| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally do not feel morally responsible to preemptively correct the stereotypes about me. I'll correct the stereotype when it comes up, mainly because I always enjoy those conversations. My crossdressing bisexual lifestyle is not what most assume as something that can coincide with religion X. "Oh but they hate you!" Well those people are dying off and the world at large is listening to them less and less.
To tie it back to the topic. This why I think atheist cleric is fine, regardless of how some atheist don't approve of others using that word to mean strong belief and a code of ethics. No one owns a word. People are allowed to use it to mean different things. They aren't wrong. At worst they may be confusing people.
It's not people assuming my affiliation is evil that disgusts me. It's reading my holy texts and confirming it that's the problem. EDIT: Well, it would be wrong for me to say that others doing evil based on those texts aren't a problem. And as meaningless as you think words are, they do have meaning, and I cannot deny them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not people assuming my affiliation is evil that disgusts me. It's reading my holy texts and confirming it that's the problem.
Which texts, the ones heavy with idiom or the ones heavy with metaphor? Are these the same text about a deity who didn't write anything down himself?
I get fascinated that a book mainly about life advice is taken with such moral weight. If God said, "Don't stick your hand in fire" you would get people claiming warmth is evil and moving to Canada.
Please. Stop this. Both religious people and atheists. It is a derail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I thought Jesus was a progressive cool guy
On an extra note I think everyone should consider that the hate on some stuff like masturbation and homosexuality are misinterpretations of the actual text. Onan died because he refused to fulfill his duties towards his dead brother, while Sodoma was destroyed because they breached the rules of hospitality.
Then some authority decided to crack on the fun by reading that stuff in another way.
|
You know, j given you have risen some good points, if I was he DM and you presented me with Alima Abdul-Haqq... I would agree to allow it.
I would even allow for there to be a few instances where they would be allowed to question the gods directly. Especially a point where they have a chance to meet Serenrae, yet I would consider ways for her to still be a good aligned deity with the conflict within her own church. The big point I would make, she doesn't give blessing to the extremist cult but a rival evil god does looking to discredit her.
Sarenrae is a goddess. Mortal squabbles are not that important to her. She is also not all sweetness and sugar. Unrepentant evil creatures are killed, all according to her dogma from the start. I would have her simply say "I am afraid I won't be able to explain it to you. I understand it if makes it difficult for you to trust me."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sarenrae is a goddess. Mortal squabbles are not that important to her. She is also not all sweetness and sugar. Unrepentant evil creatures are killed, all according to her dogma from the start. I would have her simply say "I am afraid I won't be able to explain it to you. I understand it if makes it difficult for you to trust me."
Well that would be stupid, Serenrae would not be able to regain a lost worshiper that way. No I think she would care enough to give a better answer to one who has lost faith in the gods, especially in her.
More, she dogma teaches to kill unrepentant evil not those who are not evil and merely disagrees with a professed follower of her church or their actions.
I believe this conflict within her own church would bother her, and if she could would do something about it.
Regaining a lost worshiper is most likely not the first priority she has. If we are discussing a personal talk, it would probably end up at "Please trust me."
...stuff..
My point with this exercise is to have a *single* character pitched. So what two alignments you choose is important, your alignment and that of your concept are important.
No, the rules don't say anything about your alignment matching alignment domains. however, the rules do state that yours must be within one step of your god, and gods cannot grant alignment domains outside of their own alignments (even the appeaser and separatist archetypes cannot get divergent alignment domains this way).
Yes, the rules don't say anything about alignment domains for concepts.
The rules don't say ANYTHING about clerics of concepts, other than they might exist.
This quote is literally the ONLY amount of rules regarding clerics of concepts
While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a 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.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, j given you have risen some good points, if I was he DM and you presented me with Alima Abdul-Haqq... I would agree to allow it.
I would even allow for there to be a few instances where they would be allowed to question the gods directly. Especially a point where they have a chance to meet Serenrae, yet I would consider ways for her to still be a good aligned deity with the conflict within her own church. The big point I would make, she doesn't give blessing to the extremist cult but a rival evil god does looking to discredit her.
Her name is actually relevant to her changed outlook. Her choice to change her name was in essence a rebirth and renewal of herself, as well as a declaration of the path she discovered.
Her birth name Abrar Abdul-Salam means Devoted to God Servant of Peace. Having realized that religious dogma is destructive and poisonous, and that her goddess is not a goddess of peace but a bringer of the sword and accepting of murderers, she changed her name to Alima Abdul-Haqq or The Wise Servant of Truth.
The metaphysics behind the reason she can cast spells without a deity is that outsiders of all kinds can routinely gain the ability to use magic, with many of a spiritual bent being able to cast spells as a particular class (most frequently clerics but also things like bards and sorcerers). Literally every humanoid is a sentient outsider inside of a physical shell, ergo her spirit awoke to divine power and thus she's now a cleric.
