Since clerics, druids, etc. do not have to worship gods to cast their spells, it would seem that "divine" power exists independently from the existence of divinities. You apparently just need need faith in some principle to access that primordial power. My opinion is that you would need an active principle to make this work. For me, not believing in gods wouldn't qualify any more than Rynjin's "I'm not a dog" principle would.
While the statement isn't enough of an ideal, and Rynjin's example was kinda bad as it takes the denial of something that isn't true and compares to denial of something that is taken as true by most of existence, "I'm not a dog" could definately be a central tenet of a dog-bodied cleric. A faith that claims our shapes are merely illusions and seek everyone to see through the illusion sounds very much like something that could work.
But I agree - you need to be more than _just_ atheistic to make a faith of it. Making an ideal out of spreading atheism (or non-dogginess among dogs) might very well be enough, though, if fleshed out enough.
In-world, nothing denotes their power as "divine", just like nothing in-world states that a Fighter is a Fighter or that Base Attack Bonus is a thing.
This isn't true. Arcane vs Divine has some mechanical repercussions.
Arcane Spell failure is a thing, for starters.
Also, Scrolls are defined as divine or arcane, and this has in game repercussions.
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
The user must have the spell on her class list.
The user must have the requisite ability score.
So Divine magic is distinctly different to Arcane in ways visible to characters in the Golarion setting. Why they are different is debatable, but they are different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One can disagree with it individually, but that does not remove the higher beings actual authority, thus it's an objective rule set.
You do realize that statement is as empty as "murder is wrong, and you can disagree with it individually, but that does not remove the objective law's authority, thus it's an objective ruleset", right?
The claim that higher beings have moral authority is in itself a moral claim that can be argued or dismissed at will. You'd need to argue _why_ it has a moral authority over lesser beings, and of course what makes it "greater" or "lesser"; is it mere power? If that's the case, the argument could very well be made that any authority that comes from strong-arming the weak into submission is an illegitimate "authority".
This isn't true. Arcane vs Divine has some mechanical repercussions.
In-world, nothing denotes their power as "divine", just like nothing in-world states that a Fighter is a Fighter or that Base Attack Bonus is a thing.
Class and base attack bonus too. But they aren't named in-world; there's nothing that says "Fighter" on a "fighter", except if they call it that themselves. It is no law of nature, just like there is no law of nature that the word "divine" appears on every divine scroll.
Divine and arcane magic is definately different things in-world, just like cavaliers and fighters are different things in-world. But they aren't necessarily called these things in-world, and there is no definate proof in-world that "divine" things are from the gods, just like there's no in-world proof that a given fighter is good at fighting.
It's easy to say in-world that the magic that the so-called "gods", as well as druids and rangers and paladins and oracles use is, say, "flowing" magic while the magic wizards and sorcerers and bards use is "building" magic.
What they know in-world is just that these types are different and not automatically compatible. This says nothing about the entities that wield them; it doesn't prove the so-called "gods" to be true gods more than it proves rangers to be true (but less powerful) gods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's true, and that's where it becomes a debate between the individual belief system rather than theism itself. The fact that further defining "god" is required for discussion between Theists doesn't say anything about atheism at all. It doesn't help or harm atheisms stance. It's changing goal posts. Nothing more.
The thing though is, (if we are assuming that there is a "god" like you said), then there really isn't any argument that they do not have authority to set morality. One can disagree with it individually, but that does not remove the higher beings actual authority, thus it's an objective rule set.
Incorrect. Power and moral authority are not the same thing. Everyone decides what their own moral code will be. Gods, churches, or governments might have the power to punish or reward an individual's behavior, but they only have moral authority over person if that person grants it to them.
That is, you can look at the Bible, Quran, etc. . . and have an objective thing. The logic is sound. (Again, that doesn't mean you have to agree with what the various books say on any subject, that's not what is being discussed). It however, doesn't hold true if there is no "god", until we can define what is moral. Once we do that, then we can debate the validity of that morality and it's authority, which becomes very problematic as "objective".
Those moral codes are as objective as RAW is in Pathfinder. The rules are usually vague, sometimes contradictory, and occasionally change over time. There isn't any way to apply them without a lot of subjective decisions.
