Anyone else disappointed there are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Deities?


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:

I don't like it, either. It removes a lot of the nuance in the religions. Not only for evil deities, but for the good ones too. The Glorious Reclamation and the Cult of the Dawnflower don't make sense if Iomedae and Sarenrae can't have Neutral worshippers.

Asmodeus should allow LN as well.

To be fair, the Glorious Reclamation were pretty hardline good. They were simply zealous and short-sighted. ^_^

I 100% agree about Asmodeus, though. This hurts a lot of potentially interesting concepts and stories related to Cheliax.

Heck, forget just Chelaxian storylines. What about the Godclaw? What about that one place that worshipped Asmodeus as a LN goddess? Are they just suddenly screwed?


Dαedαlus wrote:
Heck, forget just Chelaxian storylines. What about the Godclaw? What about that one place that worshipped Asmodeus as a LN goddess? Are they just suddenly screwed?

Is this really fundamentally different from how "Vudra is a center of psychic magic" or "Alkenstar produces a lot of guns" given that we don't have rules for psychic magic or guns in the playtest.

I think it's fine to hold off on making rules for specific things which are true in the setting, we just don't have rules for it yet, until Paizo is interested in telling stories about those things. We can hold off on the Godclaw until we go back to Cheliax, and I kinda hope we hold off for a while, to be honest.

I mean, the rule is not "evil gods don't grant spells to clerics" it's "Deities only grant spells to a specific set of alignments as spelled out in their writeup."


MidsouthGuy wrote:
Ever tried playing with a Chaotic Evil PC? Unless you're in it for laughs or running an evil campaign, it's like pulling teeth trying to work with them. Someone who isn't sure if they want to eat ice cream or orphan meat is not the best person to have following you around.

Chaotic Evil doesn't necessarily mean they roll dice in their heads to determine their next actions. Their behavior don't have to be inexplicable like the Joker or something. It just means that in addition to being cruel, ruthless, sadistic and the like, they're also untrustworthy--and potentially unpredictable, but especially since you can't take them at their word. The LOLRandomEvil mindset of CE is more an issue of players and interpretations than inherent to the alignment itself, I would say.

I agree, having such a being following you around is a trying experience. That's why anyone who works with them needs to know how to properly manipulate and control them--or best leverage their behavior...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Heck, forget just Chelaxian storylines. What about the Godclaw? What about that one place that worshipped Asmodeus as a LN goddess? Are they just suddenly screwed?

Is this really fundamentally different from how "Vudra is a center of psychic magic" or "Alkenstar produces a lot of guns" given that we don't have rules for psychic magic or guns in the playtest.

Yes. This is comparable to having gun rules that prevent Alkenstar from making them, not having no gun rules at all.


deuxhero wrote:
Yes. This is comparable to having gun rules that prevent Alkenstar from making them, not having no gun rules at all.

Why can't I just say "Alkenstar still makes a lot of guns, but we're not going to go there and you can't have any" the same way I can say "sure, there are [foo] clerics of [bar] somewhere, but we're not going to go there or meet any, and you can't play one yet, just like you can't play a Witch or a Kineticist"?

If we want to tell a story about a Witch, a Kineticist, an Oracle, and an Investigator who go to Alkenstar to get guns to fight off heretic clerics of some deity who's not in the core pantheon, we can just do that in PF1 in the meantime. Eventually we will have rules for this stuff in PF2, it will just take a while.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
deuxhero wrote:
Yes. This is comparable to having gun rules that prevent Alkenstar from making them, not having no gun rules at all.

Why can't I just say "Alkenstar still makes a lot of guns, but we're not going to go there and you can't have any" the same way I can say "sure, there are [foo] clerics of [bar] somewhere, but we're not going to go there or meet any, and you can't play one yet, just like you can't play a Witch or a Kineticist"?

If we want to tell a story about a Witch, a Kineticist, an Oracle, and an Investigator who go to Alkenstar to get guns to fight off heretic clerics of some deity who's not in the core pantheon, we can just do that in PF1 in the meantime. Eventually we will have rules for this stuff in PF2, it will just take a while.

There is, of course, a difference between "guns exist, just not here" and "neutral clerics of Urgathoa don't exist". I'm sure you know this, but your post seems to imply the opposite... I'm certainly missing something here. ^_^


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:
Heck, forget just Chelaxian storylines. What about the Godclaw? What about that one place that worshipped Asmodeus as a LN goddess? Are they just suddenly screwed?

Is this really fundamentally different from how "Vudra is a center of psychic magic" or "Alkenstar produces a lot of guns" given that we don't have rules for psychic magic or guns in the playtest.