EDIT: She is also Neutral Good, having more concern for the sanctity of the people than the aloof gods whom they worship. She has no particular concerns with order vs chaos, preferring to live by a flexible yet basic system of altruism.
You know, j given you have risen some good points, if I was he DM and you presented me with Alima Abdul-Haqq... I would agree to allow it.
I would even allow for there to be a few instances where they would be allowed to question the gods directly. Especially a point where they have a chance to meet Serenrae, yet I would consider ways for her to still be a good aligned deity with the conflict within her own church. The big point I would make, she doesn't give blessing to the extremist cult but a rival evil god does looking to discredit her.
Her name is actually relevant to her changed outlook. Her choice to change her name was in essence a rebirth and renewal of herself, as well as a declaration of the path she discovered.
Her birth name Abrar Abdul-Salam means Devoted to God Servant of Peace. Having realized that religious dogma is destructive and poisonous, and that her goddess is not a goddess of peace but a bringer of the sword and accepting of murderers, she changed her name to Alima Abdul-Haqq or The Wise Servant of Truth.
The metaphysics behind the reason she can cast spells without a deity is that outsiders of all kinds can routinely gain the ability to use magic, with many of a spiritual bent being able to cast spells as a particular class (most frequently clerics but also things like bards and sorcerers). Literally every humanoid is a sentient outsider inside of a physical shell, ergo her spirit awoke to divine power and thus she's now a cleric.
EDIT: She is also Neutral Good, having more concern for the sanctity of the people than the aloof gods whom they worship. She has no particular concerns with order vs chaos, preferring to live by a flexible yet basic system of altruism.
I like the character concept, lots there for the GM to work with and it would integrate well with most campaigns. There is also the opportunity to add some mystery there if you want to: what is the true source of her powers? Do they truly originate from within?
No, the rules don't say anything about your alignment matching alignment domains. however, the rules do state that yours must be within one step of your god, and gods cannot grant alignment domains outside of their own alignments (even the appeaser and separatist archetypes cannot get divergent alignment domains this way).
Yes, the rules don't say anything about alignment domains for concepts.
Wow, you really didn't read the class did you? "A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if her alignment matches that domain. If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies."
The rules don't say ANYTHING about clerics of concepts, other than they might exist.
This quote is literally the ONLY amount of rules regarding clerics of concepts
.... yeah... You really should read the class before you get in a discussion about the class.
"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, a 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.)"" A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. "
"If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies."
"A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one)."
"Clerics may select any two of the domains granted by their deity. Clerics without a deity may select any two domains (choice are subject to GM approval)."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the reason I chose her power coming from her own soul comes from the sense of empowerment and responsibility that comes from accepting that you are responsible for you, rather than the flying spaghetti monster. It's metaphorical to the nature of the revelation. YOU have to do it. You cannot rely on the flying spaghetti monster to make sure that everything works out.
Likewise, the problem with it coming from an outside but mislead source (as some suggested that perhaps someone was giving the cult of the dawnflowers spells to make Serenrae look bad) is that it doesn't work with deities like that. Clerics are required to be within 1 alignment step of their deities and those that grossly violate that lose their powers. If their powers just shifted and another power stepped in and picked up the reigns without them knowing, the cleric wouldn't ever have to care about their alignment since they would still get spells and wouldn't know any different. It makes the suggestion of a counterfeit god rather null.
I could see the character, perhaps ironically, ending up with a cult of people worshiping her (despite her protests) simply because she provides the divine goods without paying homage to a deity (which would be more or less unheard of in this context), leading folks to think she were some sort of divine being or something.
Which in a sense she would be, but then everyone would be, because outsiders in meat-mechs.
Interestingly mechanically it could be done by having the Divine Source Mythic ability and then being a Cleric of him/herself
Regardless of whether people are correct or not it is important to still address them in a respectful tone. This is not directed at anyone in particular, I am guilty of this too sometimes and I do realise I should follow my own advice.
What always irks me when folks go on about the evils of religion is that they almost always exclusively talk about Christianity and maybe Islam while denouncing all religion everywhere. People do realize that those aren't the only two religions in the world, don't they?
But when it comes to people who want to get all on your buisness, restrain your rights, have their religion dictate what should be the law on the land... let's put it this way, when was the last time you saw anyone but a Christian doing this in America?
|
My take.
A cleric who is atheist is feasible, but a cleric of atheism is nonsensical.
The cleric who is atheist ("atheist" here defined as someone thinks the "gods" are not worthy of worship) could channel their divine powers through belief in some cause or domain in the abstract.
A cleric of atheism is a contradiction in terms. Clerics receive their powers through prayer and worship, something that antithetical to atheism. In other words, you can't worship atheism.
So basically you can be a cleric of battle/love/whatever, who just so happens to be atheist, but that atheism would not be central to your role as a cleric.