As I recall, I once played a character in an Eberron game that was an atheist. In Eberron the gods don't interact with the world, really, and even heretics can gain power. You can be a CE cleric of a LG deity. Based on these, my character concluded that "divine" magic was simply a different kind of magic, but essentially the same as arcane magic with a few different rules. Finding evidence of this was his reason for adventuring, and going mystic theurge and gaining some of that class's abilities lent credence to his claims.
I think he was an archivist/wizard, rather than a cleric/wizard, but there is no reason he couldn't have been a cleric - I think the archivist was better thematically and SAD rather than MAD, but not the only way to do it.
Yeeaaahhh let's get off of the theist-athiest morality issue real quick and try and return to what we're here for: Pathfinder.
The overarching villain of my D&D universe is a cleric who realized that there was nothing that allowed the gods to rule other creatures except greater power, and therefore set about trying to destroy them all. Through some special rituals and such he became unbound by the gods and began to receive his domain powers directly from the universe.
And to a certain degree, I don't think that's a bad way to take them. Either because they've chosen to forsake the gods or don't believe they have the right to rule, or whatever (it's hard to debate Sarenrae exists, after all), allow athiest clerics to either choose a Philosophy (real or imagined), as well as suitable domains. If they simply wish to revere the universe or 'the natural order' (as I've seen druids do), treat them as having to stay within one step of TN, and grant them domains that are suitable. For my above cleric villain, I granted him Repose and Community as it supported his philosophies.
|
If they simply wish to revere the universe or 'the natural order' (as I've seen druids do), treat them as having to stay within one step of TN, and grant them domains that are suitable.
Why? TN doesn't even exist as a universal force. Makes more sense, to me at least, that that would be the one thing that a Cleric of a philosophy could not be, or close to. I mean, these are individuals that are fueled by their passions and dedication to a cause right?
|
Atheism, when there are provable ways to show the gods exist (as is the case in the Pathfinder world) seems a bit silly. You could potentially play a character that refuses to bow down to the gods, but not in PFS (that would be a "cleric of an idea").
Or I guess the character could make an argument that these "Gods" are merely powerful creatures, and not something to be worshiped. And to a lesser extent they're right... Gods have stats and can even die in the Pathfinder world, so they're just powerful creatures "at their heart". There is no "All seeing, all knowing being" like the one professed in Earth's world.
One of the issues is that we don't really have a mechanical explanation for how a being is capable of granting a domain. A witch's patron essentially just grants knowledge and enchants a familiar, but domains grant powers above and beyond heavenly knowledge.
Quite honestly, I think it's fine so long as you have a clear explanation for your character's concept of 'atheism' - as disbelieving the existence of the PF 'gods' is workable for a joke character at best. For a serious character, it would have to do more with a rejection of worship (because they don't deserve it) or just an awareness that they're not the only forces of the universe. One way or another, deities are granted control over domains, and in their own way, clerics could potentially do that too, perhaps by tapping into the planes from which such powers originate.
And the reason I say that is largely due to the fact that good, evil, law, and chaos, among other things, are physical forces in the PF universe, unlike ours. Which potentially means that one could control them without the aid of a deity. I don't think the gods have to hand it to you for you to gain it.
I think a large problem many people have with the idea of godhood and divinity is the god of monotheistic religions, most specifically of the Abrahamic tradition. In Islam, Judaism, and Christianity God is omniscient and omnipotent.
However, the gods of Golarion and like the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Far more human. Powerful, but fallible. They do not know all, they are not all powerful. But they were gods. Pathfinder Gods are much more like that.
As far as I know, only in monotheistic religions is a god ever depicted as all knowing all powerful beings.
How exactly one defines divinity and being a god isn't exactly clear, and the concept that the gods of Golarion are simply extremely powerful outsiders isn't necessarily wrong. However, it also seems like moving the goalposts or trying to redefine the meaning of the word god to call these beings that are normally accepted as gods as something else.
In any event, if you are trying to equate atheism with the idea that the beings commonly accepted as gods on Golarion are not gods, then you simply have incorrect terminology. On Golarion, the concept of atheism simply doesn't make sense without redefining what godhood means.