I think it's fine to hold off on making rules for specific things which are true in the setting, we just don't have rules for it yet, until Paizo is interested in telling stories about those things. We can hold off on the Godclaw until we go back to Cheliax, and I kinda hope we hold off for a while, to be honest.

I mean, the rule is not "evil gods don't grant spells to clerics" it's "Deities only grant spells to a specific set of alignments as spelled out in their writeup."

Guns and psychic magic aren't forbidden from existing. LN Clerics of Asmodeus are explicitly forbidden from existing in the playtest. Asmodeus only accepts LE clerics, later books would have to directly contradict this to allow them. Introducing guns is fine, because the game doesn't tell us guns are impossible so a book of guns doesn't contradict anything. A later introduction of LN asomdean clerics would oppose the core rulebook, and given the playtest trend of opening new options would probably be a (lackluster) 1st level cleric feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:

I don't like it, either. It removes a lot of the nuance in the religions. Not only for evil deities, but for the good ones too. The Glorious Reclamation and the Cult of the Dawnflower don't make sense if Iomedae and Sarenrae can't have Neutral worshippers.

Asmodeus should allow LN as well.

Please remember, there is a huge difference between a Cleric and an average worshiper.

Silver Crusade

I am a big fan of that change, those borderline clerics always bothered me.


Paradozen wrote:
Guns and psychic magic aren't forbidden from existing. LN Clerics of Asmodeus are explicitly forbidden from existing in the playtest. Asmodeus only accepts LE clerics, later books would have to directly contradict this to allow them.

Easy way to do this is with archetypes. We essentially have confirmation that "classic archetypes" (which modify only one class) are bad, so just make one for Clerics who are out of the mainstream of their faith- done.

Implications of what is allowable under the current ruleset is in no way an indication of all the things that can exist in the world. Nowhere is this saying "Asmodeus has no LN or NE clerics" it's just there are no rules for them yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a fan of this

Had a lot of fun playing my Lawyer Priest in Crimson Throne


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Implications of what is allowable under the current ruleset is in no way an indication of all the things that can exist in the world. Nowhere is this saying "Asmodeus has no LN or NE clerics" it's just there are no rules for them yet.

It sort of is, in the rules for clerics where it disallows them from existing. There is no equivalent table labelled 'weapons that exist on Glorian' with a big 'No' next to firearms, so that really isn't an equatable. Granted there may be a future archetype that lets them exist, but you can say that about just about any concern with the playtest. Additional rules may come later, but we can only express our feelings about what we have. Feedback based on assumptions as to what we hope happens can't be of much help to the devs. Also, a) why create that archetype in the first place if the reason for disallowing clerics of certain alignments was because you didn't want people of certain alignments getting spells from certain gods? ans b)why would you need an archetype to allow clerics to do it? just let them be within one alignment step in the first place.


In PF1 the CRB section for Monks said "Lawful only" but this didn't mean there were only lawful monks since we subsequently printed several archetypes and an Aasimar trait which enable non-lawful monks.

I don't see how this is fundamentally different. I see "there aren't rules for this yet" to mean "this option is currently unavailable to players" not "this sort of thing doesn't exist in the world."

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's particularly disappointing. I like a lot of the concepts for evil gods. I also have no particular issue with "diet evil" neutral cleric types. I've found someone who pays close enough attention to lore for that kind of nuance aren't really an issue. In all my years and all the games I've run, the majority of table disruption from "I'm just playing my alignment!" have come from chaotic neutral characters who don't have any particularly strong affiliation with a deity, mostly rogues and barbarians.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

In PF1 the CRB section for Monks said "Lawful only" but this didn't mean there were only lawful monks since we subsequently printed several archetypes and an Aasimar trait which enable non-lawful monks.

I don't see how this is fundamentally different. I see "there aren't rules for this yet" to mean "this option is currently unavailable to players" not "this sort of thing doesn't exist in the world."

Yeah, I am going to be blunt here.

The playtest limitation (if it stays in till the final product) can literally only mean one of three things:

  • Future books will not print options that allow for deviant alignment clerics. The people you are arguing against are screwed, and you are wrong and bad and should feel bad. Nyeh Nyeh Nyeh.
  • Future books will carve out a fairly narrow niche out for deviant alignment clerics. Since these sorts of things tend to be general purpose and not tailored to specific gods, these options are likely to be restrictive and weird. If you want evidence for this from previously published options, see below.
  • Future books will carve out a fairly broad niche for deviant alignment clerics. Why are we bothering with the restriction in the first place, again, if we are just going to hand out alignment restriction breaking options to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants them?