>You can't worship an ideology that opposes worship
Sure you can. Look up "Malal" from Warhammer 40k, he is pretty much an atheist god(not IRL atheism, those guys aren't violent). He is described as "having a tendency towards destruction, even of itself and it's own agents".
Hmm, a cleric of Malal sounds fun.
Malal is a god not an ideology. Clerics of Malal actively believe in and worship in their god, which by definition means they are not athiest. They might be insane and worship a god that will consume them...but they are definitely are not atheists.
Ashiel, I'm rooting for your character to make it into a good campaign. And if you can't get past the Golarion rule against Clerics without a deity, consider Oracle or Witch (and if yuou go Ley Line Guardian, you don't even have to depend upon a Familiar granted by another power -- the spells are all in you, and it can even combine with Hex Channeler if you want that; on the other hand, Oracle of Life can get that too, and the Oracle's Curse could reflect the after-effects of trauma from her anti-divine discovery and/or traumatic events leading up to it).
* * * * * * * *
What always irks me when folks go on about the evils of religion is that they almost always exclusively talk about Christianity and maybe Islam while denouncing all religion everywhere. People do realize that those aren't the only two religions in the world, don't they?But when it comes to people who want to get all on your buisness, restrain your rights, have their religion dictate what should be the law on the land... let's put it this way, when was the last time you saw anyone but a Christian doing this in America?
I know it's easy to miss due to simple demographics in the United States, but they actually DO have some competition in that department. This is more often visible elsewhere (again for demographic reasons), but it happens here too. Without naming names -- just check out this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What always irks me when folks go on about the evils of religion is that they almost always exclusively talk about Christianity and maybe Islam while denouncing all religion everywhere. People do realize that those aren't the only two religions in the world, don't they?But when it comes to people who want to get all on your buisness, restrain your rights, have their religion dictate what should be the law on the land... let's put it this way, when was the last time you saw anyone but a Christian doing this in America?I know it's easy to miss due to simple demographics in the United States, but they actually DO have some competition in that department. This is more often visible elsewhere (again for demographic reasons), but it happens here too. Without naming names -- just check out this.
Yes... Scientology is a problem. And something to keep an eye on as other world governments have been doing. But lets not kid ourselves here. When we look at the big anti-progressive pushes against health care, progressive movements, the centuries of religious warfare that inspired our Founders to include protections like the Establishment Clause to protect us from such wars here... it's Christianity that's behind all of them. from the Crusades to the Salem Witch Trials. It's no accident that the Klan used burning crosses as symbols of terror. And in modern days, if there is a book burning going on... and there still were last year, you'll find a Christian preacher behind it.
Compared to Christians...both Catholic and Protestant... Scientology is just a minor kid on the block, just starting out.
You know maybe I shouldn't complain about stereotypes when the person attacking people because of them is also enforcing a stereotype.
The cleric of atheism should be true neutral. If your character is against both objective physical manifestations of evil, good, law, chaos, and neutrality, then I would think that sticks you in the middle on PF's objective morality scale regardless of the moral weight you would give the concept in the real world.
You know maybe I shouldn't complain about stereotypes when the person attacking people because of them is also enforcing a stereotype.
The cleric of atheism should be true neutral. If your character is against both objective physical manifestations of evil, good, law, chaos, and neutrality, then I would think that sticks you in the middle on PF's objective morality scale regardless of the moral weight you would give the concept in the real world.
I disagree, to use Ashiel's example, an individual dedicated to an ideological ideal of Atheism draws power from the notion of self and humanity as a whole, or more particularly, the notion of humanity that most fits their world view.
To apply another trope of an Atheist, on the opposite spectrum from Ashiel's example, an individual dedicated to the same philosophical arguments of self and humanity could be an amoral or evil individual who, upon coming to the personal-realization that there exists no true gods, disavows moral responsibilities from their actions and instead seeks to benefit as much as possible on the material plane, disregarding any divine punishment that may fall on their head after they pass on.
This individual would most likely register as NE. To this end I would argue that if the worship of ideals, like the worship of gods, requires an alignment position within one step of the concept it would be the Atheistic ideal that would be TN, as this allows the most variation across the spectrum for any individual to fit their personal morality. If ideals don't require a specific alignment then all the better.
No, the rules don't say anything about your alignment matching alignment domains. however, the rules do state that yours must be within one step of your god, and gods cannot grant alignment domains outside of their own alignments (even the appeaser and separatist archetypes cannot get divergent alignment domains this way).
Yes, the rules don't say anything about alignment domains for concepts.
Wow, you really didn't read the class did you? "A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if her alignment matches that domain. If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies."
The rules don't say ANYTHING about clerics of concepts, other than they might exist.
This quote is literally the ONLY amount of rules regarding clerics of concepts.... yeah... You really should read the class before you get in a discussion about the class.
