I think father Xanthus in adventure path 1-1 worships multiple gods, but only truly honours one. In a polytheistic setting prayers to multiple gods makes sense, and it isn't betrayal in the same way that monotheism continues praying to another god to be betrayal.
At least, that is how polytheism in our world has gone judging from available sources.
My take on gods, is that they are jealous, and would not accept a worshiper of two different alignments, especially the evil gods.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's irrelevant. A player should be able to be a polytheist. Especially if you were to allow "Pantheon Worship" such as the Dwarven Cleric of Dwarven Gods :) Asmodeus and Adabar are not in opposition to each other. Disallowing a Sarenrae/Rovagug worshipper makes a lot of sense though :)
Caveat: as he draws power from Adabar, violating those tenets of faith could cost him, mechanically, in-game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abadar and Asmodeus have very different takes on what laws are for.
Law is just a tool. It doesn't exist for it's own sake. Every single law serves a purpose beyond itself. Groups of laws together shape and mold society.
Worshiping Abadar and Asmodeus wouldn't work because each god wants the law to do different things.
Think of it something like democrats and republicans in American politics. Both sides agree that there definitely should be laws. They just can't ever agree on what those laws should be.
Seems fine to me. He isn't trying to wrestle out some mechanical advantage or anything.
He lives in a polytheistic world. Most polytheistic religions accepted not only the varying gods in their own pantheon, but the gods of completely different religions.
Monotheism is what really threw the intolerance of secondary beliefs into the mix. Just look at Rome... when they were polytheistic, their conquered subjects needed to make tribute to roman gods, but they were still allowed to keep their own with no limitations.
Malkov, I don't know if I'd consider those two as part of the same pantheon.
Pantheons are groups of gods that (loosely) govern together. At the very least they share cultural origins. In situations where gods in the same pantheon are antagonistic towards each other (like Thor and Loki), there are still very clear myths about their relationship and how they sometimes interact even though they hate each other.
Abadar and Asmodeus aren't like that. They have as much to do with each other as Anubis and Hades. Sure, they both have similar domains, but they really could not be more different.
Meh, you can see it that way, but when you have cities in Golarion with both a bank of Abadar and a temple to Asmodeus, you have to assume they aren't as culturally removed.
If the character in question is from Korvosa, then they have had immediate access to both religions. How far removed are any of the Gods of Golarion? Its never truly presented in that fashion. Clearly the character gets his or her powers from just one of these Gods, but also pays tribute to the other. This could be a cleric that worships Asmodeus but was raised by a priest of Abadar. There are a ton of possible reasons. A dualistic set of beliefs could also come from a separatist theological viewpoint that these two gods are NOT in fact as different as the rest of the world supposes.
Its religion... there can be a reason for just about anything.
I would have to read up on the two deities. Normally I don't care as long as there is no mechanical advantage for things like this, but they have to make sense to me on some level, and I dont think they use the laws to the same end. However I could just say his character understands how one of the deites works, most likely Abadar, so Abadar just ignores him, and Asmodeus is willing to grant the powers since he will have his soul later anyway. If he wants the domains of Abadar then I would say Asmodeus ignores him, and Abadar accepts him for now as long as Abadar's vision is what is followed
There's no issue with worshipping multiple deities (certainly not with paying tribute to multiple deities); for instance, a commoner might pray to different gods in different circumstances.
I do, however, think that clerics of a given deity shouldn't simultaneously worship another deity. Being clerics, they should act as representatives of their chosen deity, and worshipping another deity would seem counter-productive.
Considering the character isn't gaining any mechanical advantages, I don't see any major issues with this, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately it all boils down to fish in a water tank.
Do the fish eat the same things? Do they eat different things? Do they have different habitats and means of living? Would they eat each other if they were in a tank together?
Those kinds of things are what you need to watch for if you are going to allow it. If he is otherwise not getting some sort of meta-gaming subject out of it, it should be allowed as many deities and pantheons were believed and praised in such manners, and it otherwise doesn't really do much other than add flavor to the character in question, something which, as long as it doesn't ruin the flow of the game and the fun of the players, should be encouraged, not discouraged.
I see no problem with the way things have been set up with that character, though I figure that both deities would try to lure him away from the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no issue with this.