For the record, I just went through all the monk archetypes, and this is what we have AFAIK for PF1 non lawful monks:
- Martial Artist, which guts the class and turns it into a pseudo fighter with a few monk-like bonuses.
- Karmic Monk, which is weird and only opens up TN.
- Aasimar racial option. Angel dudes only, obviously. Opens up NG and TN
Paladin is even more disgustingly limited. I don't think barbarian has anything, and I don't remember Druid having much either, maybe a CE archetype or something but that is about it (although NG/NE can sub for other Good/Evil alignments so that isn't such a big deal).

Oh what an astounding bounty of options. What wonderful assurance for all the people here who want to play LN/N/CN clerics of evil gods that restrictions like this will not be a lodestone around the neck of PF2.

If the restriction doesn't make sense, then it is absolutely should go, because if it doesn't go then it is either pointless or will haunt PF2 until we all find ourselves back here for the PF3E playtest or abandon the system entirely for something different.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

In PF1 the CRB section for Monks said "Lawful only" but this didn't mean there were only lawful monks since we subsequently printed several archetypes and an Aasimar trait which enable non-lawful monks.

I don't see how this is fundamentally different. I see "there aren't rules for this yet" to mean "this option is currently unavailable to players" not "this sort of thing doesn't exist in the world."

OK, last post I'm gonna make on this, as I'm sure no one wants to read me elaborating further. They currently do not exist, they may exist in future, I'm not clairvoyant, but not now. Non lawful monks did not exist in Glorian until those archetypes came out, and then they were retconed in to existing. Similarly, lightsabers do not exist IRL, they might in future but it is still correct to say that they do not exist. It does not seem useful to me to ignore complaints about the current rules or the rules implications for the setting, because they hypothetically might change. I don't know what changes may happen, so I can't comment on them, I can only comment on what is currently true.

I do not like the tightening restrictions on deities and alignment, as I prefer games to emphasise player choice and creativity. I'm not saying I'm abandoning the system or company, nor trying to fight about it. I just don't think the change will fix the problem of poor/disruptive roleplaying, but will make some players unable to play certain interesting characters using Rules As Written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good riddance to a bad idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So I think the long and short of it is that it should be possible for a deity to disallow certain alignments which are in proximity to their own. "Only an exact match" or "Only good" or "Only Evil" or "All directions from my alignment except one or two" are fine.

If there's a problem with "no neutral clerics of evil deities" in the playtest is that only two evil deities in the playtest do, and sure perhaps maybe more should (I could see CN clerics of Lamashtu maybe), but I don't think we should open up the floodgates for CN clerics of Rovagug. Chaotic Evil is a strong spice and CE deities which allow CN clerics should be pretty rare (I'd be fine with "just Nocticula").

As for LN Clerics of Asmodeus (which I understand were somewhat popular in PF1), I feel like if the creators of the setting have a particular notion of why these should not be a thing, I prefer to go with their reasoning even if it's not quite as clear to me as "no non-good Shelynites" or "no non-Lawful clerics of Abadar".

But the overwhelming majority of evil deities should not have neutral clerics. Honestly, the overwhelming majority of good deities shouldn't have neutral clerics either.

Dark Archive

In general thing is that evil gods are more often than not supposed to be hostile NPC exclusives rather than player options :P Like all clerics of Asmodeus should be bad guys instead of edgy anti heroes if you ask me

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose the real argument is that any reason that a good deity would have to allow neutral cleric would apply equally to an evil deity.


Lifty1928 wrote:
I suppose the real argument is that any reason that a good deity would have to allow neutral cleric would apply equally to an evil deity.

Well, of the core pantheon we have 4 good deities which allow neutral clerics (Cayden, Desna, Erastil and Torag) and 3 that do not (Iomedae, Shelyn, and Sarenrae).

Meanwhile we have 2 evil deities which allow neutral clerics (Norgorber and Zon-Kuthon) and 4 that do not (Asmodeus, Lamashtu, Rovagug, and Urgathoa).

I don't think this is really that out of balance. At most we could make the evil deities 3 and 3, but all of those categorizations seem reasonable (honestly I always figured any LN person who would throw in with Asmodeus is just a sucker as in "gosh, there's no way that one of the most duplicitous, scheming, and manipulative beings in all of reality would try to put one over on me.")


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:
The problem here is that you can also be NE and worship Asmodeus, and NE includes complete nihilists, selfish a!**#~@s who couldn't give less of a damn about the law if it doesn't help them, and so on.

This reminds me of something that annoys me a lot about Paizo's work: the misuse of "nihilism". It is often used to mean something destructive and seeking annihilation (along the lines of Marvel's Thanos), and that is utterly wrong.