"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, a 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.)"" A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. "
"If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies."
"A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one)."
"Clerics may select any two of the domains granted by their deity. Clerics...
Stow the insults, they are unneeded.
I know full well how the class works. (I was in a hurry on that last post, wasn't thinking clearly, honestly. If Paizo writers can dimensional anchor a creature that is explicitly immune to it, PFS directors say something contrary to a previous ruling that they themselves ruled, and you give me a mix of general concepts and specific concepts in response to my first post when I called for specifics, then I am allowed an error as I hurriedly type something before running off to work).My main point still stands.
Everything about working with a concept says that you need to work with the GM.
So, work with me here.
Pitch me your character.
Because so far, you've given me nothing to make me want to let you play this character.
Hanged Man said it pretty well;
An atheist cleric and a cleric of atheism are two different things.
The thing is atheism requires not a cleric, because the atheist is the total and complete opposite of a cleric who derives his power by submission to a greater power. What this thread calls for... is an anti-cleric. The proper anti-cleric does exist... it's called the Wizard. (as opposed to a sorcerer who gains his power mostly by accident of birth or exposure. A sorcerer because of that gift is more likely to believe in gods... or embrace the delusion that he is one himself.
A cleric works because she calls upon powers beyond herself and it's her faith in that which lies beyond that makes that conduit possible.
But the only cleric of atheism that makes any kind of conceptual sense is the one who relies on thier own will to power... the power of their own intellect and determination... the anti-cleric,....the mage, the wizard. That's someone who doesn't need to appeal to beyond for their power but by their own effort, they impose their will on the universe instead.
The thing is atheism requires not a cleric, because the atheist is the total and complete opposite of a cleric who derives his power by submission to a greater power. What this thread calls for... is an anti-cleric. The proper anti-cleric does exist... it's called the Wizard. (as opposed to a sorcerer who gains his power mostly by accident of birth or exposure. A sorcerer because of that gift is more likely to believe in gods... or embrace the delusion that he is one himself.
A cleric works because she calls upon powers beyond herself and it's her faith in that which lies beyond that makes that conduit possible.
But the only cleric of atheism that makes any kind of conceptual sense is the one who relies on thier own will to power... the power of their own intellect and determination... the anti-cleric,....the mage, the wizard. That's someone who doesn't need to appeal to beyond for their power but by their own effort, they impose their will on the universe instead.
Honestly, my first suggestion would be the White Mage Arcanist.
Malal is a god not an ideology. Clerics of Malal actively believe in and worship in their god, which by definition means they are not athiest. They might be insane and worship a god that will consume them...but they are definitely are not atheists.My take.
A cleric who is atheist is feasible, but a cleric of atheism is nonsensical.
The cleric who is atheist ("atheist" here defined as someone thinks the "gods" are not worthy of worship) could channel their divine powers through belief in some cause or domain in the abstract.
A cleric of atheism is a contradiction in terms. Clerics receive their powers through prayer and worship, something that antithetical to atheism. In other words, you can't worship atheism.
So basically you can be a cleric of battle/love/whatever, who just so happens to be atheist, but that atheism would not be central to your role as a cleric.
>You can't worship an ideology that opposes worship
Sure you can. Look up "Malal" from Warhammer 40k, he is pretty much an atheist god(not IRL atheism, those guys aren't violent). He is described as "having a tendency towards destruction, even of itself and it's own agents".
Hmm, a cleric of Malal sounds fun.
Well they worship him alright, it's just that he is the sort of god who would say "To properly worship me, you must not worship me" and then his followers would actually do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know maybe I shouldn't complain about stereotypes when the person attacking people because of them is also enforcing a stereotype.
The cleric of atheism should be true neutral. If your character is against both objective physical manifestations of evil, good, law, chaos, and neutrality, then I would think that sticks you in the middle on PF's objective morality scale regardless of the moral weight you would give the concept in the real world.
Morality is not tied to gods. She is Neutral Good because she is a good person who believes in doing good. If she is altruistic, concerned for life, and respectful of the dignity of sentient creatures, she is by definition good. Most of what drove her away from religions and deities were the fact that to her, they weren't worthy of the greatness attributed to them.
Likewise, she is not against objective physical manifestations of anything. Especially in an environment where things like good and evil can be discerned by spells (which don't come from gods) and there are powerfully aligned souls (outsiders).
She is Neutral Good because she's a Good person, who cares about others and takes time to care for them. I'm not sure what alignment has to do with it at all.
I likewise never suggested that her alignment was the default. In fact, the fact she doesn't care about deities means that freedom of alignment is a given.
And here's the funny part. She's good because she is good. Not because her being bad will upset her deity. Just like good atheists in real life. IMHO, goodness is worth a lot more when it comes from the heart, rather than because it's seeking some sort of award or approval.
