without replacing them) and seems to have a special ability the others do not (resurrection... with the exception of Jesus of course)
The idea that the hebrew prophets are the new upstarts is to say you've watched too many made into cartoon movies, and not actually read the bible in order.
The people have fallen into ruin, and in many cases murdered a previous prophet when God calls a new one.
Worshipping a golden calf, or a dude with a birds head, doesnt make you the status quo, when your creation and origin draws you back to descending from the God of the Hebrews (even Pharaoh was a descendant of Noah's, as was Moses. So Mose's religion is NOT the "new one".
PF Oracles dont get 'called' by their gods, especially since they dont have to have gods, they spontaneously combust.
Of all the Hebrew prophets, I can think of only one, that "might" fit the bill to be an 'oracle'. Sampson. The 'hair' curse.
Seems like something you could make work in a PF rules set.
What would be the draw back to the curse? Tripping over your eyebrows?