Not even on a "these gods conflict" level, since you don't have to worship every aspect of a god. He can worship Abadar for his fairness and impartiality, and Asmodeus for his skill at writing contracts and hell, Gorum for his skill in battle, Sarenrae for her compassion, and Irori for his commitment to the perfection of self.
His first allegiance is to Abadar, of course, and he holds him at the center of his "worship circle", but there's nothing preventing polytheism in Golarion.
If it's fluff, fine but here's my two cents:
If he's asking, I would suspect that there's a mechanical benefit the player is working towards if not immediately beneficial or apparent.
Gods give their power for devotion. being devoted to someone else is quite literally an inverse to the gift of power a god grants. It's like saying I never sleep around on my girlfriend, especially with my wife.
The only examples of cross devotional supplication I know of is between the two gods Lolth and her son Vheraun. The son was willing to grant powers to those planted 'spies' within lolth's organization. It had even gotten to the point of intrigue that loth tacitly approved, to maintain a double agent in the enemy's ranks. Of course this also rides under the caveat that either deity would snuff that spy like a candle when their use was over.
Homebrew the deities. Thats what i do.
Why not?
Clerics can worship more then one diety. He isnt asking to mix domains, or gain some kind of advantage, he is just trying to come up with an interesting (if potentially conflicted) concept. Why wouldnt a dm allow this? Most people in polytheistic religions worship more then one deity. Even if they have one 'main' deity, they still pray to the others. A priest of zeus would still setn prayers to poseidon before a sea voyage etc etc. Why would someone not be able to worship 2 deities in pathfinder?
Now if he wanted to mix domains, or use some odd feat combination to gain a mechanical advantage, that would be one thing, but thats not whats going on here, its pure concept. I'd not only allow it, I'd try to make it come into play in the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no problem with this.
If he gets high enough level that the gods fight over him, win for the story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow it.
My games are polytheistic, and most people worship different gods in different aspects of their lives: god of war for strength in battle against bandits, and later that same day a god of farming to protect and grow his crops.
Worship isn't just folding your hands and speaking some words, or being in a special room at a specific time of the week... it's living by the philosophies/values of a deity - whether it's done in the name of that god or not.
As for how the gods view this, they are "powered" by worship (yes or no, not number of minutes), and not worshippers, and worshipping multiple gods takes nothing from any of them, but gives to all of them. They arrange in pantheons, and they have allies and enemies, and they don't appreciate empowering their enemies, but they are rational about their worshippers also worshipping other similar "minded" gods - including those who share an alignment.
I would allow this in a default Golarian campaign.
When I used to create my own worlds with their own pantheon, that might not work. Some of the gods would work with each other. Some would not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is, indeed, specific precedence for this.
Although the God Claw venerates aspects of Abadar, Asmodeus, Iomedae, Irori, and Torag, it is unclear from which of these gods it draws its power; indeed, it is possible that its own convictions grant it divine strength. Clerical signifers and other religious members of the order have access to the Glory, Law, Protection, Strength, and War domains.
Note that they include LN, LE, and even LG gods.
Worshiping multiple gods should be fine, I imagine most everyone in a polytheistic society would.
He is still mechanically only a cleric of one, so I don't see the issue.
Yep, the god claw guys.
Absolutely. Though I'd warn him that it might cause potential conflicts for him.
The religious hierarchy of the church of Abadar might take issue with it and he might find times where the tenants of one faith contradict with the tenants of the other.
It all depends on what the player means by "worship".
To acknowledge the existence of two gods, pray to them, and treat them reverently is one thing. To attempt to manifest a lifestyle and provide devotion through action for two gods is a different thing and becomes more difficult the farther apart the two gods are in alignment, personality and expectations from their followers.
Also, if the two gods are rivals in some way, that would present some problems.
I agree with the above. The world is polytheistic so you can't treat individuals as only having faith in one deity. I tend to treat Pathfinder religions like the Roman faith. You give gifts and service to the deity that fits the occasion rather than blindly following a single faith. The Romans didn't dedicate themselves to single faiths, rather they made offerings to sea deities for security of their ships, to deities of travel and commerce when launching caravans and to deities of war when going into battle.
The only time I think it's a bigger issue is when clerics and paladins come into the mix. Those classes have faith woven into their make up. Clerics dedicate themselves to the worship of a single deity, often with the goal to increase that worship and to see their deity's wishes come true. In this case it looks like the player has decided to be fully dedicated to Abadar as a cleric. I think his reverence to Asmodeus is simply acknowledging that he may not be as out of line as other faiths would have their followers believe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In societies with Pantheons everyone usually worships all of the gods to more or lesser extents. .