Morality is not tied to gods.
Oh yeah it's only their domain. pfffff
If your character went after religions of good deities in one of my campaigns, she couldn't be good. If your character just went around helping people, then she could be good. An anti-theist attitude would put you neutral in my campaigns. Cursing good deities because you blame them for things they weren't responsible for is a fault of your character. Instead of focusing on just evil or reform, she is instead against supporting objectively good entities that control the afterlife of mortals and prevent the forces of evil from overrunning the multiverse. She is free to view herself as good, the divine spells like holy smite may disagree.
Stow the insults, they are unneeded.
That was sincerely confusion on my part, since you were speaking so absolutely despite saying things obviously false.
My main point still stands.
Everything about working with a concept says that you need to work with the GM.
That applies to every character in whole game, so is a rather redundant statement.
So, work with me here.
Pitch me your character.
Fine. Though two things first, it will not be golarion based since I never cared about the setting so don't know anything about it's religions so I'll only go off what is true in the RPG-line & I have never been good at making backstories and stuff for individuals, so I have no idea why a random individual pitching a character idea to a random GM on the internet would be representative of anything.
My character is part of a religion founded upon the knowledge that worshipping of a concept can bestow divine abilities and that there are examples of "gods" who are mortal, so beings currently known as "gods" aren't worthy to be considered gods and that worshipping them is an act of deceit and manipulation on the part of the "gods" effectively tricking mortals into being their slaves. So, they worship the concept of atheism and try to spread the word that the beings currently being worshipped "gods" are not truly Gods.
Because so far, you've given me nothing to make me want to let you play this character.
Which doesn't really matter to be honest. There are hundreds and hundreds of GM's all who have different preferences and views. It doesn't really matter if 1/20/etc. has a personal preference against clerics of atheism, but rule-wise there is nothing against it and this is the rules section of the forum.
An atheist cleric and a cleric of atheism are two different things.
I fail to see how that is relevant since we are discussing clerics of atheism, and no one is discussing simply atheist clerics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Morality is not tied to gods.Oh yeah it's only their domain. pfffff
If your character went after religions of good deities in one of my campaigns, she couldn't be good. If your character just went around helping people, then she could be good. An anti-theist attitude would put you neutral in my campaigns. Cursing good deities because you blame them for things they weren't responsible for is a fault of your character. Instead of focusing on just evil or reform, she is instead against supporting objectively good entities that control the afterlife of mortals and prevent the forces of evil from overrunning the multiverse. She is free to view herself as good, the divine spells like holy smite may disagree.
And you would be wrong.
Gods are subject to alignment in D&D/Pathfinder. They do not determine it. They may be paragons of an alignment but that's not particularly special. Paladins, for example, need no gods and they are champions of Good itself.
Good in D&D/Pathfinder is Altruism, respecting life, and concern for the dignity of sentient creatures. Evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing. Do more of the former rather than the latter and you are Good. There is no argument to be made otherwise. Criticizing deities and the religions surrounding them and offering alternate options is not evil. There isn't even an argument to be made.
Morality is not tied to gods.Oh yeah it's only their domain. pfffff
If your character went after religions of good deities in one of my campaigns, she couldn't be good. If your character just went around helping people, then she could be good. An anti-theist attitude would put you neutral in my campaigns. Cursing good deities because you blame them for things they weren't responsible for is a fault of your character. Instead of focusing on just evil or reform, she is instead against supporting objectively good entities that control the afterlife of mortals and prevent the forces of evil from overrunning the multiverse. She is free to view herself as good, the divine spells like holy smite may disagree.
And you would be wrong.
Gods are subject to alignment in D&D/Pathfinder. They do not determine it. They may be paragons of an alignment but that's not particularly special. Paladins, for example, need no gods and they are champions of Good itself.
Good in D&D/Pathfinder is Altruism, respecting life, and concern for the dignity of sentient creatures. Evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing. Do more of the former rather than the latter and you are Good. There is no argument to be made otherwise. Criticizing deities and the religions surrounding them and offering alternate options is not evil. There isn't even an argument to be made.
Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.
If she isn't as strictly anti-theist as you've alluded her to being then she may get to be good.
idk why someone running around trying to undermine those who protect the multiverse and all that is good would be a good character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.Morality is not tied to gods.Oh yeah it's only their domain. pfffff
If your character went after religions of good deities in one of my campaigns, she couldn't be good. If your character just went around helping people, then she could be good. An anti-theist attitude would put you neutral in my campaigns. Cursing good deities because you blame them for things they weren't responsible for is a fault of your character. Instead of focusing on just evil or reform, she is instead against supporting objectively good entities that control the afterlife of mortals and prevent the forces of evil from overrunning the multiverse. She is free to view herself as good, the divine spells like holy smite may disagree.
And you would be wrong.