There are a number of different philosophical variants of nihilism, but they basically boil down to things not having any intrinsic meaning or value. It does not mean that you want to destroy everything, it means that things only have the value we ascribe to them.

Certainly, such a moral standpoint can lead to acts others would consider evil, justified by the belief that since there is no good or evil you might as well do things you enjoy. But you could also instead act out of compassion, justifying that there's no greater good to be had by someone's suffering, so you should alleviate that suffering. Or as it was summarized on the TV show Angel: "If nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do."

I would argue that nihilism is not an Evil thing, in the sense of alignments. It is rather a Chaotic thing, leading people to examine things in themselves rather than as part of some non-existent cosmic order.


deuxhero wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Very minor point, but Zon Kuthon allows LN clerics in the playtest.

Yep, god of mutilation, torture and pain has neutral followers but Urgathoa, god of gluttony, self indulgences, undead and disease (that is explicitly worshiped for protection from disease) only takes capital E Evil ones. That just makes it even worse.

When I heard deities now had clerics that weren't all within one step of their alignment, I expected less restrictions, not more, yet not a single deity allows cleric alignments that weren't allowed in 1E. Nethys would be the most obvious expansion, there's no good reason for him not to allow corner alignments, but he's unchanged!

If I understand Zon Kuthon correctly, he doesn’t care who his followers are or what they believe. He grants power if you follow his rituals, which are pretty ugly things.

If I’ve remembered right, then thematically the only real restriction on who can follow him is “what kind of person would be willing to do these things?”, while most other Gods take a much greater interest.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I find Borderline Clerics to be an interesting setting detail, because they provide for interesting story opportunities, and provide a certain level of detachment for some Deities.

The Cult of the Dawnflower is a corrupt fantasy church that continues to exist because Sarenrae won't just descend from on high to answer theological questions in Pf1. In PF2 it's now Razmir-lite because as soon as you waver from the straight and narrow of the God of healing and redemption, you lose your powers. The Cult of the Dawnflower is effectively scrapped by these rules.

For whatever reason you can't make Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral Pharasmins, Lawful Neutral Iomedeans, or Chaotic Good Gorumites. Is the judge of the afterlife now prejudiced? Is the "Knight Templar Iomedean" no longer allowed? Should Gorum really be excluding Chaotic Good people from his Fight Club just because they're nicer to people they aren't fighting?

The only Evil deity that I can rationalize not having a fringe following in the Pathfinder Pantheon is Rovagug. Urgathoa has gluttons, Asmodeus has lawyers, Lamashtu has fertility cults, etc. Power offered with temptation attached is part and parcel of Evil, after all.

Please don't have the new rules for this edition mutilate the setting they are written for.


Thebazilly wrote:

I don't like it, either. It removes a lot of the nuance in the religions. Not only for evil deities, but for the good ones too. The Glorious Reclamation and the Cult of the Dawnflower don't make sense if Iomedae and Sarenrae can't have Neutral worshippers.

Asmodeus should allow LN as well.

The problem with having heretic sects, at least ones with large followings, in D&D/Pathfinder is that if the gods really exist, and high-level clerics can cast commune, they can check interpretations of doctrine with their god. That removes a lot of the ambiguity that lets heresy thrive.

This aspect is somewhat improved in PF2 where commune is a ritual and thus may or may not be available regardless of level, plus it contacts divine servants by default and not the god itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:

I don't like it, either. It removes a lot of the nuance in the religions. Not only for evil deities, but for the good ones too. The Glorious Reclamation and the Cult of the Dawnflower don't make sense if Iomedae and Sarenrae can't have Neutral worshippers.

Asmodeus should allow LN as well.

The problem with having heretic sects, at least ones with large followings, in D&D/Pathfinder is that if the gods really exist, and high-level clerics can cast commune, they can check interpretations of doctrine with their god. That removes a lot of the ambiguity that lets heresy thrive.

This aspect is somewhat improved in PF2 where commune is a ritual and thus may or may not be available regardless of level, plus it contacts divine servants by default and not the god itself.

At which point even with Commune you then fall into interpretations and the simple fact that not everyone is strong enough to even cast Commune. Even if you are, theres a chance that instead of Deity you get Steve, Administrative Assistant to Deity (because Deity is busy doing Deity Things). Let's say you do wind up speaking to Deity. Deity only speaks to you, and can only give short and simple answers to direct questions, which are themselves subject to the questioners biases via wording. If you do get a definitive answer to a question like "Is X heretical?" then the problem is now this: you are the only one who knows that Deity said this. And anybody else who wants to verify you has to pay the costs of the spell, which are only trivial for adventurers, and they have the same downsides you do.