Even the priestesses at the temple of Aphrodite in ancient Greece revered Zeus to some degree.
SO yes, a character who is a Priest of one god and also reveres a second god makes perfect sense.
Another example is the Separatist Cleric archetype. They choose a Deity and select one domain under that Deity plus one not under that deity (so long as it isn't a contrary such as Evil or Chaos domain under a LG deity). You lose proficiency in the deity's favored weapon in the trade, mind you, but that's a small price to pay.
Though if you play with clerics of the ideal, separatist does absolutely nothing but make you weaker for something you should get anyway.
Anyways, I used clerics of the ideal when I play, so I wouldn't have a problem with it. As long as the person actually cares about their character concept and enjoys it. Most important part, eh.
Only monotheists would see it otherwise. Or the most hateful gods that have no allies, no tolerance, no acceptance of different faiths and their gods.
Treat it like weapons made with multiple materials. Whichever is more prevalent determines effects. So the one he is a priest of, is the one used when determining eligibility for feats, classes, and such. The other one is revered, but plays no mechanical aspect in his character.
/cevah
51% Gozreh, 29% Achaekek, 20% Ydersius, stir.
In Golarion, the Hellknights have a sect that worships multiple gods (called the Godlaw, I believe).
While, due to Golarion canon, clerics need to have a single deity (even in the Godlaw), IF the GM allows it (and there's no particular mechanical advantage) and the GM is okay with the idea that they're not in "picture perfect" alignment with the setting canon (and all GMs deviate somewhat due to, you know, the player characters existing), then I see no problem with this.
For the record, both Abadar and Asmodeus are worshiped in the Godlaw (if I'm getting that name right, I'll look it up later, or you can at the Pathfinderwiki), along with others. As originally printed clerics could be clerics of all of them, but as has since been clarified, they need to choose a single patron in Golarion canon.
Sure, since in actuality there are no gods. All clerics are philosophy/ideal clerics, just that some of them need to anthropomorphize and externalize their belief as a 'magic feather', instead of just acknowledging that the power is internal.
That's how it works in my games, so there's really no issue there at all.
As long as his domains are both from the same god, and he does worship that god AS HIS PATRON, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing him to worship additional gods secondary to his patron.
Golarion is a polytheistic world, so really only clerics and inquisitors are required to specify a patron (and others who have feats that require it, like demoniac), but having a patron doesn't mean those characters aren't polytheistic, it just means they actually serve that one patron above the other gods and act to carry forward the agendas of that god as they perceive them.
(In my campaign I also require paladins to have a patron, but I don't think that's mandatory for paladins in Golarion according to canon.)
It's widely accepted that most if not all gods exist in Golarion. With gods owning a facet of everyday life it wouldn't make sense to pray to the god of battle for good crops. Like in our own past before the idea of a single god, people would pay tribute or prayer to multiple gods when a specific form of protection wanted.
If one wanted good crops, a prayer to Gozreh would be in order.
Safety while travelling might call upon an offering to Desna.
Healing of loved ones would attention to Sarenrae.
The gods have power and putting all your prayers into one basket and snubbing all the others seems like a bad idea even if you were a cleric to one god.
While it wouldn't be wise to worship opposing gods, worshiping gods who are allies or share the same ideals seems pretty safe.
I tend to go with Clerics belonging to a specific religious organization rather than to a deity. If you can feasibly explain the existence of a church that worships a given mix of gods, I'd say go for it.
(In my campaign I also require paladins to have a patron, but I don't think that's mandatory for paladins in Golarion according to canon.)
In canon Golarion, they do not, per James Jacobs. Only clerics do. :)
(I'm all for house rules, though! Those things rock!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By contrast, there's historic precedent regarding Christianity to "demonize" the deities of any other religions encountered. Beelzebub is a bastardization of Ba'al Zeebub (Zeebob is the name, Ba'al is the title given to deities in various Asia Minor religions). It's now used as an alternate name for Satan.
To be fair, there are also Christian examples of conversion by incorporation too.
Norse pagans were allowed to continue wearing Thor's Hammer and it was said to just be another rendition of Christ's cross.