Gods are subject to alignment in D&D/Pathfinder. They do not determine it. They may be paragons of an alignment but that's not particularly special. Paladins, for example, need no gods and they are champions of Good itself.
Good in D&D/Pathfinder is Altruism, respecting life, and concern for the dignity of sentient creatures. Evil is hurting, oppressing, and killing. Do more of the former rather than the latter and you are Good. There is no argument to be made otherwise. Criticizing deities and the religions surrounding them and offering alternate options is not evil. There isn't even an argument to be made.
I'm not particularly interested in your house rules at the moment, friend. However, nothing about her being against the worship of "gods" implies that she is an enemy of good. Disagreeing with people is not the same as harming them. If you believe that disagreeing with someone philosophically makes you their enemy, then that says a lot about you.
Not once did I ever suggest she was going to do anything like violently oppress others. She is good. She would lead by example. She would use her words and most importantly her actions, and show that people do not need to devote their lives to powerful outsiders who are fickle and mysterious when such things are terribly unnecessary.
If she isn't as strictly anti-theist as you've alluded her to being then she may get to be good.
Being atheist, or even anti-theist, is not synonymous with evil. In fact, it's not evil, or good, at all. It's not aligned. It's functionally equivalent to someone worshiping a guy named Bob, and the anti-theist would say that there's no reason to worship Bob, and you'd probably have a better life if you focused on your own development rather than trying to do what Bob says you should do.
idk why someone running around trying to undermine those who protect the multiverse and all that is good would be a good character.
I suppose you think that all characters of the same alignment must likewise always agree, and always agree on the best route to achieving good results? Because that's what it sounds like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.
Wait, people sharing a single alignment axis have to always agree in your campaigns and can never be enemies?
Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.Wait, people sharing a single alignment axis have to always agree in your campaigns and can never be enemies?
No, but they generally don't despise ALL the deities of their alignment and go out of their way to undermined ALL religions based around their alignment.
When your main motivator, anti-theism, is applied equally regardless of the targets moral impact on the world, then you don't get to claim to be good. Good isn't your motivator, anti-theism is.
If you don't do evil things because of anti-theism (like declare yourself the enemy of the entire host of good aligned outsiders), then you can be good.
No, but they generally don't despise ALL the deities of their alignment and go out of their way to undermined ALL religions based around their alignment.
When your main motivator, anti-theism, is applied equally regardless of the targets moral impact on the world, then you don't get to claim to be good. Good isn't your motivator, anti-theism is.
If you don't do evil things because of anti-theism (like declare yourself the enemy of the entire host of good aligned outsiders), then you can be good.
Declaring yourself the enemy of individuals who happen to be good is not an evil act. Doing evil actions is an evil act. If your anti-theist character does good acts and doesn't do evil actions, I don't see why they wouldn't be good in alignment.
Edit: Not sure why anti-theism is being discussed though personally.
idk why someone running around trying to undermine those who protect the multiverse and all that is good would be a good character.I suppose you think that all characters of the same alignment must likewise always agree, and always agree on the best route to achieving good results? Because that's what it sounds like.
Your character has declared herself the enemy against ALL that prevent demons and devils from overrunning the material plane and destroying all life.
Good characters don't have to agree with each other, but a good character that disagrees with most other good beings and attempts to undermined their good efforts for trivial b%&!*@+@, then that wouldn't make much sense would it?
Your religion = bad theory is objectively not true in PF, so using that as a reason to undermine the efforts of good is evil. Your character does that to evil people too, so I say it balances out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but they generally don't despise ALL the deities of their alignment and go out of their way to undermined ALL religions based around their alignment.Being an enemy of good, good people, and good deities would preclude your character from being good in my campaigns.Wait, people sharing a single alignment axis have to always agree in your campaigns and can never be enemies?
Undermining belief in the need of the religions. There are many good aligned characters who do not have worshipers (I'd dare say more than not actually).
When your main motivator, anti-theism, is applied equally regardless of the targets moral impact on the world, then you don't get to claim to be good. Good isn't your motivator, anti-theism is.
Factually incorrect. Her motivation is entirely good and altruistic, for she recognizes that religion can be a blinding force to what is actually good. Even the religions devoted to good gods, such as Serenrae, can be corrupted and used to convince people to enact violence and bigotry. She sees the religion, the theology, as the disease or parasite.
She wouldn't need to claim to be good because she would be good. Her motivations and actions would all be in the service of good, and she would disagree and demote the need for religion wherever she goes. That doesn't mean she's going to do something crazy like start murdering off members of other religions, for in doing so she would be just doing what religions do.
If you don't do evil things because of anti-theism (like declare yourself the enemy of the entire host of good aligned outsiders), then you can be good.
Declaring yourself opposed to the worship of any being is not evil. You must first explain why you have to support religion to be good, and why opposing religion is evil. You have failed to do that and I strongly believe that any argument that tries to do so within the framework of good and evil as it is defined will be grasping at very whispy straws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way...