One of the issues is that we don't really have a mechanical explanation for how a being is capable of granting a domain. A witch's patron essentially just grants knowledge and enchants a familiar, but domains grant powers above and beyond heavenly knowledge.
Quite honestly, I think it's fine so long as you have a clear explanation for your character's concept of 'atheism' - as disbelieving the existence of the PF 'gods' is workable for a joke character at best. For a serious character, it would have to do more with a rejection of worship (because they don't deserve it) or just an awareness that they're not the only forces of the universe. One way or another, deities are granted control over domains, and in their own way, clerics could potentially do that too, perhaps by tapping into the planes from which such powers originate.
And the reason I say that is largely due to the fact that good, evil, law, and chaos, among other things, are physical forces in the PF universe, unlike ours. Which potentially means that one could control them without the aid of a deity. I don't think the gods have to hand it to you for you to gain it.
If your powers don't come from a divine source, the only other two alternatives are arcane and extraordinary, right? It would be entirely possible to make a character that claimed to be a cleric but was actually an arcane caster or extraordinarily talented individual, but neither would give you access to the cleric's spell list and class abilities, which seems to be what the OP is going for. For that to work, you'd need to be able to convince the campaign's GM that atheism was a divine idea or ideal. Maybe once Occult Adventures comes out we'll have another option that will work for the idea, but as it currently stands, it would require a house-rule.
|
|
If they simply wish to revere the universe or 'the natural order' (as I've seen druids do), treat them as having to stay within one step of TN, and grant them domains that are suitable.Why? TN doesn't even exist as a universal force. Makes more sense, to me at least, that that would be the one thing that a Cleric of a philosophy could not be, or close to. I mean, these are individuals that are fueled by their passions and dedication to a cause right?
You can have a TN cleric of a deity, which should disprove the idea that TN characters are not dedicated enough to receive powers from their philosophy. TN is not apathy, it means a lack of concern for Good/Evil and Law/Chaos. There are plenty of important things (like Knowledge and Beauty) that don't fit into those axes.
And, as another person on this thread has pointed out, a 2013 study by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons surveyed over 218,000 inmates in federal prison and found that less than 1/10 of 1% are atheist, while well over 50% claim some form of Christian religion and still others claim other religions.This is a highly suspect statistic. Even outside of prison many atheists feel the need to hide their atheism. Atheists are one of the least trusted and most disliked groups in the U.S. so many atheists pretend to be religious to preserve their careers or social standing.
Considering that many prisons grant special privileges to religious prisoners, parole board members often take a positive view of religiosity, and that many violent prisoners are also deeply religious, it is likely that the number of prisoners who are atheists is significantly larger than those who are willing to say that they are.
This is not to dispute your larger points regarding morality
Also, even if there genuinely is a lower portion of atheists in prison than in the general population, correlation does not imply causation. There may be a third confounding variable such as affluence or education. Alternatively people could be more likely to become genuinely religious while in prison than the reverse.
What could work, though is to have a belief system more like Buddhism. That is, they gods exist. It is an intrinsic part of the belief system, but they are not themselves notably important to the faith and goals of the faith. That is worshiping them is generally not the important part of the teachings, ad one could even be a follower of the faith without believing in deities, kind of.
I don't think deities are really intrinsic to Buddhism. From my (admittedly superficial) reading, these deities were actually local gods from traditions that Buddhism displaced as it spread, and Buddhism simply didn't care about stopping that worship. Kind of how Christianity adopted some pagan traditions as it grew (such as wedding rings, Holly at Christmas, and Easter eggs). This means it's less that you could be a Buddhist without believing in deities, and more that you could be a Buddhist even though you believe in deities. Buddhist theologians are much more likely to be atheist than the average Buddhist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
To the OP:
there's a few alternative in Pathfinder to get somewhere close to what you want to do but without the "cleric" part; here's a list of atheist type abilities, classes, traits, etc.