In 2nd edition right now anyone can theoretically cast Commune. Except it now costs roughly 6 times more money (in comparison) than it did before. And only provides answers more than 1 word long on a critical success. And only potentially contacts you with Deity.


The only evil god I would like to see having neutral clerics is Asmodeus. Yes, he is the master of hell. But in the end, I don't see why neutral lawyers wouldn't worship him, or people with a strongh sense of "contractual rightness". You know Asmodeus wins more than you when you bargain with him. But he always follows his part of the contract. He and Sarenrae are described as the only gods who never lie. I can easily see an Inquisitor of Asmodeus serving as the arbiter of a contract, be it a merchant partnership or a hitman's contract.

Calistria is way more evil in my opinion, and she can have CG clerics. While she advocates trickery (like Norgorber and Asmodeus), hedonism (like Urgathoa), and torturing and/or killing your ex.

As for OP's concern about Norgorber, he has always been the god of murder, which is a pretty evil concept.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lifty1928 wrote:
I suppose the real argument is that any reason that a good deity would have to allow neutral cleric would apply equally to an evil deity.

I think the devs stance here is not "this evil god will not accept your worship, because you are neutral", as much as "you can't follow this evil god, and remain neutral".

I mean, there's no reason why Urgathoa would not accept a neutral person's worship. More worship is more power. But how a person can perfom the rituals of Urgathoa's religion, and stay neutral, is much more trickier. Human sacrifice, torture, etc is kind of hard to justify for a neutral character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's all about the identity of the divine, and not the identity of the PC.

A god can grant spells to those who he wants to. If it wants to grant spells for LE characters and LE evil characters only, them it does so out of his own will. It's not like it wouldn't allow Neutral characters to worship it, but they are not worth enough to get spells, as a cleric is not a common worshiper...

"I'm granting those spells, so I choose to grant it just to LE characters, as I'm Asmodeus, the guy who killed his own brother because LE is the only solution to the chaos that's creation. LN is one step further from LE, but it's also one step from LG, and I would rather set fire on LG people. I'm completely ok with LN worshipers but I'm only granting spells to them when they are completely converted into my cause, that's LE."

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, those "I am cheerfully happy to tell you that the world is about to end and we'll all horribly die!" CG clerics of Groetus were silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, you can explain it as:

"this world is awful. Everything is pain, and sadness, and inevitability. BUT I HAVE GREAT NEWS FOR YOU! IT'S NOT GOING TO LAST! We will ALL die and the sadness will end!"


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

It's all about the identity of the divine, and not the identity of the PC.

A god can grant spells to those who he wants to. If it wants to grant spells for LE characters and LE evil characters only, them it does so out of his own will. It's not like it wouldn't allow Neutral characters to worship it, but they are not worth enough to get spells, as a cleric is not a common worshiper...

"I'm granting those spells, so I choose to grant it just to LE characters, as I'm Asmodeus, the guy who killed his own brother because LE is the only solution to the chaos that's creation. LN is one step further from LE, but it's also one step from LG, and I would rather set fire on LG people. I'm completely ok with LN worshipers but I'm only granting spells to them when they are completely converted into my cause, that's LE."

Sure! But they should *also* be able to grant their power to people unlike them if they had a reason to do so (or in the case of Nethys, no reason not to). If some restrictions had been added and some restrictions had been loosened, we might still be debating exactly which were proper, but no God took the opportunity to expand their cleric pool, and more than any specific instance, *that's* what we're taking issue with.


The more sophisticated and selective way of managing worshiper alignment relative to deity alignment is actually one of the few things that I like about PF2e. I tried to run a Chaotic Neutral warpriest of Pazuzu and eventually got tired of doing so. I've always thought the Hellknights, Cheliax, and Asmodeus aren't so bad because "Lawful Neutral" was a huge con on the part of Asmodeus and his Chelish puppets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

It's all about the identity of the divine, and not the identity of the PC.

A god can grant spells to those who he wants to. If it wants to grant spells for LE characters and LE evil characters only, them it does so out of his own will. It's not like it wouldn't allow Neutral characters to worship it, but they are not worth enough to get spells, as a cleric is not a common worshiper...

Ok, I can see that argument, and will address it in a moment. First though, It really should be about the player. It is a game for the players; The deities aren't having a worst time because players are choosing to make a cleric of a different alignment. It's different if it is making players miserable, but with any gaming group if any aspect of any character is making other players uncomfortable it shouldn't be allowed at that table, but I find it hard to believe just knowing that other groups interpret a deity's religion differently within the rules affects someones enjoyment of the game to a significant degree.