There are examples of African and Native American tribes being told their spirits were manifestations of the Christian saints. These blendings also helped found hybrid religions like Voudoun, Santeria, and Candomble.
And, nitpick, Ba'al Zeebul isn't actually a name. It means God (Ba'al) of the High Places (Zeebul). It is related to Hebrew names for God, such as El'Shaddai, which itself is borrowed from earlier deities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And somehow I was ninja'd on the Godclaw, and never saw it. Like, substantially ninja'd. Whoops.
The concept of monotheism is a modern one. All religions, even Christianity, began with multiple deities, often dozens and in many cases even hundreds and no one god was worshiped above another.
So I say go for it. More interesting and far less one-dimensional.
This... isn't true.
Christianity was a sect that arose from a strictly monotheistic interpretation of Judaism which (by the time Christiantiy came about) held a strictly monotheistic view.
Their adamant (and emphatic) monotheism was one of the reasons they (and later, Christians) were so much trouble for the Romans.
Now, subsequent sects of Christianity (after the initial rise of the group) recognized a greater or lesser division of divinity amongst the trinity or followed 'additional gods' but the earliest accounts of Christianity always had it monotheistic.
And, at the beginning, if texts are to be believed, Judaism was strongly Monolartristic at most. Later, again, when they became ingrained with the local religions of the area they became more polytheistic, but that was after the fact (and the main temples, when active, were at most henotheistic.
Similarly, Islam pretty much was Monotheistic from the start.
Now, if you want to argue the root religions (those that existed prior to the Monotheistic ones) were polytheistic you'd have definite ground to stand on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worship of Aton was pretty much monotheistic IIRC. And that was 3500 years ago. So hardly that modern ;-)
And we do not know at all what went on before the invention of writing. Just because polytheism was very frequent in antiquity does not mean such was always the case in prehistory.
The notion that there is an evolution of beliefs that goes Animism => Polytheism => Monotheism does not stand to reality.
I'd allow it just like the GM in your game. There is nothing wrong with worshiping more than 1 god in Pathfinder. Heck even the ancient Greeks and Romans worshiped more than 1 god.
The player doesn't get any extra powers or unfair advantage for doing so. Leave him alone, you are another player and the GM has already ruled on it. In your games that you run you make the decisions, but in this instance you need to let it slide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? It's not harming anyone or causing any unbalance.
It's just a cool roleplay concept, not only would I allow it, I'd encourage the player for his creativity and commitment to the idea.
@Lemmy - exactly it's a really fun/cool roleplaying concept!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And somehow I was ninja'd on the Godclaw, and never saw it. Like, substantially ninja'd. Whoops.
The concept of monotheism is a modern one. All religions, even Christianity, began with multiple deities, often dozens and in many cases even hundreds and no one god was worshiped above another.
So I say go for it. More interesting and far less one-dimensional.
This... isn't true.
Christianity was a sect that arose from a strictly monotheistic interpretation of Judaism which (by the time Christiantiy came about) held a strictly monotheistic view.
Their adamant (and emphatic) monotheism was one of the reasons they (and later, Christians) were so much trouble for the Romans.
Now, subsequent sects of Christianity (after the initial rise of the group) recognized a greater or lesser division of divinity amongst the trinity or followed 'additional gods' but the earliest accounts of Christianity always had it monotheistic.
And, at the beginning, if texts are to be believed, Judaism was strongly Monolartristic at most. Later, again, when they became ingrained with the local religions of the area they became more polytheistic, but that was after the fact (and the main temples, when active, were at most henotheistic.
Similarly, Islam pretty much was Monotheistic from the start.
Now, if you want to argue the root religions (those that existed prior to the Monotheistic ones) were polytheistic you'd have definite ground to stand on.
Islam's early opponents were polytheists in Mecca and Medina. Muhammad insulted the various faiths (and copped quite a bit of criticism too) (Mozaffari 2007: 6-7; Crone 1987: 241). Later the religious rulings against polytheism, Islam's bad guy, were used to justify a long and bloody war of the Muslim Moguls against the Indian Hindus (Kepel 1997: 88; Warraq 2007: 230). Ibn Warraq (2007: 230) estimates eighty million Hindus were killed over five-hundred years of campaigns.
Monotheist faiths against polytheists can be quite the showdown. I've been tempted to run such games.