Class Archetype: Hidden Priest
Cavalier/Samurai: Order of the First Law
Bard Masterpiece: Life Budding in Salted Earth (Sing, String, Wind)
Feat: Godless Healing
Magic Items: Ring of the Godless, Tablet of the First Law
NPC: Pure Legionnaire
Prestige Class: Pure Legion Enforcer
Traits: Justiciar, Pure Legion Recruit, Rahadoumi Cultist, Rahadoumi Disbeliever
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish druids didn't need to like nature, i just want to be a crazy guy in the woods yelling at animals to get off his lawn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish druids didn't need to like nature, i just want to be a crazy guy in the woods yelling at animals to get off his lawn.
"What? Of course I revere nature! Why do you think I live in the middle of the woods? What I don't revere is a bear takin' a crap on my lawn while staring right at me. Pesky buggers need to know this is my territory, not theirs!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What? Of course I revere nature! Why do you think I live in the middle of the woods? What I don't revere is a bear takin' a crap on my lawn while staring right at me. Pesky buggers need to know this is my territory, not theirs!"
Hmmmm, well, I guess that settles that question.
Next question, does the Pope wear a hat?
|
|
The Ur-priest does not believe in gods... To the Ur-priest, dieties are nothing more than just strong outsiders. Nothing more. Not all powerful entities and such. The fact that demon princes and such can actually grant spells as well leads a bit of credemce to the idea. It is very similiar to the Old Gods in Dragon Age. The Tevinter Old Gods are essentially powerfu dragons, but they were believed to be divine. Does not make them gods though....Take that discussion to a setting and a GM which includes Ur-Priests. Golarion does not, and neither will any campaign world I run. When you are casting clerical spells, you are calling on a divine power to enact it's will. You can not do the first without the second.
Pixie Dust kind of misrepresented the Ur-Priests. They do in fact believe in gods and there is no indication that they hate them nor just think they are "powerful outsiders". It instead heavily implies that they are no longer worthy to receive the spells, (especially as most are ex-clerics) that now have to steal them and are constantly on the run. It's a dark prestige class that allows them to siphon and steal small amounts of the divine energy granted by the various gods to their followers. Unlike Clerics <who are granted divine powers>, they instead steal it, and are constantly hiding in fear that they will be caught and destroyed when one noticed. Mechanically speaking, they are not that great. They do get limited 9th level Cleric spellcasting over 10 levels, with a few extra tricks, but generally it would just be better to be a Cleric.
3.5 Domains where so much better than PF's and the Ur-Priest doesn't get them. Their spellcasting per day is pretty limited.
Anyway, it was a pretty poor call I think to force the "must have a deity" thing on the Cleric when no other class has anything like that. That is, unless you start forcing Wizards to pick a tower that trained them which picks their spells known and Feats for them, the "must have a Patron Deity" is just dumb and removes cool flavor options from the player for no good reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"What? Of course I revere nature! Why do you think I live in the middle of the woods? What I don't revere is a bear takin' a crap on my lawn while staring right at me. Pesky buggers need to know this is my territory, not theirs!"Hmmmm, well, I guess that settles that question.
Next question, does the Pope wear a hat?
nope it;s a helmet designed to ward off the Illuminati.
I am reminded of the druid from Standard Action who fits that trope fairly well. He's a druid... who has allergies, and starts forest fires.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take that discussion to a setting and a GM which includes Ur-Priests. Golarion does not, and neither will any campaign world I run. When you are casting clerical spells, you are calling on a divine power to enact it's will. You can not do the first without the second.
OP specifically stated that he's aware Golarion does not allow for this and he's talking about a setting that would (since the CRB allows for such settings).
There is the Philosopher archtype from Wicked Fantasy. They accept the idea that there are beings who call themselves Gods but beleive that they have no bareing on the lives of human beings, further the boundless potential of the human spirit means that these beings are neither superior to humans nor should humans be beholden to them for any reason. It is the Humans spirit that empowers the Divine magic of these Philosophers, and gods, well gods are left for lesser creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, it was a pretty poor call I think to force the "must have a deity" thing on the Cleric when no other class has anything like that. That is, unless you start forcing Wizards to pick a tower that trained them which picks their spells known and Feats for them, the...I don't see the logic of that statement. Look at the opening definition of the cleric class below.