The fact that you cannot see how someone could oppose something without hurting, oppressing, or killing is again, very exemplary of the destructive mindset I was speaking of earlier.
By the way...
The fact that you cannot see how someone could oppose something without hurting, oppressing, or killing is again, very exemplary of the destructive mindset I was speaking of earlier.
Weaken those who fight evil.
Evil kills, hurts, and oppresses more often.
Good Religions in PF have clerics, paladins, heal the sick, raise heroes back to life, and stand against the forces of evil. You go around telling people to keep their donations and that they are unneeded weaken these forces for good that actually need support to function. You are personally making the world a worse place with those actions. If you want to anti-theism justly in PF, then you better found and lead a replacement organisation that does the job as good or better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way...
The fact that you cannot see how someone could oppose something without hurting, oppressing, or killing is again, very exemplary of the destructive mindset I was speaking of earlier.
Weaken those who fight evil.
Evil kills, hurts, and oppresses more often.
Good Religions in PF have clerics, paladins, heal the sick, raise heroes back to life, and stand against the forces of evil. You go around telling people to keep their donations and that they are unneeded weaken these forces for good that actually need support to function. You are personally making the world a worse place with those actions. If you want to anti-theism justly in PF, then you better found and lead a replacement organisation that does the job as good or better.
Her existence would indicate that she has.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weaken those who fight evil.
Evil kills, hurts, and oppresses more often.
Good Religions in PF have clerics, paladins, heal the sick, raise heroes back to life, and stand against the forces of evil. You go around telling people to keep their donations and that they are unneeded weaken these forces for good that actually need support to function. You are personally making the world a worse place with those actions. If you want to anti-theism justly in PF, then you better found and lead a replacement organisation that does the job as good or better.
1. Good Religions exist in PF without deities.
2. Evil Religions in PF have clerics, who heal the sick, raise heroes back to life and stand against the forces of evil. Especially with the fact that there are neutral clerics of evil gods.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way...
The fact that you cannot see how someone could oppose something without hurting, oppressing, or killing is again, very exemplary of the destructive mindset I was speaking of earlier.
Weaken those who fight evil.
Evil kills, hurts, and oppresses more often.
Also, on a side note, I'd like to point out that earlier you said that religions and their followers cannot be held responsible for the evils that their religion causes, and yet you now argue that those religions must be maintained because they can do good as well as evil.
Good Religions in PF have clerics, paladins, heal the sick, raise heroes back to life, and stand against the forces of evil.
Interestingly, so do Neutral and Evil deities.
You go around telling people to keep their donations and that they are unneeded weaken these forces for good that actually need support to function.
More likely she would suggest donating them not to gods and religions but to actually provide their aid where it is needed, or to form secular groups that serve these sorts of functions. Where reason is used to determine how those resources are used, with the certainty that none of those devoted resources are being spent on the glorification and proselytizing the religion.
Most people, good or not, can see benefits of halting evil where it shows it rears its head, for evil means to hurt, oppress, and kill. The suggestion that good religions are required for heroes to fight evil is not only wrong, it's easily disprovable. In fact, Neutral factions are more effective at fighting evil than not.
You are personally making the world a worse place with those actions. If you want to anti-theism justly in PF, then you better found and lead a replacement organisation that does the job as good or better.
You've failed to explain how that is true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, you are making many assumptions to intentionally see the character in a negative light. For example, I said nothing about telling others not to give to the betterment of the community or charities that help to protect or promote goodness in the world. You assumed this and created a straw man, because you apparently cannot fathom that religion is not needed to do good.
Why would she tell people that their "donations" aren't needed? More likely she would tell them to be more discriminating on who and why they gave them. It would be foolish to assume that tithes aren't also spent on making big fancy churches, pushing political motivations, and furthering the interests of a religion. Meanwhile, if you wanted to do something like...feed the poor? Well, you could do that directly or form an organization explicitly for that purpose or an organization that has to publicly show what its funding is doing.
Look, if your GM is OK with good characters working against many good characters and ALL good deities for some morally neutral notion, then more power to you.
In my campaigns you would have to be very careful to actually maintain that good alignment, because I don't see anti-theism as a just motivator of any-sort in the PF universe (and unlike people in this thread, I'm not going to shoehorn what my exact opinion on this is in our universe at every possible opportunity because that is completely tangential). Merely telling people to give to the poor does nothing to counter demons. It's presumptuous to assume that your code of ethics would be as easy of a divine source for NPCs as actual gods.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way...
The fact that you cannot see how someone could oppose something without hurting, oppressing, or killing is again, very exemplary of the destructive mindset I was speaking of earlier.
Weaken those who fight evil.
Evil kills, hurts, and oppresses more often.