I do understand that a rich and rules supported lore does make a game better, and this could be part of that. However;
A) This seems to contradict elements of the lore as I understand it, specifically with regards to (for example) LN Asmodean Cleric Hellknights, and any clerics (and I'd guess war priests, but the rules aren't in for them) in The Cult of the Dawnflower.
B) The argument you made (as I understand it) might work for edge (LG, CG, CE, LE) gods, but makes less sense for any with a Neutral component. You can't really claim to be neutral with regard to two groups if you offer resources/accept aid from one group but refuse the other.
c) It is just as easy to justify why a deity would choose to grant spells to a group one step removed on either axis as it is to explain why it wouldn't. With regards to Asmodeus (as that was the example used), he's the master of fine print, subtle corruption and deals that seem to work for you. Devils are only too eager to offer you all sorts of things easily. Once you're a cleric it's that much easier to align you to his 'correct' way of thinking, with the built in incentive/safety net that he can withdraw your powers the moment you are not furthering his agenda. Don't get corrupted? Well, being LN doesn't protect you, you're damned anyway and maybe as a cleric you indoctrinated or tainted other and he gets their souls too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of me suspects that some of the harshest critics of the "Cult of the Dawnflower" work at Paizo as they would like to have a chance to do that one all over again, and I think part of it is "they no longer have tacit official sanction of Sarenrae."

Which is not to say there are no clerics there, it's just that we'll need rules for heretical clerics of a deity first.

Gorbacz wrote:
Yeah, those "I am cheerfully happy to tell you that the world is about to end and we'll all horribly die!" CG clerics of Groetus were silly.

To say nothing of the "I want to rip and tear the guts of my enemies, please point me in the correct direction so I don't later regret it" CG clerics of Gorum.

I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process." Like the lip service of "no, I don't go in for the whole undeath, cannibalism, and spreading disease part of Urgathoa's religion, I'm just in it for the hedonism and the gluttony" is fine for lay-people but not for Clerics; Clerics have to be fine with the whole package.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process."

Clerics of Zon-Kuthon?


Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process."
Clerics of Zon-Kuthon?

ZK has clerics who are serious masochists right? Like I could see a LN cleric of ZK who wants to endure tremendous pain to drown out the sorrow deep inside, and then heal themselves up so they can do it again (you channel negative but can still prepare heal, I think.)

If you're not hurting anybody but yourself (and you're hurting yourself *a lot*) I think you can be an LN Kuthite cleric, but perhaps I'm wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Yeah, those "I am cheerfully happy to tell you that the world is about to end and we'll all horribly die!" CG clerics of Groetus were silly.

CG clerics of Yog-Sothoth is an even weirder one. He wants to get summoned into the world to consume all life and usher in the reign of the Great Old Ones. That always seemed to be an odd one to me. Or Hanspur, who demands human sacrifices. Although I think he's been toned down a little in later books, in that now apparently it's mostly criminals instead of random traveling companions. And the later being explained as just the evil worshipers. But still, human sacrifice and CG just don't mix in my mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think my favorite weird one from PF1 was that you could have a Paladin of Erecura- who is the queen of the 2nd layer of Hell and married to an Archdevil, whose portfolio is about deception and espionage, merely because she happens to be LN not LE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process."
Clerics of Zon-Kuthon?

ZK has clerics who are serious masochists right? Like I could see a LN cleric of ZK who wants to endure tremendous pain to drown out the sorrow deep inside, and then heal themselves up so they can do it again (you channel negative but can still prepare heal, I think.)

If you're not hurting anybody but yourself (and you're hurting yourself *a lot*) I think you can be an LN Kuthite cleric, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Revelling in suffering and misery and loss is a big part of the creed. Paraphrasing the above 'No, I don't go in for the whole kidnap, torture, non-consent and purifying the weaknesses of fear and joy part. I'm just in it for the kink and body mods.'

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like a significant part of the restrictions is "who can genuinely and intensely believe the entirety of the holy writ of this god and do ll of the rituals, without becoming an entirely different alignment in the process."
Clerics of Zon-Kuthon?

ZK has clerics who are serious masochists right? Like I could see a LN cleric of ZK who wants to endure tremendous pain to drown out the sorrow deep inside, and then heal themselves up so they can do it again (you channel negative but can still prepare heal, I think.)

If you're not hurting anybody but yourself (and you're hurting yourself *a lot*) I think you can be an LN Kuthite cleric, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm just baffled by how they're the only ones*. No Asmodean lawyers or Urgathoan gluttons, not even ones on their road to corruption. CE-only Lamashtu I can respect, I suppose. I don't know why Rovagug allows NE and Lamashtu doesn't - probably should be reversed - but w/e.