In faith and the miracles of the divine, many find a greater purpose. Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith. Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, other
Do I need to pull out all the examples where taking the class descriptions and taking them as literal and immutable is silly again?
|
|
I don't see the logic of that statement. Look at the opening definition of the cleric class below.
In faith and the miracles of the divine, many find a greater purpose. Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith. Yet while they might share similar abilities, clerics prove as different from one another as the divinities they serve, with some offering healing and redemption, <others judging law and truth, and still others spreading conflict and corruption. The ways of the cleric are varied, yet all who tread these paths walk with the mightiest of allies and bear the arms of the gods themselves.
Role: More than capable of upholding the honor of their deities in battle, clerics often prove stalwart and capable combatants. Their true strength lies in their capability to draw upon the power of their deities, whether to increase their own and their allies' prowess in battle, to vex their foes with divine magic, or to lend healing to companions in need.
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)>
Missed the forest for the trees.
Do you conveniently gloss over the fact that Clerics of ideals (you know NOT deities) are part of the Core rules every time you read the class?
And that it says meditate OR pray? And that the Cleric spends time in quiet contemplation OR supplication?
I rest my case. Thankfully for me, mine is on a table with more than one leg.
|
|
I know everyone can run their game differently, and I know the difference between Core and Campaign Setting.
In this instance though, I don't properly recall what the word was in terms of clerics and gods in Golarion.
Was this ever explored / answered / commented on by Paizo?
All I can remember is Paizo coming down hard on paladins of Asmodeus when that was published years ago, around the time of Council of Thieves... (which is unusual as they usually stand united, but in this case, I remember a T-rex showing up and saying "No"... memory is blurry though... :) )
I know everyone can run their game differently, and I know the difference between Core and Campaign Setting.
In this instance though, I don't properly recall what the word was in terms of clerics and gods in Golarion.
Was this ever explored / answered / commented on by Paizo?
All I can remember is Paizo coming down hard on paladins of Asmodeus when that was published years ago, around the time of Council of Thieves... (which is unusual as they usually stand united, but in this case, I remember a T-rex showing up and saying "No"... memory is blurry though... :) )
Clerics must have gods in Golarion, but the RAW for any other setting is that ideals are allowed, unless of course specifically disallowed by the GM.
|
|
Not nearly as silly as taking the stance that they have no meaning at all. What does the cleric do every morning? He prays for spells. I rest my case.
Meditation? Soul-Search? Battle Mind. Communion with spirits, agents, or representatives related to their faith or focus? Contemplation on the spiritual mysteries and truths of existence? Pray does not require to be to a deity, and we can see clearly from the above quotes that as per the game "Divine" does not mean "deity".
How do Druids get their spells? Your case makes no sense. Originally Clerics didn't serve any deity. it was only with the inclusion of some settings (first Dragonlance and then namely Forgotten Realms) that the idea of a Cleric of a specific deity came about. Dragonlance had a built in setting/story reason for it, at least. Before that, it was very much a "I serve the Light" sort of thing, with the option of working with your DM to create specifics, if desired. Even in the normal Greyhawk default setting, this was not a requirement outside of some DM's. It's actually rather funny as the Druid was in previous editions just a variant of "Cleric/Priest". It's mind boggling that one would be okay with a Druid without a Patron Deity but not a Cleric. Especially because in every other setting that requires divine casters to have a deity, that also specifically includes Druids (and Rangers, Paladins, etc. . .). It's even more mind boggling, in my opinion, that Druids are not similarly restricted in Golarion when mechanically they are a better/stronger class.
And honestly, that's where it should have stayed.
Being able to create your own faith (working with the DM) and being "one of the few" are interesting. Being forced to pick from an established concept that someone else made, not so much, unless you want to.
The main factor that really even caused it in Golarion, (yah, it wasn't always that way, either), was that a lot of squeaky cans rattle the loudest insisting that "cherry picking" Domains would cause the sky to fall, not even taking into account that the Core Rule alone offers you the ability to pick the best Domains right out of the gate, or that the other more powerful classes (Wizard, Druid, Oracle, etc. . .) are not similarly restricted.