Good Religions in PF have clerics, paladins, heal the sick, raise heroes back to life, and stand against the forces of evil. You go around telling people to keep their donations and that they are unneeded weaken these forces for good that actually need support to function. You are personally making the world a worse place with those actions. If you want to anti-theism justly in PF, then you better found and lead a replacement organisation that does the job as good or better.
Morality of indirect consequences of actions pretty much can't be judged by the allignment system. Is saving a drowning man a Good act? What if he ends up being a mass murderer? What if that mass murderer later kills Hitler? What if Hitler was supposed to stop a demonic invasion into our world, and now he can't because he is dead?
I can sorta see how allignment system is useful for judging very direct consequences of your actions(e.g. stabbing a man to death->evil because murder), but otherwise it's kinda silly. Revised Allignment( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emzkqzUaNm34fbe8wzNphhKDsSfg-QNEOdIHY3Z hrRI/edit ) is better IMO.
EDIT:delete the spaces in the link
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, if your GM is OK with good characters working against many good characters and ALL good deities for some morally neutral notion, then more power to you.
It's a morally good notion, as explained before. It's putting the focus on the good, rather than on the servitude of outsiders.
In my campaigns you would have to be very careful to actually maintain that good alignment, because I don't see anti-theism as a just motivator of any-sort in the PF universe
I don't care about your campaign, because she's either being good or she isn't. I don't care what made up stuff you decided to flood the alignment system with that isn't there (another example of the destructive mindset, adding and subtracting from what is actually written in a document).
(and unlike people in this thread, I'm not going to shoehorn what my exact opinion on this is in our universe at every possible opportunity because that is completely tangential).
Don't worry, you really don't have to go out of your way to do so.
Merely telling people to give to the poor does nothing to counter demons.
Of course not. You would instead put in place systems to counter demons. And interestingly, good-aligned clerics and such aren't actually very good at countering demons, devils, daemons, and so forth. In fact, those who are best at countering them are in fact Neutral and Evil characters.
It's presumptuous to assume that your code of ethics would be as easy of a divine source for NPCs as actual gods.
Given that there is already a precedent for souls manipulating magical powers (see the majority of outsiders), as well as many more examples of divine magic being performed without deities (including but not limited to Paladins, Oracles, and Adepts), there's already evidence that you don't need deities to do so.
Given that it takes an average of 7 years to learn how to cast spells as a cleric (factored into her backstory I might add, as her renouncement of faith and reliance upon self was an evolution that spanned well into her adulthood), it's not particularly easy to just pray to a god and get some spells. In fact, it's just as hard as learning to be a wizard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
because I don't see anti-theism as a just motivator of any-sort in the PF universe
1. What does that have to do with Good?
2. Theism doesn't really have any more use as a motivator than anti-theism as far as I can tell. It's perfectly reasonable to see PF gods as decieving mortals for their own benefit, I mean they are specifically unnecessary. You can worship and comprehend nature, and get power from it. You can worship and comprehend Hope, and get power from it. You can worship and comprehended Peace and get power from it. And yet some beings believe they are superior to you and require your worship despite the fact they only thing they bring to the world is something that can be done More efficiently without them (since you can pick your domains based on your spiritual views rather than that gods personality and portfolio).Merely telling people to give to the poor does nothing to counter demons.
Giving money to build a chapel also does nothing to counter demons, but at least giving to the poor helps people other than hubris. What was being suggested was, instead of giving money blindly because Gods, give money in ways that will directly go towards what you are trying to get it towards.
It's presumptuous to assume that your code of ethics would be as easy of a divine source for NPCs as actual gods.
It's also baseless to assume that "gods" would be as easy of a divine source as a concept. Concepts would probably be easier in my opinion because they are more mutable, while gods are individuals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need to expand on Alima's background more. The initial bits were more or less a summary. I'd like to write more stuff concerning different important NPCs, flesh out her godfather a bit, and detail the information on her tiefling friend. I suspect that her tiefling friend was probably harassed and eventually nearly killed due to religious intolerance, possibly do to a combination of her race and beliefs.
I'd like to also come up with some extended family, some rivals, and a few other people she knows from her travels. Unfortunately, work soon, so it'll have to wait until later.
^What you showed us already is a great start. Let us know when you have more, and please post us a link to the PbP or campaign journal (if applicable) when she gets in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^What you showed us already is a great start. Let us know when you have more, and please post us a link to the PbP or campaign journal (if applicable) when she gets in.
I haven't really been able to get into the mindset for a PbP campaign for years (did a lot of those when I was a young teenager) but I've fallen into using things like MapTools or OpenRPG for gaming online. Unfortunately, the couple of folks that I usually play under aren't super interested in GMing anything right now and are more interested in me taking the reigns for a while.
EDIT: Though maybe I'll include her as an NPC or something. I'd need to tweak her a bit since I wouldn't be running Golarion.