But Zon-Kuthon? Yeah, this guy is the reasonable and open-minded one.

That said. If this is building to the redemption of Dou-Bral, I'm 100% sold. I doubt it is, since last I know, there's no intention of making that happen. But I'm on board.

*yes, I know, 1/4 of Norgorber. That's fine too, I guess, though again, he feels like a weird outlier.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think my favorite weird one from PF1 was that you could have a Paladin of Erecura- who is the queen of the 2nd layer of Hell and married to an Archdevil, whose portfolio is about deception and espionage, merely because she happens to be LN not LE.

This would probably be a good one to put some restrictions on. As I've said, I like this system. I just don't like its implementation. (You'll hear this phrase from me again.)

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

It bears mentioning that I have issues with a lot of the nonevil deities' redesigns too. No more mad prophets of Pharasma. No grim avenger of Torag. No unfettering of Nethys's clergy (the most obvious example of "doesn't care about alignment, only his area of interest"). This is an example of a place where the system could have given us a new opportunity! Instead, all we get are new restrictions. Pathfinder Second Edition never giveth, only taketh away.


Kalindlara wrote:

I'm just baffled by how they're the only ones*. No Asmodean lawyers or Urgathoan gluttons, not even ones on their road to corruption. CE-only Lamashtu I can respect, I suppose. I don't know why Rovagug allows NE and Lamashtu doesn't - probably should be reversed - but w/e.

But Zon-Kuthon? Yeah, this guy is the reasonable and open-minded one.

That said. If this is building to the redemption of Dou-Bral, I'm 100% sold. I doubt it is, since last I know, there's no intention of making that happen. But I'm on board.

*yes, I know, 1/4 of Norgorber. That's fine too, I guess, though again, he feels like a weird outlier.

I guess what I think is that ZK does not take an active role in his religion in any way whatsoever, so as long as people are doing the rites and hurting or being hurt enough, I think people who have clear and hard boundaries (and respect the same in others) can manage there, even if they are not exactly common, and you're right that this might be the seed that shows he's capable of redemption- at some level he respects people who value consent.

But Urgathoa? If you're just showing up for the bacchanals, you're eventually going to get pushed in the direction of cannibalism, undeath, and infecting random people with disease so you're either going to become evil or you're going to get out of the cult (possibly as dinner?)

One thing I think might be doable is to allow LN clerics of Asmodeus or N clerics of Urgathoa, but their alignment becomes evil after a certain number of levels, as you get more involved in the inner mysteries and deeper rites. Certainly neutral *lawyers* can worship Asmodeus, but they aren't Clerics, since lawyers can avoid participating in the whole "human sacrifice and torture" thing but Clerics of Big A really can't. Of course, we'll then need rules for "getting out of a class".


It's a playtest. Not everything is an option rn. I'd wager that either it becomes available when 2e comes out, or if not, then when their add-ons come out. Don't get too up in arms over it yet!

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
*yes, I know, 1/4 of Norgorber. That's fine too, I guess, though again, he feels like a weird outlier.

Cause he f!~#ing cheats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"I guess what I think is that Urgathoa does not take an active role in her followers appetites in any way, so as long as people are eating lots and sometimes becoming undead, I think people who have clear and hard boundaries on their tastes (and respect the same in others) can manage there, even if they are not exactly common. It could be a sign she's self involved and respects the same in others.

But ZK? If you're just showing up for the kink orgy, you're eventually going to get pushed in the direction of kidnapping, burning ghettos, and torturing random people with needles so you're either going to become evil or you're going to get out of the cult (possibly as an art exhibit)"

Its the inconsistency that annoys me as much as anything. At this stage I'd rather all deities were 'Exact Alignment Match Only' or it went back to 'One Step'. Obviously I prefer the latter, as it gives people more interesting options and 'cleric of <blank>' isn't all you need to hear to understand what the character'll be like, but at least it seems based on solid logic.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

No CG Cleric of Gorum seems silly to me.

CG Gorumite: "I embrace war and conflict as a means to strengthen the body, mind, and spirit. I will fight alongside others, or in their stead. And seek to inspire them to fight against the coming tide of darkness."

Suggester Person: "Worship Cayden Cailean then!"

CG Gorumite: "I am not a drunkard starting bar fights. There are literal armies of Evil waiting to prey on the innocent. I will stand against them."

Suggester Person: "Worship Iomedae, she likes that stuff."

CG Gorumite: "She's a stuff shirt blowhard who believes the only way to be a Hero is to follow The One True way. She rejects those who carve their own path, and is of no use to me."

Suggester Person: "Desna fights Evil."

CG Gorumite: "War comes to the followers of Desna by happenstance, not by choice. They embrace wonder and joy, not hardship and struggle."

Suggester Person: "Sa... Sarenrae?"

CG Gorumite: "Too much talking, standing by while others suffer in the hopes of redeeming the wicked. I will take action, not wait in contemplation."

Suggester Person: "Torag? Erastil?"

CG Gorumite: "Just as soon spit at me as look at me."

Suggester Person: "Milani?"

CG Gorumite: "One of the good ones, but her focus is in the uprisings. In toppling the old regimes. Good work, needs to be done, but my place is on the front lines. Meeting the endless horde and cutting my way through it."

Suggester Person: "So why follow Gorum, he's empowering those who do Evil as well as you."

CG Gorumite: "Because Gorum is a path to strength, and a path to mastery. If I meet his followers working for my enemy, then I will fight them as well. My battle is not something that will end, not by my actions. All I can do as a single soul is fight as hard as I can against all that preys on those I protect. There is a fire within me that demands I spill blood, that I meet my enemy's blade with my own. Gorum will teach me to master the tools I must use, but I will choose the path I follow and the enemy I face. They are unending, and so is my battle. As pleases Our Lord in Iron."

--- --- ---

I actually had an idea of a former Cleric of Sarenrae that turned from her faith because of the Cult of the Dawnflower and prevalent slavery of Qadira, and embraced a faith in Gorum instead, because Gorum made no promises of justice or fairness. Only that he would give strength to those willing to fight. A CG Cleric of Gorum is probably more grim than a Cleric of Cayden, but they're doing dirty work. In a multiverse with the Abyss and Hell, there have to be those willing to fight and die against it. And no matter what nonsense those Paladins try to push, you don't have to be LG to be a Hero. Or even nice.

I love me some Eberron, and one of the Gods in that setting is the Mockery, Dol Azur. One of three war deities. Dol Arrah is the LG Paladin deity, and looked to for Tactics and Strategy. Dol Dorn is CN Normal Warrior deity, looked to for Strength and Skill. Dol Azur, the Mockery, is the NE Underhanded deity, known for dishonorable combat.

I wondered for awhile why anyone cared about the Mockery, when Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn seemed to have the better paths to follow, until Keith Baker explained the idea behind the Mockery in a blog post. Namely, that the Mockery is the path to victory at any cost. He is not strong, and is not more powerful than his enemies, but he will WIN, and he will teach you to win if you follow him. Obviously Gorum is a Warrior deity, and he wants you to be more straight forward, prefers you wear heavy armor and fight head on, but I still think of the Mockery when contemplating why a CG character would worship Gorum. Because Gorum doesn't have the same limits that Cayden or Desna hold to, but also isn't forcing anything on you as a worshiper. He just wants you to fight, however you know how, and in following Gorum you will learn the path to victory. Cayden is brave but foolhardy, Desna is clever but flighty, Sarenrae is empowering but hesitant. There is value in following a path that strips away other concerns and focuses only how you will win, Keeping your morals intact is a struggle for the individual to decide, as befits a CN deity, but I don't see a reason to exclude it entirely.


Kalindlara wrote:
It bears mentioning that I have issues with a lot of the nonevil deities' redesigns too. No more mad prophets of Pharasma. No grim avenger of Torag.

I'll bite. Why can't you still have mad prophets of Pharasma and grim avengers of Torag?


MidsouthGuy wrote:
Mechagamera wrote:
No need to retire anyone, the PC just "saw the light" (or dark as it were). I am okay with this rule change, unless the game built in some sort of automatic temptation rules that kicked in when you level up: you can be a LN cleric of Asmodeus at level 1, but when you hit level 2, you need a successful charisma check (and yes, I said charisma, not wisdom) or else your soul is overwhelmed by the dark teachings of the Church (that aren't on display for the lay folk). It seems like it shouldn't be hard to make it a 95% chance that a level 20 cleric with 10 charisma has had an alignment change, so either you are really lucky or spent some resources.
Ever tried playing with a Chaotic Evil PC? Unless you're in it for laughs or running an evil campaign, it's like pulling teeth trying to work with them. Someone who isn't sure if they want to eat ice cream or orphan meat is not the best person to have following you around.

I agree. I've seen people pull of LE and a little more rarely NE, but the only time I've ever seen a CE character work, long-term, in a party was in an all-evil game where the whole party pretty openly acknowledged that they'd been through enough together after the first 3 levels that they mistrusted each other less than the rest of the world.

51 to 100 of 235 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Anyone else disappointed there are no more Neutral Clerics of Evil Deities? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.